Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-15; City Council; 7567-5; Request to amend the general plan from RLM to RM,' - 4- I m 00CTi 3 CNCN 1 I oo enrd TTin CN O 8 CIT OF CARLSBAD - AGEND. BILL AR* 7^-67-^ MTt5.il/15/83 DFPT. PLN r RBQUBijT (ATTDAL) TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TITLE: FR°M RLM TO RH AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO R-3 ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD. GPA/LU 83-9 - ZC-285 - TRUITT nPPT HO Vto£$\ CITY ATTY^ ryO filTYMGP^^^-|Tc RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and the staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents DENYING GPA/LU 83-9 and ZC-285. . ITEM EXPLANATION The applicant is appealing a Planning Commission decision to deny a general plan amendment and zone change on property located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue just east of the AT&SF railroad (location map attached). The applicant is requesting to change the land use plan on this property from Residential Low Medium Density (RLM 0-4 du/ac) to Residential High Density (RH 30-40 du/ac) and a zone change from R-1-7500 to R-3. The Planning Commission and staff felt that the proposed changes were inappropriate because there are relatively recent single family developments adjacent to the subject property to the east and the south and the character of the area east of the railroad and south of Tamarack is single family in nature. Also, the property could be developed as a single family development similar to the project adjacent to the south (please see attached Exhibit "A"). In addition, staff and the Planning Commission felt that Tamarack Avenue and the railroad right-of-way make better boundaries between different land uses than property lines as proposed. Finally, since Tamarack Avenue may never be widened the traffic engineer has indicated that increases in density along this road could create severe traffic problems. For further information, please see the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts, and therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration, dated July 27, 1983, which was approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1983. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct fiscal impact on the City from the proposed project. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. PC Resolution No. 2197 & 2198 3. Exhibit A - surrounding lots 4. PC Staff Report w/attachments dated October 12, 1983 LOCATION MAi RMH/RD-M RH/RD-M SITE R-1 TO R- RLW TO RH TRUITT GPA/LU 83-9^ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW MEDIUM (RLM, 0-4 DU/AC) TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH (R-H, 20-30 DU/AC ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMARACK AVENUE BETWEEN HIBISCUS CIRCLE AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD. APPLICANT: TRUITT CASE NO: GPA/LU 83-9 WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Seneral Plan designation for certain property located, as shown on Sxhibit "A" dated October 12, 1983, attached and incorporated lerein, have been filed with the Planning Commission? and WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request [for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal -ode; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 12th day of. October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by Law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and ronsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons lesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. 20 ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: ) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to DENY GPA/LU 83-9, as shown on Exhibit "A" dated October 12, 1983. Findings; 1) The General Plan Amendment of RMH is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3 1 2) The proposed project would adversely impact the integrity of . the surrounding properties. 2 3) The proposed uses allowed for the Residential Medium High 3 Density designation are not appropriate for this site. 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 5 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on th 6 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: 7 AYES: 8 NOES: 9 ABSENT: 10 ABSTAIN: 11 12 CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 ATTEST: 14 15 16 | MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RESO NO. 2197 -2- 28 1 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A ZONE CHANGE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2198 R-1-7500 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMARACK BETWEEN HIBISCUS CIRCLE AND THE AT&SF RAILROAD. APPLICANT: TRUITT CASE NO; ZC-285 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: All that portion of Tract 232 of Thum Lands according to Map No. 1681 filed December 9, 1915 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1) The R-3 zoning designation is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low-Medium. 27 2) The R-3 zoning designation would adversely impact the integrity 28 of the surrounding vicinity for reasons stated in the staff report. r has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 12th day of ctober, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends DENYING ZC-285, based on the following findings. Findings; 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12 ATTEST: 13" 14 15 3) The R-3 zoning designation and corresponding uses as not appropriate for the site for reasons discussed in the staff report. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 2198 -2- SUBJECT PROPERTY & SURROUNDING LOTS APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: -Y 29, 1983 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 12, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: GPA/LU 83-9/ZC-285 - TRUITT - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate property from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) to Residential High Density (R-H) and a Zone Change from R-1-7500 to R- 3 on property generally located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Hibiscus Circle and the AT&SF Railroad. I.RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2197 and 2198 DENYING GPA/LU 83-9 and ZC-285 based on the findings contained therein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate 1.84 acres from RLM (Residential Low-Medium, 0-4 du/ac), to R-H (Residential High, 20-30 du/ac) and a Zone Change from R-1-7500 to R-3, located as described above. The subject property is relatively flat and is currently occupied by older single family homes. Properties to the south and east, immediately adjoining the project site, are designated RLM by the General Plan, zoned R-1- 7500 and developed as single-family homes. The property to the north, across Tamarack Avenue, is classified as RMH, zoned RD-M. The subject property is bordered by the AT&SF Railroad to the west. II.ANALYSIS Planning Issues - General Plan Amendment 1) Is the proposed General Plan Amendment consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan? 2) Would the proposed General Plan Amendment adversely impact surrounding properties? 3) Is the proposed Residential High Density an appropriate use for the site? Discussion The Goals and Objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan call for the preservation of the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas. The General Plan further indicates that distinctions between land use classifications should be drawn along logical boundaries such as topographical features or streets. Using this criteria the proposed amendment would not be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The current boundaries of the RLM designation, Tamarack Avenue and the AT&SF Railroad tracks, make a logical distinction between residential-medium high density to the north, residential high density to west and the existing residential low medium density to the east and south. Utilizing distinct boundaries, such as streets and railroad tracks, minimizes conflicts and disruptions of land uses. Staff believes that the proposed amendment would adversely impact the integrity of the existing single-family neighborhood adjoining the project site. The proposed density, 20-30 du/ac, would not be compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood. Further, the site is impacted by noise from the AT&SF Railroad. The Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that most of the site is impacted by noise of 65 DBA or greater which under H.U.D regulations is listed as normally unacceptable for residential use. Staff, therefore, believes that any increase in residential density would not be inappropriate as it exposes even more persons to the high noise impacts. Overall, staff feels the proposed general plan amendment would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan, would adversely impact surrounding property and, would not be an appropriate use for the site. Therefore, staff recommends denial of GPA/LU 83-9. Planning Issues - Zone Change 1) Is the R-3 zone change consistent with the General Plan designation of RLM? 2) Are the uses allowed in the RD-M zone consistent with the General Plan designation of RLM. Discussion The existing zone for the project site is presently R-1-7500 (one family residential, 7500 minimum lot size). This zone is consistent with the General Plan designation of RLM. Staff could not support a zone change for the reasons stated under the general plan discussion as it would be inconsistent with surrounding land use. Also, if the general plan were to be changed to the RH Density, the RD-M zone would be more consistent than the R-3 zone. (2) In summary, staff feels the proposed general plan amendment and zone change would not be appropriate in this area and, therefore, recommends denial of ZC-285. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Manager has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 16, 1983. ATTACHMENTS PC Resolution Nos. 2197 & 2198 Location Map Background Data Sheet Environmental Documents ERrar (3) BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA/LU 83-9/ZC-285 APPLICANT: TRIJITT REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from RLM (0-4 du/ac) to R-H (20-30 du/ac) and R-1 to R-3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that portion of Tract 232 of Thum Lands according to Map No. 1681 filed December 9, 1915. APN; 206-042-01,02,03 Acres 1.84 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 0-4 Density Proposed 20-30 Existing Zone R-1 Proposed Zone R-3 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site North RD-M-R-1 RMH South R-1 . RLM East R-1 RLM West RD-M R-H PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated July 29, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT x Negative Declaration, issued August 16, 1983 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, R. THOMAS WOOD ATTORNEY AT LAW SOO GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C-7 P. O. BOX 1545 CABLSBAJD, CALIFORNIA 9SOO8-OSQO TELEPHONE (619) 729-1159 November 21, 1983 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Application of Robert J. Truitt GPA/LU 83-9/ZC-285 Dear Mayor Casler, and Councilors Kulchin, Lewis, Chick, and Prescott: On behalf of my client, Robert J. Truitt, I present the following information in support of his application for the above-referenced General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. For convenience, I have addressed the main issues in the same order addressed by the staff report: PLANNING ISSUES - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (1) Is the proposed General Plan Amendment consistent with the objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan? A. As staff indicates, "the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan call for the preserva- tion of the neighborhood atmosphere and existing residential areas." It should be noted that the proposed project fronts on Tamarack Avenue, with its western boundary being the railroad right of way. It is submitted that this is not really an identi- fiable neighborhood with what one normally considers a neighbor- hood atmosphere. While the neighborhood on Long Place and Hibiscus Circle are indeed identifiable neighborhoods, with one exception, it is the rear of the lots on said streets that are adjacent to the subject property and it is inconceivable that single-family dwellings on the subject property would ever be considered part of the same neighborhood with the dwellings on these two streets. B. Staff also makes the point that "the General Plan further indicates that distinctions between land use classifica- tions should be drawn along logical boundaries such as topo- graphical features or streets." Based upon this statement, staff concludes that the railroad tracks are an ideal boundary for the purpose of separating land use. It is submitted that lining the railroad tracks with expensive single-family dwellings is not a Page -2- logical and appropriate use of land. It is more logical to consider the railroad tracks and the heavily traveled streets such as Tamarack as a boundary along which multiple family zones should be seriously considered. If the subject property is developed as high density, an appropriate noise shield will be affordable and the entire project will serve as a buffer between the railroad tracks and the R-l neighborhood to the east and between Tamarack and the R-l neighborhood to the south. C. Staff also refers to the noise element of the General Plan which states that it is the goal to "minimize the impact of noise pollution by providing compatible land use alter- natives and reducing the level of noise wherever possible. As we all know, the railroad is the source of extreme noise several times per day. Staff argues that, because the noise is so great, the density should remain as is as order to subject as few people as possible to the noise. As noted above, it is submitted that, if this property were properly developed with high density, an effective noise shield will be feasible which will benefit several of the residents on Hibiscus Circle as well as those individuals ultimately residing on the subject property. Cer- tainly more people will be subjected to the noise, but the noise level should be within acceptable standards. Therefore, the proposed change is more consistent with the noise element of the General Plan that the existing situation. D. The circulation element of the General Plan provides that it is a goal to "provide a safe, realistic, and integrated circulation system compatible with the existing and proposed land use pattern of the City." While staff does not directly address this issue, it is submitted that, while granting the request of applicant would result in additional traffic on Tamarack, this impact would be more than balanced by the fact that the existing three driveways would be reduced to one drive- way. In addition, the traffic entering Tamarack would be facing Tamarack rather than backing into Tamarack from a single-family residence. Also, there would be adequate off-street parking that does not now exist and does create problems in the area. E. The housing element of the General Plan estab- lishes as a goal to "provide a variety of quality housing types suitable to the economic means and living styles of all identi- fiable segments of the population." A Carlsbad apartment survey prepared in March, 1983 by the Research/Analysis Group at the request of the City Council established an apartment vacancy rate of 4.03% in the City. This included 50 vacant two-bedroom units, twenty-three of which were from a single complex undergoing a condominium conversion. Therefore, under normal circumstances, the vacancy rate would have been even lower. It is submitted that, if Mr. Truitt's application is granted, it will be a step Page -3- toward providing quality affordable housing consistent with the housing element of the General Plan. This housing is within walking distance of the beach and is but a short distance from the Safeway shopping center to the east of Interstate 5. It is respectfully submitted that, when all applicable elements of the General Plan are considered as required by the General Policy Statements of the Goal and Policy Statements of the General Plan, the request of Mr. Truitt is consistent with the General Plan. (2) Would the proposed General Plan Amendment adversely impact surrounding properties? While this issue is not addressed by staff in detail, it is submitted that the proposed General Plan Amendment would not adversely impact surrounding properties. As indicated above, an apartment building with an appropriate noise shield would positively impact those properties to the east and west of Mr. Truitt's property. (3) Is the proposed Residential High Density an appropriate use for the site? It is submitted that the requested Residential High Density is a much more appropriate use for the site than is the existing Residential Low-Medium Density. There is substantial other medium and high density in the area and, considering the nature of Tamarack Avenue and the railroad tracks, high density is more appropriate than medium or low density. PLANNING ISSUES - ZONE CHANGE (1) Is the R-3 zone change consistent with the General Plan designation of RLM? Obviously, the zone change and the General Plan Amendment must go hand-in-hand in this situation. In order to utilize the high density designation, the R-l zone would have to be changed. The reasons therefore are stated above. (2) Are the uses allowed in the RD-M zone consistent with the General Plan designation of RLM? It is the applicant's position that, considering all of the arguments above, the R-3 zone would be more appropriate than the RD-M zone and the RH designation more appropriate than the RLM designation. Page -4- CONCLUSION The applicant, Robert J. Truitt, who has been a resident of Carlsbad in excess of six years is interested in providing a quality apartment project and feels that the subject property is an appropriate location to do so. The suggested use would en- hance the surrounding neighborhoods than adversely impact them and is consistent with the other uses in the area. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, R. THOMAS WOOD RTW/mlk J-v y-. A ll- November 21, 1983 City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear City Council: My wife and I own and reside at 438 Tamarack Ave. here in Carlsbad. We are close to Mr. Truitt's property that he desires to rezone to a greater density. We are in favor of your rezoning this property because the neighborhood would be improved 100% if the existing three houses were torn down or moved off. Tamarack Ave. is an important 1-5 off-ramp approach to the beach and visitors to our beaches do not get a good impression of our beautiful city as they drive west past the existing houses on Mr. Truitt's property. There are new condominiums under construction on Garfield and more are being planned. Prospective buyers have to drive by unsightly homes and get a wrong impression of this seaside community. On the north side of Tamarack Ave., the builders of the "Tamarack Shores" built a six-foot block wall that really helps deaden the noise of the trains. I am sure that you will require Mr. Truitt to install a similar noise barrier and perhaps plant shrubs and trees, too. This would really improve the neighborhood. It would also be good to have one driveway into the property instead of the existing three driveways from Tamarack. Off- street parking alone would really improve Tamarack Ave. Let's Improve Tamarack! ^4\A .\^A%W* Elliott & Bertha Henkins 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk €itp of CarMmb APPEAL FORM TELEPHONE: (714)438-5535 I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council: Project name and number (or subject of appeal): GPA/LU 83-9/ZC-285-TRUITT Date of decision: October 12, 1983 Reason for appeal; The proposed zone change is consistent with the; philosophy of the general plan and the project to be proposed will provide quality affordable housing for Carlsbad. October 19, 1983 Date Signature R. THOMAS WOOD, Attorney for Appellant Name(Please print) 800 Grand Avenue, Suite C-7 Address Carlsbad. CA 92QQ8 : (619) 729-1159 Telephone Number' CITY OF CAR BAD 1200 ELM AVENUE • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438-5551 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS .DATE Carlsbad Journal Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 31 38 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NOTICE OF PUBLICHEWING APPEAL GPA/LU 83-9/ZC-285 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carls- bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad California, at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 15,1983, to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a General Plan Amendment from RLM' (Residential Low Medium Density, 0-4 du/ac) to R-H (Residen- tial High Density, 20-30 du'ac) andZone Change from R-l (SingleFamily Residential) to R-3 (Multi-ple Family Residential) on proper-ty generally located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Hibiscus Circle and the AT&SF Railroad tracks, and more particu- larly described as: That portion of Tract 232 of Thum Lands according to Map No. 1681 filed December 9. 1915. Applicant: Truitt CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL November 5 19 83 LQCAT1OM MAP RMM/RD-M SITE R-1 TO R-3 RLM TO F!H JRUITT | GPA/LU 83-9 19, 19 19. 19. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California on the 5th day of Novembe/r 1983 Clerk of the Printer CJ S397: November 5, 1983 j. '". ' 204-280-38 Carlsbad Development Corp. P. O. Box "B" Carlsbad, CA 92008 2. 204-280-23 Elliott M. & Bertha Henkins 438 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 10. 206-042-22 Dolores A. Clark 3914 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 206-042-21 Henry & Isuko Yada 3924 Hibiscus Circle Curlsbad, CA 92008 21. 206-042-08 R.A. McGirr & Helen McGirr 2112 Cecelia Terrace San Diego, CA 92110 21. 206-042-08 Occupant 3935 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 3- 204-280-28 Carlsbad Unified School Distr. 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 12. 206-042-20 Michael S.&Catherine Boyle 3926 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 22.206-042-09 Sabina B. Wilber 6415 Rosemead Blvd. #40 San Gabriel,CA 91775 4. 204-280-05 Thora C. Anderson 749 Magnolia Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 13. 206-042-19 Marion C. Broward 3930 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 22 206-042-09 Occupant 3945 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 9200R 5. 204-280-41 Jesse E. & Patricia J. Polk 546 Tamarack Avenue- Carlsbad, CA 92008 14,15. 206-042-47,46 Bregg,Earl E.&Vera M. 3950 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 23. 206-042-10 Robert O. & Janet Brewer 3955 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 6. 204-280-40 Margaret Jeffress 548 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 16. 206-042-18 Robert T.&Mae E. Little 3940 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 24. 206-042-11 Allen J. & Ruth P. Thomas 3965 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 7. 204-280-07 Joe A. & Irene D. Castro 3715 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 17. 206-042-04 Mario G.&Alva J. Hernandez 437 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 25. 206-042-12 Harold L.SMignonne A. Turner 3975 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 8. 206-042-24 Stevenson,Thomas & Marilyn J. 4839 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 18. 206-042-05 Gerald L. SPenate Behrendsen 2355 Colgate Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 26. 206-042-13 Larry G. Doan 3985 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 8. 206-042-24 Occupant 545 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 18. 206-042-05 Occupant 447 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 27. 206-042-14 ' . - Bobby & Antonia Patterson 3995 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 9. 206-042-23 John B.SMary J. Musser 16706 E. Cypress Avenue Covina,CA 91722 19. 206-042-06 Paul E. Olander 3915 Hibiscus Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008 28. 206-042-31 Robert I. Teater 518 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 9. 206-042-23 Occupant bll Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad,CA 92008 20. 206-042-07 Cecil & Sharon Russell 3925 hibiscus Circle Carlsbad,CA 92008 29. 206-042-41 Peter F. Bleser 470 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad,CA 92008 30.- 206-042-43 Tony A. & Phyllis T. Mata 450- Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 31. 206-042-42 Joe R. & Judith M. Angel 460 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 32. 206-042-44 Richard A. & Dabra K. Kern 446 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 40. 206-042-40 Clifton O.&Martha V.Greagrey 3916 Long Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 41,45,50.206-080-28,206-020-20, A.T.&S.F. Railway Co. 19 1 Santa Fe Plaza 5200 E. Sheila Street Los Angeles, CA 90040 42. 206-080-19 David & Natalia Martinez 395 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 , 51. 204-270-32 Nils J. Nilson 390 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 * 52. 204-270-33 Timothy D. & Laura H. Gunter 2601 Via Eco Carlsbad, CA 92008 52. 204-270-33 Occupant 380 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 33. 206-042-33 Choice & Barbara J.. Stone 422 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 34. 206-042-34 Elizabeth A. Baldwin 418 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 43 p 206-080-18 Marshall & Cora Lyle 385 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 44m 206-020-24 Len E.&Jean A. love 424 S. Everett Avenue Monterey,CA 91754 53. 204-270-34 James R. Hogan Sr. Fanny K.. Hogan 4922 W. Maurie Avenue Santa Ana, CA 90273 53. 204-270-34 Occupant 370 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 35. 206-042-35 Stephen Walker 3996 Long Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 36. 206-042-37 Mario A. & Mabel L. lovenette 3976 Long Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 44t 206-020-24 Occupant 390 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 46m 206-020-27 Stephen L. & Maureen Bassett 344 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 : .54. 204-270-30 Nacho M. & Lupe Herrera i 371 Redwood Avenue 'Carlsbad, CA 92008 55. 204-270-31 Ernest J. & Shirley A. Crowder- 391 Redwood Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 37. 206-042-36 Robert A. SNancy McGuigan 3986 Long Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 47. 206-020-34 William T. Nute 4021 Bernice Street San Diego,CA 92107 Owner: 206-042-1,2,3. Robert J. Truitt P. O. Box 1501 Carlsbad, CA 92008 38. 206-042-38 Robert M. & Josephine B.Talbot 3956 Long Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 48. 206-020-08 Lee & Emma A. Boyd 391 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 39. 206-042-39 Chapel of Living Waters P. O. Box 2 Oceanside, CA 92054 49. 206-020-31 Ben & Roma Stabile 6116 Camino Lago San Diego, CA 92120 39. 206-042-40 Occupant 3946 Long Place Carlsbad,CA 92008 49. 206-020-31 Occupant 355 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad,CA 92008