The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-12-18; City Council; 7999; AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANAN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION $8 'IN= TU= DECISION DENYING A s1rp-g DEVELOPMENT MTG. 12/18/84 PLAN; LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF THE CABLEVISION BUILDING. SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER '' c, DEPT. PLN rla DEPT, CITY A CITY I\r E $43 0 .4 -4 8 WG cc, c,c kE 0 $8 CIU q c kh 2G kc, 3; -n 0 rlk rda dE 0- .g 2 a, "8 c2 OOu da w -4 m $8 8c (d .$ arn arn q $El8 840 * fp: 828 rl q -ri . -=r c3 I 03 4 I c\1 rl 2 0 5 4 1 0 z 3 00 RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Cornmission's decision to DENY this appeal and to direct the ( Attorney to prepare documents DENYING SDP 84-5. ITEM EXPLANATION This item is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to ( a site development plan for a mixed-use industrial/office co on a 16.5 acre site located as described above. The attache staff report describes the project in detail. The Planning Commission denied the project based on one unresolved issue. The applicant is proposing a right turn i out driveway access onto El Camino Real. This driveway does meet the city's intersection spacing stanldards. The Planning Commission indicated they could not support a driveway onto El Camino Real for a number of reasons. First property would have adequate access from Palmer Avenue which adjacent to the property on the east side. Eventually, Palm Avenue will connect to the north to College Avenue through t O'Hara property providing two ways of access to this propert Second, the Planning Commission believed a driveway at this location was not safe from a traffic point of view. Also, t acceleration lanes that would be needed for this driveway wc overlap the deceleration lane that is being provided for a I turn into the O'Hara project to the north. 3ased on these findings, the Planning Commission is recommer denial of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW If the City Council approves this project, the Council woulc have to approve a negative declaration. A copy of the negal declaration has been attached to the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT If the project is approved, the applicant would be required provide all needed public facilities to serve the project. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities f offset the cost of providing other public services to the project. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. PC Resolution No. 2364 3. Staff Report, dated November 14, 1984 w/attachments 4. Staff Report, dated October 10, 1984 w/attachments L f \ I ROCATION MAP OMAR TECH. BECKMAN INST. RESEARCH ----I- BUSINESS PARK CARLSAD GATEWAY CENTER L SDP I I 1 2 3 4- 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1911 0 @ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2364 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A SITE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE COMPLEX 16.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF THE CABLEVISION BUILDING. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER CASE NO: SDP 84-5 DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 84-5, TO ALLOW WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed wi City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; a WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a r as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municic the Planning Commission did, on the 14th day of November, 1 , consider said request on property described as: A portion of Parcels 1 and 2, in the City of Carls County of San Diego, State of California as shown 10060 of Parcel Maps filed in the Office of the Cc Recorder of San Diego County, May 23, 1980; WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considc testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring tc heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to ! 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan I Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he the Commission DENIES SDP 84-5, based on the followir findings: ! //// //// //// 1 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 I.3 14 15 16 17 e Findings 1) The project is inconsistent with the circulation eleme the general plan in that the proposed direct access on Camino Real violates City standards and will result ir conflicts. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, he the 14th day of November, 1984, by the following vote, to \ Chairman Rombotis, Commissioners Marcus, Schlehuber, L'Heureux and McFadden. AYES: NOES : Commissioners Farrow and Smith. ABSENT : None. ABSTAIN: None. I ~ 1 \ fLhHAEL JL\HJjizMzER ATTEST : /\ i&'&&$.J& . 'A 4 \d LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I I i I I I PC RES0 NO. 2364 -2- a 0 Discussion Of the identified issues, the only one necessitating a substantial redesign of the project is the deletion of direct E; Camino Real access. The developer has indicated a reluctance tc comply with this directive, as he feels such access is absolutely necessary for the viability gf the project, With respect to issue 2, the developer has met with "downstreai property owners in an effort to achieve a drainage sche satisfactory to all. It appears that this has been accomplishe Exhibit "Z", attached, delineates this drainage plan. Proper owner signatures, indicating their concurrence, are a1 attached . Engineering staff concludes that this plan acceptable if the entire drainage system is enclosed in ar underground storm drain. There is concern that the systen proposed may cause extensive erosion as runoff descends thf natural slope to Aqua Hedionda Creek. The project architecture, as proposed, will not appear bulky o unattractive from the Sunny Creek residential area. Structure facing this direction consist of single-story offices. Nc loading doors or other unsiyhtly features would be visible. The developer has indicated that he will not oppose an] practical landscape conditions or noise-generating use restrictions the Commission may wish to place on the project. In summary, staff concludes that the developer has not complj with the El Camino Real access restriction identified by t Commission as a problem with the project. As a result, st: recommends denial. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2364 2. Loctation Flap 3. Site Plan 4. Exhibit "Z", dated November 9, 1984, with property own€ agreements. PJK:ad I 1/7/a 4 -2- - 2# G! .r VI Fa, or ilrl SCJ rt : If ,I 1-11 . f na 1 Zk F 8' t L & i- m- wa L z z ,E i-3 1 rL- i a+ j wo L nLc a no it I OK vr m-, A, I til i,s,,tr It,! fr f hfl "iflit'[ &iL %: 5522 8":; =:::: %&u-- aEdzg !CZzZ! 0: i c >,fz:! o:": : 5: n ". n n < 2 U " n X 7 -... ,- '. \ \\ +' E>(WW': 2 pok 9, l4$+ I e 1% -1 [J r' ''-"~i\_illf 0 5 .I >, !cy -'I p, ; I_ \/l$i]LL$ 44 #..q 1 1 'P iL .( .-. ** 1 8 i CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYOR U November 5,1984 Mrs. Dorothy Ebright Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Robert Deflorm 2421 Dunstan Oceanside, CA 92054 Mr. Ralph Wrisley 690 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Affected Property Owners: SUBJECT: 5855 Sunny Creek Road DRAINAGE FROM GATEWAY CENTER (DAVIS DEVELOPMENTS) ONTO YOUR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES; OUR JOB NO. 84136 At our Tuesday, October 30 meeting in Carlsbad we discussed at length the different drainage alternatives available to carry runoff from the Gateway Center development (and from properties to the south) northerly across your properties to Agua Hedionda Creek. The specific concerns expressed by you downstream owners were: 1) your concern about surface runoff being discharged uncontrolled over the north facing slopes; and 2) possible site erosion due to concentration of flows onto unprotected and undeveloped property, causing erosion and subsequent siltation downstream. I believe we mutually decided upon our modified Alternative lB, which carries the unretarded lOOyear developed peak runoff from the sites to the south (including all the flows from the Gateway Center site) into an underground storm drain approximately 350 feet northerly across the Deeorm site to the northerly DeLorm property line, runs another 5 120 feet northerly underground across the Wrisley site, discharges into a natural rock swale extending down the Wrisley slope to the common Wrisley/Ebright property line some + 80 feet easterly of their west property line, is again picked up in an underground storm drain extending northerly approximately 140 feet to discharge into Agua Hedionda Creek. We also agreed that this system would be sized to pick up the developed flows from the %tppeP portions of the Deeorm and Wrisley properties and that a small berm and ditch would be built along the top of the north facing slopes on the DeLorm property to intercept any sheet flow which has in the past discharged over the slope. The affected downstream property owners will bear no costs for these improvements. Enclosed is a plan showing this proposed construction. Corporate Office 17782 Sky Park Blvd. Inine, California 92714 7141281.2222 inland Empire Office 0 1630 E. Francis St., Ste. B Ontario, California 91761 7141947-044 * San Oiego County Office 0 5375 Avenida Encinas, Ste. C Carlsbad, California 92008 6191431 0 i e I IC .F 0 *\;J. i . Affected Property Owners November 3, 1984 Page 2 Our consensus was that this would remain a private drain, with each downstream property owner having the right to relocate it across their properties as long as it did not adversely affect the integrity of the drainage system. We, as engineers for Davis Developments, will prepare all the necessary plans and documents for the construction of this facility and will submit them to each of you for your final review and approval (after our project has been approved by the Planning Commission.) In the meantime, we need to show the City that we have resolved the drainage discharge to the satisfaction of those affected by it. If you are in agreement with our proposed solution (again subject to your final approval of our plans) and agree to accept the concentrated discharge onto your property in the manner delineated above and on the enclosed plan, please sign a copy of this letter and send it to Fred Walters - before November LO, 1984. If you have any questions, please contact me or Terry Lutz of our office. Our Job No. 84 136 ' *a* rr ls wpm=& w &f. @e M = WSS 0d-M PkWSfWJ krCL &re* CNaraH AN0 a5sp -Luv- 0 '7t, hrndJTM0 w G&+gl~ q;.Jg&&$ Ric ard R. Schmid Corporate Off ice j lb . Enclosures: Copy of Plan Copy of letter to be returned Addressed envelope to Fred Walters cc: Ms. June Applegate Mr. Don Schucard Mr. Fred Walters Mr. Walter Brown TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD: I am the legal owner of Assessors Parcel No. in the City of Carlsbad northeasterly of El Camino Real, and agree to accept the discharge o concentrated drainage runoff from the Gateway Center in the manner describe to me in the above letter from Williamson and Schmid, subject to my fina approval of their plans. 207- 040- 14 SIGNED m&rd&L- ffdm Robert Deldorm SIGNED - Dorothy Ebright Ralph Wrisley SIGNED 0 t ' i71 C . ., ..., J d I- 0 \/lj';1 i ! 7, 1 ; c.1' J - \: - ' --q- -+#!\y ' [I ,-\ 1 ?j 7 1 \{ i d ,Id ? 1 4.. c- CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYOR *E November 5, 1984 Mrs. Dorothy Ebright 5855 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Robert DeLorm 2421 Dunstan Oceanside, CA 92054 Mr. Ralph Wrisley 690 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Affected Property Owners: SUBJECT: DRAINAGE FROM GATEWAY CENTER (DAVIS DEVELOPMENTS) ONTO YOUR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES; OUR JOB NO. 84136 At our Tuesday, October 30 meeting in Carlsbad we discussed at length the different drainage alternatives available to carry runoff from the Gateway Center development (and from properties to the south) northerly across your properties to Agua Hedionda Creek. The specific concerns expressed by you downstream owners were: I) your concern about surface runoff being discharged uncontrolled over the north facing slopes; and 2) possible site erosion due ta erosion and subsequent siltation downstream. I believe we mutually decided upon our modified Alternative 18, which Carrie: the unretarded lOOyear developed peak runoff from the sites to the soutk (including all the flows from the Gateway Center site) into an underground storm drain apprGmately 350 feet northerly across the DeLorm site to the northerlj DeLorm property line, runs' another t 120 feet northerly underground across the Wrisley site, discharges into a natural rock swale extending down the Wrisle) slope to the common Wrisley/Ebright property line some 2 80 feet easterly o their west property line, is again picked up in an underground storm drair extending northerly approximately 140 feet to discharge into Agua Hediond: Creek. We also agreed that this system would be sized to pick up the developed flow from the '*uppertt portions of the DeLorm and Wrisley properties and that a smal berm and ditch would be built along the top of the north facing slopes on thc DeLorm property to intercept any sheet flow which has in the past discharge1 over the slope. Enclosed is a plan showing this proposed construction. Thc concentration of flows onto unprotected and undeveloped property, causing affected downstream property owners will bear no costs for these improvements Corporate Offlce 17782 Sky Park Blvd. Imine, California 92714 71412812222 Inland Empire Office 1630 E. Francis St., Ste. B Ontario, Californta 91761 7141947-04 San Diego County Office 5375 Avenida Encinas, Ste. C Carlsbad, Californta 92008 619143 - 0 .- .. I ' .- .I -:! ; 0 'A X-'- ' . ,' Affected Propcrty Owners Our Job No. 84136 November 5,1984 Page 2 ' .B Our consensus was that this would remain a private drain, with each downstream property owner having the right to relocate it across their properties as long as it did not adversely affect the integrity of the drainage system. We, as engineers for Davis Developments, will prepare all the necessary plans and documents for the construction of this facility and will submit them to each of you for your final review and approval (after our project has been approved by the Planning Commission.) In the meantime, we need to show the City that we have resolved the drainage discharge to the satisfaction of those affected by it. If you are in agreement with our proposed solution (again subject to your final approval of our plans) and agree to accept the concentrated discharge onto your property in the manner delineated above and on the enclosed plan, please sign a copy of this letter and send it to Fred Walters before November 10, 1984. If you have any questions, please contact me or Terry Lutz of our office. Corporate Off ice jlb Enclosures: Copy of Plan Copy of letter to be returned Addressed envelope to Fred Walters cc: Ms. June Applegate Mr. Don Schucard Mr. Fred Walters Mr. Walter Brown TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD: I am the legal owner of Assessors Parcel No.Lwlin the City of Carlsbad, northeasterly of El Camino Real, and agree to accept the discharge of concentrated drainage runoff from the Gateway Center in the manner described approval of their plans. to me in the above letter from Williamson and Schmid, subject to my final SIGNED n Robert DeKorm SIGNED SIGNED Ralph Wrisley @ ; .\ r '4 _- e \3 f .', 32 1 - 1, --- \, a1 !-{A$';#- 1 1- \$;:L: i J ,,,q 14 , "; " x..-. " 'J f- d*d , 'J ,%.. i. - 4 3 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYOF R November 5? 1984 Mrs. Dorothy Ebright 5855 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Robert DeLorm 2421 Dunstan Oceanside, CA 92054 Mr. Ralph Wrisley 690 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Affected Property Owners: SUBJECT: DRAINAGE FROM GATEWAY CENTER (DAVIS DEVELOPMENTS) ONTO YOUR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES; OUR JOB NO. 84136 At our Tuesday, October 30 meeting in Carlsbad we discussed at length the different drainage alternatives available to carry runoff from the Gateway Center development (and from properties to the south) northerly across your properties to Agua Hedionda Creek. The specific concerns expressed by you downstream owners were: 1) your concern about surface runoff being discharged uncontrolled over the north facing slopes; and 2) possible site erosion due to concentration of flows onto unprotected and undeveloped property, causing erosion and subsequent siltation downstream. I believe we mutually decided upon our modified Alternative IB, which carries the unretarded lmear developed peak runoff from the sites to the south (including a the flows from the Gateway Center site) into an underground storm drain approximately 350 feet northerly across the DeLorm site to the northerly DeLorm property line, runs another + 120 feet northerly underground across the Wrisley site, discharges into a natural rock swale extending down the Wrisley slope to the common Wrisley/Ebright property line some + 80 feet easterly of their west property line, is again picked up in an underground storm drain extending northerly approximately 140 feet to discharge into Agua Hedionda Creek. We also agreed that this system would be sized to pick up the developed flows from the Ituppert* portions of the DeLorm and Wrisley properties and that a small berm and ditch would be built along the top of the north facing slopes on the DeLorm property to intercept any sheet flow which has in the past discharged over the slope. The affected downstream property owners will bear no costs for these improvements. Enclosed is a plan showing this proposed construction. Corporate Office 17782 Sky Park Blvd. Itvine, California 92714 7141281.2222 Inland Empire Office 1630 E. Francis St., Ste. B Ontario, California 91761 71419474447 San Diego County Office 5375 Avenida Encinas, Ste. C Carlsbad, California 92008 6191438- e ,I 1 \ -< 'd ' 1'1. I 0 I Affected Property Owners Out Job No. 841 36 November 5,1984 Page 2 Our consensus was that this would remain a private drain, with each downstrear property owner having the right to relocate it across their properties as long a it did not adversely affect the integrity of the drainage system. We, a engineers for Davis Developments, will prepare all the necessary plans an documents for the construction of this facility and will submit them to each c you for your final review and approval (after our project has been approved b the Planning Commission.) In the meantime, we need to show the City that w have resolved the drainage discharge to the satisfaction of those affected by i If you are in agreement with our proposed solution (again subject to your fin; approval of our plans) and agree to accept the concentrated discharge onto yoc property in the manner delineated above and on the enclosed plan, please sign copy of this letter and send it to Fred Walters before November 10, 1984,, If you have any questions, please contact me or Terry Lutt of our office. b$JF&kd[ Ric ard R, Schmid Corporate Office j Ib Enclosures: Copy of Plan Copy of letter to be returned Addressed envelope to Fred Walters cc: Ms. June Applegate Mr. Don Schucard Mr. Fred Walters Mr. Walter Brown TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD: I am the legal owner of Assessors Parcel No. in the City of Carlsba northeasterly of El Camino Real, and agree to accept the discharge I concentrated drainage runoff from the Gateway Center in the manner describt to me in the above letter from Williamson and Schmid, subject to my fin approval of their plans. SIGNED Robert DeLorm SIGNED .~- SIGNED RaIpV Wrisley u a a Y 24, 1984 J r-- r-.- -- STAFF REPORT f- \ L.d , ', DATE : October 10, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER - Request for approval of a site development plan to allow construction of a mixed-use industrial/office complex on a 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino Rea north of the Cablevision building. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager i ADOPT Resolution No. 2364 APPROVING SDP 84-5 based on the mndings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the development of a previously graded 16.5 acre site into a mixed-use industrial/office complex. The site is located on the east side of El Camino Rt (between El Camino Real and Palmer Way), north of the Cablevision building. The site slopes moderately down to the north. Surrounding property to the north is vacant. The recently constructed Palomar Tech Industrial Park exists across Palmer Way, to the east. The Faraday Business Park Industrial buildings are undc construction to the south, and Koll's Carlsbad Research Cente located across El Camino Real to the west. The site fronts on two public roadways, El Camino Real to the west and Palmer Way to the east. frontage road for El Camino Real and will eventually provide link between Faraday Avenue and College Boulevard. The project proposes one 2-story, 50,000 square foot office building, one l-story 38,000 square foot limited commercial building, and seven l-story multi-tenant industrial buildings 111. ANALY S IS Planninq Issues 1) Is the proposed project consistent with the M-Q zone Palmer Way functions as a standards? Is it compatible with surrounding existing ar future uses? e W 2) Does the project meet the "El Camino Real Corridor" standards? 3) Is the project's circulation adequate and safe? 4) Are some limited commercial uses appropriate for the site? Discussion The subject property is zoned M-Q (industrial-qualified overlay). Due to the extremely lenient requirements of the M-zone, the City has avoided utilizing this zone as much as possible over the past several years. It contains no setback other design criteria, or performance standards. The subject Q-Overlay zoning does, however, require Planning Commission review of the site plan. As shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", the project incorporates an attractive entry statement (with landscape median and enriched paving) for the El Camino Real access. The two-story office building along this frontage is set back from the roadway and will appear unique and attractive. On-site parking spaces provided are well in excess of the numt required by code. While the developer feels that this number spaces is important to the success of the project, this aspect results in a project that is generally dominated by asphalt parking lots. Pedestrian circulation and overall aesthetics i severely compromised due to this factor. Since the property has frontage on El Camino Real, its The project design meets these standards except for the setbac requirement for parking areas, In the southwest corner of the site, parking spaces encroach about 7 feet into the required 2 foot (completely landscaped) parking setback from El Camino RE Through the modification of several on-site regular size space to compact size spaces, this area of the project can be redesigned to comply with the standard. Approximately 17 spac must be eliminated, however, adjacent to a deceleration lane along the El Camino Real frontage, to comply with this setbacl requirement. The City Engineer has indicated that acceleratic and deceleration lanes are necessary for the safety of motoris travelling El Camino Real and has included a condition requiri their construction (as shown on Exhibit "Y"). These lanes woi push the right-of-way line (and 25-foot landscape setback) in1 the project up to 12 feet and result in the elimination of approximately 17 parking spaces. The developer opposes the conditions requiring the lanes and the elimination of parking, -2- site is one of the few M-zoned properties remaining in the Cit development is subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Standard 0 0 El Camino Real is a prime arterial in the City's circulation system. As such, access to it is severely restricted. Acces: encouraged along frontage roads such as Palmer Way. The City Engineer has indicated that his office could support a right- in/right-out access to El Camino Real on this site on the condition that acceleration and deceleration lanes are providc and that the two Palmer Way accesses are designed as wide, attractive entry alternatives. Staff feels that, as conditio1 the resulting plan makes an adequate attempt at maximizing thc two Palmer Way entries and minimizins the El Camino Real entr! while keeping the El Camino Real streetscape attractive and si Overall, on-site circulation is functional and adequate. The attached resolution includes a condition that the developc improve Palmer Way "to full-width industrial street standards from its existing northerly terminus to the northerly line of project". The developer disputes the need for this length of roadway, and proposes to improve the roadway only up to the northerly entrance to the subject project, and to bond for thc remainder (to the northerly property line),, He feels the not1 portion will remain unused and will result in a maintenance problem. Staff prefers its construction up-front because of difficulty in calling the bond once the project is complete, the fact that it is anticipated to be only a short time until link to College Boulevard is completed. As shown on Exhibit "A", the developer is proposing that the large 34,000 square foot building along El Camino Real (Build €3) be permitted to consider limited commercial uses. Staff concerns about the visual impact of a commercial building, excessive traffic attracted to the site by commercial uses, a the compatibility of such uses, may be alleviated by the adop of a very restrictive list of allowable uses. Although the s is zoned M-Q, many issues allowed in the M-zone would not be compatible and could be detrimental to the existing and futur uses in this area. Staff could support the commercial uses listed on attached Exhibit "X" . Such user-types exclude norm retail uses and allow only commercial businesses that would c directly to persons or businesses in the surrounding planned industrial area. Conditional uses could also be allowed as provided in this exhibit. It is recommended that this exhibi adopted as part of the approving resolution. Staff concludes that this project meets the standards of the zone, is of lesser quality design but aenerally compatible wi surrounding properties and, as conditioned, meets City requirements. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this projec will not have an adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on September 18, 198 -3- 0 a Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2364 2. Variance report from City Engineer 3. Exhibit "X", dated October 10, 1984 4. Exhibit "Y'' , dated October 10, 1984 5. Location Map 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Disclosure Form 8. Environmental Document 9. Letter from SANDAG, dated August 27, 1984 10. Exhibit "A", dated August 24, 1984, and "B" - "G", dated July 24, 1984. PJK: ad 9/25/84 -4- 1 2 3 4 6 51 7' 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2364 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 84-5, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX ON 16.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF THE CABLEVISION BUILDING. CASE NO: SDP 84-5 APPLICANT! CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed k )City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; ar WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municj the Planning Commission did, on the 10th day of October, ' 131 consider said request on property described as: l5 16 17 1 18 19 County of San Diego, State of California as show1 10060 of Parcel Maps filed in the Office of the ( Recorder of San Diego County, May 23, 1980.; WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and consic I j testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to 23 24 (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hc the Commission APPROVES SDP 84-5, based on the folloi 25 26 27 28 22'Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 'i I//// //// //// findings and subject to the following conditions: 'I I 1 2 3 4 6 91 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 0 m Findings: 1) The project is consistent with all City public facilil icies and ordinances since: a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, insured thi final map will not be approved unless the City COI finds that sewer service is available to serve thc project. In addition, the Planning Commission ha condition that a note shall be placed on the fina that building permits may not be issued for the p unless the City Engineer determines that sewer se available, and building cannot occur within the p unless sewer service remains available, and the P Commission is satisfied that the requirements of public facilities element of the qeneral plan hav met insofar as they apply to sewer service for th project. b) All necessary public improvements have been provi will be required as conditions of approval. c) The applicant has agreed and is required by the j of an appropriate condition to pay a public facil fee. Performance of that contract and payment of 1; 161 17 2) The project is consistent with M-Q zone standards anc compatible with surrounding existing and future uses area. 241 The project is located within the Palomar Airport In area and has been found to be consistent with the pr 6, 28 dated August 24, 1984 and "B" - "G", dated July 24, incorporated by reference and on file in the Land U: Office. Development shall occur substantially as sk otherwise noted in these conditions. I I PC RESO NO. 2364 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 e e 2) This project is approved upon the express condition t building permits shall not be approved unless the Cit Council finds as of the time of such approval that se service is available to serve the project. 3) This project is approved upon the express condition t building permits will not be issued for development o subject property unless the City Engineer determines sewer facilities are available at the time of applica such sewer permits and will continue to be available time of occupancy. 4) This project is approved upon the express condition t applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as requir City Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on f the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, according to the agreement executed by the applicant payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated 1984, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, t application will not be consistent with the General P approval for this project shall be void. sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applic ~ 5) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance 14 15 16 l? 18 16) Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to t ' Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and th Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983. I Land Use Planning Conditions: 7) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of t site plan incorporating the conditions contained here site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the I I 23 1 I I amounts of water, and shall include drought tolerant in their place. In addition, this plan shall incorpc landscape standards identified for this area in the I PC RES0 NO. 2364 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 11) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a health: thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debr 12) A uniform sign program for this development shall be to the Land Use Planning Manager for his review and prior to occupancy of any building. As part of said no free standing signs shall be allowed along El Cam 13) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-fo 6, masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Us 15 I 16 17 adjacent to the deceleration lane. All other setbac be maintained as shown on this exhibit. 16) Uses allowed in "Building B" shall be restricted to and conditional uses identified in Exhibit "X", date 21 22 23 I 1 Engineering Conditions: I 18) The developer shall agree to participate in the forn and shall participate in an assessment or other dist 25 26 27 28 sewer facilities serving the AH27 Basin as shown on ' "Interceptor and Trunk Sewer System Master Map," dat i 1984, which is on file in the Office of the City Enc Other areas as the City Engineer may determine nece: 1 desirable may be included in any such district. ' ~ //// //// PC RES0 NO. 2364 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e e 19) Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from thi may be required. In addition to the requirements for connection permit the developer shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municip The developer shall apply for an industrial waste dis No Certificates of Occupancy for the project will be before the industrial waste discharge permit applicat requirements have been met, all applicable fees paid permit issued. 20) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. permit concurrently with the building permit for this 21) The grading for this project is defined as "controlle ing" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipa Grading shall be performed under t.he observation of 2 engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordine inspection and testing to insure compliance of the wc the approved grading plan, submit required reports tc Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of Carlsbad Municipal Code. 22) Upon completion of grading, the developer shall insui 1 "as-graded" geologic plan shall be submitted to the ( I Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geoloc 14 15 16 17 exposed by the grading operation, all geologic correc measures as actually constructed and must be based or tour map which represents both the pre and post site This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineei engineering qeologist. The plan shall be prepared 01 or similar drafting film and shall become a permanenl I 28 i PC RESO NO. 2364 -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 0 @ 27) The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off- siltation. The developer shall provide erosion contrc measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/det basins of type, size and location as approved by the ( Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shi shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Enqineer the start of any other qrading operations. Prior to removal of any basins or facilities so constructed thl served shall be protected by additional drainaqe faci slope erosion control measures and other methods requ approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall m the temporary basins and erosion control measures for of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall g deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to Enqineer. their maintenance and satisfactory performance throuq 28) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures I provided or installed as may be required by the Count Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the Cit neer. 13,, l2 i 29) The developer shall pay the current local drainage ax prior to approval of the final map or shall construct 15 16 17 City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Er 30) The owner of the subject property shall execute a ho: harmless agreement regarding drainage across the adj; property prior to approval of building permits. 31) The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that 21 I detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish t 1 results. Alternate methods of meeting this conditio are satisfactory to the City Engineer may be used. 22 ' solution that includes creation of a backwater in th upstream, off-site, storm drain will be allowed. TI- developer shall qrant an easement to the City allowi 25 26 the owner of the project. j ' 32) Land for all public streets and easements shown on t 28 brances. 1 PC RES0 NO. 2364 -6- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 0 0 33) The developer shall record an easement securing the rii unrestricted access for the property adjacent to the southerly line of the project that fronts on El Camino The form and content of the easement deed shall be to satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be recordel issuance of a building permit. The access easement sh no less than 24 feet wide and shall include access fro Palmer Way and El Camino Real via the right in/out dri permitted by this project. certified copy provided to the City Engineer prior to 34) Improvements listed in this section shall be installed agreed to be installed by secured agreement by the dev before the issuance of any building permit. The devel shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Engir pay all associated fees and performance guarantees pri issuance of any building permit. The developer shall said improvements to the satisfacti.on of the City Engi prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or occ of any portion of the project for any purpose. The a) Palmer Way to full width industrial street standai its existing northerly terminus to the northerly the project. This includes securing the riqht-of. this street. b) A temporary turn-around, barricade and warning sic the northerly temporary terminus of Palmer way. ' temporary turn-around shall be as per City Standa drawing GS-5 except that the street width and bull I improvements are: 16 I? '1 I shall be as for an industrial street. c) Sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (which 1, approximately 155 feet easterly of the intersectic Palmer Way and Impala Drive) thence to the inters1 i 21' facilities required by these conditions. d) Sanitary sewer pump station sized to meet the 24 25 26 27 28 fronatage The median required by this sub-item I I I installed at such time as the City Engineer direc f) Additional street lights on El Camino Real g) Street liqhts on Palmer Way h) All public improvements shown on the site plan i) Remove and replace the sidewalk adjacent to the ( inlet located approximately 235 feet northerly ol southwesterly corner of the project. It is antic that approximately 50 square feet of sidewalk mu: replaced. j) Removal and replacement of all public facilities during the course of constructing this project i I 1 j ~ PC RES0 NO. 2364 -7- J 1 2 3 4 5' 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 k) Acceleration and deceleration lanes for the drive\ Camino Real. The lanes shall be no less than 100 long, the acceleration taper shall be no less thar feet long and the deceleration taper shall be no 50 feet long, Except for taper lanes, the lanes : 35) Approval of this project (SDP 84-5) is granted subjeci City Waiver of "Access Right Relinquishment", that was on the project by Parcel Map No. 10060. (Said relinqr surrendered access rights to Carlsbad Boulevard alonq project frontage). This condition shall in no way bii City to waive the, "Access Right Relinquishment", or prepare and record any document to that end. No built permit for this project shall be issued until the waiy procedure is complete and a quitclaim deed to effect recorded. If the City chooses not to waive the, "Acc~ Right Relinquishment", this approval will no longer b The developer shall comply with all the rules, regula design requirements of the respective sewer and water reqarding services to the project. no less than 12 feet wide. 136) 37) The design of all private streets and drainage system be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of I final map. The structural section of all private str shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on tests. All private streets and drainage systems shal inspected by the city, and the standard improvement F and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval c ~ building permits. 17 18 38) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked v ' Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Mu at all times, and shall have posted "NO Parking/Fire 23 24 25 26 27 certificate: "DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE" I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for project, that I have exercised responsible charge OVI design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of Business and Professions Code, and that the design i consistent with current standards. 1 2 3 4 5 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 e I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined tc only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm) Firm: Address: City, St.: Telephone: BY Date: - (Name of Engineer) R.C.E. NO. # 40) The developer shall provide the City with a reproduc copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning COI The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approv4 the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the Cii Engineer prior to improvement plan submittal. 41) Prior to recordation of any final map for this develc the owner shall give written consent to the annexatic 15 16 17 existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landsc, District No. 1. Fire Conditions: 1 21 22 23 25 24 i 44) The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site I on site roads and drives subject to the approval of 1 45) An all weather access road shall be maintained throu ' 46) All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurten showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydr I Marshal. construction. I 28 PC RES0 NO. 2364 -9- i I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8( 9 10 l1 l2 13 15 16, 14 0 0 48) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to prior to construction. project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, l- the 10th day of October, 1984, by the followinq vote, to F AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~ JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairman I I CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS; 1 ATTEST: 1 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER I (I LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER 17 18 i 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I ~ i 'I I I PC RES0 NO. 2364 -1 0- 0 September 20, 1984 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE The Developer of this project has requested a variance from Ci Design Standards. In accordance with Section 18 of the Street Design Criteria of the City Standards, the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative act to grant var to the City Standards provided the following findings can be mi 1. That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards. 2. That the granting of such variance will not cause sub- stantial drainage problems. with existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use. to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is granted. 5. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehsneive general plan. City staff has reviewed the variance request and is making the recommendation that follows in this memorandum. 1. Location; El Camino Real along the Project 3. That the granting of such variance will not conflict 4. That the granting of such variance will not be detriment; frontage. El Camino Real in contravention of City of Carlsbad Street Design Cril Access to be as shown on the site r Request: Allow access to the project from Reason: The Developer feels that the five findings for approvals can be made that the driveways are necessary fc the economic viability of the projt Staff Recommendation: Approve 0 Page two September 20, 1984 TO : FROM: City Engineer PLAN N I NG COMM I S S IO N CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE Explanation 1. Extraordinary circumstances at the location are occasioned by the anticipated heavy right turn movement from the south which is destined for the complex during the morning hours when people are going to work, accommodate such movement directly into the complex via a deceleration lane and angled right turn, than to mix it wit left turns and through movements at a nearby major inter- section. The same holds true for evening home-bound traffi leaving the complex and going north. Obviously, there must never be consideration given for left turn access or egress at the location. 2. No drainage problems. 3. It will better accommodate future traffic, enhance the It would be better to ability to park expeditiously, and have no effect on pedestrians or bicycles. on property in the vicinity. 4. Not detrimental to the public welfare nor have any effect on the comprehensive general plan. / w J JL- Marty Bouman Traffic Engineer WB : MB : n j c e e EXHIBIT "KII October 10, 1984 Uses permitted in "Building B" of CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER: (1) All uses permitted by Section 21.34.020 in P-M zone (See (2) Business systems store (3) Computer store (4) Office furniture store (5) Office supplies, equipment store attachment) Conditional Uses - Uses permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit: 1) Eating and drinking establishments 2) Day care centers 3) Health and athletic clubs DECELERATION LANE SIDEWALK /PA R K W AY ( 1 0') 1 'LOCATION MAP \\ BECKMAN INST. CARLSBAD RESEARCH FARADAY BUSINESS PARK 1 CARLSAD GATEWAY CENTER SDp 1 0 * J3ACKGFOUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 84-5 APPLICANT: CARLSW GATEWAY CE"ER REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction of mixed-use industrial/office complex LM;AL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Par. 1 & 2, in City of CA, Cty.of SD, State California as shown at Page 10060 of Par.Maps filed in the office of Cty Recorder of SD County, May 23, 1980 APN: 209-040-34 Acres 16.5 Prcpsed No. of Lotsflnits N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation PI Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone M-Q Proposed Zone no change Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site M-Q Vacant North M-Q Vacant South M-Q SFE East M-Q Industrial West C-M Industrial PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated July 19, 1984 ENvIR0"TAL IMPACT ASSES-T - X Negative Declaration, issued September 18, 1984 E.I.R. Certified, dated - Other, wed- t further infomti s required, YOU Will be SO CA/CLS $fib CPI~~ e- APPLXCRNT: f?.fJefi kUwnn= N~~ (individual, partnership, joint venture, corpration, sy 28/0 </l-/NO DCc ]?IO&* fUITe tb3, J"nu Business Address 619 296- 6307 Telephone Number AGENT : o& JC*UCAi?b Name 2020 C4wqo DCC em Jkl Jum 3-/2 c P Business Address (54 27PL7/& Telephone Number 7.Laz &U^/rRy LLU. E.ENBE2S: f? Fern WAC- s La TOCCA, Cn. 920 EIme *(individual ,etnerJ joint ventwe, corpora tion, syndication) Home Address SP 4 e&& &M..r/No bEc & , r,L17* d 20% ArE50, G. Btlsiness Ad&css 6t9 Z4k43o7 9.J- y- vg/ E; 7c-7 l//# L/90 JdU, bM* P. JAJ,s //eIhJPoR2 &/4Vr c /yo0 dl BmmC- suj7'rf 2WA' M-PUffi L 7/f 7p- 2@6d 7y t/ L73- 5-33 Tele2hone Nmhr Telephone Xumber liifp Rome Addre& 3isiness Address Tt1epnor.e N-er Telephone Xunber - (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declzze ucder penalty of perjury that the inforreation contaiced in tl closure is tme and correct and that it will remain true and correct and I relied upon as being true and correct until enended. CAMCS~AD G&F~H~ App 1 ica n t / BY 1200 ELM AVENI SERVICES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (610) 438-5501 0 0 1 DEVELOPMENTAL LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE Up of Carls’bab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PRDJECT ADDRESSWION: Cablevision building. East side of El Camino Real, north of PFOJECT DESCRIPTION: previously graded 16.5 acre site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Land Use Planning Office. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Lardf Use Planniiq Office, City Hall, 1200 Eh Avenuer Carlsbad, CA. 92008, Ccmmnts frm the public are invited. Please submit ocmments in writirq to the Land Use Planning Office within ten ( 10) days of date of issuance. Multi-use industrial/office ccanplex on As a result of said Justification for this action is on file in tie DATED: September 18, 1984 CASE NO: SDP 84-5 Land Use Planning Manager APPLICANT: Carlsbad Gateway Center PUBLISH DATE: Septgnber 22, 1984 ND-4 5/8 1 . 0 0 Safl Diego ASSOCIATIOX OF GOT;ER;Z'>IESTS Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza San Diego, California 92101 1619) 236-5300 1200 Third Avenue August 27, 1984 Mr. Paul J. Klukas Land Use Planning Office 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92088 SUBJECT: Carlsbad Gateway Center Dear Mr. Klukas: The proposed Carlsbad Gateway Center is located within the airport influence area for Palomar Airport. However, the site is not within the noise contours or impact zones for the airport. Based on the location of the site in relationship to the noise contours and impact zone, the plans for the proposed industrial center are consistent with the provision of the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land TJse Plan. The SANDAG Board has not reviewed the staff analysis related to the proposed development and Palomar Airport CLUP. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 236-5372. Sincerely, b"R J2-7- JACK KOERER Special Project Director JK/rw MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Calon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove Nat Poway, San Dieqo, San Marcos, Santee and Vista ADVISORY, LIAISON MEM6ERS Calli Dept of TransportatloniU S Dept of Defense and T e 0 CARLSRAD CITY COUNCIL APPEAL RE: Carlsbad Gateway Center SDP-84-5 DATE: December 18, 1984 SPEAKER'S AGENDA INTRODUCTION : Kenneth H. Lounsbery Vice President & General Counsel, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO, 4 minutes BACKGROUND/ Bernie Fipp ACCESS: President, Southern Division KOLL COMPANY 3 minutes PLOT PLAN/ Don Schucard DESIGN: SCHUCARD ASSOCIATES 3 minutes CONCLUSION: Kenneth H. Lounsbery 5 minutes RESPONSE & CLARIFICATION: Engineering: Richard Schmid WILLIAMSON & SCHMID Traffic : Herman KIMMEL 81 ASSOCIATES 5 minutes % A+ f* r 0 0 -a LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO. KENNETH H LOUNSBERY Vice President General Course1 7 _ecer.her 5, 1984 Planning C ormission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention ; PJr . 'Rill Hofmzn Re: Carlsbad Gateway Center (Davis Developments) Cear P4embers of the Commission: This is written on behalf of the applicant seeking approval of the above-d-escribed project . On PJovember 21, 1984, ~n appeal was filed on behalf of Dax4s Developments. The appeal pertains to a denial by the Plannicg Commission sf an application for plan approval pursuant to a Q-overlay ind.ustria1 project. On November 27, 8 request was filed on behalf of the applicant seeking a rehearing by the Commission of the ori@;inal application. The applicant also requested that the above-mentioned apped be delaved pending the Commission's actioln, if any, on the yehearing. 8n behalf of the applicant, we have had 2n opportunity to review the application for rehearkg with the City Attorney's office. We have also discussed the matter Xwitk members of the Flannirrg Departr>er,t; staif. The applicant has now determined thet 'It would be most expediticus to abandon the request for rehearing afic! pursue the appeal. Please cofisider this as the withdrawal by Davis Developments of the Plovember 27 request for rehearing of the subject application. Further , we respectfully request that the appeal to City Csunzil, filed November 21, be processed in due course. Thank you for your consideratior,. KHL : ss cc : \Htp @lerk Xembers of City Cmr-ci! 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, California 92069 (61 9) 744-31 33 State License No 207287 -~___-__ ____ --~-~. -== - -~-= ~~ - ~- -=-~= ~ -~ ~~~~~ ~ ___ __- - 7 - ~~ 94 CMf -=_- --.- ~ ~___._ DM 3ATE 11-26 19 1 Mr. Lounsberry brought the check for the appeal, He indicated that they were still trying to pursue 1; the matter through the Planning Commission, and that 1 they had filed the appeal so that if the PC does " not then the matter can go to council. (apparently !I he and Dan Hentschke had talked previously re this ' course of action for the matter) As he indicated to i me Dan had indicated that the matter could be handled 1' as he requested in their letter of November 21, 1984. I told him that apparently no one had informed you of this and that was why there had been some confusion and !I I that you were merely trying to find out about it. I K, F R 3 k; THiS SHEET I =- __~. ~-_ ------= = =- - -~~ ___ 5TbhDnhD IhItY IIFP-. nE/O FDSM i'-7L,-~ * 4F? SERVICE pE CITY OF CARL 3AD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5551 DATE RECEIVED FROM I TOTAL IJ <,l &A 'A * c;tl"e,hd -. e a -. -$ T7!F 3EVELCPR"ENTS 2810 Camino del Zie Scuth Suite 202 Szn Diego, California 92108 (619) 296-6307 November 21, 1984 city Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Gateway (Davis Developmects) Dear City Clerk: This is to lodge 8 notice of appeal. On \Vednesday, PTovember 14 , 1984, the Carlsbad Planning Said Commission took action with respect to the above-described project. action was to deny the requested approval of a project plan, By the terms of this letter, the applicant herewith files an appeal of said denial and requests that, in due course, such request be forwarded to the City Council for review. It is to be acknowledged, hcwever, that, bv sepzrate communication, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission rescind its action to deny and rehear the application. This notice is filed to perfect the applicant's appellate remedy in the event that said request is denied or, upon rehearing, the earlier derial is confirmed. Yours very truly, DAVIS DEVEJ,OPMENTS '($e&;{$$ FRED WALTEES [By: Kenneth F! . Lounsbery! 744 1- %i 33 FW : KNL : ss w LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO. KENNETH H LOUNSEERY Vice President. General Counsel Irovernher 27, 1984 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSRAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad , California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Gateway Center (Davis Developments) SDP 84-5 Rlembers of the Commission : This office represents the applicant, Davis Developments. Appeal to Council On November 21, 1984, the applicant herein filed an appeal of the contained in SDP 84-5. Commissionts denial (decided November 14, 1984), of applicant's request The applicant has requested, however, that action upon said appeal be withheld until a determination by the Planning Commission pursuant to the request set forth below. Said appeal was merely filed as a necessity dictated by the rules of appeal. Such filing was required to preserve the right of appeal dependent upon the action of the Planning Commission pursuant to the applicant's request for rehearing. Rehearing by Commission procedural rules adopted by the Commission, the applicant hereby requests that the Commission: As permitted by the terms of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the a. Rescind its November 14, 1985 action to deny SDP 84-5, and b. Rehear said matter. This request is based upon the belief that not all relevant facts were reviewed or available for review, by the Commission during the October 10 or November 14 hearings. Thus, the Commission's decision was made in reliance upon an incomplete factual basis. - If rehearing is granted, the applicant will present to the Commission factual information which was not presented or discussed at the hearings of October 10 or November 14. 1570 Llnda Vista Drive San Marcos. California 92069 (61 9) 744-31 33 State License No 207287 J W w I L Planning Cornmis sion Novernbei. 27, 1984 Page 2 The requested land use approval was not, and is not, required to be a noticed public hearing. Therefore, the Commission is free to calendar the request for rehearing and, upon deciding to rescind its denial and rehear the matter, immediately consider the merits of SDP 84-5 anew. The applicant's request will have no prejudicial effect upon the City staff or property owners in the area who may have an interest in the project. The staff has thoroughly studied the application; it has prepared two reports for the Commission totaling 35 pages, including attachments. Further, prior to rehearing, the staff will have been fully advised of the new factual information to be provided by applicant to the Commission. Finally, the applicant will, voluntarily, contact each party of record who appeared to address the subject request at the October 10 and November 14 hearings. Said persons shall be advised of the date, time and place of the consideration by the Planning Commission of the rehearing. The applicant requests that the Commission consider and approve the application as set forth above. &&b{ ENN T 11. LOUN BE Vice sident , Gener Counsel KHL: ss cc: City Clerk City Attorney's Office (Dan Hentschke) D avis Develop men t s Koll Co. Helix Engineering 1 II) (b . LUSARDl CONSTRUCTION CO. KENNETH H LOUNSBERY Vice President, General Counsel P.4aysr Yary Caskr Members ~f City Cou~cil CITY OF CAR,LSSAD 12@0 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Celifornia 92008 Re: CarBsbad Gateway Center (Appeal Erom Planning Commission decision) ; Courcil PTeeting of Peeember IS ~ 1954 ~ Dear Mayor anC Plembers of the Council: This office represents the owner of the above-described. prcject ? Davis Developments. The attached statevent is offered iv. surqmrt of the aanlieant's appeal from a decision of the Carlsba6 Planning Commission. The facts and issues invo?-ved in the mztter are exolained in the statement. rPre wouId appreciate your review of the statement. position. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if we gight clarify OW YQUYs V2Y:r truly, - A_- - YENXETH FT. T,CI!T-:SSE?Y KFL: ss Enclosure cc: City Clerk City Attorney Planning Bepartmer_t 3avis DeTreiopaePts Kcll CC. 1570 Linda Vista Drive 0 San Marcos, California 92069 0 (619) 744-3133 State License NO 207287 m 0 ?:TP,TFP./IENT JN SUPPORT OF APPEAl, - Date: December 12, 1984 Project: SDP 84-5 Carlsbad Gateway Center - Re: Review Date: Council Meeting of December 18, 1984 Appeal of Planning Commission denial of November 14, 1984 Jmclowner: KO11 Co, (Seller) Applicant: Davis Developments (Buyer) Critical Issue: Right of Access SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PROJECT The 16.5 acre site in question is located on the east side frontage of El Camino Real, west of the future extension of Palmer Way and immediately north of the existing Cablevision building. The land slopes downward moderately to the north; property to the north is vacant. Koll's Carlsbad Research Center is located across El (Camino Real to the west. A vicinity map is attached, marked Exhibit A. The property is zoned M-Q (industrial with a qualified overlay). This is one of the few sites remaining in the City that carries the lenient M-Q zoning. The only reason the project was before the Commission for review was the Q-overlay requirement for site plan review. Such review does not require a noticed public hearing. The project involves the development of a mixed-use industrial/office complex. It includes one 2-story, 50,000 sq. ft. office building, one 1-story 38,000 sq. ft. limited commercial building, and seven 1-story, multi- tenant industrial buildings . BACKGROUND Staff Recommendation : On September 28, the City staff furnished the applicant with a draft . of the its recommendation. It was for APPROVAL of the project. A meeting was held on October 2 and conditions were discussed. e It was acknowledged that access to the project from El Camino Real In this regard the staff and was (and continues to be) a critical issue. applicant were in agreement. The staff report read, in pertinent part: "El Camino Real is a prime arterial in the City's circulation system. As such, access to it is severely restricted. Access is encouraged along frontage roads such as Palmer Way. The City Engineer has indicated that his office could support a right-inIright-out access to El Camino Real on this site on the condition that acceleration and deceleration lanes are provided, and that the two Palmer Way accesses are designed as wide, attractive entry alternatives. Staff feels that, as conditioned, the resulting plan makes an adequate attempt at maximizing the two Palmer Way entries and minimizing the El Camino Real entry, while keeping the El Camino Real streetscape attractive and safe. Overall, on-site circulation is functional and adequate. '' It is interesting to note the reasons offered by the City's traffic engineer which support the staff's original recommendation. In a memo dated September 20, 1984, the staff detailed the benefits which resulted from allowing limited access to El Camino Real. A copy of the report is attached, marked Exhibit B . While there were minor disagreements as to other issues, the staff The matter was referred to and report remained unchanged as to access. heard by the Planning Commission on October 10, 1984. First Planning Commission Meeting: At the meeting of October 10, the Planning Commission was critical of the staff's position with respect to access onto El Camino Real. The Commission cited the City's policy that purports to limit such access to points not less than 2,600 feet from any major intersection. There were, however, other influences upon the Commission at the October 10 meeting. Although the Commission's review of the subject site plan did not entail a public hearing and notices therefor were not required, two ' representative groups were present and were heard as initial critics of the project. They were: -2 - m W o Residents of the Sunny Creek area who registered aesthetic concerns which were the result of their unfamiliarity with the project. o Mike O'Hara (Del Mar Financial), a developer of property situated to the north on the proposed extension of Palmer Way, who urged the Commission to require that this applicant be responsible for extending Palmer Way. The argument was an attempt to shift the burden of cost for certain off-site improvements required by O'Hara onto the Carlsbad Gateway Center. As a result of these initial concerns, and in order to resolve the access problem, the Commission continued its consideration of the project to the meeting of November 14, Second Commission Meeting: Prior to the November 14 Commission meeting, the applicant met with the residents of Sunny Creek and O'Hara. Upon being more fully informed of the project, the Sunny Creek representatives were satisfied that the project was acceptable. The position taken by O'Hara continued to be opportunistic, but in modified form. Unfortunately, however, the reaction to the first Commission meeting caused the staff to reverse its position with respect to access onto El Camino Real. It acknowledged in its second staff report that all other concerns had been satisfactorily addressed, but that the access issue could no longer be resolved as originally agreed. The staff concluded that, because the developer had presented a plan which provided access onto El Camino Real, the request for site plan approval should be denied. The November 14 hearing was a serpentine affair highlighted by reversals and contradictions. o The Sunny Creek residents appeared and spoke in favor of the project. o O'Hara took a modified position, but continued to press for completion by Davis Developments of a road that would serve the O'Hara project. -3 - Q e o The staff agreed that all other development problems had been resolved, but offered the access problem as the basis for a reversal in its position. The discussion by Commissioners included a brief reference to a 1980 parcel map placed on the property. The map clearly defines a right of access to El Camino Real. Thus, the question was raised as to whether the City had the legal right to deny the property owner access to El Camino Real. A copy of the map was available at the hearing-, but no conclusion was reached as to the owner's legal right to access. The Commission, by a 4/3 vote, denied the requested plan approval. It is important, however, to note that one Commissioner (Schlehuber) made it very clear, on the record, that he was casting his vote "without prejudice." Further, he indicated that, if it were determined that the applicant had a legal right to access to El Camino Real, he would reverse his position, thereby creating a 4/3 vote in favor of the requested plan approval. CRITICAL ISSUE: ACCESS Access ; Legal Issue : Following the second Commission meeting, the applicant's representative discussed the access question, as a legal issue, with the City Attorney's office. There is no doubt as to the existence of an easement, defined on Parcel Map #lOOSO, which affords access to El Camino Real. There is no clear agreement, however, as to the permanence of such easement and its effect upon the subject decision. The applicant takes the position that the right of access is vested and, given the circumstances of this application, cannot be denied as a matter of law. The City Attorney's office is not yet prepared to opine that said access is a vested right. Such uncertainties might be resolved by a trier-of-fact, but there is a simpler, more practical, solution. , -4- m w 3 Access; Practical Issue : A practical solution is found in a form of substantial compliance with the City's policy of limited access onto El Camino Real. The policy would require minimum distances of 2,600 feet between access points along El Camino Real. Departures from the policy have been evident in Carlsbad both before and after its inception. There are two ways of viewing such departures; one - the policy has only been honored in the breach, or, two - it has been applied with a sense of reason in order to bring traffic circulation closer to conformance to the desired goal of the policy. This project can be cited as an example of the latter interpretation. Current Access. As El Camino Real runs through Carlsbad, there are many points of access to the arterial which do not conform to the policy. For example, between Palomar Airport Road and the northerly boundary of this project there are no fewer than five existing access points. Thus, in nothing more than the area in question, there are five departures from the City's policy. This is not to suggest that compliance should, therefore, be excused. Instead, the policy should be applied reasonably to improve circulation by moving toward conformance. Proposed Access. The applicant's proposal for access would actually bring the existing condition into closer conformity to the intent of the policy. Consider the following points: o The applicant will reduce the number of existing access points by A merger of access rights with those of the adjoining property one. owner immediately to the south has been proposed. o Acceleration and deceleration lanes are proposed along the El Camino Real frontage, virtually eliminating the traveled portion of El Camino Real as a point of ingress and egress. o The applicant has agreed to construct a median strip in the center of El Camino Real, thereby prohibiting left turn movements into or out of the project. o For proper through-circulation, two access points will also be provided at Palmer Way. -5- 0 w The applicant's proposal for access will constitute an improvement in the traffic-flow capability of El Camino Real. At least one traffic expert has detailed the reasons for such a conclusion in the attached report, marked Exhibit C. Approval of the site plan would actually improve The applicant's proposed solution to access problems takes on increased merit when compared to the alternatives that are implied by the revised staff position. o Under current conditions, access to Palmer Waly would not eliminate the need for similar access to El Camino Real. Palmer Way is a cul-de-sac street and, according to City regulations, cannot serve as a sole access point for this project. Thus, access to El Camino Real would continue to be required and the number of access points on the restricted thoroughfare would not be reduced. o In recognition of the above-described flaw, the staff, in its second access conditions along El Camino Real. Impractical Alternatives. Consider these difficulties: report, suggested that, if El Carnino Real access were to be eliminated, Palmer Way would have to be constructed as a through-street . This would impose a requirement upon the applicant of extending Palmer Way for nearly one-third of a mile to an eventual joinder with College Ave. to the north. No one, least of all the Planning Commissioners, had ever envisioned such a requirement. The extremity of such a burden becomes even more obvious when compared to the logic and fairness of the access solution on El Camino Real. Considering the variety of past access decisions along El Camino Real, it would be virtually unprecedented to apply the City's policy so rigidly as to produce an unfair result. CONCLUSION The reasons and logic underlying the original recommendation by the staff are compelling. We request that the Council follow the staff's first . recommended course of action and approve the applicant's site plan, with the proposed access, as requested. -6 - L CARLSAD GATEWAY CENTER SDP 84 w \ rn \. September 20, 1984 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE The Developer of this project has requested a variance from City Design Standards. In accordance with Section 18 of the Street Design Criteria of the City Standards, the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative act to grant varianc to the City Standards provided the following findings can be met: 1. That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards. That the granting of such variance will not cause sub- stantial drainage problems. with existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use. to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is granted. 5. That the granting of such variance will not adversely 2. 3. That the granting of such variance will not conflict 4. That the granting of such variance will not be detrimental affect the comprehsneive general plan. City staff has reviewed the variance request and is making the recommendation that follows in this memorandum. 1. Location: El Camino Real along the Project frontage. Request: . Allow access to the project from El Camino Real in contravention of City of Carlsbad Street Design Criteri Access to be as shown on the site plar , Reason: The Developer feels that the five findings for approvals can be made an( that the driveways are necessary for the economic viability of the project Staff Reconiinendation: Approve EXHIBIT B 0 (- : 0 \ Page two September 20, 1984 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CHTER, SOP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE Explanation 1. Extraordinary circumstances at the location are occasioned . by the anticipated heavy right turn movement from the south which is destined for the complex during the morning hours when people are going to work. It would be better to accommodate such movement directly into the complex via a deceleration lane and angled right turn, than to mix it with left turns and through movements at a nearby major inter- section. The same holds true for evening home-bound traffic leaving the complex and going north. Obviously, there mGst never be consideration given for left turn access or egress at the location. 2. No drainage problems. 3. It will better accommodate future traffic, enhance the ability to park expeditiously, and have no effect on pedestrians or bicycles. 4. Not detrimental to the public welfare nor have any effect on property in the vicinity. 5. No eff on the comprehensive general plan. Marty Bouman Traffic Engineer WB :MB: n jc .. 1) W # \- rRAFFIC ENGINEERIN&- ermsnn CONSULTANTS immel and Associates, Inc. 3300 IRVINE AVENUE. SUITE 180. NEWP T B A CA 92660 (714) mxgw 8!2-\8y6 (91 November 15, 1984 ac-2 r& Davis Developments 2810 Camino Del Rio South Suite 202 San Diego, Ca. 92108 Attention Mr. Fred Walters Access, Carlsbad Gateway Center El Camino Real City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Walters: In response to your request, we have analyzed the traffic impacts of access to the Carlsbad Gateway Center. INTRODUCTION In the process of development of the Carlsbad Gateway Center, it has Seen proposed to develop a street paralleling El Camino Real, between Faraday Street and College Boulevard, to provide access to the project. The primary purpsse for the new street (Faliner Avenue) would be to eliminate the need for access along El Camino Real. Access limitation is purported to be necessary to provide traffic progression along El Camino Real, without side friction, for optimum minimum distances of 2,600 feet between access to El Camino Real. N'! EXHIBIT C W a I; \ !'age 2 'Nov. 15 1984 r Davis D&velopment&^" ANALYSIS There have been many variations regarding access limitation. The requirements vary from one-quarter nile spacing of arterial or collector street with no intervening access, no residential driveways on arterial highways, no limitation of access to service stations to one driveway of each adjacent street. These restrict- ions, plus many others, have been tried in order to promote traffi safety and progression along through streets, especially those with very high volumes of traffic. Restricting access to minimum distances of 2,600 feet along a street could provide an acceptable vehicle speed of 40 niles per hour, depending on the traffic signal timing at the intervening intersections. However, this same progression can be achieved even when some driveways and minor streets are intersecting the major street. Even with traffic signal spacing at 2,600 feet, traffic tends to move in groups. The intervals between these groups will allow safe access to the street without interference with the flow of through traffic. There are problems created by limiting access over long distances These could be: . Traffic volumes on the intersecting streets would be much higher than if there were intervening intersections to accommodate or syphon off a portion of the demand. . Because the approved intersecting street's volumes are higher and it is desired to maintain progression along the main street, more green time at signalized intersect- ions, than can be made 'available, is required. - In order to gain access to properties on the opposite sid of the street, a greater number of U-turns and left turns will be introduced at the limited number of accesses. P i -’: I’ayc 3 ‘Nov, 15, 1384 ‘Davis Development ‘ . The 2,600 foot access spacing will increase the traffic volumes on circulation streets and will increase the length of vehicle trips. . Groups of vehicles tend to stretch out over longer sections between traffic signals. This tendency requires longer green intervals on the main street traffic signals, in order to maintain progression. This then leads to inordin- ately long traffic signal cycles. . The longer the traffic signal cycle length, the slower the progression speeds along the main street. At 40 miles per hour, a 90 second cycle length is normally required. At 35 miles per hour, a cycle length of 100 seconds is nbrmal. . Pedestrian crossings can be a problem. The intersection of a street is a legal crosswalk with or without painted indi- cations. If it is desired to provide a crossing point between intersections, it would be necessary to provide painted crossing(s) in order to control random, promiscuou: crossings by pedestrians. These mid-block crosswalks are extremely hazardous. . The reduction of side friction along a street will tend to lead drivers to increase their speed between intersections In the case of access to the project, the proposed entrance on El Camino Real would be provided with acceleration and decelerati lanes. This would be accomplished by setting back the curbs to allow vehicles entering to pull out of the through traffic lane, in order to decelerate for a turn into the entry, without restric through traffic speeds, and to enter the street, accelerating to s’treet speed prior to merging into the through lanes. Northbound traffic, entering the project site, would not interfer with through travel that will use the deceleration lane provided. w t. r : rn . Page 4 'Nov. 15, 1984 (, *Davis Developments Southbound traffic, entering the site, would make a left or U-turn at Faraday Street and a left turn at Palmer Avenue. Northbound traffic leaving the site could use the exit onto El Camino Real, without interference with through traffic by virtue of the acceleration lane, or turn right on Palmer Avenue to Faraday Street, right to El Camino Real and right on El Camino Real. Southbound traffic would leave in the same direction on Palmer Avenue and Faraday Street, turning left onto El Camino Real. On the basis of this accessability, it would not be necessary to extend Palmer Avenue northerly of the project site, unless propert to the north finds a need for the access. Such access to the north would be of no benefit to the proposed project, either with or without access to El Camino Real. CONCLUSIONS Allowing properly designed and spaced access to El Camino Real at distances less than 2,600 feet would not be detrimental to through traffic . Good traffic progression can be maintained with controlled access permitted along the major street at less than 2,600 feet. Access limitation can create problems on intersecting streets, due to higher cross street volumes, excess U-turns, left turns, and increased circulating vehicles. Longer traffic signal cycles and increased green time intervals may be required to accommodate traffic at widely spaced inter- se,ctions, or peak hour queues (back-ups) will result. Problems with pedestrian crossing can be created with the 2,600 foot spacing of access points. ,w ‘ : Page 5 m .’Nov. 15, 1984 t. ‘I D2Oi”s Deve lopme n t s‘ ’ Drivers will travel at higher speeds if all side friction is eliminated, thus defeating the progressive system. Reasonable access to the project site can be gained without exten- sion of another street northerly. If you have questions or comments concerning our analysis, please contact us. Sincerely yours, HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC., INC. ’ &&eE. Herman \immel,