The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP 180H; Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan; Specific Plan (SP) (4)^ CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Develooment Permits (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Lealslative Permits (FOR DEPT USE ONLY) 1 1 Administrative Permit 1 1 General Plan Amendment 1 1 Coastal Development Permit (*) d) Minor 1 1 Local Coastal Program Amendment (*) r~l Conditional Use Permit (*) 1 1 Minor dl Extension 1 1 Master Plan 55 Amendment 1 1 Environmental Impact Assessment 1 1 Specific Plan O Amendment 1 1 Habitat Management Permit Q Minor l~l Zone Change (*) 1 1 Hillside Development Permit (*) r~l Zone Code Amendment 1 1 Planned Development Permit 1 1 Residential O Non-Residential 1 1 Planned Industrial Permit List otiier applications not soecified 1 1 Planning Commission Determination • 1 1 Site Development Plan • 1 1 Special Use Permit • 1 1 Tentative Tract Map (*) = eligible for 25% discount 1 1 Variance \Z\ Administrative NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: PROJECT NAME: SEE ATTACHED LIST CARLSBAD RKSEAWCH rTCNTTCR HPTCrTFTr PT.AW AMFNnMTCWT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SPECIFIC FLAN AMENDMENT TO SP-t80 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: UNITS 1 THRODGH 5 OF CARLSBAD TRACT CT 85-24 LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE: WEST BOTH SIDES OF FARADAY AVE.. WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) COLLEGE BLVD. (NAME OF STREET) SIDE OF AND STREET ADDRESS EL CAMINO REAL (NAME OF STREET) PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (NAME OF STREET) P-1 Page 1 of 5 Revised 07/10 OWNER NAME (Print): APPLICANT NAME (Print): CRC OWNER'S ASSOCIATION MAILING ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: 533Q cARROLL CANYON RD #200 CITY, STATE, ZIP: CITY, STATE, ZIP: SAN DIEGO. CA 92121 TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: (858) 373-2100 EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: ^ndrfiaf Pm^i «Rn*,i-i««pi^i-. no™ 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE ^ ' \ Q DATE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print): p^^^, KI.TnCAS - PLANNTNR SVRTFM.^ MAILING ADDRESS: 1530 FARADAY AVE. #100 CITY, STATE, ZIP: CARLSBAD. CA 92008 TELEPHONE: (760) 931-0780 EMAIL ADDRESS: 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLtmNT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CCJ1«eCT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. . i SIGNATURE / DATE 1 IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDED ON THE TITLE TO HiS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THEvLAND AND BIND ANY/SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. FOR CITY USE ONLY FEB 1 0 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: P-1 Page 2 of 5 Revised 07/10 ^ CITY CARLSBAD o f PROJECT DESCRIPTION P-1(B) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT NAME: Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment Carlsbad Research Center Owner's Association Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is intended to provide an extensive amendment to the existing specific plan for the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) business park in Carlsbad. Approval of the document will provide updated, clear regulatory direction for the continuing design, development and operation of the CRC. The proposed Specific Plan is an updated and modernized version of the original specific plan, which was approved in 1981, and has since been amended a number of times. The CRC Specific Plan is intended to ensure a continuance of the program of responsible business park development through strict design regulations and development guidelines based on a comprehensive land use planning approach. Further, the purpose of the project is to address specific land use and operational issues that have arisen which, if not addressed, have the potential to contribute to a reduction in the overall quality, prestige and value of the park. Through the proposed specific plan amendment, the objectives of the CRC Owner's Association to maintain the high quality of development and re-development in the CRC park will be supported by the regulatory document governing land use matters over the park. The CRC business park features high-end design elements and themes which allow it to stand out from other similar land uses in the coastal southern California area. These elements include high-tech building designs, extensive landscaping along major roadways, widespread parking lot landscaping and efficient and attractive park design. Broad setback requirements, upgraded building materials, and restrictive sign controls further serve to create an aesthetically pleasing business park environment. Through implementation of the proposed specific plan amendment, special design standards are applied to areas along arterial roadways, at entryways, and at the commercial center hub of the park. The industrial business park sites within CRC are also complemented by public uses and commercial support facilities. Public uses, including the public Zone 5 ballfield park (of which only the first phase has been completed), a series of eight passive mini-parks, and a passive man- made lake area are all accessed by an efficient roadway system, with bicycle lanes and pedestrian P-1(B) Page 1 of 1 Revised 07/10 sidewalks. In addition, individual lot owners are encouraged to provide on-site private recreational facilities for employees. The steeper hillside areas are preserved as natural open space for biological habitat conservation. CRC also features a retail commercial area in which commercial services such as printing, photography and food service support the main park use It is the intent of the specific plan amendment to; • Continue the program of responsible and aesthetically-pleasing, high-end business park development. • Continue to provide a location for high-end technological businesses and corporate headquarters owners and employees. • Provide a regulatory document, enforced by the City of Carlsbad that resolves existing identified land use issues relating to re-development of CRC lots. • Continue to provide employee amenities and support services and facilities that serve to attract quality businesses and industries who wish to locate within an attractive and upscale working environment. • Continue to provide aesthetic consistency and high quality of design and materials throughout the specific plan area, which provides a continuity of design and a sense of identity within the specific plan area. • Continue to provide a cohesive and well-planned area which successfully addresses the needs of the businesses within it and which successfully addresses the needs of the employees of these businesses. .J^. DISCLOSURE Development Services %m> STATEMENT planning Division CITY OF p 'l/A\ 1635 Faraday Avenue r^ARI SRAD (760)602-4610 V»'#\r\l-. JLJ/^L^ www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) Corp/Part Title Title Address Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Title Title Address Address P-1(A) Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Q Yes x_ No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ,^1 gnature of applicant/date \7 Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date X Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant nt nr tvn#a nannP! nf annlinflnt I Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1 (A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 INFORMATION SHEET-ATTACHMENT TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION Background. The Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association ("CRCOA") is a non-profit, mutual- benefit association of property owners within the boundaries of the Carlsbad Research Center. The CRCOA presently contains 133 owners on 131 lots. The CRCOA is subject to the limitations and restrictions enumerated in the CRCOA By-Laws, the Carlsbad Research Center ("CRC") CC&R's (Fourth Declaration), the CRC Master Plan and the CRC Design Guidelines. Board of Directors. The present Board of Directors of the CRCOA is as follows: Colleen Reilly, President Jeffry Brusseau, Vice President/Treasurer Bill McCorkle, Secretary Tom Hageman Allen Blackmore Scott Brusseau Board of Directors Duties. The affairs of the Association are managed and its duties and obligations performed by an elected Board of Directors ("Board"). The Board has the duty and obligation to manage and maintain the CRCOA, and possesses the powers, rights, and authorities granted by applicable law as an association to manage a common interest development and as otherwise provided in the Association Management Documents that established the CRCOA. Members of the Board are Members of the Association. The Board exercises for the Association all powers and duties vested in or delegated to the Board or the Association by the Association Management Documents and applicable law. The powers and duties include, but are not limited to: • Formulating Rules and Regulations for the use and operation of the Lots, Common Area, common facilities, and facilities owned or controlled by the Association; • Enforcing the applicable provisions of the Association Management Documents; • Initiating and executing disciplinary proceedings against Members for violations of provisions of the Association Management Documents; • Contracting for goods and services for the Common Area and operation of the Association; • Creating committees pursuant to resolution adopted by a majority of the Board; • Delegating its authority, duties, and responsibilities to its officers, employees, committees, or agents, including a professional management agent; • Authorizing the withdrawal of moneys from the Association's reserve accounts. Management Entity. CRCOA exclusively contracts with Meissner Jacquet Investment Management Services as Agent and appoints the Agent to manage the Association under the sole discretion of the Board of Directors upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Management Agreement. The relationship between the Association and Agent is one of Principal and Agent. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: (To be completed by City) Application Number(s): General Information 1. Name of project: CARLSBAD RESEARCH CKNTHJ* SPKCTFTC PT.AN aMFunnngiiT 2. Name of developer or project sponsor: CRC OWNER'S ASSOCIATION Address: 5330 CARROIJ. CANYON RD #200 City, State, Zip Code: SAN DIEGO. CA 92121 Phone Number: (858) 373-2100 Name of person to be contacted concerning this project: PADL KXUKAS - pi Address: 1530 FARADAY AVE. tlOO City, State, Zip Code: CARLSBAD, CA q2nnB Phone Number: (760) 931-0780 Address of Project: SEE ATTACHED LIST Assessor's Parcel Number: SEE ATTACHKD T.TST List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: N/A 6. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: PLANNED INDOSTRTAL AND OPEN SPACE 7. Existing zoning district: COMMERCIAL MANUFACTORING AND OPEN RPACK 8. Existing land use(s): EXISTING BBSTNESS VAUK Aim PFT.aTign rrgigc: 9. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): NO CHBNGE PROPOSED Project Description 10. Site size: 549 ACRES 11. Proposed Building square footage: NO CHANGE TO EXISTING 12: Number of floors of construction: 13. Amount of off-street parking provided: 14. Associated projects: p-1 (D) Page 2 of 4 Revised 07/10 15. If residential, include the number of units and schedule of unit sizes: 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: N/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: EXISTING BUSINESS PARK 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning applications, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A P-1 (D) Page 3 of 4 Revised 07/10 >Are ttie following items applicable to tfie project or its effects? Discuss all items ctiecked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial • H alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or • H roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. • [x] 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. • H 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. • H 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or • [x| alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. Q [x] 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. • [x] 28. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, • [x] flammables or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, • |x] etc.). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). • S] 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Q |x] Environmental Setting Attach sheets that include a response to the following questions: 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted, EXISTING BUSINESS PARK 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted, INCUJDED IN PROPOSED SP AMENIMIENT Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowtectae and belief Date: l^/l/c Signature: [J ClA^^V^ For: fU^tii^ls ^^fTC^S p-1 (D) Page 4 of 4 Revised 07/10 TIME LIMITS ON Development Services DISCRETIONARY planning Division^ \y CITY OF PROJECTS 1635 Faraday Avenue CARLSBAD p.^E) -^-^-^-^--^ (760) 602-4610 MTww.carlsbadca.gov PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the processing period will start upon the date of the completion letter. If you have any questions regarding application submittal requirements (i.e., clarification regarding a specific requirement or whether ail requirements are necessary for your particular application) please call (760) 602-4610. Applicant Signature: 2i Staff Signature: Date: 111(760)602-4610. To be stapled with receipt to the application P-1(E) ' ' Page 1 of 1 Revised 07/10 \ City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92 008 I Applicant: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION/REILLY COLLEEN Description Amount SP00180H 395.12 Receipt Number: R0087573 Transaction ID: R0087573 Transaction Date: 12/09/2011 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 3 95.12 Transaction Amount: 3 95.12 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1134301-2 12/09/2011 98 Fri, Dec 09, 2011 03:39 PM Receipt Ref Nbr; Rn34301-2/0048 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 113430102 0048 0057 Trans/Rcpt#: R0087573 SET #: SP00180H Amount: 1 @ $395.12 Item Subtotal: $395.12 Item Total; $395.12 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $395.12 Check (Chk# 002089) $395.12 Total Received: $395.12 Have a nice day! ***********:t:;t;*CUSTOMER COPY************* Q Q City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION Description SP00180H Amount 22,804.84 Receipt Number: R0083144 Transaction Date: 02/10/2011 Transaction ID: R0083144 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 22,804.84 Transaction Amount: 22,804.84 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1104101-2 02/10/2011 98 Thu, Feb 10, 2011 09:28 AM Receipt Ref Nbr; Rl104101-2/0007 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr; 110410102 0007 0007 Trans/Rcpt#: R0083144 SET #: SP00180H Amount: 1 @ $22,804.84 Item Subtotal: $22,804.84 Item Total: $22,804.84 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL; $22,804.84 Check (Chk# 4170) $22,453.00 Credit Card (Auth# 03507C) $351,84 Total Received: $22,804.84 Have a nice day! **************(;USTOMER COPY************* CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June6, 2012, to consider the following: 4) CUP 11-06/ HMP 11^ - EAIRRELD INN ^BLSSAa^ R|ques, f-^aPProva, of a Cond«iona, Use Perm^^^ ?Sr£S«sI^-~^^^ Airport Road and east of West OaKs Way, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The project is exempt from the Califomia Etivironmental Quality Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United State of tlie County aforesaid: I am c„ eighteen years and not a party to 5 the above-entitled matter. I am tl- of the printer of North County Tin| Formerly known as the Blade-Citi Times-Advocate and which newspap adjudicated newspapers of general the Superior Court of the County i State of California, for the City of C the City of Escondido, Court De 171349, for the County of San Di( notice of which the annexed is a prir in type not smaller than nonparie,. published in each regular and entire issue of sai newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Kd ^IrSo^cXe ^-li^Kda;^^^^^^^^ in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. of a and The project is exempt from the California Envronmemal Quality Act public hearing. Those personswishlngtospeaKonthe^^^^^^^^^ PUBLISH: May 25,2012 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION May 25*^ 2012 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Escondido^ California On This 25*^ day May 2012 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising ATTACHMENT "1" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment-SP-180( ) APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE BY: Planning Systems (Seth Schulberg) DATE: 9 December 2011 RECEIVED BY DATE: ^-^-Z-j-r FILE COPY C) T V OF V CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: SP 180(H) - Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan PUBUSH DATE: May 25, 2012 DESCRIPTION: Request for a recommendation of approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to repeal and replace the entire Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan (SP 180(G)) with an amended Specific Plan (SP 180(H)) on 559 acres of land located westerly of El Camino Real and bisected by both College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. A draft of the Specific Plan is available online at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/CRCSpecificPlan.031212.pdf. Copies of the staff report will be available online at http://carlsbad.granicus.CQm/ViewPublisher.php7view id=6 on or after the Friday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van Lynch in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4613, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge these projects, if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. • Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION mm Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © c o FILE COPY ^•3^ CITV OF 3.7,,'"' V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment PROJECT NUMBER: SP 180(H) This early public notice is to let you know that a development application for an Amendment to the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad on February 10, 2011. The project application is undergoing its initial review by the City. LOCATION: The Carlsbad Research Center Business Park covers 549 acres of land and is located north of McClellan-Palomar Airport, west of El Camino Real, and is bisected by College Blvd and Faraday Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please see attached project description. Please keep in mind that this is an early public notice and that the project design could change as a result of further staff and public review. A future public hearing notice will be mailed to you when this project is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have questions or comments regarding this proposed project please contact Van Lynch, Senior Planner at van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov, (760) 602-4613, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © SITE IVIAP NOT TO SCALE Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment SP 180(H) ^ • ^ PROJECT Development Services <^m> DESCRIPTION Planning Division CITY OF P d/QX 1635 Faraday Avenue (760)602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD r^r-^^ ,r-^-r K i A mi- Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan Amendment PROJECT NAME: i APPLICANT NAME" Carlsbad Research Center Owner's Association Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is intended to provide an extensive amendment to the existing specific plan for the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) business park in Carlsbad. Approval of the document will provide updated, clear regulatory direction for the continuing design, development and operation of the CRC. The proposed Specific Plan is an updated and modernized version of the original specific plan, which was approved in 1981, and has since been amended a number of times. The CRC Specific Plan is intended to ensure a continuance of the program of responsible business park development through strict design regulations and development guidelines based on a comprehensive land use planning approach. Further, the purpose of the project is to address specific land use and operational issues that have arisen which, if not addressed, have the potential to contribute to a reduction in the overall quality, prestige and value of the park. Through the proposed specific plan amendment, the objectives of the CRC Owner's Association to maintain the high quality of development snd re-development in the CRC park will be supported by the regulatory document governing land use matters over the park. The CRC business park features high-end design elements and themes which allow it to stand out from other similar land uses in the coastal southern Califomia area. These elements include high-tech building designs, extensive landscaping along major roadways, widespread parking lot landscaping and efficient and attractive park design. Broad setback requirements, upgraded building materials, and restrictive sign controls further serve to create an aesthetically pleasing business park environment. Through implementation of the proposed specific plan amendment, special design standards are applied to areas along arterial roadways, at entryways, and at the commercial center hub of the park. The industrial business park sites within CRC are also complemented by public uses and commercial support facilities. Public uses, including the public Zone 5 ballfield park (of which only the first phase has been completed), a series of eight passive mini-parks, and a passive man- made lake area are all accessed by an efficient roadway system, with bicycle lanes and pedestrian P-1(B) Page 1 of 1 Revised 07/10 sidewalks. In addition, individual lot owners are encouraged to provide on-site private recreational facilities for employees. The steeper hillside areas are preserved as natural open space for biological habitat conservation. CRC also features a retail commercial area in which commercial services such as printing, photography and food service support the main park use It is the intent of the specific plan amendment to; • Continue the program of responsible and aesthetically-pleasing, high-end business park development. • Continue to provide a location for high-end technological businesses and corporate headquarters owners and employees. • Provide a regulatory document, enforced by the City of Carlsbad that resolves existing identified land use issues relating to re-development of CRC lots. • Continue to provide employee amenities and support services and facilities that serve to attract quality businesses and industries who wish to locate within an attractive and upscale working environment. • Continue to provide aesthetic consistency and high quality of design and materials throughout the specific plan area, which provides a continuity of design and a sense of identity within the specific plan area. • Continue to provide a cohesive and well-planned area which successfully addresses the needs of the businesses within it and which successfully addresses the needs of the employees of these businesses. Van Lynch From: Gary Barberio Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:47 PM To: Van Lynch Subject: FW: Carlsbad Research Center fyi From: Ronald Kemp Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:42 PM To: Don Neu; Gary Barberio Cc: Glen Van Peski; Jane Mobaldi Subject: Carlsbad Research Center Good Afternoon Gary & Don, Glen Van Peski had asked about a revision to the specific plan of the Carlsbad Research Center that would not allow condominiums. I told him that at least in regards to condominium conversions that under the SMA, grounds for denial on the basis of inconsistency with the specific plan exist only when the specific plan contains "definite objectives and policies, specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects." See Gov. Code 66427.2: Unless applicable general or specific plans contain definite objectives and policies, specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects or stock cooperatives, the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474, and 66474.61, and subdivision (c) of Section 66474.60 shall not apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives, which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing structure, unless new units are to be constructed or added. A city, county, or city and county acting pursuant to this section shall approve or disapprove the conversion of an existing building to a stock cooperative within 120 days following receipt of a completed application for approval of such conversion. This section shall not diminish, limit or expand, other than as provided herein, the authority of any city, county, or city and county to approve or disapprove condominium projects. In addition. Civil Code § 1372 states: Unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed, local zoning ordinances shall be construed to treat like structures, lots, parcels, areas, or spaces in like manner regardless of whether the common interest development is a community apartment project, condominium project, planned development, or stock cooperative. So my advice was that if the restriction is to be included in the specific plan that there should be some finding of a governmental purpose or benefit from not allowing condominiums. Ronald Kemp Assistant City Attorney Van Lynch From: Glen Van Peski Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:58 PM To: Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Van Lynch; Chris DeCerbo Subject: RE: CRC condominium development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Ron Kemp worked with Jane on this, so she is familiar with it. Ron said what he told me represents their joint opinion, but you can certainly contact Jane to get her nuances. From: Gary Barberio Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:09 AM To: Don Neu; Van Lynch; Chris DeCerbo Cc: Glen Van Peski Subject: RE: CRC condominium development Don/Van -1 would ask Jane Mobaldi the same question GVP asked Ron Kemp? Also, GVP sent Ron K some info on this issue and we should send the same to Jane. If Jane concurs with Ron then we will go from there - ie Don's suggestion, but I would be very hesitant to support CRC's request if the City is the one who would have to defend in the future - we would need the CA's office support in banning office condo's. Jane is Planning's CA support, so her input is also necessary. GTB From: Don Neu Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:26 PM To: Van Lynch; Gary Barberio; Chris DeCerbo Subject: RE: CRC condominium development Van, I think we should ask the applicant to provide justification addressing the information from Ron Kemp that some governmental purpose is served by the restriction. If there is adequate justification we could consider including the requested restriction. Don From: Van Lynch Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:01 AM To: Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Chris DeCerbo Subject: FW: CRC condominium development How do we want to resolve whether or not to include this condo/PD restriction in CRC? Looks like we can restrict, but may lose in a challenge. I know CRC would want us to include this as a preemptive measure on face value if that is all that it is. I guess the City would have to defend the challenge if one came to that. Van From: Glen Van Peski Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:43 PM To: Van Lynch Cc: Gary Barberio; Frank Jimeno Subject: CRC condominium development Van- I heard back from Ron Kemp on the proposed language in the CRC SP amendment that would restrict condominium developments. Ron said this is an area of competing interests, and the law is not clear. Civil Code 1372 talks about how condominium developments are not to be treated any differently than other subdivisions. But elsewhere, there is the ability of local agencies to restrict the use of condominiums where it can be shown that some governmental purpose is served by the restriction (condominiums would have adverse impacts, create some 'extra burden', etc.) Ron's thought was that the language could be left in the specific plan, but it may be challenged in the future, possibly with success. ^ CITY Of CARLSBAD C'ommunity h Economic Development Glen K. Van Peski, PE, PLS, QSD City Engineer Land Development Engineering City of Carlsbad www.carlsbadca.gov P: 760-602-2783 C: 760-522-4536 F: 760-602-1052 glen.vanpeski@carlsbadca.gov ^' CARLSBAD Memorandum August 10, 2011 To: VAN LYNCH, Senior Planner // ; From: Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer ^ Re: SP 180(H): CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Engineering Department staff has completed a third review of the proposed specific plan amendment. Listed below is a list of engineering issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation for approval. 1. No application has been received for an Engineering Standards variance. Staff has reconsidered how to handle the request in the specific plan amendment regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within CRC. Since the parking restriction request is for existing public streets, an amendment to an approved specific plan, after all the public streets within the specific plan have been in use for many years, cannot impose a parking restriction unless special circumstances warrant it. The normal procedure to restrict street parking in public streets is to make the request to the city engineer. The request needs to have the support of all the owners and tenants fronting the streets under consideration. The city engineer will review the request and process it, typically through the Traffic Safety Commission for recommendation and to city council for final action. Staff recommends the request be made for each individual street separately or to group a few streets that would present similar conditions 2. There are two options to proceed with the requested specific plan amendment: a. remove from the specific plan all references restricting street parking and move forward for consideration of the approval of the amendment application, or b. if the requested restrictions for street parking remain in the specific plan, staff will not support this request and will recommend denial of the specific plan amendment application. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. cc: Engineering Manager - Land Development Engineering Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov dwk' CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Memorandum May 10, 2011 To: VAN LYNCH, Senior Planner ^ From: Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer j. Re: SP 180(H): CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Engineering Department staff has completed a second review of the proposed specific plan amendment. Listed below is a list of engineering issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation for approval. 1. No Engineering Standards variance application was received with the resubmittal as stated in the response to comments. The references regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) remain in the proposed specific plan amendment. Staff does not support the request for restriction of parking in existing public streets. There are two options to proceed with the requested specific plan amendment: remove all references restricting street parking or, prior to the approval of the specific plan amendment, apply and get approval for Engineering Standards variances for each of the streets that currently do not restrict parking. Applications for Engineering Standards variances need to be submitted at the Land Development Engineering counter and meet the requirements outlined in the Engineering Standards Volume 1, Chapter 3 Section 18. This section can be found at the following link: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/business/building/Documents/EngStandVollchap3.pdf 2. Thank you for adding a reference to Section 2.2.2 regarding storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. Upon further review, and since the SUSMP applies to all new development or redevelopment, it would seem more appropriate to be included in Section 3. Design Guidelines as a subsection of 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design. Such us: 5.3,4 Storm Water Quality Requirements All new development and Redevelopnnent projects must conform to the storm water quality requirements per the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-2758. cc: Senior Civil Engineer Land Development Engineering April 25, 2011 TO: Van Lynch, Senior Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 2"^^ Review CRC Specific Plan Amendment, SP 180(H) PELA file: 418 - CRC Specific Plan Amendment - Con2 Landscape Architect: Planning Systems, Phone: (760) 931-0780 Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the Specific Plan so that it will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Page III-IO, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the Califomia Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan (SP) needs to clarify that ahhough existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. 2""^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please be aware that the CRC spends thousands of dollars each year on experts trying to keep the majestic Canary Island Date Palms alive and thriving. And they have become a landmark in the CRC. Our palm tree experts observe that naturalization of this species via seed can be avoided. Canary Island Date Palms are dioecious, having male flowers andfemale flowers on separate trees, with seeds being produced only on female trees. To ensure that no seed are produced is as simple as installing only male trees. At the time of purchase a male tree can be chosen and certified as such by a palm expert. The CRC has a landscape maintenance policy in place requiring that all palm seed growing on female trees be removed prior to maturity. This policy is intended to address two concerns: (I) maintaining a quality tree appearance by not allowing "skirting" to occur (skirting is the drooping of leaves after heavy fruiting has forced the leaves downward), and (2) to address the potential liability issue associated with pedestrians slipping on palm fruit having come to rest on a hard surface. Inasmuch as our Canary Island Date Palms constitute a majestic statement at the CRC entryways and at the main intersection, and for the reasons stated above that demonstrate how we can and do avoid seed distribution, we oppose any regulation that will restrict our ability to plant and maintain these trees. " The desire to maintain existing Canary Island Date Palms is understood; however this Palm is identified as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory and the ASIA Most Invasive Ornamentals for San Diego County. It is not clear how accurate the testing is that identifies male versus female palms. Ifit is possible to obtain only male palms, the existence of these male species will better allow propagation of any female species that may be in the area (within CRC or outside of CRC controlled areas). The CRC Specific Plan Amendment April 25, 2011 Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 cost to eradicate invasive species from open spaces and preserves is expensive and it is not desirable or in the best interest of these areas to continue planting invasive species that may cause undesirable effects. There are other non-invasive Palms that can provide a similar effect (i.e. Phoenix dactylifera) that could be used to replace the Canary Island Date Palms as needed. Please make revisions as previously requested. 2-7 Completed. NEW COMMENTS 1 A. Page III-12, Landscape Design Guidelines, paragraph 1: This paragraph indicates that "The project must involve substantial changes to the landscaping or changes to the building footprint for new or updated regulations to be enforced." The word "substantial" is fairly subjective and should be defined as to square footage and/or percentage of the site in order to better document the amount of changes that would require new regulations to take effect. <i^> CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD www.carlsbadca.gov Memorandum March 7, 2011 To: Senior Planner, Van Lynch From: Associate Engineer Frank Jimeno Re: SP 180(H): CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN The Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the proposed specific plan amendment. Listed below is a list of engineering issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation for approval. 1. Section 1.4.1.2. Parking Issues, Section 3.2.1.7 Parking, Section 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design, and Section 4.3.2.3 Parking make reference to prohibiting parking in the public streets within CRC. All public street parking is regulated by the Engineering Standards. A specific plan is not a regulatory document to control public street parking. An application for a variance to prohibit public street parking needs to be processed, reviewed and approved by a separate action other than the Specific Plan Amendment application. 2. Section 1.5 Legal Authority, third paragraph, states "Any violation of the standards and regulations identified in the specific plan shall be considered a violation of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance." The specific plan standards also cover more sections than only the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance; reference should be made to the Municipal Code instead. 3. Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services, the last sentence of the second paragraphs should be the first sentence of the third paragraph. The second sentence should read "Water distribution lines exist within the public streets and easements within lots in the CRC." 4. A paragraph should be added to Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services making reference to storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. 5. Section 2.3 Existing Lots within CRC, second paragraph makes reference to Lot 11 access-way to off-CRC property. Lot 11 is not adjacent to the CRC boundary. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at 2758. c Senior Civil Engineer Van Peski Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax February 23, 2011 TO: Van Lynch, Senior Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 1^ Review CRC Specific Plan Amendment, SP 180(H) PELA file: 418 - CRC Specific Plan Amendment - Conl Landscape Architect: Planning Systems, Phone: (760) 931-0780 Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the Specific Plan so that it will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. 1. Page III-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan (SP) needs to clarify that although existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. 2. Page III-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 3: This paragraph references the use of American Sweet GKim trees. It is noted that this species has been infected with Xylella fastidiosa, a bacterial pathogen responsible for scorch symptoms and shoot dieback. The infected trees were located close by on Cannon Road at the Robertson Ranch development. It is recommended that verbiage be added to the SP indicating that a substitute species be provided for any new plantings. 3. Page III-14, 3.3.2, Landscape Design Guidelines: Please add verbiage indicating that requirements of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual are to be met except as modified by this SP. 4. Page III-15, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, paragraph 1: It is recommended that the number of trees be revised to one per each four (versus five) parking stalls to be consistent with the Landscape Manual. 5. Page III-15, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #1, Tree wells and planter areas: It is recommended that landscape planter dimensions be revised to be consistent with Appendix E-1 of the Landscape Manual. 6. Page III-16, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #2, Curbs: It is recommended that this paragraph be revised to consider Low Impact Development (LID). In many new projects interior parking lot curbs are being replaced with wheel stops to allow hardscape drainage into landscaped areas (bio-swales). 7. Page III-16, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #5, Screening: Please delete the words "interrupt to" in the first sentence. Parking areas need to be screened. "Interrupt" is not definitive and subject to interpretation. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10. 2011 PROJEa NO(S): iiiii^) REVIEW NO: 1^!^ PROJEa TITLE: IPiPiCtFtCPLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION/COLLEEN REILLY TO: • • • Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand |iiiij(j*ng Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) - Thomas Moore Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy-Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to thegpliiiHiiTBACKiNG DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, b\liif3/tl. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please Immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: gnature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 PROJEa NO(S): SP 180(H) REVIEW NO: 1 PROJECTTITLE: CRC SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION/COLLEEN REILLY m • • • TO: IXI Land Development Engineering - Terie Rowley Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) - Thomas Moore Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy-Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) ^ Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 3/3/11. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you ~ / I ^ / I /) I COMMENTS:/^^^ ^ JL^/f<^/ f^cS^^J iu -f-Myfe ^M> /^^^^.^^.j-/^ Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 PROJECT NUMBER: BUILDING ADDRESS: Discretionary Review Checklist SP 180(H) Carlsbad Research Center PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific Plan Amendment ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: FIRE DEPARTMENT ^ APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By: 0. fiya*v Date 3/20/2011 DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with [3. IVIake necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: Gregory L Ryan Deputy Fire Marshal ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carisbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-4663 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 PROJECT NO(S): SP 180(H) REVIEW NO: 1 PROJECTTITLE: CRC SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION/COLLEEN REILLY • • • TO: IXI Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) - Thomas Moore Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy-Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYSSEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 3/3/11. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 o o CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10. 2011 PROJECT NO(S): SP 180(H) REVIEW NO: 1 PROJECTTITLE: CRC SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: CRC OWNERS ASSOCIATION/COLLEEN REILLY TO: • • • Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley Police Department - J. Sasway Fire Department - James Weigand Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) —Thomas Moore /f//r?^ Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy-Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 3/3/11. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: PLANS ATTACHED Signature Date Review & Comment 03/10 ^, Carlsbad Architectural Research Center Review Committee 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • (760) 931-5744 Fax December 7, 2015 Mrs. Maria Solana RREF II One Research, LLC 1800 East Imperial Highway Suite 205 Brea, CA 92821 Re: Lots 1-1 & 1-2 – Updated Plan Review – Smith Consulting Architects Response Letter (11/19/15) Dear Mrs. Solana: The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) of the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) has reviewed the updated plans and response letter from Julie Spiegel of Smith Consulting Architects (SCA) dated November 19, 2015. After researching the city’s documents and reviewing the final map, the ARC could find no explanation for the property being under-parked. It is certainly understandable that the property owner wishes to make full use of the property. After reviewing the updated plans, the ARC feels that all of the items of concern identified in the previous response letter (dated November 2, 2015) have been satisfied. The ARC considers these plans APPROVED with the following revisions: 1. The plans show that the proposed elevation of the berm between the new CRC Landscape Maintenance Area (LMA) and the proposed bio-retention basin is 314.50 feet. The top of the berm elevation should be set at 316.0 feet. This will ensure screening of the basin as well as the rear edge (north) of the basin from Faraday Avenue. 2. Per the submitted Planting Plan (sheet 11 of 17), the bio-retention basin will be planted with Lomandria longifolia/Dwarf Mat Rush. Specify a variety of Lomandria longifolia that will not grow more than 12” in height. Or use a different plant species that will not exceed 12” in height. In the past there have been issues with the plant selection and/or maintenance of bio-retention basins within the CRC. With that said, the ARC would like to emphasize that if at some point in the future this bio-retention basin is not being maintained properly, or the planting material does not meet the CRC’s high standards for whatever reason, the property owner will be asked to make the necessary changes to bring the aesthetics of the basin up to par. Any changes will be at the property owner’s expense. The overall goal of the CRC is to keep the high standard of aesthetics along the street frontage, not just the CRC’s LMA but also the adjacent private landscaping as well. Carlsbad Architectural Research Center Review Committee 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • (760) 931-5744 Fax Additionally, the ARC would like to reiterate that the property owner will be responsible for all irrigation materials, labor and coordination with the CRC landscape maintenance contractor to properly install all of the irrigation systems within the new LMA. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Andrea Tagle at (858) 373-2100, or me at (760) 931-0780. Sincerely, Eddie Nava ARC Staff Cc: T. Hageman, A. Blackmore, C. Reilly, A. Tagle, Van Lynch (City of Carlsbad) CITY OF V^CARLSBAD Planning Division FILE COPT www.carlsbadca.gov July 5, 2012 Planning Systems Attn: Paul Klukas 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite ICQ Carlsbad, CA 92008 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION SUBJECT: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER At the June 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of your request. The decision of the Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Van Lynch at (760) 602-4613 or van.lvnch@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:VL:bd c: Data Entry File CRC Owners' Association, 5330 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92121 enc: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6853 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © 1^ CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER OWNER'S ASSOCIATION June 12, 2012 Mr. Michael Schumacher Chairman Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE:" SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Dear Chairman Schumacher: At your Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2012, the Commission continued the above-referenced agenda item in order for City Staff and the applicant to consider changes to the document. The project was officially continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 20, 2012. The CRC Board of Directors has been unable to convene a meeting to consider the changes during this short continuance timeframe. As a result, on behalf of the CRC Owner's Association Board of Du-ectors, please consider this letter a request for an additional continuance to the next available Planning Commission agenda after Jime 20. We anticipate that this additional continuance will provide us with sufficient time to review the suggested changes. Sincerely, Colleen M. Reilly President CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS cc: Don Neu, City Planner ^^cnyo, ^ ^ QFILE V^CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov May 15, 2012 Planning Systems Attn: Paul Klukas 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on May 29, 2012. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:30 AM. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations; and 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations. The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, vour proiect could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning Commission Hearing, if you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Van Lynch at (760)602-4613. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:VL:sm c: CRC Owners' Association, 5330 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92121 File Copy Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © SAN DIEGO CONTV REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 82776, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-2776 619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG December 19,2011 Mr. Van Lynch City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CAHL53A0 DEC 2 0 2011 PLANNING DEPARTMENTi Re: Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination - Adoption of Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan; McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan - PAL-11-007; Resolution No. 2011-0019 ALUC Dear Mr. Lynch: This letter is to notify the City of Carlsbad ("City") of the December 1, 2011, consistency determination that was made by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ("Authority" or "SDCRAA"), acting in its capacity as the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC"), for the referenced project. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project is conditionally consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"). A copy of Resolution 2011-0019 ALUC, approved by the ALUC on December 1, 2011, and memorializing the consistency determination, is enclosed for your information. The ALUC's determination that the adoption of Carlsbad research center specific plan project is conditionally consistent with the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP was made consistent with the ALUC Policies and the State Aeronautics Act provisions (Cal. Pub. UtiL Code §21670-21679.5), and was based on numerous facts and findings, including those summarized below: (1) The proposed project involves the adoption of a specific plan without construction or establishment of any new land uses for a largely built-out area. (2) The proposed project would be located within the 60-65, 65-70, and 70-75 dB CNEL noise contours. The ALUCP identifies most project land uses located within these noise contours as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter are sound attenuated to a 45 or 50 dB CNEL interior noise level as indicated in the ALUCP, and that an avigation easement is recorded with the County Recorder for conditionally compatible uses within the 65 or higher dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, conditionally compatible uses must be sound attenuated to the applicable 45 or 50 dB CNEL interior noise level per the ALUCP, and an avigation easement must be recorded with the County Recorder for conditionally compatible uses within the 65 or higher dB CNEL noise contour. (3) The proposed project would allow parks as a conditional land use within an area partially within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. The ALUCP identifies parks as not compatible within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, parks must be prohibited within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT o o Mr. Lynch Page 2 (4) In order to ensure compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces, a determination of no hazard to air navigation must be issued by the FAA for any proposed future construction which meets notification criteria. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, a detennination of no hazard to air navigation from the FAA must be required for any proposed future construction which meets notification criteria. (5) The proposed project is located primarily within Safety Zone 6. The ALUCP identifies all project land uses located within Safety Zone 6 as compatible with airport uses. A portion of a single property of the proposed project is located within Safety Zone 1 and contains no structures. The ALUCP identifies structures located within Safety Zone 1 as incompatible with airport uses. The proposed project has some properties located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5. The ALUCP identifies project land uses located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5 as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter abide by the FAR or PPA limitations specified in the ALUCP. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, structures must be prohibited within Safety Zone 1 and conditionally compatible uses in other Safety Zones must abide by the FAR or PPA limitations specified in the ALUCP. (6) Therefore, if the proposed project contains the above-required conditions, the proposed project would be consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP. (7) This Board action is not a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pub. Res. Code Section 21065; and is not a "development" as defined by the Califomia Coastal Act Pub. Res. Code Section 30106. Please contact Mr. Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 if you have any questions regarding the issues addressed in this letter. Very truly yours. Bowens President/CEO TFB/AJ/EG Enclosures: Resolution 2011 -0019 ALUC cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRA, General Coimsel Ron Bolyard, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Chris Schmidt, Caltrans, Division 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-0019 ALUC A RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT: ADOPTION OF CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, CITY OF CARLSBAD, IS CONDITIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT - AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN. WHEREAS, the Board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting in its capacity as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, pursuant to Section 21670.3 of the Public Utilities Code, was requested by the City of Carlsbad to determine the consistency of a proposed development project: Adoption of Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad, which is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), adopted and amended in 2010; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is the adoption of a specific plan without construction or establishment of any new land uses for a largely built-out area of 131 properties; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would be located within the 60-65, 65- 70, and 70-75 decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dB CNEL) noise contours, and the ALUCP identifies most project land uses located within these noise contours as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter are sound attenuated to a 45 or 50 dB CNEL interior noise level as indicated in the ALUCP, and that an avigation easement is recorded with the County Recorder for conditionally compatible uses within the 65 or higher dB CNEL noise contour; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would allow parks as a conditional land use within an area partially within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL, and the ALUCP identifies parks as not compatible within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL; and WHEREAS, the proposed project does not involve any construction, and, in order to ensure compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces, a determination of no hazard to air navigation must be issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any proposed future construction which meets notification criteria; and Resolution No. 2011-0019 ALUC Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the proposed project is located primarily within Safety Zone 6, and the ALUCP identifies ali project land uses located within Safety Zone 6 as compatible with airport uses; and WHEREAS, a portion of a single property of the proposed project is located within Safety Zone 1 and contains no structures, and the ALUCP identifies structures located within Safety Zone 1 as incompatible with airport uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed project has some properties located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5, and the ALUCP identifies project land uses located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5 as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter abide by the floor area ratio (FAR) or people per acre (PPA) limitations specified in the ALUCP; and WHEREAS, the ALUC has considered the infonnation provided by staff, including information in the staff report and other relevant material regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the ALUC has provided an opportunity for the City of Carlsbad and interested members of the public to present information regarding this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ALUC determines that the proposed project: Adoption of Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad, is conditionally consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP, which was adopted and amended in 2010, based upon the following facts and findings: (1) The proposed project involves the adoption of a specific plan without construction or establishment of any new land uses for a largely built-out area. (2) The proposed project would be located within the 60-65, 65-70, and 70-75 dB CNEL noise contours. The ALUCP identifies most project land uses located within these noise contours as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter are sound attenuated to a 45 or 50 dB CNEL interior noise level as indicated in the ALUCP, and that an avigation easement is recorded with the County Recorder for conditionally compatible uses within the 65 or higher dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, conditionally compatible uses must be sound attenuated to the applicable 45 or 50 dB CNEL interior noise level per the ALUCP, and an avigation easement must be recorded with the County Resolution No. 2011-0019 ALUC Page 3 of 4 Recorder for conditionally compatible uses within the 65 or higher dB CNEL noise contour. (3) The proposed project would allow parks as a conditional land use within an area partially within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. The ALUCP identifies parks as not compatible within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, parks must be prohibited within noise contours of 70 or higher dB CNEL. (3) In order to ensure compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces, a detemiination of no hazard to air navigation must be issued by the FAA for any proposed future construction which meets notification criteria. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, a detennination of no hazard to air navigation from the FAA must be required for any proposed future construction which meets notification criteria. (4) The proposed project is located primarily within Safety Zone 6. The ALUCP identifies all project land uses located within Safety Zone 6 as compatible with airport uses. A portion of a single property of the proposed project is located within Safety Zone 1 and contains no structures. The ALUCP identifies structures located within Safety Zone 1 as incompatible with airport uses. The proposed project has some properties located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5. The ALUCP identifies project land uses located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 5 as compatible or conditionally compatible with airport uses, provided that the latter abide by the FAR or PPA limitations specified in the ALUCP. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, structures must be prohibited within Safety Zone 1 and conditionally compatible uses in other Safety Zones must abide by the FAR or PPA limitations specified in the ALUCP. (6) Therefore, if the proposed project contains the above-required conditions, the proposed project would be consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this ALUC determination is not a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code Section 21065, and is not a "developmenf as defined by the Califomia Coastal Act, Pub. Res. Code Section 30106. Resolution No. 2011-0019 ALUC Page 4 of4 PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the ALUC for San Diego County at a special meeting this 1*' day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: APPROVED AS TO FORM: BRETON K. LOBNER GENERAL COUNSEL Boland, Desmond, Gleason, Hubbs, Panknin, Robinson, Smisek, Young None Cox ATTEST: TONY R. RUSSELL DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES/ AUTHORITY CLERK <m> - FILE COPY VCARLSBAD riLtwn Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov December 13, 2011 Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Ave, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, December 21, 2011, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on December 27, 2011. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your proiect could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the pulilic at the Planning Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Van Lynch at (760) 602-4613. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:VL:bd CRC Owners' Association, 5330 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92121 File Copy Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® ViCARLSBAD CITY OF Planning Division November 28, 2011 Q a FILE www.carlsbadca.gov CRC Owners' Association 5330 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 SUBJECT: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on January 4. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by December 12, 2011, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) B) C) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners, including all forms of interval ownership, within Carlsbad Research Center and within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. 100' Occupant List - (Coastal Development Permits Only) a typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. Mailing Labels - If the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is 1,000 or greater, a display advertisement in two papers of general circulation will be placed in lieu of direct mailing and labels will not be required to be submitted. If the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is less than 1,000, please submit two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within Carlsbad Research Center and a 600 foot radius of the subject property. For any address other than a single-family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt. Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: ACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ACCEPTABLE (with APN) 209-060-34-00 MRS JANE SMITH APT 3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 0 SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEAlTtfH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN November 28, 2011 Page 2 D) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. E) Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. In the case of ownership list that is 1,000 or greater, the fee is equal to the current cost of publishing an 1/8 page ad in two newspapers of general circulation. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards are accepted. Sincerely, VAN H/fNCH Senior Planner VLbd Attachment c: File SAN DIEGO CONTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 82776. SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-2776 619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG CITY OF CARLSBAD NOV 17 2011 PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 10, 2011 Mr. Van Lynch City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92006 Re: Airport Land Use Commission Determination Adoption of Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Lynch: As the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority acknowledges receipt of an application for a determination of consistency for the project described above. This project is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport ~ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined that it meets our requirements to complete a consistency determination. ALUC staff will proceed with review of the project and report its findings to the ALUC to issue a detennination of consistency with the ALUCP within 60 days of the date of this letter. You will receive notice of the ALUC meeting which will consider your project. If you have any questions, please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or egowens@san.org. Sincerely, Angela Jamison Manager, Airport Planning cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRAA, Counsel Services Ron Bolyard - Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Chris Schmidt, Caltrans, District 11 SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ViCARLSBAD W CITY OF Planning Division October 27, 2011 • FILE www.carlsbadca.gov Angela Jamison San Diego County Regional Airport Authority P.O. Box 82776 San Diego, CA 92138-2776 RE: CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - SP 180(H) Dear Ms. Jamison, Please find enclosed the application for Determination of Consistency with the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use compatibility Plan. The 559-acre Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan project site is located on the west side of El Camino Real, northerly of Palomar Airport and bisected by College Boulevard and Faraday Avenue. The proposed project consists of a complete rewrite of the existing outdated Specific Plan document. The Specific Plan regulates the uses and provides the development standards for the area identified as the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan. No significant or substantive changes are being proposed by the new Specific Plan. This application does not contain a Part 77 determination as there are no specific buildings being constructed as part of the Specific Plan Amendment. Subsequent development as a result of the implementation of the Specific plan would require a Part 77 determination. Also not included is a property deed or title report as the project area covers 131 individual parcels. In addition to the application submittal requirements, the city has provided the draft Specific Plan and draft staff report for the project which discusses the project in detail and provides information on the proposed revisions to the Specific Plan. Also attached is the previous Specific Plan document. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or by email at van.lvnch@carlsabdca.gov. Sincerely, VAN LYNCH Senior Planner VL:bd enclosures c: file 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 0 PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION September 16,2011 HECEIVED Mr. Van Lynch CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 SEP 11 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN •'•ED PLANNING DEPT RE: Dear Mr. Lynch: Per your letter dated August 24, 2011, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced project, the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Board of Directors has commissioned modifications to the Draft CRC Specific Plan. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find six (6) copies of a Bold/Strike-out version of the fourth draft of the document. Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments listed in the August 24 letter. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The following Planning comments are in the order they appear in the Specific Plan document. Response: No response needed. 2. Page I-]. Please change the total acreage to 559 acres. I reviewed the totals on all five tract maps and the total acreage is 559.514. Response: This change to 559 acres has been made throughout the specific plan. 3. Page 1-9. Staff continues to not support the on-street parking prohibition. Please see Engineering comments below. Staff will proceed to take the Specific Plan Amendment forward with a condition that the request to preclude on-street parking is removed from the Specific Plan document. Response: We have removed the on-street parking prohibition from throughout the document as requested by Staff. 4. Page 111-13, Section 3.3.2.1, Landscape Goals and Objectives. Some of the goals appear to be development standards (as are the following landscape sections). These are better placed in Section 4, Development Regulations. Response: This section has been removed fi-om Chapter 3 and has now become Section 4.3.3 in Chapter 4 (starting p. IV-14). 5. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.3, Interior Landscape. Please correct typo (remove period mid- sentence and remove underlining). Response: This change has been made in Section 4.3.3.2. 6. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.4(4) reference approval by the ARC which is not appropriate for the Specific Plan. Please modify or delete the reference. 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net Response: This ARC reference has been removed. 7. Poge lV-4, Section 4.2.1.2 Accessory Uses. Please remove food preparation, food service, and eating facilities as accessory uses. The permitted use section permits these types of uses as incidental uses and the CUP section (4.2.1.3) permits Delis' by CUP. Having food related services as an accessory use is confusing. Response: This change has been made on p. IV-4. 8. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. Please add Restaurants along with Delicatessens as a conditionally permitted use. Response: We have not made this change. The CRC Board believes that commercial uses should continue to be strictly limited within Area 1 of the CRC and thus disagrees that restaurants should be allowed even with issuance of a CUP. Restaurants are allowed on properties within area 2a. 9. Page lV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 (4) Conditional Uses. Please strike "...and disallow new signage intended to promote on-site sales. " The City cannot regulate the content of signage. Response: The reference wording has been eliminated on p. IV-4 and replaced with "Showroom signage shall be limited to company identity only". The CRC Board is concerned with allowing advertising signage which encourages advertising or attracting the general public to visit the showrooms, which is contrary to the general concept and land use consistency of the park. 10. Page lV-5, Section 4.2.1.2 (1). Please define "High volume or high traffic generating uses." Staff is not supportive of thresholds that are not defined or that cannot be quantified. Response: This wording has been eliminated and replaced with a list of specific uses that would require a CUP, on p. IV-5. 11. Page lV-11, Section 4.3.2.2, Setbacks. The second paragraph allows "Planters, walls, and sign elements ...with the express written approval of the ARC. " This is an ARC design guideline and should be removed from the Specific Plan. The following sentence regarding roof overhangs is redundant to item 4.3.2.2. e and should also be removed. Response: This section has been eliminated fi-om the document on p. IV-11. 12. Page IV-13, Section 4.3.2.6 (4). Please strike "...for refuse collection enclosures. " The refuse collection area details are in the previous section. (A portion of the text appears to have been inadvertently copied to this section during last modification). Response: The text has been modified to eliminate the reference to refuse collection area and replaced with the full restriction against the use of fabric or mesh materials for any screening within the park. This is on p. IV-13. 13. Page IV-15, Section 4.3.4.1. , please strike the word "the" in the first line in the beginning of the third paragraph ("The overall the objective of the sign... "). Response: This typo has been corrected. 14. Page V-2, Section 5.1.2. Please delete Sections 5.1.2.2 (CRC ARC procedure) and 5.1.2.3 (CRC function and redundant to the following Table 3) The CRC Association, as a property owner within the CRC park would be noticed of any proposed applications for amendments to the CRC Specific Plan. Response: These sections have been deleted, as requested. PLANNING SYSTEMS 15. Page V-2, Section 5.2. Please change "three" categories to "two" categories. Also, an administrative process will need to be developed for minor Specific Plan Amendments. Please review other adopted Specific/Master Plans for typical amendment procedures. The minor amendment may be a ministerial process. Response: This modification has been made on p. V-2. Eneineerins: Engineering Department staff has completed a second review of the proposed specific plan amendment Listed below is a list of engineering issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation for approval 1. No application has been received for an Engineering Standards variance. Staff has reconsidered how to handle the request in the specific plan amendment regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within CRC. Since the parking restriction request is for existing public streets, an amendment to an approved specific plan, after all the public streets within the specific plan have been in use for many years, cannot impose a parking restriction unless special circumstances are warranted. The normal procedure to restrict street parking in public streets is to make the request to the city engineer. The request needs to have the support of all the owners and tenants fronting the streets under consideration. The city engineer will review the request and process it, typically through the Traffic Safety Commission for recommendation and to city council for final action. Staff recommends the request be made for each individual street separately or to group a few streets that would present similar conditions. Response: We have removed the on-street parking prohibition fi-om throughout the document as requested by Staff 2. At this time, staff will proceed with the processing of the application to the Planning Commission and City Council with the condition that the on street prohibition will be stricken from the Specific Plan text. This would allow the issue to be discussed before the Commission and Council The applicant may wish to pursue the on street parking prohibition by the process above rather than through the Specific Plan. Response: We have removed the on-street parking prohibition from throughout the document as requested by Staff We are hopefiil that the Specific Plan is now acceptable to finalize for fmal CEQA review and hearings. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package. Sincerely, Paul J. Klukas Director of Plannmg cc: Colleen Reilly CRC ARC Committee members Attachments PLANNING SYSTEMS CITV OP FILE COPY V (CARLSBAD ntcvvn Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov August 24, 2011 CRC Owners' Association 5330 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Sirs, Your project was deemed complete on March 8, 2011. Attached are comments based on the July 28, 2011 resubmittal of the Specific Plan. There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. Please contact me at (760) 602-4613, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, VAN LYUCH Senior Planner VL:bd c: Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Ave, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® -^/)^BAD R^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AWfENDMENT ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The following Planning comments are in the order they appear in the Specific Plan document. 2. Page 1-1. Please change the total acreage to 559 acres. I reviewed the totals on all five tract maps and the total acreage is 559.514. 3. Page 1-9, Staff continues to not support the on-street parking prohibition. Please see Engineering comments below. Staff will proceed to take the Specific Plan Amendment forward with a condition that the request to preclude on-street parking is removed from the Specific Plan document. 4. Page 111-13, Section 3.3.2.1, Landscape Goals and Objectives. Some of the goals appear to be development standards (as are the following landscape sections). These are better placed in Section 4, Development Regulations. 5. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.3, Interior Landscape. Please correct typo (remove period mid-sentence and remove underlining). 6. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.4(4) reference approval by the ARC which is not appropriate for the Specific Plan. Please modify or delete the reference. 7. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.2 Accessory Uses. Please remove food preparation, food service, and eating facilities as accessory uses. The permitted use section permits these types of uses as incidental uses and the CUP section (4.2.1.3) permits Delis' by CUP. Having food related services as an accessory use is confusing. 8. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. Please add Restaurants along with Delicatessens as a conditionally permitted use. 9. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 (4) Conditional Uses. Please strike "...and disallow new signage intended to promote on-site sales." The City cannot regulate the content of signage. 10. Page IV-5, Section 4.2.1.2 (1). Please define "High volume or high traffic generating uses." Staff is not supportive of thresholds that are not defined or that cannot be quantified. 11. Page IV-11, Section 4.3.2.2, Setbacks. The second paragraph allows "Planters, walls, and sign elements ...with the express written approval of the ARC." This is an ARC design guideline and should be removed from the Specific Plan. The following sentence regarding roof overhangs is redundant to item 4.3.2.2.e and should also be removed. 12. Page IV-13, Section 4.3.2.6 (4). Please strike "...for refuse collection enclosures." The refuse collection area details are in the previous section. (A portion of the text appears to have been inadvertently copied to this section during last modification). SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AI^IENDMENT August 24, 2011 Page 3 13. Page IV-15, Section 4.3.4.1. , please strike the word "the" in the first line in the beginning of the third paragraph ("The overall the objective of the sign..."). 14. Page V-2, Section 5.1.2. Please delete Sections 5.1.2.2 (CRC ARC procedure) and 5.1.2.3 (CRC function and redundant to the following Table 3) The CRC Association, as a property owner within the CRC park would be noticed of any proposed applications for amendments to the CRC Specific Plan. 15. Page V-2, Section 5.2. Please change "three" categories to "two" categories. Also, an administrative process will need to be developed for minor Specific Plan Amendments. Please review other adopted Specific/Master Plans for typical amendment procedures. The minor amendment may be a ministerial process. Engineering: Engineering Department staff has completed a second review of the proposed specific plan amendment. Listed below is a list of engineering issues that need to be addressed prior to recommendation for approval. 1. No application has been received for an Engineering Standards variance. Staff has reconsidered how to handle the request in the specific plan amendment regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within CRC. Since the parking restriction request is for existing public streets, an amendment to an approved specific plan, after all the public streets within the specific plan have been in use for many years, cannot impose a parking restriction unless special circumstances are warranted. The normal procedure to restrict street parking in public streets is to make the request to the city engineer. The request needs to have the support of all the owners and tenants fronting the streets under consideration. The city engineer will review the request and process it, typically through the Traffic Safety Commission for recommendation and to city council for final action. Staff recommends the request be made for each individual street separately or to group a few streets that would present similar conditions. 2. At this time, staff will proceed with the processing of the application to the Planning Commission and City Council with the condition that the on street prohibition will be stricken from the Specific Plan text. This would allow the issue to be discussed before the Commission and Council. The applicant may wish to pursue the on street parking prohibition by the process above rather than through the Specific Plan. Van Lynch From: Paul Klukas <pklukas@planningsystems.net> Sent: Friday August 19, 2011 8:32 AM To: Van Lynch Subject: RE: CRC mini-parks Van: I believe that encouraging the public to access the Emerald Lake area will be a problem for the CRC. There is no provision for public use of any portion of Emerald Lake, and never has been. The facility has not been designed as a public use area. The lake area is secluded and not visible from other public places, and as a result is difficult to police. For the last 10 years, as a result of liability concerns, attractive nuisance, etc. on the part of CRC and its insurers, the Emerald Lake area has been chained off from access and posted "No public use". Armed security services currently patrol the property 7 days per week to prohibit the public from accessing the facility. Physical access to the lake (driveway) runs across private property with no provision for public parking. There is an access easement granted to the City of Carlsbad for maintenance access to drainage improvements at the lake (there is a large detention/desiltation basin on site). The City had originally anticipated Emerald Lake to be a reclaimed water facility and required the original developer to construct the facility and offer the facility for dedication to the City. However the City subsequently changed their mind, did not pursue a reclaimed water operation at this site and declined the offer of dedication. So CRC is still the [unwilling] owner of the property. CRC historically and currently maintains all of the facility including the desiltation basin, grounds and lake water body. There is no easement on the Emerald Lake property (Lot 110) for a mini-park or any public use. For the reasons stated above, CRC would not wish to provide such easement. Creation of a mini-park in this location would encourage public access to the entire facility which is considered hazardous to public use and access is virtually impossible to control or limit to the boundaries of a "mini-park". The facility is over 5 acres in size. The large lake water body is regularly treated with chemicals to kill algae and other invasive plants. The public should not be encouraged to access this area, and certainly not to picnic or eat lunch in the area. Please consider the above information on this matter. I recommend that the SP identify only the existing 7 mini- parks. Emerald Lake is not a good location to encourage public access. Paul From: Van Lynch [mailto:Van.Lynch@carisbadca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:06 PM To: Paul Klukas (pklukas@planningsystems.net) Subject: CRC mini-parks Paul, The number of Mini-parks keeps bugging me. I went back to the Mylar tentative map and found the eighth mini- park, which is located adjacent to Emerald Lake. It has been shown since 1988. Please see attached exhibit. Please add the eighth park to Figure 9 so that the number will coincide with the eight parks mentioned on page 26 of the old plan and change the seven to eight in the new plan (Pg 1-5 and Pg 11-11). Sorry for the mix up because I had you change eight to seven previously (because only seven were shown). I hope to have comments out to you soon on some other minor revisions. I'm presently working up the staff report so I don't think we'll lose any time. 1 PLANNING SYSTEMS n • LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION July 28, 2011 RECEIVED Mr. Van Lynch CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department jy| 2 9 2011 1635 Faraday Ave. ' Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD RE: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING DhP S Dear Mr. Lynch: Per your letter dated June 9, 2011, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced project, the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Board of Directors has commissioned modifications to the Draft CRC Specific Plan. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find six (6) copies of a Bold/Strike-out version of the third draft of the document. Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments listed in the June 9 letter. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The following Planning comments are in the order they appear in the Specific Plan document Response: No response needed. 2. Page I-l, Please change the 2010 date to 2011 throughout the document as appropriate. Response: The year has been changed throughout the document. 3. Page I-l, Section 1.1. Please remove the reference to the objectives of the CRC Owner's Association. Response: Reference to the objectives of the Owner's Association has been removed fi-om the last paragraph on p. 1-1. 4. Page 1-5, Third Paragraph. Please change the number of mini-parks to seven (7). Fourth Paragraph, please change the SP Amendment date to 2011. Response: These two revisions have been made on p. 1-5. J. Page 1-8, Section 1.5. and Section 1.6 These sections contain discussion regarding the issues the CRC Park has regarding development and is not appropriate in the Specific Plan document. The City is not able to exercise discretion over the issuance of ministerial permits (building permits/lotline adjustments). Please remove any reference to the application of design review. The whole section should either be deleted or modified to only have the last two items. Changes in Use and Non-conforming uses, remaining. Response: These sections have been removed irom the document on p. 1-9. 6. Page 1-9, Staff is not supportive of the on-street parking prohibition. Please see Engineering comments below. 1 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net Response: It is commonly known that on-street parking contributes to blight in business parks. The CRC Owner's Association is making every effort to reduce blight and make for a high-quality working environment in the CRC to the degree possible. The City already prohibits parking on all major and collector roads in the CRC, totaling some 90% of the roads within the park. Please see the exhibit attached to this letter. Elimination of on-street parking on the remaining 10% local and cul-de-sac roadways will not reduce available parking because per City requirements, all lots are requned to contain sufficient parking on their lots. Further, on-street parking contributes to pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and reduces motorist sight distances. Since it is the Engineering Staffs position that the CRC will need to process an engineering standards variance to authorize the parking prohibition, included with this resubmittal is an application, with processing fee, for such variance. We continue to remain hopeful that Engineering Staff will see that both aesthetic and safety benefits to the CRC and the City will accrue from approval of prohibition to on-street parking on the local and cul-de-sac streets within the CRC. 7. Page II-l, Section 2.1, In the first paragraph, second sentence, please modify to ...Land Use desisnation.... Response: This revision has been made on p. 11-1. 8. Page II-l, last paragraph, please add...land use goals, objectives, and policies. Response: This revision has been made on p. II-l. 9. Figure 5. There appears a sliver of property within or adjacent to Lot 102. Please correct the lot line work or open space boundaries appropriately. Response: This correction has been made on Fig. 5. 10. Page 11-4, Section 2.1.1, please modify ...Approximately 485 acres are devoted to this land use (or Approximately 485 acres are devoted to these uses.) Response: This revision has been made on p. II-4. //. Page 11-4, Section 2.1.2, The end of the second paragraph implies that the redevelopment of the site would be needed before office buildings or commercial uses would be allowed. Please strike "if redeveloped in the future. " Response: This revision has been made on p. II-5. 12. Page 11-4, last paragraph, ...by the Owner's Association HOA. Response: This revision has been made on p. 11-5. 13. Page 11-5, Please correct Table 1 to reflect the acreage of the public park (2.9 acres), Commercial Retail (to include both Faraday/College and Faraday/ECR areas) and verify Commercial Tourist acreage (3.2 acres). Response: The acreages have been modified on Table 1 on p. II-4. Area 3 has been eliminated (and rather included in Area 1). 14. Page 11-11, please correct the park acreages based on the data in Table 1 and reflect the ultimate park acreage as 12.9 acres. Response: The ultimate park acreage has not been included because the majority of the future park acreage is outside the boundaries of the CRC. 75. Page II-ll, Section 2.4.3, First sentence, please correct "The establishment of ctruSBtL PLANNING SYSTEMS Response: This revision has been made on p. II-l 1. 16. Page 11-12, Section 2.4.4 and Section 2.4.5. Both of these sections pertain more to the CRC Owners Association organization and process and is not appropriate in the Specific Plan. Response: Sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 have been eliminated from the document on p. 11-12. 17. Page 111-1, Design Guidelines Section. This section shall only include the contents of the previous specific plan, modified as needed to update the specific plan. This section appears to implement more of the CRC Design Guidelines than the previous specific plan text Response: Discussion of Design Guidelines has been significantly modified on p. III-l. 18. Page III-2, Section 3.2.1, please change the date to 2011. Response: The year has been corrected on p. III-2. 19. Page II1-3, Section 3.2.1.3, last sentence. Figure 14 is the Local Street Design. (There are two Figure 12s which throws the numbering off). Response: The Figure reference in the text has been corrected on p. II1-3. 20. Page 1II-3, Section 3.2.1.4, fourth sentence, ...sidewalks in this these locations. Response: This revision has been made on p. III-3. 21. Page III-IO, Section 3.2.1.7. The City is not supportive of restricting on street parking. Response: No change has been made to this section. Please see the response to #6 above. 22. Page III-ll, Section 3.2.3, Open Space. The City continues to review the application and the subsequent potential requirement for HMP compliance for the natural open space areas of the Specific Plan area. It is a goal of the City to have all development projects comply with the habitat preservation and conservation standards of the HMP. Response: Pursuant to your email communication of July 27, 2011, a short paragraph has been added to Page III-l which indicates that all new development of lots containing native habitat as defined in Chapter 21.210.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code shall comply with the requirements of the Habitat Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 21.210. 23. Page 7/7-72, Section 3.3.2, last sentence, the City would like a more definitive threshold as opposed to being undefined. The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 18.50.040) states "A rehabilitated landscape for an existing industrial, commercial, institutional, public agency, or multifamily use where a building permit or discretionary permit is being issued and the applicant is installing or modifying two thousand five hundred square feet or more of landscaping. " The Specific Plan shall use this threshold for consistency purposes. Response: This section has been modified to refer to the more specific reference of 2,500 square feet, as suggested. This change is on p. III-13. 24. Page 111-13, 1. General Statement. Please change "other front yard" to "street side setbacks." Response: This revision has been made at the bottom of p. Ill-13. PLANNING SYSTEMS 25. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.4(1), please delete the reference to Appendix E-1. The City is in the process of revising the landscape manual and these references may not be applicable. Response: The reference to Appendix E-1 has been deleted on p. III-14. 26. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.3.1. Much of this section appears to be between the Association and property owner and is not appropriate text for the Specific Plan. Response: The sections referencing private lot maintenance referring to the Owner's Association have been deleted on p. III-l5. 27. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.4(4), please change "area" to "areas. " Response: "Area" has been modified to "areas" as requested on p. III-15. 28. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. The City is in the process of modifying the Zoning ordinance to allow delicatessens by right in the industrial zones. Delis could be moved up to Section 4.2.1.2 as a permitted accessory use as presently stated. Response: It is the Owner's Association's opinion that CRC is a unique circumstance in which a good amount of cenfrally-located commercial land use (Area 2a parcels) allows for delicatessens as an allowed use by right. Thus, we believe it is not in the best interest of the park to allow delicatessens throughout by right, and rather we prefer accommodating these uses through approval of a CUP. Thus, we have maintained delicatessens in the Conditional Uses section in Area 1 and have not made the change recoinmended above. We urge the City to not make the referenced change in the C-M Zoning Ordinance. 29. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. The City is in the process of permitting limited retail uses in conjunction with a primary use in the industrial zones. Up to 1,000 square feet of associated retail would be permitted by right for the sale of goods or services manufactured, processed or warehoused on site. A Regular Conditional Use Permit would be required for up to 2,000 square feet of associated retail. Please add these allowances in the Accessory and Conditional Use sections as appropriate. Response: The Owner's Association is very concerned with the potential for escalation of showrooms into direct retail sales and service shops out of R&D buildings in Area 1, which inherently results in fraffic and other problems in the park. Thus, we have made the change recommended by Staff, however modified the procedures so that the showroom use would require a major CUP (public hearing) no matter how small the sales facility is. This is so that proper conditions can be considered which would disallow additional signage and marketing to the general public, and also require that these retail sales uses are allowed only if adequate onsite parking (5:1,000 sf) is provided for the sales use. 30. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.2, The end of the first paragraph implies the redevelopment of the site would be needed before office buildings or commercial uses would be allowed. Please strike "and arc intended to stay that way until those properties are re developed. At that time they may ... " Response: This requested change has been made on p. lV-4. 31. Page IV-5, Section 4.2.1.2 CUP references to findings in section 4.2.1 that do not exist. Please reference findings of CMC 21.42 for Conditional uses. Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-5. 32. Page IV-5, Section 4.2.4. Area 3. This area should allow area 1 uses as identified in the Specific Plan. It would be preferred to not have an Area 3 and to allow the development of Lot 96 as a park by CUP as in the original Specific Plan. Other Specific Plan text would also need to be changed accordingly to reflect this change. PLANNING SYSTEMS • Response: All references to Area 3 have been removed from the Specific Plan as suggested. The Zone 5 ballfield park has been included within Area 1 and included as approved through a conditional use permit as per the original Specific Plan. 33. Page IV-8, Section 4.2.5 The City is not supportive of the restriction on Planned Developments. Response: We have removed the 5% restriction on PUDs and instead replaced it with a requirement that PUDs are allowed only if the minimum individual building size in the proposed PUD is 25,000 square feet in floor area. The Owner's Association continues to believe that PUDs which involve a number of small lots and small buildings moves away from the overall objective of free-standing buildings with independent public sfreet frontage concept upon which the CRC was founded. As such, it is concluded that PUDs should be allowed only under limited circumstances and only when a finding is made that the PUD- designed development will result in a "campus-type" development, which will maintain the appearance of free-standing building(s) with individual public sfreet frontage, compatible with neighboring projects. It is felt that allowing PUDs only if the minimum building size is 25,000 feet will ensure these goals. 34. Page IV-9, Section 4.2.7.1, last paragraph. This appears to be an ARC restriction and shall not be contained within the Specific Plan. This section also conflicts with the City satellite antenna ordinance. Response: This revision has been made on p. lV-8. 55. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.7.3. Items six and nine are very similar and should be combined (or delete number 9). Response: Listed item #9 has been deleted on p. lV-9, as suggested. 36. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.8, Special Events. The City is not in a position to be able to notice properties of pending special events. The Special Events ordinance does have a public notice requirement prior to the actual special event pursuant to CMC Chapter 8.17. Please add a reference to CMC Chapter 8.17, Special Events Ordinance. Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-9. 37. Page IV-10, Section 4.3.1 refers to the ARC approval References to ARC or CRC Association processes shall not be contained within the Specific Plan. Response: Reference to the ARC approval in Section 4.3.1 has been removed on p. IV-9. 38. Page IV-11, second paragraph. Please delete the reference to requiring a Site Development Plan for structures over 35 feet in height. In an effort to keep building heights similar and defined as other industrial areas, please refer to the Building Height section of the C-M or P-M Zone for text to regulate building height. The City does not see a need to maintain the floor area ratio calculation and it shall be removed. Response: The reference to site development plan has been eliminated on p. IV-10. 39. Page IV-11, Third paragraph, please change San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission to Federal Aviation Administration. Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-10. 40. Page IV-11, Section 4.3.2, The Site Planning Design section would apply to a more discretionary process that is presently not a part of the City's development review process within CRC. This design review process would be more appropriately addressed during the ARC review of projects. The eight site planning design considerations shall be removed from the plan. PLANNING SYSTEMS ma Response: This section has been modified to eliminate the eight site planning design considerations, and rather reference the fact that that site planning shall implement the goals and objectives of this Specific Plan, that additional more detailed design criteria is located within the Design Guidelines document which is enforced by the Owner's association, and that the standards articulated in the Design Guidelines document may be more resfrictive than the general guidelines identified in this Specific Plan. 41. Page IV-13, section 4.3.2.3, parking. As noted above, the City is not supportive of restricting on street parking within the Plan area. Please also note that the City's minimum parking stall width of a compact car stall is eight feet. The CRC Design Guidelines allows a seven and one half wide stall which should be changed to coincide with the City's minimum stall width. Response: No change has been made to this section. Please see the response to #6 above. The CRC has initiated change to the Design Guidelines to provide for a minimum 8-foot wide compact car parking stall. 42. Page lV-14, Section 4.3.2.5 (4), The text added in this section should have been placed in the next section. Section 4.3.2.6, Screening of Equipment, under item four. The text shall reflect the screening of equipment enclosures, not "refuse collection " enclosures. Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-13. 43. Page IV-16, Section 4.3.2.7, item one should read "three and one halffeet" instead of three feet to match Section 4.3.2.2.d. Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-14. 44. PageIV-17, Section 4.3.3.4, please modify as follows " ...development or re-development..." Response: This revision has been made on p. IV-15. 45. Page lV-17, Section 4.3.4.1, The City does not support different sign standards than the remainder of the City. If the Association prefers to be more restrictive, then the sign section should be written as the parking section noting the Sign Ordinance and a disclaimer that the Park Association may be more restrictive. Response: This section has been modified to reference the fact that that signage criteria shall implement the goals and objectives of this Specific Plan, that additional more detailed signage design criteria is located within the Design Guidelines document which is enforced by the Owner's association, and that the standards articulated in the Design Guidelines document may be more restrictive than the guidelines identified in this Specific Plan. This information is provided on p. IV-15. 46. Page V-l, Section 5, please remove the reference to a Site Development Plan at the end of the first paragraph. No discretionary permits are required for the development of properties with permitted uses in Area 1 of the Park. Response: Reference to site development plan has been removed from p. V-l. 47. Page V-3, Table 3, please add after the first entry a new line for the following information, SP 180(A); OrdNo. 9594; Date 08/04/1981; Description: Adopt revised SP 180, repeal origmal SP 180. Please add the following project description for SP 180(A) (new third line), "Specific Plan revision to SP 180(A)." Response: This revision has been made on p. V-3. PLANNING SYSTEMS _Q Q_ Landscape comments: 7. Page 111-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan (SP) needs to clarify that although existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. 2"^ Review: The applicant has responded: "Please be aware that the CRC spends thousands of dollars each year on experts trying to keep the majestic Canary Island Date Palms alive and thriving. And they have become a landmark in the CRC. Our palm tree experts observe that naturalization of this species via seed can be avoided. Canary Island Date Palms are dioecious, having male flowers and female flowers on separate trees, with seeds being produced only on female trees. To ensure that no seed are produced is as simple as installing only male trees. At the time of purchase a male tree can be chosen and certified as such by a palm expert. The CRC has a landscape maintenance policy in place requiring that all palm seed growing on female trees be removed prior to maturity. This policy is intended to address two concerns: (1) maintaining a quality tree appearance by not allowing "skirting" to occur (skirting is the drooping of leaves after heavy fruiting has forced the leaves downward), and (2) to address the potential liability issue associated with pedestrians slipping on palm fruit having come to rest on a hard surface. Inasmuch as our Canary Island Date Palms constitute a majestic statement at the CRC entryways and at the main intersection, and for the reasons stated above that demonstrate how we can and do avoid seed distribution, we oppose any regulation that will restrict our ability to plant and maintain these trees. " The desire to maintain existing Canary Island Date Palms is understood; however this Palm is identified as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory and the ASLA Most Invasive Ornamentals for San Diego County. It is not clear how accurate the testing is that identifies male versus female palms. Ifit is possible to obtain only male palms, the existence of these male species will better allow propagation of any female species that may be in the area (within CRC or outside of CRC controlled areas). The cost to eradicate invasive species from open spaces and preserves is expensive and it is not desirable or in the best interest of these areas to continue planting invasive species that may cause undesirable effects. There are other non-invasive Palms that can provide a similar effect (i.e. Phoenix dactylifera) that could be used to replace the Canary Island Date Palms as needed. Please make revisions as previously requested. Response: The specific reference to Canary Island Date palms has been removed from the Specific Plan and replaced with the simple term "palm frees" on p. III-IO. Nonetheless, these majestic palms form a stately, balanced backdrop framing to the formal flowering plantings in CRC's entry and main intersection statements. The Owner's Association opposes the position that we cannot replace a single or multiple of the existing trees in this set if they become in need of replacement. It is obvious to us that replacement of a single free in these sets with a different species would negatively impact the desired aesthetic effect. The CRC opposes the inclusion of any wording in the Specific Plan which would restrict the ability to replace these existing trees if needed. Like most upscale business parks, the CRC is planted with formal, urban landscaping. Any effort to eliminate all non-natives will wholly modify the aesthetics of the park, and will thus be opposed by the Owner's Association. Some type of cost-benefit should be provided and analyzed before the City directs the removal of significant vegetation which forms the backdrop of the park. Further, the Canary Island Date palm is categorized in the lowest potential level of invasiveness on the Califomia Invasive Plant Inventory. This factor is also evidenced by the fact that these palms are only very infrequently found in any of Carlsbad's thousands of acres of open spaces. And in the very remote event that an invadmg immature plant were to volunteer within an open space area, it could be readily identified and removed before it became large. We request that the City consider the substantial investment that the Owner's Association has in these entry and intersection statements, and not use the Specific Plan to disallow replacement of these important frees if it becomes necessary. PLANNING SYSTEMS • _0 Q_ Engineering Comments: 7. A^o Engineering Standards variance application was received with the resubmittal as stated in the response to comments. The references regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) remain in the proposed specific plan amendment. Staff does not support the request for restriction of parking in existing public streets. There are two options to proceed with the requested specific plan amendment: remove all references restricting street parking or, prior to the approval of the specific plan amendment, apply and get approval for Engineering Standards variances for each of the streets that currently do not restrict parking. Applications for Engineering Standards variances need to be submitted at the Land Development Engineering counter and meet the requirements outlined in the Engineering Standards Volume 1, Chapter 3 Section 18. This section can be found at the following link: http://www. carlsbadca. gov/business/building/Documents/EngStandVol 1 chap3.pdf Response: Per the response to Plannmg comment #6 above, the Owner's Association believes that on-street parking confributes to blight and safety conflicts in this and other business parks. The Association is making every effort to reduce blight and make for a high-quality working environment in the CRC to the degree possible. Further, the City already prohibits parking on all major and collector roads in the CRC. Elimination of on-street parking on the remaining local and cul-de-sac roadways will not reduce available parking because per City requirements, all lots are required to contain sufficient on-site parkmg. Since it is the Engineering Staffs position that the CRC will need to process an engineering standards variance to authorize the parking prohibition, included with this resubmittal is an application, with processing fee, for such variance. We continue to remain hopeful that Engineering Staff will see that there is no substantive down-side, and only aesthetic and safety benefits to the CRC and the City will accrue from approval of prohibition to on-sfreet parking on the local and cul-de-sac streets within the CRC. An Engineering Standards Variance application has been submitted to the City Engineering counter in support of this request. 2. Thank you for adding a reference to Section 2.2.2 regarding storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. Upon further review, and since the SUSMP applies to all new development or redevelopment, it would seem more appropriate to be included in Section 3. Design Guidelines as a subsection of 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design. Such us: 3.3.4 Storm Water Quality Requirements - All new development and Redevelopment projects must conform to the storm water quality requirements per the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Response: The recommended wording has been eliminated from Section 2.2.2 and instead added to Section 3.3.4 (p. 111-16), as requested. We are hopeful that the Specific Plan is now acceptable to finalize for final CEQA review and hearings. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package. PaulT. Klukas Director ofPlanning cc: Colleen Reilly CRC ARC Committee members Attachments PLANNING SYSTEMS • Existing On-Street Parking Situation I Existing Parking Prohibited Existing Parking Allowed - Proposed for Parking Prohibited Existing Parking Allowed - Proposed to remain for "The Islands" Carlsbad Research Center Parking Analysis Parking Analysis. July 11, 2011 «^>c.,o. ® ^ FILE copy V^CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov June 9, 2011 CRC Owners' Association 5330 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Sirs, Your project was deemed complete on March 8, 2011. There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. Please contact me at (760) 602-4613, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, VAN LYNCH Senior Planner VL:bd Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Ave, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © SP i80(H) - CARLSBAD R^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AWItNDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The following Planning comments are in the order they appear in the Specific Plan document. 2. Page 1-1, Please change the 2010 date to 2011 throughout the document as appropriate. 3. Page 1-1, Section 1.1. Please remove the reference to the objectives of the CRC Owner's Association. 4. Page 1-5, Third Paragraph. Please change the number of mini-parks to seven (7). Fourth Paragraph, please change the SP Amendment date to 2011. 5. Page 1-8, Section 1.5. and Section 1.6 These sections contain discussion regarding the issues the CRC Park has regarding development and is not appropriate in the Specific Plan document. The City is not able to exercise discretion over the issuance of ministerial permits (building permits/lotline adjustments). Please remove any reference to the application of design review. The whole section should either be deleted or modified to only have the last two items. Changes in Use and Non-conforming uses, remaining. 6. Page 1-9, Staff is not supportive of the on-street parking prohibition. Please see Engineering comments below. 7. Page 11-1, Section 2.1, In the first paragraph, second sentence, please modify to ...Land Use designation..•• 8. Page 11-1, last paragraph, please add ...land use goals, objectives, and policies... 9. Figure 5. There appears a sliver of property within or adjacent to Lot 102. Please correct the lot line work or open space boundaries appropriately. 10. Page 11-4, Section 2.1.1, please modify ...Approximately 485 acres are devoted to this land use (or Approximately 485 acres are devoted to these uses.) 11. Page 11-4, Section 2.1.2, The end of the second paragraph implies that the redevelopment of the site would be needed before office buildings or commercial uses would be allowed. Please strike "if redeveloped in the future." 12. Page 11-4, last paragraph, ...by the Owner's Association HOA. 13. Page 11-5, Please correct Table 1 to reflect the acreage of the public park (2.9 acres), Commercial Retail (to include both Faraday/College and Faraday/ECR areas) and verify Commercial Tourist acreage (3.2 acres). SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD R^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN /^ENDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 3 14. Page 11-11, please correct the park acreages based on the data in Table 1 and reflect the ultimate park acreage as 12.9 acres. 15. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.3, First sentence, please correct "The establishment of an and 16. Page 11-12, Section 2.4.4 and Section 2.4.5. Both of these sections pertain more to the CRC Owners Association organization and process and is not appropriate in the Specific Plan. 17. Page lll-l. Design Guidelines Section. This section shall only include the contents of the previous specific plan, modified as needed to update the specific plan. This section appears to implement more of the CRC Design Guidelines than the previous specific plan text. 18. Page III-2, Section 3.2.1, please change the date to 2011. 19. Page III-3, Section 3.2.1.3, last sentence, Figure 14 is the Local Street Design. (There are two Figure 12s which throws the numbering off). 20. Page III-3, Section 3.2.1.4, forth sentence, ...sidewalks in this these locations. 21. Page 111-10, Section 3.2.1.7. The City is not supportive of restricting on street parking. 22. Page 111-11, Section 3.2.3, Open Space. The City continues to review the application and the subsequent potential requirement for HMP compliance for the natural open space areas of the Specific Plan area. It is a goal of the City to have all development projects comply with the habitat preservation and conservation standards of the HMP. 23. Page 111-12, Section 3.3.2, last sentence, the City would like a more definitive threshold as opposed to being undefined. The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 18.50.040) states "A rehabilitated landscape for an existing industrial, commercial, institutional, public agency, or multifamily use where a building permit or discretionary permit is being issued and the applicant is installing or modifying two thousand five hundred square feet or more of landscaping." The Specific Plan shall use this threshold for consistency purposes. 24. Page 111-13, 1. General Statement. Please change "other front yard" to "street side setbacks." 25. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.4(1), please delete the reference to Appendix E-1. The City is in the process of revising the landscape manual and these references may not be applicable. 26. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.1. Much of this section appears to be between the Association and property owner and is not appropriate text for the Specific Plan. 27. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2.4(4), please change "area" to "areas." SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD R&^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ^W^NDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 4 28. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. The City is in the process of modifying the Zoning ordinance to allow delicatessens by right in the industrial zones. Delis could be moved up to Section 4.2.1.2 as a permitted accessory use as presently stated. 29. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.1.3 Conditional Uses. The City is in the process of permitting limited retail uses in conjunction with a primary use in the industrial zones. Up to 1,000 square feet of associated retail would be permitted by right for the sale of goods or services manufactured, processed or warehoused on site. A Regular Conditional Use Permit would be required for up to 2,000 square feet of associated retail. Please add these allowances in the Accessory and Conditional Use sections as appropriate. 30. Page IV-4, Section 4.2.2, The end of the first paragraph implies the redevelopment of the site would be needed before office buildings or commercial uses would be allowed. Please strike "and are intended to stay that way until those properties are re-developed. At that time they may ..." 31. Page IV-5, Section 4.2.1.2 CUP references to findings in section 4.2.1 that do not exist. Please reference findings of CMC 21.42 for Conditional uses. 32. Page IV-5, Section 4.2.4. Area 3. This area should allow area 1 uses as identified in the Specific Plan. It would be preferred to not have an Area 3 and to allow the development of Lot 96 as a park by CUP as in the original Specific Plan. Other Specific Plan text would also need to be changed accordingly to reflect this change. 33. Page IV-8, Section 4.2.5 The City is not supportive of the restriction on Planned Developments. 34. Page IV-9, Section 4.2.7.1, last paragraph. This appears to be an ARC restriction and shall not be contained within the Specific Plan. This section also conflicts with the City satellite antenna ordinance. 35. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.7.3. Items six and nine are very similar and should be combined (or delete number 9). 36. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.8, Special Events. The City is not in a position to be able to notice properties of pending special events. The Special Events ordinance does have a public notice requirement prior to the actual special event pursuant to CMC Chapter 8.17. Please add a reference to CMC Chapter 8.17, Special Events Ordinance. 37. Page IV-10, Section 4.3.1 refers to the ARC approval. References to ARC or CRC Association processes shall not be contained within the Specific Plan. 38. Page IV-11, second paragraph. Please delete the reference to requiring a Site Development Plan for structures over 35 feet in height. In an effort to keep building heights similar and defined as other industrial areas, please refer to the Building Height section of the C-M or P-M Zone for text to regulate building height. The City does not see a need to maintain the floor area ratio calculation and it shall be removed. 39. Page IV-11, Third paragraph, please change San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission to Federal Aviation Administration. SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD R'KEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ^^NDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 5 40. Page IV-11, Section 4.3.2, The Site Planning Design section would apply to a more discretionary process that is presently not a part of the City's development review process within CRC. This design review process would be more appropriately addressed during the ARC review of projects. The eight site planning design considerations shall be removed from the plan. 41. Page IV-13, section 4.3.2.3, parking. As noted above, the City is not supportive of restricting on street parking within the Plan area. Please also note that the City's minimum parking stall width of a compact car stall is eight feet. The CRC Design Guidelines allows a seven and one half wide stall which should be changed to coincide with the City's minimum stall width. 42. Page IV-14, Section 4.3.2.5 (4), The text added in this section should have been placed in the next section. Section 4.3.2.6, Screening of Equipment, under item four. The text shall reflect the screening of equipment enclosures, not "refuse collection" enclosures. 43. Page IV-16, Section 4.3.2.7, item one should read "three and one half feet" instead of three feet to match Section 4.3.2.2.d. 44. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.3.4, please modify as follows "...development or re- development..." 45. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.4.1, The City does not support different sign standards than the remainder of the City. If the Association prefers to be more restrictive, then the sign section should be written as the parking section noting the Sign Ordinance and a disclaimer that the Park Association may be more restrictive. 46. Page V-1, Section 5, please remove the reference to a Site Development Plan at the end of the first paragraph. No discretionary permits are required for the development of properties with permitted uses in Area 1 of the Park. 47. Page V-3, Table 3, please add after the first entry a new line for the following information, SP 180(A); Ord No. 9594; Date 08/04/1981; Description: Adopt revised SP 180, repeal original SP 180. Please add the following project description for SP 180(A) (new third line), "Specific Plan revision to SP 180(A)." Landscape comments: Please make the following revisions to the Specific Plan to meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Page 111-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan (SP) needs to clarify that although existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. 2"" Review: The applicant has responded: "Please be aware that the CRC spends thousands of dollars each year on experts trying to keep the majestic SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD F^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN A^^NDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 6 Canary Island Date Palms alive and thriving. And they have become a landmark in the CRC. Our palm tree experts observe that naturalization of this species via seed can be avoided. Canary Island Date Palms are dioecious, having male flowers and female flowers on separate trees, with seeds being produced only on female trees. To ensure that no seed are produced is as simple as installing only male trees. At the time of purchase a male tree can be chosen and certified as such by a palm expert. The CRC has a landscape maintenance policy in place requiring that all palm seed growing on female trees be removed prior to maturity. This policy is intended to address two concerns: (1) maintaining a quality tree appearance by not allowing "skirting" to occur (skirting is the drooping of leaves after heavy fruiting has forced the leaves downward), and (2) to address the potential liability issue associated with pedestrians slipping on palm fruit having come to rest on a hard surface. Inasmuch as our Canary Island Date Palms constitute a majestic statement at the CRC entryways and at the main intersection, and for the reasons stated above that demonstrate how we can and do avoid seed distribution, we oppose any regulation that will restrict our ability to plant and maintain these trees." The desire to maintain existing Canary Island Date Palms is understood; however this Palm is identified as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory and the ASLA Most Invasive Ornamentals for San Diego County. It is not clear how accurate the testing is that identifies male versus female palms. If it is possible to obtain only male palms, the existence of these male species will better allow propagation of any female species that may be in the area (within CRC or outside of CRC controlled areas). The cost to eradicate invasive species from open spaces and preserves is expensive and it is not desirable or in the best interest of these areas to continue planting invasive species that may cause undesirable effects. There are other non-invasive Palms that can provide a similar effect (i.e. Phoenix dactylifera) that could be used to replace the Canary Island Date Palms as needed: Please make revisions as previously requested. Comments 2 through 7 have been addressed and completed. Engineering: 1. No Engineering Standards variance application was received with the resubmittal as stated in the response to comments. The references regarding the restriction of parking in the public streets within Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) remain in the proposed specific plan amendment. Staff does not support the request for restriction of parking in existing public streets. There are two options to proceed with the requested specific plan amendment: remove all references restricting street parking or, prior to the approval of the specific plan amendment, apply and get approval for Engineering Standards variances for each of the streets that currently do not restrict parking. Applications for Engineering Standards variances need to be submitted at the Land Development Engineering counter and meet the requirements outlined in the Engineering Standards Volume 1, Chapter 3 Section 18. This section can be found at the following link: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/business/building/Documents/EngStandVol1chap3.pdf SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD R^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN /^NDMENT June 9, 2011 Page 7 2. Thank you for adding a reference to Section 2.2.2 regarding storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. Upon further review, and since the SUSMP applies to all new development or redevelopment, it would seem more appropriate to be included in Section 3. Design Guidelines as a subsection of 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design. Such us: 3.3.4 Storm Water Quality Requirements All new development and Redevelopment projects must conform to the storm water quality requirements per the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION April 13,2011 RECEIVED Mr. Van Lynch CITY OF CARLSBAD , ^ Planning Department ^'^^"^ ^ ^ <^^J^' SsbaTS^i CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT RE: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Lynch: Per your letter dated March 8, 2011, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced project, the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Board of Directors has commissioned modifications to the Draft CRC Specific Plan. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find six (6) copies of a Bold/Strike-out version of the second draft of the document. Also included with this cover letter and copies of the revised Specific Plan is the redlined version of the l" submittal document. Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments listed in the March 8 letter. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Overall comment: The Specific Plan shall include a statement that minor landscaping concept changes and plant species may be changed without the need of a Specific Plan amendment upon approval by the City and CRC Owner's Association separately. The term "minor" will need to be defined. Response: Wording has been added to address this matter on p. III-l. 2. Please contact the owners of the M zoned parcel on La Place Court and the one P-M Zoned parcel no Newton Drive to consider being annexed into the Association as they benefit from the CRC Association. The City would process a Zone Change/Local Coastal Program Amendment to clean up the Zoning Map and to have the parcel consistently zoned as the surrounding properties. Response: Letters were sent to the property owners on March 27, 2011 inquiring as to whether they would be interested in annexing into the CRC Association. No response has befen received to date. 3. The City does not support the removal of the Area 2 uses from the El Camino Real/Faraday Ave intersection. Staff is supportive of maintaining the properties as Area 2 uses to continue the ability to provide support services to the CRC Business Park. The Park has lost Area 2 uses from the original plan at the College/Faraday intersection by the development of Area 1 uses. The Plan should include an allowance of Area 1 uses in Area 2. Response: Modifications have been made throughout the document to continue to allow both Area 1 and Area 2 uses on the northwest and southwest comers of El Cammo Real and Faraday Avenue. These two lots are now referenced as lots within Area 2a. These Area 2a lots at the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Camino Real have been constructed as office buildings and are intended to stay that way until those properties are re-developed. At that time they may be developed as either office or commercial (Area 2a) uses. 1 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net 4. The project shall be required to comply with Chapter 21.201.050, Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Habitat Management requirements, for the permanent management, maintenance, and biological monitoring of the existing HMP hardline preserve areas. The Center for Natural Lands Management manages the City's property on Faraday Ave. Response: The CRC will oppose any condition requiring any additional compliance with the Carlsbad HMP for the following reasons: • The existing HMP hardline was evidently placed by the City on properties within the CRC without the knowledge or consent of the property owners. • The existing HMP hardline encumbers Emerald Lake property which is neither vegetated with native vegetation nor contributes to any substantive habitat corridor. The Emerald Lake area was originally designed as a reclaimed water reservoir for the City, and to retain surface drainage for flood control. The facility was originally built for the City, it was offered for dedication to the City, and was rejected by the City. 5. Revisions to Specific Plan will require an amendment to CC&Rs post City approval Response: This statement is acknowledged. Post City Council approval, the CRC will amend the CC&Rs to reflect the new Specific Plan. The existing City-approved CC&Rs document stipulates that that the City has the full power to enforce any breach of the CC&Rs regulations, duties, obligations or requirements and that the City has the power to demand remedy, lien, or foreclose in order to enforce the CC&Rs, if necessary. These remedies are not affected and will continue with this proposed Specific Plan and the follow-up amended CC&Rs. 6. The project will need to consider how to address Condition No. 13 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2508for CT 85-24 which restricted the uses of Lots 97 — 100 to office uses only. Response: Revision reflecting the office use restriction on these lots is made on p. lV-9. 7. The City is in the process of updating the Landscape Manual Development projects within the Specific Plan will need to reference and show compliance with the Landscape Manual. Response: Wording has been added on p. 111-12 which stipulates that the requu-ements of the Landscape Manual shall be met for new projects or significant revisions to existing projects except as modified by this Specific Plan. 8. Please consider the use of color on the document exhibits. Once the Specific Plan is adopted, copies of the document will need to be made and the color copies may be expensive and/or may not reproduce well in black and white. Response: We have made some modifications to the exhibits to use diagrammatic and pattern forms rather than colors so that they should result in improved readability when reproduced in black-and-white. We note that a good number of master plans in the City have color graphics. P. Page I-l, third paragraph, last sentence needs to clarify the application of the Specific Plan is to any and all development within the CRC. See second sentence of first paragraph. Response: Revision made on p. 1-1. 10. Page 1-1, Please delete "the purpose of the Specific Plan is to address specific land use and operational issues that have arisen..." as this does not belong in the Specific Plan. Overall the proposed Specific Plan includes an undercurrent of issues and problems to be fixed rather than a more positive objective of developing a high end business park with applicable regulations to achieve this objective. This discussion is more appropriate to include in a Staff Report. PLANNING SYSTEMS Response: Revision made on p. 1-1. 11. Figure 2, please add street names to unlabeled streets, i.e. College Boulevard, Avenida Encinas, and Paseo del Norte. Response: Street names have been added to Figure 2, as requested. 12. Figure 3, please make the line symbol identifying the project area more discernable. Response: The line symbols have been increased in line weight to make Figure 3 more readable. 13. Page 1-6, Please modify the third bullet point to 'Provide a regulatory document for the regulation of development within the CRC." The Specific Plan is not going to resolve existing land use issues. Response: Revision made on p. 1-5. 14. Page 1-8, Please delete Section 1.4.1, the discussion of existing issues and concerns, as these should not be the objective of the Specific Plan as previously mentioned. The City does not want to take on the Association's responsibility of mediating issues between the Association and CRC tenants. Response: It is recognized that the City does not wish to take on the responsibility of mediating issues between the CRC Owner's Association and CRC tenants. Nonetheless, the CRC believes that it is essential to provide some background and context for the users of this Specific Plan. Included in this background and context are the substantive issues or reasons that this amended Specific Plan is necessary, so late in the development process of the park. To this end, this section has been modified and shortened, and now provides a brief discussion of the internal issues that have historically arisen during the life of the CRC and how this Specific Plan intends to efficiently address them. In light of the City's comment above, this Specific Plan also now states clearly that" While it is not the intent of this specific plan that the City of Carlsbad enforce the CC&R's, Design Guidelines and other internal CRC land use documents [unless the City voluntarily enforces], this discussion is intended to identify the context and environment in which this specific plan is developed, and which the requirements of this specific plan are intended to address." This information is on pp. 1-8 to I-10 of this new draft. 15. Page 1-9, Please delete "...general concept to prohibit on-street parking." The City is not supportive of regulating parking on public streets. Response: This suggested revision has not been made. On-street parking is generally prohibited aheady in much of the CRC, including Faraday Ave. and College Blvd. Inasmuch as each lot is required to provide sufficient parking so that on-street parking is not needed, and on-street parking is a negative feature which contributes to visual blight, the CRC is requesting that the City cooperate in prohibiting on-street parking within the CRC except as indicated adjacent to the commercial uses on Van Allen Way. The CRC will apply for an Engineering Standards variance for this action, if necessary. 16. Page I-l 1, Section 1.4.1.6, Please reference non-conforming section of the Zoning Ordinance for standards, procedures, and enforcement. Response: Referenced to CMC Chap. 21.48 has been added to p. 1-10. / 7. Page 11-3, Figure Five. Please add Area Two use areas to the parcels on the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue per the original plan. Response: As indicated in the response to comment #3 above, commercial land use has been replaced on the lots on each side of Faraday Ave. at El Camino Real. This area is identified now as part of Area 2a. Commercial uses will be allowed for any re-development proposed on these lots. Change has been also made to the text on p. II-4 [and other locations within the Specific Plan] to reflect this commercial land use, as requested. PLANNING SYSTEMS • 18. Page II-4, Section 2.1.3. Please add at the end of the sentence "... and will extend into property northerly of the CRC boundary for a total park area of 12.9 acres." Response: Revision made on p. 11-5. 19. Page 11-4, Section 2.2.1, Warehousing and distribution is later allowed in Section 4.2.1.5 as a primary use. Response: Revision made on p. 11-4. Warehousing and distribution are allowed uses within Area 1 Research and Development. 20. Page 11-7, Section 2.2.2 does not exist. Response: Section 2.2.3 has been replaced with Section 2.2.2 on p. 11-11 for proper order of the sub- chapter headings. 21. Page II-7, Section 2.2.1, last paragraph regarding sidewalks on both side conflicts with a statement in Section 3.2.1.4 where sidewalks are not provided on both sides. There are sections of Rutherford Rd. that do not have sidewalks on both sides. Response: Revision has been made on p. II-7 indicating "...the majority of the streets..." 22. Page 11-8, Figure 7, please review line symbols as some appear both gray and solid black for the same symbol Also review for accuracy of line data. Consider requesting line data from GIS and adding main reclaimed water lines. The data in the Figure does not appear complete. Response: The line symbols on Figure 7 have been revised. Additional information has been provided for reclaimed water lines, etc. 23. Page II-9, Section 2.3, please add the Parcel Number (Parcel Map Figure 8) for Lot 11 to identify which Lot is being discussed. Response: Revision made on p. 11-9. 24. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.2, last sentence of City of Carlsbad Maintenance, please exchange "park" for "CRC" to clarify that the remainder of the park development is outside the confines of the CRC. Response: Revision made on p. 11-11. 25. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.2, last paragraph refers to "this section" which implies the whole section. This should be clarified to CRC Owner's Association responsibilities. Response: Revision made to clarify on p. II-l 1. 26. Page 11-12, Figure 9, please add a bullet point and Mini Park designation to Emerald Lake. The Specific plan identifies 8 (eight) mini parks and Figure 9 only identifies seven (Emerald Lake would be the eighth?). Response: Clarification that seven (7) mini-parks exist in the CRC has been made on p. II-l 1. Emerald Lake is not a mini-park masmuch as it is a water detention basin and desihing facility. No change has been made to the exhibit on this matter. 27. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.3. Please change CC&R's to CC&Rs throughout It is a plural abbreviation, not possessive. PLANNING SYSTEMS Response: Revisions have been made to reflect this change throughout the document. 28. Page 11-12 Section 2.4.4 Design Guidelines. The last sentence discusses the responsibilities of the CRC Owner's Associations responsibility in enforcing the specific plan. It was understood from our previous meetings with you that the CRC was interested in revising the Specific Plan to add additional enforcement by the City. There will need to be a clear understanding as to the roles and responsibilities and inclusion of CRC Owner's Association ARC and sub-committees roles in the Specific Plan. Response: Revision has been made to clarify that in general, the City's responsibility is to enforce the Specific Plan and the CRC's responsibility is to enforce the Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, and the CC&Rs. This is notwithstanding that the City has the fiill power to enforce the CC&Rs. This concept is clarified on p. 11-12. 29. Page I1I-2, Section 3.1. Please clarify the last sentence of this section. What views are being discussed and what is "a single visual unit? " Response: The sentence on p. III-2 including the wording "single visual unit" have been removed from the paragraph. 30. Page III-2, Section 3.2.1.2, Collector Street Design. Please change the word "structural" to "building ", as used in the previous Section 3.2.1.1 related to setbacks. Response: Revision made on p. 111-2. 31. Page III-3, Section 3.2.1.4. Sidewalks. Sidewalks may be installed by the developer if new construction is proposed or significant modifications are proposed to the existing building. The City also has a Capital Improvement Program which installs missing sidewalks. CRC should consider adding a sidewalk to connect the western side of Emerald Lake to the access road to Faraday Ave. to complete a paved pedestrian connectivity route. Response: Wordmg has been added on p. III-3 to acknowledge that sidewalks may be installed by the developer and that the City has a CIP fund which installs missing sidewalks. Also however, please be advised however that the CRC is not supportive of any trail or sidewalk that encourages the public to hike through or around Emerald Lake. Emerald Lake is not a mini park as indicated in the response to comment #26 above. It is a desiltation and storm water storage facility. Additionally, Emerald Lake and the surroundmg area is maintained by the CRC Owner's Association. The liability costs and maintenance burden associated with encouraging public access to this area would not be in the best interests of the CRC. 32. Page 111-9, Section 3.2.1.6. A Policy should be added to limit the amount of site lighting to encourage Dark Sky concepts and related lighting impacts to the airport night environment. Response: A policy encouraging Dark Sky concepts has been added to p. Ill-10. 33. Page III-IO, Section 3.2.1.7 Parking. City does not want to preclude parking on public streets. Response: No change made. CRC requests that the City re-visit this issue, as indicated in response to comment #15 above. Parking on the public streets in the CRC streets is not needed, nor desired. 34. Page 111-11 Section 3.3. City does not want to preclude parking on public streets. Response: No change made for the reasons stated earlier. 35. Page 111-11 Section 3.3.1 Architectural Guidelines. What is the process for architectural review of projects within the CRC? The City has not been involved in this role since the inception of the CRC park (except for the Commercial areas and three story buildings). Is the City to apply discretion regarding the PLANNING SYSTEMS • design and style of buildings within CRC? Is there an appeal process established? (Building permits are typically appealed to City Council directly). Response: The specifics of the architectural guidelines have been eliminated from this draft of the Specific Plan. It was not our intent to involve the City in the role of architectural review. The Specific Plan (Section 3.3.1 on p. III-l 1) now clarifies that all development projects within the CRC shall comply with the Design Guidelines and also that the ARC shall review all proposed development for consistency with the Design Guidelines and the CC&Rs. This is again notwithstanding the fact that the City maintains the ability to enforce the CC&Rs. Wording has also been included in the Specific Plan that encourages that the ARC review and approval be achieved prior to submittal to the City of Carlsbad for landscape plancheck or other necessary City entitlements. 36. Page 111-12, Section 3.3.1.1.2 (a). The fragmentation of buildings into smaller or multiple structures is contradictory to the overall desire of the CRC to have large single tenant users. Response: This section has been removed from the Specific Plan on p. Ill-11. 37. Page 111-12 Section 3.3.1.1. Last paragraph. This section references a "design review submittal process" which does not exist in the Specific Plan. This is a CRC ARC function and not a City review process and should be removed from the plan. Response: This section has been removed from the Specific Plan as indicated in the response to comment #35 above. 38. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2 Landscape Design Guidelines. Last paragraph states that any new landscape installations require approval Is there an area thresholdfor what qualifies? Response: Wording is included on p. Ill-12 that replacement or rehabilitation of dead or unhealthy landscaping in a manner that is consistent with the original approved landscape plan shall not dictate review and approval by the CRC and the Planning Department. 39. Page 111-14 Section 3.3.2.1 Landscape Coverage. Add "and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. " Response: This wording has been added on p. 111-12. 40. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.3 Interior Landscaping. Please clarify the location of the "interior zone " by the following: "..from the streetside setback line to the interior side and rear property lines of each parcel" Response: Revision made on p. III-l3. 41. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.3 Interior Landscaping. Undeveloped or unpaved areas are required to have a cover crop (hydro seed) which is established by irrigation. Response: Revision made on p. 111-13. 42. Page III-l 5, Section 3.3.2.4.1 Tree wells and planter areas are to be 4 (four) feet wide minimum. See City Landscape Manual for details. Response: Revision made on p. 111-14. 43. Page III-16, Section 3.3.2.6 Slope Banks. What if slopes are less than 5:1? Are they not considered slopes and receive landscaping anyways? Are these slope areas covered by the LMA being adjacent to rights-of-ways? PLANNING SYSTEMS Response: All areas are intended to be landscaped, regardless of slope gradient. A minor change has been made to p. III-I4 to clarify that all slopes of any height or gradient shall be landscaped. This shall include LMA areas and privately-owned areas. 44. Page 111-16, Section 3.3.3. Landscape Maintenance. CC&Rs (Article 11.5, page 28, 1988 Version) also have a provision for the City to perform necessary maintenance and charge the individual tenant or property owner as required. Add this to this section under a separate heading of General Maintenance. Response: A General Maintenance section has been added as Section 3.3.3.3 on p. 111-15. 45. Page lV-1, Section 4.2. This section should include a section on accessory uses. Newer technologies include solar facilities, wind generating devices, and electric auto charging stations. Wireless Communication Facilities should also be included as an allowed use consistent with the zoning Ordinance and City Policy 64. Response: Revision made on p. IV-4. Per the CC&Rs, these uses will necessitate approval by the CRC ARC in addition to approval by the City. 46. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.5 identifies distribution and warehousing as a permitted use. Section 2.1.1 prohibits warehousing as a primary use. Response: This conflict has been corrected. Distribution and warehousing are a permitted use in Area 1. 47. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.8 should list the items as in the other examples to identify the uses easier. One Section for permitted uses and another Section for prohibited uses. Other uses which have been questionable or are non-conforming uses with the CRC should be listed as permitted or prohibited uses, including uses such as day spas. Veterinarian services when identified as "research facilities," counseling offices (medical and non-medical), schools (all types), office type uses not corporate in nature (Chamber of Commerce), etc. Another use that may be considered as an allowed use is medical clinical trials. Response: Clarification on the acceptability of these uses has been made on pp. IV-1 through IV-4. 48. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.9 and 10. These have been commonly misinterpreted and need to be clarified as to what each of these items allows. Response: This section has been re-organized on pp. IV-2 and lV-4. 49. Page IV-4, Item 11. Please make Churches a separate item (Number 12) and expand the term (i.e places of worship). Response: Revision made on p. IV-4. 50. Page IV-4, Are 1 Conditional Uses. The sentence at the end of this section precludes churches which are also listed in item 11 above. Add retail uses to list of prohibited uses as in items 11 above? Please address other uses which have been past issues such as medical type service uses and schools (both public and private). The City is supportive of higher educational facilities such as occupational training, specialty training facilities, and satellite University facilities which would complement the technology of the Park. Wireless communication facilities shall be added as conditional uses. Response: These revisions have been made on p. IV-4. 5/. Page lV-6, Section 4.2.5, please correct the use of PUDs to non-possessive (not PUD's). Response: PUDs have been corrected throughout the document. PLANNING SYSTEMS • ID- 52. Page IV-9, first paragraph reference "standards a through e above. " and there are no previous standards. These lots were conditioned in the original Tract Map to be used as office type uses for compatibility with the adjacent residential land use. Response: Revision made on p. IV-9. 53. Page IV-9, second paragraph should be incorporated into the following Section 4.2.7.3 as it appears redundant. Response: Revision made on p. IV-10. 54. Page lV-9, Section 4.2.7.3 should list numerically the hazards on private property. The items in sentence form are difficult to follow. Response: Revision made on p. IV-10. 55. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.8 — Special Events. Special events are regulated by Chapter 8.17 of the Municipal Code. The City also has an Administrative Policy (Community Development Policy 8) on special event s on private property not meeting the definition of Chapter 8.17. Please delete the reference to a MCUP for Special Events. Response: Revision made on p. IV-10. Wording of the revision directs the City to notify the CRC Owner's Association of pending or approved special events. 56. Page lV-12, Section 4.3.2.1, Site Coverage. Please compare and determine if there is a conflict in the allowed site coverage percentages against the Floor Area Ratio of 2:1 specified in Section 4.3.1, Building Height. Response: Our investigation concludes that no conflict exists between the two standards. 57. Page IV-13, Section 4.3.2.3. Parking. The requirements of the park exceed what is presently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. For consistency sake, the City would prefer that the parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance be used. Compact parking stall width is a minimum of 8 feet wide. Response: Parking standards by use have been eliminated from the document on p. IV-13. Reference is instead made to the fact that CRC parking standards in the Design Guidelines may be more sfringent than CMC Chap. 21.44. 58. Page IV-15, Section 4.3.2.6.4, please specify no fabric or metal mesh materials. They are very transparent in certain light and we have not had much success with them. Response: Revision made on p. IV-14. 59. Page IV-16, Section 4.3.2.6.6 & 7, and Section 4.3.2.7.2 & 3, on advice from our legal council, the City does not have the ability to require an applicant to submit ARC approval prior to the issuance of permits. Response: This revised Specific Plan has modified this wording on pp. IV-14 and IV-15. 60. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.3. Chapter 21.06 has exceptions for buildings and enlargement of buildings less than 1000 sq ft. Is the intent of the CRC to follow this same exception? Would a reduction of building size need a SDP? Response: The exceptions allowed in 21.06.040 have been referenced in this draft of the Specific Plan on p IV-16. PLANNING SYSTEMS m • 61. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.4, Signage shall defer to the City's sign ordinance. The City encourages a more homogeneous approach to the regulations of signs in the industrial parks by application of the Sign Ordinance. Any future changes to the Sign Ordinance will be more easily implemented by having just one source for sign regulations and less apt to be misinterpreted with various sign standards. Response: In the interest of maintaining a "unique" place, please be aware that the CRC does not desire to have the same rules and regulations for development as the balance of the city of Carlsbad. We believe that a fundamental concept behind master/ specific planning is the customization of planning and design regulations to meet the goals of the planned area. For primarily aesthetic reasons, the CRC desires more sfrict sign controls than found in the other business parks in Carlsbad. To this end, no change to the identified sign confrols has been made in this draft. These are the same sign regulations adopted by the CRC in 2003 in their Design Guidelines. They have been enforced successfully ever since their adoption. The CRC believes that then- strict sign regulations set the CRC apart from the other parks. We urge the City to continue to allow the CRC to have sfricter signage confrols than the other areas. 62. Page lV-17, section 4.3.4.1. The second paragraph cannot regulate the message of a sign, only the time, place and manner. Response: We do not believe that the proposed sign regulations conflict with the "time, place and manner" concept. No change has been made here. 63. PageIV-27, Section 4.3.5, Lighting Standards. Section 4.3.5.1.4, is "wall washing..which spills outside... encouraged? " Please add that up lighting is prohibited as the project is within the vicinity of the Palomar Airport and to promote "Dark Skies " to prevent light pollution. Response: Revision made on p. IV-27. 64. Page lV-28, Section 4.3.5.2, please add "unless restricted by the height requirements of the Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or FAA obstruction standards." Response: Wording added on p. IV-27. 65. Page V-l, Section 5, Development Review Process. Is it the intent of the CRC to require a SDP for the development of any lot within CRC? Further discussion will need to be had to determine the entitlement process. Response: It is not the intent ftf the CRC to modify the building permit or SDP process from that presently required. The wording has been revised to reflect this. 66. Please see redlined copy for minor text revision and data for the Specific Plan Amendment log. Response: The changes in the redlined copy have been made. 67. Please make the following revisions to the Specific Plan so that it will meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual. a) Page III-IO, 3.2.2. Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan needs to clarify that although existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. Response: Please be aware that the CRC spends thousands of dollars each year on experts trying to keep the majestic Canary Island Date Palms alive and thriving. And they have become a landmark in the CRC. PLANNING SYSTEMS Our palm free experts observe that naturalization of this species via seed can be avoided. Canary Island Date Palms are dioecious, having male flowers and female flowers on separate frees, with seeds being produced only on female frees. To ensure that no seed are produced is as simple as installing only male frees. At the time of purchase a male free can be chosen and certified as such by a palm expert. The CRC has a landscape maintenance policy in place requiring that all palm seed growing on female frees be removed prior to maturity. This policy is intended to address two concerns; (1) maintaining a quality free appearance by not allowing "skulmg" to occur (skirting is the drooping of leaves after heavy Ihiiting has forced the leaves downward), and (2) to address the potential liability issue associated with pedesfrians slipping on palm fruit having come to rest on a hard surface. Inasmuch as our Canary Island Date Palms constitute a majestic statement at the CRC entryways and at the main intersection, and for the reasons stated above that demonsfrate how we can and do avoid seed disfribution, we oppose any regulation that will resfrict our ability to plant and maintain these frees. b) Page III-IO, 3.2.2. Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 3: This paragraph references the use of American Sweet Gum trees. It is noted that this species has been infected with Xylella fastidiosa, a bacterial pathogen responsible for scorch symptoms and shoot dieback The infected trees were located close by on Cannon Road at the Robertson Ranch development It is recommended that verbiage be added to the SP indicating that a substitute species be provided for any new plantings Response: Revision made on p. III-IO. c) Page 111-14, 3.2.2. Landscape Design Guidelines: Please add verbiage indicating that requirements of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual are to be met except as modified by this SP. Response: Wording has been added on p. lll-l 1. d) Page III-l5, 3.3.2.4. Parking Lot Landscaping, Paragraph 1: It is recommended that the number of trees be revised to one per each four (versus five) parking stalls to be consistent with the Landscape Manual. Response: Revision made on p. III-13. e) Page III-l 5, 3.3.2.4. Parking Lot Landscaping, #1, Tree wells and planter areas: It is recommended that landscape planter dimensions be revised to be consistent with Appendix E-1 of the Landscape Manual. Response: Revision made on p. 111-14. f) Page III-16, 3.3.2.4. Parking Lot Landscaping, #2, Curbs: It is recommended that this paragraph be revised to consider Low Impact Development (LID). In many new projects interior parking lot curbs are being replaced with wheel stops to allow hardscape drainage into landscaped areas (bio- swales). Response: Revision made on p. 111-14. g) Page 111-16, 3.3.2.4. Parking Lot Landscaping, #5, Screening: Please delete the words "interrupt to" in the first sentence. Parking areas need to be screened. "Interrupt" is not definitive and subject to interpretation. Response: Revision made on p. 111-14. PLANNING SYSTEMS • jQ. Engineering: /. Section 1.4.1.2. Parking Issues, Section 3.2.1.7. Parking, Section 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design, and Section 4.3.2.3 Parking make reference to prohibiting parking in the public streets within CRC. All public street parking is regulated by the Engineering Standards. A specific plan is not a regulatory document to control public street parking. An application for a variance to prohibit public street parking needs to be processed, review and approved by a separate action other than the Specific Plan Amendment application. Response: An Engineering Standards variance application is included with this resubmittal. 2. Section 1.5 Legal Authority, third paragraph, states "Any violation of the standards and regulations identified in the specific plan shall be considered a violation of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. The specific plan standards also cover more sections than only the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance; reference should be made to the Municipal Code instead. Response: Revision made on p. I-11. 3. Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services, the last sentence of the second paragraphs should be the first sentence of the third paragraph. The second sentence should read "Water distribution lines exist within the public streets and easements within lots in the CRC". Response: Revision made on p. II-7. 4. A paragraph should be added to Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services making reference to storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. Response: Reference to compliance with the SUSMP has been made on p. 11-7. 5. Section 2.3 Existing Lots within CRC, second paragraph makes reference to Lot 11 access-way to off- CRC property. Lot 11 is not adjacent to the CRC boundary. Response: A change has been made to reflect the proper lot number on p. II-9. We are hopeful that the Specific Plan is now acceptable to finalize for fmal CEQA review and hearings. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package. Sincerely, Paul J. Klukas Director ofPlanning cc: Colleen Reilly CRC ARC Committee members Attachments PLANNING SYSTEMS • CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 28, 2011 CRC Owners' Association 5330 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 SUBJECT: SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project: The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.04.070(A)(1)(c), minor municipal code amendments that do not involve physical modifications or lead to physical improvements beyond those typically exempt. No environmental review is required for the project. A Notice of Exemption will be filed after approval of the project with the San Diego County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Prior to the final public hearing for the project, please submit a check to the project planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. A Notice of Determination will be filed after approval of the project with the San Diego County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Please submit a check to the project planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner, Van Lynch, at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP Planning Director DN:VL:BD c: Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Team Leader Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® PLANNING SYSTEMS n • LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION March 27, 2011 Manager LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 5791 Van Allen Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: 5823 NEWTON DR. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Dear Property Owner: You may be aware that the above-referenced lot (APN 212-050-43) that you own on Newton Drive in Carlsbad, Cahfornia is located just outside the limits of the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Specific Plan area, however, the balance of your buildings are within the CRC. My firm has been hired by the CRC Board of Directors to draft up and process for City approval an amendment to the existing CRC Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is the main document regulating land use policy and development resfrictions for the CRC. The policies articulated in the Specific Plan provide for planning cohesion and aesthetic consistency of development within the CRC. The proposed amendment is intended to update and continue the program of responsible and aesthetically-pleasing, high end business park development. During our recent discussions on this matter with the City of Carlsbad Planning Staff, City representatives mquired as to whether the owners of your Newton Dr. lot might wish to annex into the CRC, inasmuch as yoiu" lot is primarily access through the CRC and you thus benefit from the CRC Association. The City indicated that this annexation could take place in conjunction with the Specific Plan amendment and would also involve a zone change so that your property would have the same zoning as the adjacent CRC lots. The rezoning would not affect the present existing uses within the building. The City indicated that if you concurred to this annexation, the City would take responsibility to amend the zoning without application cost to you. This letter is intended to sunply advise you of the present Specific Plan amendment process, and inquire as to whether you are interested in using this opportunity to annex your lot into the CRC. Please let me know if you are interested in this. Feel free to contact me at (760) 931-0780 or pklukas@planningsystems.net if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul J. Klukas Director ofPlanning cc: Colleen M. Reilly, President, CRC Board of Directors Van Lynch, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Andrea Ferris, Meissner Jacquet 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net PLANNING SYSTEMS • LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION March 27,2011 pTYOFCARLSOA^ Manager • ' flMHlHGUt^fip-^'-'^^ BOI CARLSBAD INC. ' ^ P.O. Box 121604 Arlington, TX 76012 . RE: 5963 LA PLACE CT. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Dear Property Owner: You may be aware that the above-referenced lot (APN 212-062-09) that you own on La Place Court in Carlsbad, Califomia is not presently located within the boundaries of the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Specific Plan area. In fact, the boundaries of the CRC abut your property lines on three sides, so that your property is something of a peninsula of non-CRC property, surrounded mostly by CRC property. My firm has been hired by the CRC Board of Directors to draft up and process for City approval an amendment to the existing CRC Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is the main document regulating land use policy and development resfrictions for the CRC. The policies articulated in the Specific Plan provide for planning cohesion and aesthetic consistency of development within the CRC. The proposed amendment is intended to update and contmue the program of responsible and aesthetically-pleasing, high end business park development. During our recent discussions on this matter with the City of Carlsbad Planning Staff, City representatives inquired as to whether the owners of yotir lot might wish to annex into the CRC, inasmuch as your lot is surrounded by the CRC and you thus benefit from the CRC Association. The City indicated that this annexation could take place in conjunction with the Specific Plan amendment and would also involve a zone change so that your property would have the same zoning as the surrounding CRC lots. The rezoning would not affect the present existing uses within the building. The City indicated that if you concurred to this annexation, the City would take responsibility to amend the zoning without application cost to you. This letter is intended to simply advise you of the present Specific Plan amendment process, and inquire as to whether you are interested in using this opportunity to annex your lot into the CRC. Please let me know if you are interested in this. Feel free to contact me at (760) 931-0780 or pklukas(g),planningsystems.net if you have any questions. Paul J. Klukas Director ofPlanning cc: Colleen M; Reilly, President, CRC Board of Directors Van Lynch, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Andrea Ferris, Meissner Jacquet 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net Van Lynch From: Paul, Anne [Anne.Paul@sdcounty.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:38 AM To: Van Lynch Subject: RE: Early Public Notice - Expires: Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:00 AM Hi Van, Our engineer reviewed and we have no concerns at this point. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. Anne Paul, Sr. Real Property Agent Dept. of Public Works, Airports County of San Diego 1960 Joe Crosson Drive EICGjon,CA 92020-1236 p. (619) 956-4819 f. (619) 956-4801 Qnne.pQul@sclcountY.CQ.qov From: Van Lynch rmailto:Van.Lynch(a)carlsbadca.qov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:13 AM To: Paul, Anne Subject: RE: Early Public Notice - Hi Anne, The project description is attached does not say too much and is a generalization of wha the Plan intends to do for the Park. A copy of the draft document can be found on our w/eb page http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/CRCSpecificPlan.121610.pdf The update to the Specific Plan proposes to modify the development standards for the Plan. Mostly more restrictive and I can't see how this would impact the County. If you have anything that the County is concerned with, please let me know. We will be working with the Airport Authority too. I'll keep you posted on the project. Thanks, Van From: Paul, Anne |'mailto:Anne.Paulg)sdcountv.ca.qov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:03 AM To: Van Lynch Subject: FW: Early Public Notice - Hi Van, Do you have the project description that goes with this notice? Thanks, Anne Paul, Sr. Real Property Agent Dept. of Public Works, Airports County of San Diego 1960 Joe Crosson Drive ElCQjon,CA 92020-1236 w VaiiL^iTch^ From: Paul, Anne [Anne.Paul@sdcounty.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:23 AM To: Van Lynch Subject: RE: Early Public Notice - Expires: Friday, March 19, 2021 12:00 AM Hi Van. You are correct that if it is more restrictive, and assuming it is consistent with ALUCP, we are not likely to have any concerns. I just wanted to provide all the info to the right people for review. Thank you for the information, Anne Paul, Sr. Real Property Agent Dept. of Public Works, Airports County of San Diego 1960 Joe Crosson Drive EICajon,CA 92020-1236 p. (619) 956-4819 f, (619)956-4801 anne.paul^sdcounty.ca.qov From: Van Lynch fmailto:Van.Lynch(acarlsbadca.qov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:13 AM To: Paul, Anne Subject: RE: Early Public Notice - Hi Anne, The project description is attached does not say too much and is a generalization of wha the Plan intends to do for the Park. A copy of the draft document can be found on our web page http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/CRCSpecificPlan.121610.pdf The update to the Specific Plan proposes to modify the development standards for the Plan. Mostly more restrictive and I can't see how this would impact the County. If you have anything that the County is concerned with, please let me know. We will be working with the Airport Authority too. I'll keep you posted on the project. Thanks, Van From: Paul, Anne rmailto:Anne.Paul0)sdcounty.ca.qov1 Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:03 AM To: Van Lynch Subject: FW: Early Public Notice - Hi Van, Do you have the project description that goes with this notice? Thanks, Anne Paul, Sr. Real Property Agent Dept. of Public Works, Airports AW w FILE COPY CITY OF V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 8, 2011 CRC Owners Association 5330 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your amendment to the Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan, application no. SP 180(H), as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Division will begin processing your application as of the date of this communication. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Van Lynch, at (760) 602-4613, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2758. • Fire Department: Greg Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:VL:sm c: Planning Systems, Attn: Paul Klukas, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008 Don Neu, Planning Director Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © I AME SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Overall comment: The Specific Plan shall include a statement that minor landscaping concept changes and plant species may be changed without the need of a Specific Plan amendment upon approval by the City and CRC Owners' Association separately. The term "minor" will need to be defined. 2. Please contact the owners of the one M zoned parcel on La Place Court and the one P- M Zoned parcel on Newton Drive to consider being annexed into the Association as they benefit from the CRC Association. The City would process a Zone Change/Local Costal Program Amendment to clean up the Zoning Map and to have the parcels consistently zoned as the surrounding properties. 3. The City does not support the removal of the Area 2 uses from the El Camino Real/Faraday Ave intersection. Staff is supportive of maintaining the properties as Area 2 uses to continue the ability to provide support services to the CRC Business Park. The Park has lost Area 2 uses from the original plan at the College/Faraday intersection by the development of Area 1 uses. The Plan should include an allowance of Area 1 uses in Area 2. 4. The project shall be required to comply with Chapter 21.210.0050, Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Habitat Management requirements, for the permanent management, maintenance, and biological monitoring of the existing HMP hardline preserve areas. The Center for Natural Lands Management manages the City's property on Faraday Av. 5. Revisions to Specific Plan will require an amendment to the CC&Rs post City approval. 6. The project will need to consider how to address Condition No. 13 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2508 for CT 85-24 which restricted the uses of Lots 97 - 100 to Office uses only. 7. The City is in the process of updating the Landscape Manual. Development projects within the Specific Plan will need to reference and show compliance with the Landscape Manual. 8. Please consider the use of color on the document exhibits. Once the Specific Plan is adopted, copies of the document will need to be made and the color copies may be expensive and/or may not reproduce well in black and white. 9. Page 1-1, third paragraph, last sentence needs to clarify the application of the Specific Plan is to any and all development within the CRC. See second sentence of first paragraph. 10. Page 1-1, Please delete "the purpose of the Specific Plan is to address specific land use and operational issue that have arisen..." as this does not belong in the Specific Plan. Overall the proposed Specific Plan includes an undercurrent of issues and problems to be fixed rather than a more positive objective of developing a high end business park with applicable regulations to achieve this objective. This discussion is more appropriate to include in a Staff Report. c o SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 3 11. Figure 2, please add street names to unlabeled streets, i.e. College Boulevard, Avenida Encinas, and Paseo Del Norte. 12. Figure 3, please make the line symbol identifying the project area more discernable. 13. Page 1-6, Please modify the third bullet point to "Provide a regulatory document for the regulation of development within the CRC." The Specific Plan is not going to resolve existing land use issues. 14. Page 1-8, Please delete Section 1.4.1, the discussion of existing issues and concerns, as these should not be the objective of the Specific Plan as previously mentioned. The City does not want to take on the Association's responsibility of mediating issues between the Association and CRC tenants. 15. Page 1-9, Please delete "...general concept to prohibit on-street parking." The City is not supportive of regulating parking on public streets. 16. Page 1-11, Section 1.4.1.6, please reference non-conforming section of the Zoning Ordinance for standards, procedures, and enforcement. 17. Page 11-3 - Figure Five. Please add Area Two use areas to the parcels on the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue per the original plan. 18. Page 11-4, Section 2.1.3. Please add at the end of the sentence "...and will extend into property northerly of the CRC boundary for a total park area of 12.9 acres." 19. Page 11-4, Section 2.2.1, Warehousing and distribution is later allowed in Section 4.2.1.5 as a primary use. 20. Page 11-7, Section 2.2.2 does not exist. 21. Page 11-7, Section 2.2.1, last paragraph regarding sidewalks on both sides conflicts with a statement in Section 3.2.1.4 where sidewalks are not provided on both sides. There are sections of Rutherford Rd. that do not have sidewalks on both sides. 22. Page 11-8, Figure 7, please review line symbols as some appear both gray and solid black for the same symbol. Also review for accuracy of line data. Consider requesting line data from GIS and adding main reclaimed water lines. The data in the Figure does not appear complete. 23. Page 11-9, Section 2.3, please add the Parcel Number (Parcel Map Figure 8) for Lot 11 to identify which Lot is being discussed. 24. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.2, last sentence of Citv of Carlsbad maintenance, please exchange "park" for "CRC" to clarify that the remainder of the park development is outside the confines of the CRC. 25. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.2, last paragraph refers to "this section" which implies the whole section. This should be clarified to be the CRC Owners' Association responsibilities. SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD ^SEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN MENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 4 26. Page 11-12, Figure 9, please add a bullet point and Mini Park designation to Emerald Lake. The Specific plan identifies 8 (eight) mini parks and Figure 9 only identifies seven (Emerald Lake would be the eighth?). 27. Page 11-11, Section 2.4.3. Please change CC&R's to CC&Rs throughout It is a plural abbreviation, not possessive. 28. Page 11-12 Section 2.4.4 Design Guidelines. The last sentence discusses the responsibilities of the CRC Owners' Associations responsibility in enforcing the specific plan. It was understood from our previous meetings with you that the CRC was interested in revising the Specific Plan to add additional enforcement by the City. There will need to be a clear understanding as to the roles and responsibilities and inclusion of CRC Owners' Association ARC and sub-committees roles in the Specific Plan. 29. Page III - 2, Section 3.1. Please clarify the last sentence of this section. What views are being discussed and what is "a single visual unit?" 30. Page III-2, Section 3.2.1.2, Collector Street Design. Please change the word "structural" to "building", as used in the previous Section 3.2.1.1 related to setbacks. 31. Page III-3, Section 3.2.1.4. Sidewalks. Sidewalks may be installed by the developer if new construction is proposed or significant modifications are proposed to the existing, building. The City also has a Capital Improvement Program which installs missing sidewalks. CRC should consider adding a sidewalk to connect the western side of Emerald Lake to the access road to Faraday Ave. to complete a paved pedestrian connectivity route. 32. Page III-9, Section 3.2.1.6. A Policy should be added to limit the amount of site lighting to encourage Dark Sky concepts and related lighting impacts to the airport night environment. 33. Page 111-10, Section 3.2.1.7 Parking. The City does not want to preclude parking on public streets. 34. Page lll-l 1 Section 3.3. The City does not want to preclude parking on public streets. 35. Page 111-11 Section 3.3.1 Architectural Guidelines. What is the process for architectural review of projects within CRC? The City has not been involved in this role since the inception of the CRC park (except for the Commercial areas and three story buildings). Is the City to apply discretion regarding the design and style of buildings within CRC? Is there an appeal process established? (Building permits are typically appealed to the City Council directly). 36. Page 111-12, Section 3.3.1.1.2 (a). The "fragmentation of buildings into smaller or multiple structures" is contradictory to the overall desire of the CRC to have large single tenant users. 37. Page 111-12 Section 3.3.1.1. Last paragraph. This section references a "design review submittal process" which does not exist in the Specific Plan. This is a CRC ARC function and not a City review process and should be removed from the plan. SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 5 38. Page 111-14, Section 3.3.2 Landscape Design Guidelines. Last paragraph states that any new landscape installations require approval. Is there an area threshold for what qualifies? 39. Page 111-14 Section 3.3.2.1 Landscape Coverage. Add "and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris." 40. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.3 Interior Landscaping. Please clarify the location of the "interior zone" by the following:^"...from the streetside setback line to the interior side and rear property lines of each parcel." 41. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.3 Interior Landscaping. Undeveloped or unpaved areas are required to have a cover crop (hydro seed) which is established by irrigation. 42. Page 111-15, Section 3.3.2.4.1 Tree wells and planter areas are to be 4 (four) feet wide minimum. See City Landscape Manual for details. 43. Page 111-16, Section 3.3.2.6 Slope Banks. What if slopes are less than 5:1? Are they not considered slopes and receive landscaping anyways? Are these slope areas covered by the LMA being adjacent to rights-of-ways? 44. Page 111-16, Section 3.3.3. Landscape maintenance. CC&Rs (Article 11.5, page 28,. 1988 Version) also has a provision for the City to perform necessary maintenance and charge the individual tenant or property owner as required. Add this to this section under a separate heading of General Maintenance. 45. Page IV-1, Section 4.2. This section should include a section on accessory uses. Newer technologies include solar facilities, wind generating devises, and electric auto charging stations. Wireless Communication Facilities should also be included as an allowed use consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and City Policy 64. 46. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.5 identifies distribution and warehousing as a permitted use. Section 2.1.1 prohibits warehousing as a primary use. 47. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.8 should list the items as in the other examples to identify the uses easier; One Section for permitted uses and another Section for prohibited uses. Other uses which have been questionable or are non-conforming uses with the CRC should l3e listed as permitted or prohibited uses including such uses as day spas, Veterinarian services when identified as "research facilities," counseling offices (medical and non-medical), schools (all types), office type uses not corporate in nature (Chamber of Commerce), etc. Another use that may be considered as an allowed use is medical clinical trials. 48. Page IV-2, Section 4.2.1.9 and 10. These have been commonly misinterpreted and need to be clarified as to what each of these items allows. 49. Page IV-4, Item 11. Please make Churches a separate item (Number 12) and expand the term (i.e. places of worship). 50. Page IV-4, Area 1 Conditional Uses. The sentence at the end of this section precludes churches which are also listed in item 11 above. Add retail uses to list of prohibited uses as in items 11 above? Please address other uses which have been past issues such as SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD R^EARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ^ENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 6 medical type service uses and schools (both public and private). The City is supportive of higher educational facilities such as occupational training, specialty training facilities, and satellite University facilities which would complement the technology of the Park. Wireless communication facilities shall be added as conditional uses. 51. Page IV-6, Section 4.2.5, please correct the use of PUDs to non-possessive (not PUD'S). 52. Page IV-9, first paragraph reference "standard^ a through e above." and there are no previous standards. These lots were conditioned in the original Tract Map to be used as office type uses for compatibility with the adjacent residential land use. 53. Page IV-9, second paragraph should be incorporated into the following Section 4.2.7.3 as it appears redundant. 54. Page IV-9, Section 4.2.7.3 should list numerically the hazards on private property. The items in sentence form are difficult to follow. 55. Page IV-10, Section 4.2.8 - Special Events. Special events are regulated by Chapter 8.17 of the Municipal Code. The City also has an Administrative Policy (Community Development Policy 8) on special events on private property not meeting the definition of Chapter 8.17. Please delete the reference to a MCUP for Special Events. 56. Page lV-12, Section 4.3.2.1, Site Coverage. Please compare and determine if there is a conflict in the allowed site coverage percentages against the Floor Area Ratio of 2:1 specified in Section 4.3.1, Building Height. 57. Page IV-13, Section 4.3.2.3. Parking. The requirements of the park exceed what is presently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. For consistency sake, the City would prefer that the parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance be used. Compact parking stall width is a minimum of 8 feet wide. 58. Page IV-15, Section 4.3.2.6.4, please specify no fabric or metal mesh materials. They . are very transparent in certain light and we have not had much success with them. 59. Page IV-16, Section 4.3.2.6.6 & 7, and Section 4.3.2.7.2 & 3, on advice from our legal council, the City does not have the ability to require an applicant to submit ARC approval prior to the issuance of permits. 60. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.3. Chapter 21.06 has exceptions for buildings and enlargement of buildings less than 1000 sq ft. Is the intent of the CRC to follow this same exception? Would a reduction of building size need a SDP? 61. Page IV-17, Section 4.3.4, Signage criteria shall defer to the City's sign ordinance. The City encourages a more homogeneous approach to the regulations of signs in the industrial parks by application of the Sign Ordinance. Any future changes to the Sign Ordinance will be more easily implemented by having just one source for sign regulations and less apt to be misinterpreted with various sign standards. 62. Page IV-17, section 4.3.4.1. The second paragraph cannot regulate the message of a sign, only the time, place and manner. '^SEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN^^^E SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AiVlENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 7 63. Page IV-27, Section 4.3.5, Lighting Standards. Section 4.3.5.1.4, is "wall washing...which spills outside...encouraged?" Please add that up lighting is prohibited as the project is within the vicinity of the Palomar Airport and to promote "Dark Skies" to prevent light pollution. 64. Page IV-28, Section 4.3.5.2, please add "unless restricted by the height requirements of the Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or FAA obstruction standards." 65. Page V-1, Section 5, Development Review Process. Is it the intent of the CRC to require a SDP for the development of any lot within CRC? Further discussion will need to be had to determine the entitlement process. 66. Please see redlined copy for minor text revision and data for the Specific Plan Amendment log. 67. Please make the following revisions to the Specific Plan so that it will meet the requirements of the City of Carisbad's Landscape Manual. a) Page 111-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 2: This paragraph references the use of Canary Island Date Palm at CRC entries. This Palm is now listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. The Specific Plan (SP) needs to clarify that although existing Canary Island Date Palms may remain, any new plantings are to be replaced with a non-invasive species. Please note that the CRC Landscape Design Guidelines plant palette should be reviewed insuring the deletion of any invasive species. b) Page 111-10, 3.2.2, Entry and Intersection Statements, Paragraph 3: This paragraph references the use of American Sweet Gum trees. It is noted that this species has been infected with Xylella fastidiosa, a bacterial pathogen responsible for scorch symptoms and shoot dieback. The infected trees were located close by on Cannon Road at the Robertson Ranch development. It is recommended that verbiage be added to the SP indicating that a substitute species be provided for any new plantings. c) Page 111-14, 3.3.2, Landscape Design Guidelines: Please add verbiage indicating that requirements of the City of Carisbad Landscape Manual are to be met except as modified by this SP. d) Page 111-15, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, paragraph 1: It is recommended that the number of trees be revised to one per each four (versus five) parking stalls to be consistent with the Landscape Manual. e) Page 111-15, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #1, Tree wells and planter areas: It is recommended that landscape planter dimensions be revised to be consistent with Appendix E-1 of the Landscape Manual. f) Page 111-16, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #2, Curbs: It is recommended that this paragraph be revised to consider Low Impact Development (LID). In many new projects interior parking lot curbs are being replaced with wheel stops to allow hardscape drainage into landscaped areas (bio-swales). SP 180(H) - CARLSBAD ^SEARCH CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN XlOlENDMENT March 8, 2011 Page 8 g) Page 111-16, 3.3.2.4, Parking Lot Landscaping, #5, Screening: Please delete the words "interrupt to" in the first sentence. Parking areas need to be screened. "Interrupt" is not definitive and subject to interpretation. Engineering: 1. Section 1.4.1.2. Parking Issues, Section 3.2.1.7 Parking, Section 3.3 Individual Lot Site Design, and Section 4.3.2.3 Parking make reference to prohibiting parking in the public streets within CRC. All public street parking is regulated by the Engineering Standards. A specific plan is not a regulatory document to control public street parking. An application for a variance to prohibit public street parking needs to be processed, reviewed and approved by a separate action other than the Specific Plan Amendment application. 2. Section 1.5 Legal Authority, third paragraph, states "Any violation of the standards and regulations identified in the specific plan shall be considered a violation of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance." The specific plan standards also cover more sections than only the Carisbad Zoning Ordinance; reference should be made to the Municipal Code instead. 3. Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services, the last sentence of the second paragraphs should be the first sentence of the third paragraph. The second sentence should read "Water distribution lines exist within the public streets and easements within lots in the CRC." 4. A paragraph should be added to Section 2.2.3 Utilities and Services making reference to storm water quality requirements per the city's SUSMP. 5. Section 2.3 Existing Lots within CRC, second paragraph makes reference to Lot 11 access-way to off-CRC property. Lot 11 is not adjacent to the CRC boundary.