The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPIP 96-03; Hunsaker Carlsbad I; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (2)f- HUNSAKER MANAGEMENT. INC. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT October 3, 1996 HAND-DELIVERED Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 RE: DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Lot 25 -- Loker Avenue East and Sea Otter Drive Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Hubbs: We are currently in escrow on the above-referenced property. This site is approximately 6.2 acres. We are planning to develop a 102,265 square foot manufacturing/distribution building. This will be a ”spec” development. Because of the size and product type of our building, it is imperative that we have two driveways. The Planning Department has already approved the driveway on Sea Otter Drive. Our issue with the City is the placement of the driveway on Loker Ave East. We appreciate Mr. Wojciks’s sincere efforts in working with us and trying to find an answer to this problem. We do not have a problem with Mr. Wojcik’s proposed placement of our unshared driveway. What we find unacceptable is that at some unknown time in the future, we will have to abandon this driveway and share a driveway with our unwilling neighbor. I have enclosed your proposal dated October 1 , 1996 which shows the location of the unshare and shared driveways. The concept of shared driveway poses serious problems to our proposed development. We, or our future tenant or buyer, will be burdened with future and unnecessary costs in retrofitting our landscape and parking lot areas. We believe this situation will put us at a severe disadvantage when trying to market our property. We think the shared driveway proposal would be too abstract and a difficult concept for a potential buyer or tenant to consider when contending with so many other variables in their decision making process. With this issue outstanding in their minds, we believe our project would always be a perennial second choice. We need to have a project that will be competitive in the marketplace. If the proposed unshared driveway is acceptable now, why can it not be acceptable without any conditions? As far as I know, our neighbor does not have any immediate plans to develop his property. 17761 Mitchell, Irvine, California 92714 (714)863-1390 Fax (714) 553-8390 PO Box 2423, Santa Ana, California 92707 Mr. Hubbs Page 2 October 3, 1996 As I have driven through your business communities, I have noticed many variations from your driveway standards. Two developments that stand out in my mind are a newer development on Rutherford and a development under construction on Loker Ave West. These two projects have driveways that do not conform to the standards you are imposing on us. I have enclosed maps of each location with the driveways marked. Although we are new to the City of Carlsbad, we are not new to the development business. We currently own more than 3,000,000 square feet of industrial properties. We have just finished and leased a "spec" 146,946 square foot distribution building and are currently under construction on a 400,000 square foot "spec" distribution building. We believe that Carlsbad is a great location for businesses and families and look forward to future possible developments. We are also confident that we can come to a mutually- agreeable decision. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Hubbs. We look forward to hearing from you soon. R. Brian Hunsaker President Hunsaker Management, Inc. RBH:LEH Enclosures (3)