HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-09; City Council; 9581; Zone Change Carlsbad Ranch Business Centerc
CP OF CARLSBAD - AGEND” BILL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City, Council APPROVE City Council Resolution No. 88-2BL: APPROVING the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and introduce Ordinance No. /r/S-30 APPROVING ZC 87-l. In addition it is recommended that the Cit; Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING the appeal of conditions nos. 22 and 23 for CT 87-2 and APPROVE CT 87-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Backuround
On July 6, 1988 the Planning Commission (5-O-l Erwin) approved CT 87-2 and Hillside Development Permit, HDP 87-2 as well as recommended Council approval of ZC 87-l. The project proposes to subdivide 56 acres located east of Nurseryland on the south side of Palomar Airport Road. The subdivision creates 8 industrial lots, a 17.7 acre open space lot, and a remainder parcel (18.1 acres) that is not a part of the subdivision.
Zone Chancre
The recommended zone change is required to bring the zoning into conformity with the site's General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) land use designations. The site is designated by those plans for a mix of Planned Industrial (PI) and Tourist serving office (TS/O) and Open Space (OS) uses. The site's zoning while generally consistent with the above designations, excludes the OS zone and includes the Limited Control Zone (L- C) which only allows agricultural uses. The proposed zone change adds the OS zone to match the boundaries of Encinas Creek and its riparian habitat. Also, it removes a portion of the L-C zoning located over the industrial property and replaces the zoning with PM (Industrial) zone plus a "Ql@ overlay that requires a Site Development Plan for development.
The Hillside Development Permit was required because the proposed development would affect small areas of slopes 15% or greater in inclination. The Planning Commission found that the proposed development was consistent with both the City's Hillside Ordinance and LCP requirements for protection of steep slopes.
+ Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 95$?/
ADDeal
At the Planning Commission hearing regarding the tentative map the applicant objected to condition Nos. 22 and 23, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2744 (Note: this Resolution has been revised so that the appeal now refers to condition Nos. 23 and 24). He stated that the required dedication and lien contract for a frontage road connection through the remainder was not consistent with either the traffic generated by the project, the open space objectives of the City, or the environmental constraints of the property. The applicant also argued that dedication and liens could be made a condition of approval of a future development proposal for the remainder parcel.
Staff counter argued that the traffic generated by the project added to the cumulative deterioration of service levels on Palomar Airport Road necessitating the potential future need for a frontage road. In addition staff demonstrated that a frontage road could be constructed without significant impacts to the environmentally sensitive habitats. Finally, staff indicated the rationale for requiring the frontage road with this tentative map was the lack of a guarantee that the property would be available when it was needed. The subject remainder parcel could change ownerships as well as not be the subject of a development proposal by the time the frontage road is needed. Therefore, including conditions 22 and 23 (now revised to Nos. 23 and 24) guarantees the availability of the property concurrent with need or demand. Planning Commission concurred (5-O-l Erwin) with staff.
Environmental Review
The Planning Director has determined that this project as conditioned will not cause any significant impacts and, therefore, has issued a Conditional Negative Declaration on May
4, 1988. This determination was based on a number of factors. Staff reviewed biology, soils and archaeology reports that were prepared for the property. Those reports identified a potential impact to wetland and blacktail gnatcather habitat. Mitigation measures were added to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. During public review, the City received a comment from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) indicating unacceptance of the proposed mitigation. Staff revised its recommendation on project design to address the concerns of CDFG. The Planning Commission agreed with the Planning Director's determination as modified and approved Resolution No. 2744 approving the Conditional Negative Declaration.
. Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. 95f/
Fiscal Impact
None
Exhibits
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
City Council Res lution No. d-38
dw4%
Ordinance No. Location Map Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2744, 2745, and 2746 Planning Commission Memorandums (2) dated July 6, 1988 Planning Commission Memorandum dated June 15, 1988 Department of Fish and Game letter dated May 31, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 15, 1988 Minutes from July 6 and July 15, 1988 Appeal from Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 88-28~
A RESOLlJTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECL?U?ATION FOR ZC 87-1, CT 87-2, BDP 88- 2. CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on
August 9, 1988, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the City Council
considered all factors relating to the Conditional Negative
Declaration including Planning Commission Resolution No. 2744
granting Planning Commission approval of said Conditional
Negative Declaration: and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on May 4, 1988 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That there is no substantial evidence that the project as conditioned may have a significant effect on the environment.
That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad incorporates into this resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 2744 including findings and conditions contained therein.
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 9th day of August , 1988 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine and Mamaux
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Larson
ATTEST:
O& R.R& ALETHA RAUTENKRANTZ, City Clerk
CC RESO NO. -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. NS-30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "X " DATED AUGUST 9, 1988 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE- QUARTER MILE EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO: ZC 87-l
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended by the amendment of a zoning map as shown on the map
marked ZC 87-1, Exhibit "X " attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall
certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen
days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 9th day of August, 1988 and
thereafter
////
/I//
////
////
////
I///
////
////
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held on the day of I 1988, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Ordinance No. -2-
‘v&d ZONING
R-A-10 c. CA
EXISTING
EA
PROPOSED
August 9, 1988
_-
SITE
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
RfSlO#NTlAL Ill LOW DEhSlTY (0.l.l) RnsloeNTlu
RLH LOW..WEDICM DENSITY (0.4) P.C PLANXED COMMLMTY ZONE
RM YEDICH DENSIl-Y(r.8) R-A WIDENTIAL &RICCLTLRAL LONZ
RMH MEDICM HIGH DENSITY (lb IS) kE RUILU RESIDEhTtAl ESTATE LONE
IUi HIGH DENSITY( 1523) 11.1 ONE.FA..ILY RESIDENTLU ZONE R.2 TWO.FMILY WIDENIUL ZOM coMHIRcl*L R-3 YfLTIPlE E4MILY RBIDENTLU ZONE RRI Ih-l?2NSIVE IIEGIONM RETAIL (efj Plaza Cunim Real) k3L LLHITED M(cLTl.FA.WILY WIDENIUL ZONE RAE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (q Car Counuy Cadsbad) RDM RESIDENlUL DENSITI:.MLUlPLE ZONE IIS REGIONAL SERVKE RD4i RESIDENllAL DENSIl-V.HIGH ZONE C COM.MLTMY COMME#W RWHP WIDENllAl MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE N SEIGHBOIUIOOD COMlEllCW WC I?ZSIDLM’I.U PROFESSIONAL ZOM I-S TRAVEL SERVICES COM.WERCLAL RT RESID~~TIAI. TOLTUST ZONE 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED RW RF-SIDE!! WATERWAY ZONE
(GENERAL PLAN MAP)
4
city of Carlsbad
CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PI PLANKED INDL-STRLAL G GOVERN.MENT FACILITIES U KBUC UTILITIES RC IIECRRAIXON COMMERCIAL
scnoou E ELEMENTARY J JL’SIOR HIGH H HIGHSCHOOL P PRIVATE
OS OPEN SPACE SRI SON RESIDENTUL ILESERtX
cOMM#RclAL 0 OrnCEZONE C.1 .NEIGHBONiOOD COMMEIICLU ZONE c.2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL zoiva CT COMWERCIALTOLJUST ZONE GM HMW CO.M.~ERUAL.LIMITED WSTNAL ZONE M IIvDwmMZONE P-M PIAmTDINDIzmzoNE
omm F-p FLOODPLUN OvEluY ZOht5 LX LwmeDcoh7roL a3 OPRNSPKE ~4 ec.auc mum ZONE
CARLSBAD RANCH BUS. CENTER ZC 87-1
C
.
1
2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2744
11 3 j
41 I I' 5 j!
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ABOUT ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF PASEO
6, DEL NORTE.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLICANT: CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER CASE NO.: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of
June and 6th day of July, 1988, hold duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative
Declaration.
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 Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND1' and IIPII1f, dated May 4, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and conditions:
Findinas:
1. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur; and
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
'r
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
2. There is no substantial evidence that the project as conditioned may have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The following mitigation measures shall occur as the project is implemented:
A. The recommendations of the soils report (dated August 8, 1986, with subsequent addendums dated April 21, 1987, and June 11, 1987, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants) will be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project.
B. The recommendations of the biology report (dated March 2, 1988, by Westec Services, Inc.) will be followed, and include:
(1)
(2)
(3) Graded slopes in the development area will be revegetated promptly to avoid erosion into the wetland.
(4) Construction equipment will not be parked or operated in the wetland.
(5) Excess fill or stock-piling will not be placed in the wetlands area.
PC RESO NO. 2744 -2-
Sediment basins will be placed in the development areas at the lower end of drainage ways prior to grading the site.
The approximately 50-foot wide strip between the development area and the wetland will be revegetated, preferably with coastal sage scrub species, immediately after grading, which could allow some Blacktailed Gnatcatchers to persist. In addition, the following Condition No. 21 was added by Planning Commission action to Resolution No. 2746 to further protect the gnatcatcher:
The black-tailed gnatcatcher shall not be disturbed during its nesting season, in accordance with the Federal Higratory Bird Treaty Act. Grading shall not occur during those months of nesting/breeding activities, which are from mid-March to August 1, unless written certification to do so is obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game.
3 iI
4i!
51
Ii
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(6) Construction limits and wetland habitat will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to grading and construction activity will be monitored by the same to ensure that the wetlands are not inadvertently degraded.
C. The -14 acres of wetlands to be disturbed by the proposed project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. A mitigation program will be developed to the satisfaction of the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game with a minimum of 1:l mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will obtain a certified permit for the mitigation plan from the two responsible agencies. (Note: This condition has been modified by Planning Commission action on Resolution No. 2746 for CT 87-2 in which the following Condition No. 20C was added: TIChe tentative map shall be redesigned so that there are no encroachments into the wetlands.")
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 6th day of July, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus, Schlehuber, Holmes t Schramm.
NOES:
ABSENT: Hall
ABSTAIN: Erwin
J#ANNE MCFADDEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2744 -3-
I
2075 IAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 920094659
MitQ uf Qkcrlsbati
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECl2iRATION
TELEPHONE
(619) 436-1161
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Palomar Airport Road, one quarter of a mile east of Paseo de1 Norte.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone change and subdivision map for
industrial lots in compliance with the General Plan. Eights lots and associated street network would be created. Approximately 18 acres would remain in open space, and another 18 acres to remain in limited control zoning.
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. As a result of said review, a Conditional Negative Declaration
(declaration that the project, as conditioned, will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. c
DATED: May 4, 1988 MICHAEL J. HYLZMIMR CASE NO: CT 87-2/ZC 87-l Planning Director
APPLICANT: Carltas Company
PUBLISH DATE: May 4, 1988
-.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 87-2/ZC 87-1
DATE: 4-11-88
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Carltas Develonment Company
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
(944-4090)
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Auaust 6, 1987
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
Change in'topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
X
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
-.
4.
a.
b.
C.
d.
5.
a.
b.
C.
d.
6.
7.
a.
Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any 'unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Poise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
ht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
nd Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-3-
9.
a.
b.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
MAYBE NO
Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
Risk of Unset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
Ponulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Bousinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?-
Alterations to circulation or and/or goods?
Alterations to air traffic?
present patterns of movement of people
waterborne, rail or
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
X
X
-4-
-
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
X f. Other governmental services?
15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy I or require the development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Buman Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
-5-
la.
19.
20.
21.
YES
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view?
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
Archeolouical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the DrODOSed Droiect such as:
X
X
X
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
f) 9)
The proposed project is not that large so phasing would not be particularly applicable. An alternate site design could avoid any impacts to the wetlands by using a different grading scheme, i.e., pulling the slopes back, so no encroachment occurs. The project would have to be redesigned, grading quantities may be affected, perhaps eliminating the need to import an additional 6,000 cubic yards. This would be an environmentally preferred alternative. An alternate scale of development that would be more environmentally sensitive would involve no grading into the wetlands, resulting in a smaller pad for one of the eight lots. Whatever use builds on the site, it would be required to observe the open space designation and wetland impacts. The project is located in an area that is developing with other industrial and commercial uses, so development at this time is not premature.
WA A @*no project" alternative would cause no disturbance to the site or to the wetlands. However, the General Plan designations for the site would remain in place (Planned Industrial and Open Space) and at a future point, another subdivision map would likely be proposed.
-6-
22.
a.
b.
C.
d.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Mandatorv findinas of sianificance -
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
X
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
The project proposes to subdivide a 56-acre property into 8 industrial lots (20 ac) and open space (18 ac). Eighteen additional acres have been left in a holding zone of limited control for the time being. A future project will precipitate a zone change and required environmental evaluation for that area. The numbered items below refer to the initial study checklist.
-7-
~DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
1)
2)
3)
4)
Earth - The project proposes grading amounts of 187,o'OO cubic yards of cut and 193,000 cubic yards of fill within the 20 acre area proposed for lots and streets. The maximum slope created will be 25 feet in height, which is within the parameters allowed by the Hillside Ordinance and is not a significant change in topography. A soil feasibility study and geologic reconnaissance have been done (reports on file in the Planning Department) which show that while there are compressible and expansive soils on site, there are common techniques to alleviate potential impacts caused by these soils. Both types of soils can be excavated and replaced with other compacted fill soils which are available on site.
There are both a landslide and a fault located in areas not proposed for development. When or if development or grading were to occur near these areas, additional studies would be required to determine the special treatment necessary.
Because a grading permit is needed, the project will have to comply with the recommendations of the soils study. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated with regard to unstable earth conditions, disruption of the soils, or modification of unique geologic features. Soil erosion will be controlled by proper landscaping and drainage controls. The riparian area channel will not be modified as it is proposed to remain in open space. If a stock-piling permit is required, separate environmental review will be done at that time.
&- The proposed zone change will implement the General Plan "industrial" land use desisnation. Thus, the number of vehicle trips from this proposed subdivision has traffic counts for estimating future air San Diego basin. This proposal will not information.
Water - The open space area is wetland and a water course which currently drains the subject property, and will be minimally disturbed by the proposed subdivision. Drainage will continue to
been included in regional quality conditions in the significantly impact that
flow into the open space, but will be controlled by rip rap and confined to certain outlets.
Plant Life - A biological resources report was prepared for the property and is on file in the Planning Department. The following information is a summary of impacts from that report:
The three vegetative associations that will be affected by development are disturbed vegetation, successional coastal sage scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. Open, disturbed vegetation is not a sensitive habitat and the loss of 11.0 acres here is not a significant adverse impact. Although the successional sage scrub, if left undisturbed, might eventually regenerate into higher- quality habitat, the value and sensitivity of the habitat
-a-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
in its current condition are low, and the loss of 7.7 acres is not a significant adverse impact.
The 1.3 acres of coastal sage scrub, although disturbed, are of biological value primarily for the two sensitive plant and one sensitive bird species they contain, and so loss of this area is an adverse impact. However, because the two plants (Selaainella cincerascens and Dichondra occidentalis) are of relatively low sensitivity and consist of small, isolated populations, its loss would not be considered significant. In addition, the California Black-tailed Gnatcatchers (3 pairs), are small in number, isolated from other populations in Carlsbad, and will be impacted by the widening of Palomar Airport Road. Their loss is not considered significant.
After the biology report was completed, a revised grading plan showed an encroachment into the wetland of .14 acres. This impact will require mitigation to the satisfaction of the Coastal Commission so that wetland impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. The wetland area impacted is pampas grass, which while it is a non-native disturbed habitat, lies in an area that is still wetlands due to the underlying soil/hydrological conditions. Because the wetland habitat has been degraded by the proliferation of pampas grass, the area represents an opportunity for wetland enhancement.
In addition to the mitigation for the wetlands, there are measures to reduce or avoid indirect adverse impacts from grading in such close proximity to wetlands, that will be placed on the project as conditions of approval. These measures are included as environmental mitigation as well.
Animal Life - Although the project will impact 3 pairs of Black- tailed Gnatcatchers, for reasons discussed in the section above, the impact is not considered significant.
Noise - The proposal will not impact noise levels: it is an appropriate use next to a prime arterial roadway.
Liaht or Glare - The proposal will provide streetlights and parking lot lights which will not cause significant light or glare impacts.
Land Use - The proposed zone change will implement the General Plan land use designation of Planned Industrial; the Open Space designation also will compliment the General Plan. The retention of L-C is appropriate until detailed studies are done to determine the developable area and the open space on the L-C parcel.
Natural Resources - Not applicable.
Risk of Unset - Not applicable.
-9-
.\ (Continued)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
Ponulation - Although the proposed subdivision will create employment opportunities, the size of the project will not significantly affect growth patterns.
Housinq - See No. 11 above.
TransDortation/Circulation - The proposed industrial subdivision will generate approximately 8,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 6,000 to Palomar Airport Road, which will not create significant impacts. All parking will be provided on- site for the industrial uses. Impacts to the existing transportation system are minimal-- a traffic signal will be required on Palomar Airport Road to assure safe ingress/egress from the project. There will be no alteration to present circulation patterns. Finally, sidewalks and a bikelane will be installed along Palomar Airport Road.
Public Services - Incremental increases will be required of police and fire services, as well as road maintenance, none of which constitute a significant impact.
Enerav - Future construction will not by itself create a significant demand on energy sources.
Utilities - Standard utilities will be installed within the subdivision as required. The project has been designed to avoid impacts with existing regional water and sewer lines which go through the property by relocating the lines or by grading around the lines such that the lines are not within new slope areas.
Human Health - Not applicable.
Aesthetics - The proposal will not create offensive views--the project will be a typical business park. Drivers on Palomar Airport Road will continue to have some natural open space views to the south.
Recreation - Not applicable.
Archaeoloav - A cultural resource survey, including fieldwork and record searches (on file in the Planning department), found no cultural resources within the subject property: thus, no impacts will be incurred by the project.
-lO-
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
+ypg$ -x kwq/ 2 I L-c c t1d.i
Date Sunature
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
The following mitigation measures will ensure that stable soil conditions are present for construction, that no impacts occur to the wetlands during grading operations, and that the encroachment into the wetlands is mitigated.
1) The recommendations of the soils report will be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project.
2) The recommendations of the biology report will be followed, and include:
a) Sediment basins will be placed in the development areas at the lower end of drainage ways prior to grading.
b) The approximately 50-foot wide strip between the development area and the wetland will be revegetated, preferably with coastal sage scrub species, prior to grading, which could allow some Black- tailed Gnatcatchers to persist.
c) Graded slopes in the development area will be revegetated promptly to avoid erosion into the wetland.
d) Construction equipment will not be parked or operated in the wetland.
e) Excess fill or stock-piling will not be placed in the wetlands area.
-ll-
<MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued)
f) Construction limits and wetland habitat will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to grading and construction activity will be monitored by the same to ensure that the wetlands is not inadvertently degraded.
3) The .14 acres of wetlands to be disturbed by the proposed project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. A mitigation program will be developed to the satisfaction of the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game with a minimum of 1:l mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will obtain a certified permit for the mitigation -plan from the two responsible agencies.
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEAYES TO THE P>OJECT.
Lj-zfF$yy
Date
AML:af
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2745
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM P-M, L-C AND R-P TO PM-Q, OS, AND RECONFIGURATION OF L-C AND R-P ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ABOUT ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER CASE NO: zc 87-l
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit: Parcel @@AI1 of Parcel Map 2949 and Portion of Lot H of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda. Map No. 823, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
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 15th day of
June, 1988 and 6th day of July, 1988, hold duly noticed public
hearings 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 APPROVAL of ZC 87-1, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
. . .
_-
1
2
Findinas:
, 1) The Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and
3 I/ Local Coastal Program designations of Planned Industrial
(PII I Open Space (OS), and Travel Service/Office (TS/O),
4 I! which presently exist on the property.
5 /I 2) The Zone Change will be compatible with surrounding zoning 1; and land uses such as office, commercial and industrial.
6 " Residential to the south is separated by open space wetlands and steep slopes.
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditions:
1) Exhibit W1X11 dated May 29, 1988 will be incorporated into the City of Carlsbad Zoning Map.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 6th day of July, 1988 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus, Schlehuber, Holmes & Schramm.
NOES:
ABSENT: Hall
ABSTAIN: Erwin
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO‘lfZMIL%R PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2745 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOUJTION NO. 2746
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A NINE-LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ABOUT ONE- QUARTER MILE EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER CASE NO.: CT 87-2
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to
wit:
Parcel IrAf8 of Parcel Map 2949 and Portion of Lot H of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission: and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of
June, 1988 and the 6th day of July, 1988, hold duly noticed
public hearings 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 Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CT 87-2, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinas:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program since the proposed industrial subdivision is permitted by these respective Land Use Elements.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate industrial development at the intensity proposed.
3. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured that the final map will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
4. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
5. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
6. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
7. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for Planned Industrial, Open Space, Travel- Service/Office development on the General Plan.
a. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts because mitigation measures have been made a part of the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the
PC RESO NO. 2746 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
Planning Director on May 4, 1988, and recommended for APPROVAL by the Planning Commission on July 6, 1988.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City's Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5.
This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive treatment of the City's hillside resources.
For two engineering standards variances, for reasons discussed in the May 25, 1988, memorandum from the City Engineer to the Planning Commission, it is found that:
(A) There are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards.
(B) The granting of such variances will not cause substantial drainage problems.
(C) The granting of such variance will not conflict with existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use.
'(D) The granting of such variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is located.
(E) The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan.
Conditions
1. Approval is granted for CT 87-2, as shown on Exhibit "A", dated May 29, 1988, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur
PC RESO NO. 2746 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of the tentative map as approved by the Planning Commission. The tentative map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
A 500' scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to -the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within and adjacent to the project.
This project is approved upon the express condition that the final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated August 3, 1987, and the ' agreement to pay the Growth Management Fee dated August
3, 1987, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk and are incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Costa Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on August 4, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning
PC RESO NO. 2746 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance.
Approval of CT 87-2 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 87-l and HDP 88-2.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City's street name policy subject to the Planning Director's approval prior to final map approval.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first.
A master plan of the existing onsite trees shall be provided to the Planning Director as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to be preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his review and approval prior to occupancy of any building.
The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall at a minimum
PC RESO NO. 2746 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
A.
B.
include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not detract from the basic architectural theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County Transit District.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning Department.
All environmental mitigation measures as approved in the Conditional Negative Declaration shall be followed to include:
The recommendations of the soils report (dated August 8, 1986, with subsequent addendums dated April 21, 1987, and June 11, 1987, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants) will be incorporated into the final grading plan for the project.
The recommendations of the biology report (dated March 2, 1988, by Westec Services, Inc.) will be followed, and include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sediment basins will be placed in the development areas at the lower end of drainage ways prior to grading the site.
The approximately 50-foot wide strip between the development area and the wetland will be revegetated, preferably with coastal sage scrub species, immediately after grading, which could
allow some Blacktailed Gnatcatchers to persist.
Graded slopes in the development area will be revegetated promptly to avoid erosion into the
wetland.
Construction equipment will not be parked or operated in the wetland.
Excess fill or stock-piling will not be placed in the wetlands area.
Construction limits and wetland habitat will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to grading and construction activity will be monitored by the
PC RESO NO. 2746 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.
21.
22.
A.
23.
24.
same to ensure that the wetlands are not inadvertently degraded.
The tentative map shall be redesigned so that there are no encroachments into the wetlands.
The black-tailed gnatcatcher shall not be disturbed during its nesting season, in accordance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Grading shall not occur during those months of nesting/breeding activities, which are from mid-March to August 1, unless written certification to do so is obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game.
All conditions of Hillside Development Permit 88-2 shall be incorporated into the grading plan, to include:
The manufactured slope which runs in a northeasterly/southwesterly direction, and which abuts the open space wetlands, shall be redesigned on the final grading plan to show contour grading which undulates in a natural looking slope, in accordance with Section 21.95.060 of the Zoning Ordinance.
An offer of dedication shall be made on the final map allowing the extension of a frontage road connecting "A" Street to a future frontage street to the east. The street alignment and width shall be as approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Developer shall enter into a lien contract for future improvement of the “A” Street frontage connection described above prior to recordation of final map.
Enaineerins Conditions:
25. Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from this project may be required. In addition to the requirements for a sewer connection permit the developer shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The developer shall apply for an industrial waste discharge permit concurrently with the building permit for this project. No Certificates of Occupancy for the project will be issued before the industrial waste discharge permit application requirements have been met, all applicable fees paid and the permit issued.
26. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
PC RESO NO. 2746 -7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The grading grading" by for this project is defined as "regular Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The developer plan for approval which shall submit a grading shall include all drainage required structures and any required erosion control measures. The developer shall also submit soils, geologic or compaction reports if required and shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disposal site if located within the city limits.
All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2:l.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any offsite siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other 'grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit proof of issuance of a valid coastal permit for the project. Grading shall be limited to those time
PC RESO NO. 2746 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
A.
B.
periods specified in the Coastal Permit and as approved by the City Engineer.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed as may be required by the City Engineer.
The developer shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the final map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engineer.
The owner of the subject property shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property prior to the approval of any grading for this project.
The developer shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
Direct access rights for all lots abutting Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte shall be waived on the final map, with the exception of one right turn in, right turn out access on Paseo de1 Norte for Lot 5 as shown on the tentative map.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the Subdivider shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
Pull half street improvements plus 18' westbound lane to Palomar Airport Road including but not limited to median landscaping conforming to the adopted landscape guidelines, scenic corridor study, enforced at the time of improvement plan checking, transition as approved by the City Engineer.
Sidewalks, streetlights, reclaimed water facilities, and conduits for all future utilities.
PC RESO NO. 2746 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Traffic signal at "Aa Street and Palomar Airport Road. Install or provide funds for a signal to be installed at such time as traffic warrants are met, as determined by the City Engineer.
Full improvements to "An Street to industrial street standards including a median as shown on the tentative map and additional right-of-way and street improvements where median is installed to the City Engineer's approval.
Curb, gutter, and sidewalk construction and/or repair along the frontage of Paseo de1 Norte as directed by the City Engineer.
Full width median together with any offsite transition and traffic striping needed on Paseo de1 Norte adjacent to Lot 5 as shown on the tentative map.
All drainage, relocated sewer trunk lines, and new water and sewer utilities as shown on the tentative map and as required by the City Engineer.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of final map approval and/or improvement plan approval, whichever occurs first.
Unless a standard variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map.
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. .-
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) ,phase.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1.
This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit or other entitlement excluding entitlements necessary to widen and reconstruct Palomar Airport Road shall be issued for the remainder parcel
PC RESO NO. 2746 -lO-
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
2e
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This note shall be placed on the final map.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty- four months from the date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions.
A property owners association -shall be formed and CC&R's submitted for City approval. The property owners association and CC&R's shall be set up for the maintenance of the water course shown on the tentative map.
All areas noted as "reservation for future streeta shall remain reserved for a maximum of five (5) years after the final map is recorded. A note containing the terms of this condition will be placed on the final map.
An additional reservation for future streets shall be made on the final map extending "AN Street in a westerly direction for a T intersection with the reservation for a future street shown on the tentative map. The same conditions for this reservation will apply as in the above mentioned condition for future street.
A 56' wide offer of dedication shall be made on the final map granting access to the CALTRANS parcel from "AN Street. This dedication will be generally located on the east side of proposed parcel 4 and west of proposed Parcel 1.
The realigned sewer mains shown on the tentative map shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that would allow a future frontage street to pass over them.
The developer shall agree to participate in the assessment district for the improvements of Palomar Airport Road from Carlsbad Boulevard to Camino Vida Roble. This shall be done prior to recordation of the final map.
Additional sewer and access easements shall be provided as shown on the tentative map and as may be required by the City Engineer.
The developer shall agree to participate in negotiations between the City and CALTRARS for the possible
PC RESO NO. 2746 -11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56.
57.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
II.
I.
58.
59.
construction of the future street shown on the tentative map. The participation of the developer in the negotiation shall include possible land trades between the developer and CALTRAWS.
The developer shall submit to the City, approval of this project from the California State Coastal Commission prior to final map approval.
The developer shall enter into an agreement to participate in the formation of and shall participate in an assessment or other district to fund the design and construction of any portion or all of the following improvements:
Realignment of the I-5 on/off ramps at 'Palomar Airport Road.
Signalization of the I-5 on/off ramps at Palomar Airport Road.
Interconnection of traffic signals on Palomar Airport Road between and including Avenida Encinas and proposed "An Street.
Widening of the I-5 Freeway overpass for Palomar Airport Road to four lanes and pedestrian walkways.
Signalization of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard.
Widening of the Palomar Airport Road railroad overpass to four lanes and pedestrian walkways.
Realignment, widening, and reconstruction of Palomar Airport Road from the railroad overpass to Carlsbad Boulevard.
Construction of an access road from Carlsbad Boulevard to the property laying south and east of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard.
Other improvements necessary to integrate the preceding items.
The shared access driveway shown between Lots 6 and 7 shall be moved 50' to the east and remain a shared access. The driveway to Lot 1 shall also move 50' to the east.
A revised tentative map shall be submitted reflecting the above described conditions prior to final map approval.
PC RESO NO. 2746 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fire Conditions:
60. Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal.
61. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval.
62. All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
63. Brush clearance shall be maintained according to the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
64. Building exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. aggregate floor area shall be sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with no openings therein which shall split the building into 10,000 sq. ft. (or less) areas.
65. Water mains serving "Aa Street shall have two points of connection (looped).
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 6th day of July, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus, Schlehuber, Holmes & Schramm.
NOES:
ABSENT: Hall
ABSTAIN:Erwin
J$iWNE B. MCFADDEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION -
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMI&R PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2746 -13-
DATE: JULY 6, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZC 87-I/CT 87-2/BDP 88-2 CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CEBTER
On June 15, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on a proposal by the Carltas Development Company to divide a 56 acre parcel located south of Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and east of Paseo de1 Norte (PDN). The proposed subdivision would create seven industrial lots, one office use lot, one open space lot, and a remainder parcel. Development would also require a zone change and a hillside development permit.
During the public testimony, it was learned that the notification list supplied by the applicant was not accurate and that one or more property owners that should have received notification-- did not. The Planning Commission, on advise from the Assistant City Attorney, voted to continue the public hearing to July 6, 1988, in order to allow staff time to property notify all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed development.
At the June 15, 1988, hearing, the Planning Commission and the public raised concerns on the two general issues: Mitigation of potential adverse effects on biological resources: and the potential impacts related to the reservation of an easement for a realignment of the PAR/PDN intersection.
Regarding biological resources, staff has in a June 15, 1988, memo to the Planning Commission recommended a modification of conditions which would accomplish the following:
1. Require a redesign of the project so that there would be no impacts to wetlands.
2. Restrict grading operations to after the nesting season for the black-tailed gnatcatcher, a candidate for the federal list of endangered species.
These two conditions were discussed with the California Department of Fish and Game who found the requirements acceptable to mitigate potential adverse impacts. At the June 15th hearing, Carltas (the applicant) agreed to the modified conditions.
PAGE 2
Regarding the second issue, owners and leasees of property at the existing intersection of PAR/PDN were concerned with the condition of the tentative map reserving an easement for possible future realignment of the intersection. Their concerns were twofold:
1.
2.
They content that the realignment of the intersection to approximately 600 feet eastward of its existing location could have potentially adverse economic impacts on the existing businesses. At the hearing, the property owners and leasees wanted to go on record as to their opposition of the proposed realignment.
They were also worried that approval of the condition reserving the easement constituted implied approval of the realignment without environmental review, adequate traffic study, and the required public noticing.
Staff at the June 15th meeting indicated that the requested easement did not prejudice the future realignment of the intersection. The realignment would be a separate distinct project which would require environmental review and public noticing. Also, staff indicated that the need for the realignment would have to be substantiated prior to the City accepting the easement. Finally, staff informed the Commission and the public that it was requesting the easement in order to allow time to study all aspects of the possible realignment. Without the easement development of the Carltas project could preclude any future realignment as a possible solution to anticipated deterioration in the level of service of the existing intersection.
GW:dm
-.
MEMORANDUM
1.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JULY 6, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88- 2, CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER
During June 15, 1988 Planning Commission hearings the following -corrections and modifications were suggested relevant to the staff report and accompanying resolutions:
1. Page 5, paragraph 1; the reference to conditions 46 and 47 should read conditions 48 and 49.
2. The Assistant City Attorney recommended that Resolution No. 2744 (Negative Declaration) Findings should be modified to read:
Findings:
1. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur: and
2. There is no substantial evidence that the project as conditioned may have a significant effect on the environment.
3. Staff recommended in the memorandum dated June 15, 1988 to the Planning Commission that additional findings and conditions be added to the resolution for CT 87-2.
4. Resolution No. 2746 page 10, condition 45 be modified to read:
45. This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit or other entitlement excluding entitlements necessary to widen and reconstruct Palomar Airport Road shall be issued for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This note shall be placed in the final map.
- .
5. Resolution No. 2746 page 11 condition 56c be modified to read:
Interconnection of all traffic signals on Palomar Airport Road between and including Avenida Encinas and proposed "A" street.
GW:af
-2-
MEMO
DATE: JUNE 15, 1988
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: x.87-l/CT 8702/HDP 88-2 - CARLBBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER
Staff is requesting that several changes be made to the resolution for the above referenced tentative map. One relates to adding a finding for two engineering standards variances; the other changes are in response to a letter received from the Department of Fish and Game. Both are discussed below.
The following finding needs to be added to the resolution for CT 87-2. It refers to two standards variances which are discussed on the last four pages of the staff report -- one for a driveway access to Lot 5 from Paseo de1 Norte (vs. A Street), and one for intersection spacing of 1750' (vs. 2600') between A Street and Paseo de1 Norte on Palomar Airport Road:
12. For two engineering standards variances, for reasons discussed in the May 25, 1988, memorandum from the City Engineer to the Planning Commission, it is found that:
(A)
(B)
(Cl
(D)
(El
There are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards.
The granting of such variances will not cause substantial drainage problems.
The granting of such variance will not conflict with existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use.
The granting of such variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is located.
The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
In addition, the following conditions are added or deleted based on the attached response from the Department of Fish and Game to
-_
PAGE 2
the Conditional Negative Declaration (received after the staff report was distributed):
20~. delete - replace with:
The tentative map shall be redesigned so that there are no encroachments into the wetlands.
Add a new condition:
The black-tailed gnatcatcher shall not be disturbed during its nesting season, in accordance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Grading shall not occur during those months of nesting/breeding activities, which are from mid-March to August 1, unless written certification to do so is obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game.
For the Planning Commission's information, the references in Fish and Game's letter regarding the Palomar Airport Road widening project are irrelevant because that project has received all of its state environmental permits.
NER:dm
APPLICnTION SUBMITTAL DATE: AUGUST 6. 1987
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNF, 15, 1988
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARm
SUBJECT: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2 - CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINFSS CENTER - Zone Change from P-M, L-C, and R-P to reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and a Q-Overlay to the P-M area: Tentative Tract Map to create a g-lot subdivision; and, a Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading plan, on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo de1 Norte, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMKENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2744 recommending APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, adopt Resolution No. 2746 APPROVING CT 87-2, adopt Resolution No. 2747 APPROVING HDP 88-2, and recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of ZC 87-1, per Resolution No. 2745, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Carltas Development Company, is requesting approval of an industrial subdivision on 56 acres located just to the east of Nurseryland on the south side of Palomar Airport Road. The property extends south to a point where it also has frontage on Paseo de1 Norte. Access is proposed from both Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte.
While the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the zoning on the property is not, and thus a zone change is necessary. As shown on Exhibit X, General Plan designations are Planned Industrial (PI), Open Space (OS) and Travel- Service/Office (TS/O -- along Paseo de1 Norte frontage). Zoning is Limited Control (L-C), Planned Industrial (PM) and Residential Professional (RP) l The L-C Zone is a holding zone placed on many of the properties which were annexed from the county. The proposed zoning is shown on Exhibit "B" and is comprised of the following categories and acreages:
1..
STAFF REPORT CARLSBAD RANCH BUSIWESS CENTER PAGE 2
-
Zone Desknation Acres
PM-Q L-C OS R-P
18.8 18.1 17.7 1.6 56.2
-A discussion and analysis of the zone change is found in the section below.
The proposed subdivision includes 8 industrial lots, one open space lot, and an area that is not a part of this subdivision. The developable lots range in size from 1 to 4.3 acres. As mentioned earlier, lVAV1 Street winds through the property, connecting Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte. A wetland area is found along the southern property line and would, for the most part, not be disturbed by the proposal. Because the property is sloping and has some steep areas, a Hillside Development Permit is being processed with the Tentative Map.
Surrounding the site are a number of different land uses, including: agriculture to the north; vacant lands to the east; wetlands, steep bluffs and residential condominiums to the south and southeast; and, commercial establishments (7-
11, Nurseryland, restaurants, Caltrans maintenance yard) to the west. The property lies in the Coastal Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
III. ANALYSIS
Zone Chanse (ZC 87-11
1. Is the requested zone change consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan as well as the Local Coastal Program (LCP)?
2. Would the zone change adversely impact surrounding properties?
General Plan C lXP Consistencv
The proposed zone change would be consistent with the General Plan and the LCP. The site is designated PI, OS, and TS/O on both the General Plan and LCP. Essentially, the existing zoning has been refined to reflect both the General Plan and the physical constraints of the property. For example, an
I.
STAFF REPORT ' CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PAGE 3
accurate open space boundary line is now possible to define on the zoning map because staff has been able to review detailed biology and constraints maps. Thus, the OS Zone is consistent with the OS General Plan designation.
The R-P Zone proposed for the one lot fronting on Paseo de1 Norte is consistent with the other R-P zoning and TS/O General Plan designation in the area. The P-M Zone appropriately implements the PI designation in the General Plan. Staff recommends that a Q-Overlay (requiring Site Development Plan review by Planning Commission) be added to the P-M designation for several reasons: 1) This property is the first industrial property and the entrance to Carlsbad's "Platinum Corridor" (as our industrial area is sometimes referred to) -- as such, future projects should reflect high quality development and undergo more detailed review; 2) The Q-Overlay Zone is placed on properties that contain environmentally-sensitive areas or are adjacent to such areas (Section 21.06.010 and 015 of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant has agreed to-the Q-Overlay.
Retention of L-C Zoning is recommended for the eastern part of the site. This area is denoted as "Not a Part" on the Tentative Map because it is the subject of a larger project extending further east, which requires a separate, detailed biology study to determine the precise boundary of sensitive habitat which should be preserved as open space. That biology study is presently underway; an application for a Zone Change on that property has been submitted. The L-C designation is not inconsistent with the General Plan since it acts as a holding zone for any designation. Therefore, it is appropriate to retain the L-C under these circumstances.
Surroundina ProDerties
The Zone Change would not adversely affect nearby properties, which are either zoned similarly (R-P, CT-Q to the west, PM-Q to the east): have existing compatible uses, i.'e, commercial to the west; or, have adequate physical separation, such as Palomar Airport Road on the north side and the wetland buffer and steep slopes separating the property from a residential project to the south. In fact, the open space zoning designation will ensure that the environmental buffer will be there permanently.
CT 87-2
1. Does the project comply with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
STAFF REPORT ' CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER 1 PAGE 4
2. Does the project meet engineering standards?
3. Does the project address the environmental sensitivities of the site, including coastal resources?
4. Is the project in conformance with the Growth Management Program?
General Plan and Zoninq
As discussed in detail in the previous section, the proposed subdivision is permitted under the existing General Plan land use designations of Planned Industrial, Open Space and Travel Service/Office. If the Zone Change is approved, zoning will be consistent with the General Plan. Detailed Planned Industrial zoning requirements are not applicable at this time because individual lot development is not being proposed. Minimum lot size of one acre is the most applicable standard, which the project meets with a range of l-acre to 4.3 acre lots. In terms of overall design criteria, the project meets the intent of the ordinance in that the proposed plan respects the existing topography, preserves open space, integrates the street system both onsite and with the surrounding area (to be discussed further in next section), and will be compatible with existing and planned land uses, (for reasons discussed in the Zone Change section). All in all, the project would not constitute a disruptive element to the community.
Enuineerinu Issues
The development proposes the construction of a new industrial standard (72' right-of-way) street currently labeled ttA1@ Street on the tentative map. This street is of concern primarily in regards to its intersection spacing along Palomar Airport Road. Since Palomar Airport Road is a Prime Arterial, the intersection spacing per standards should be 2600 feet. The proposed spacing between ltAtt Street and Paseo de1 Norte is 1750 feet. Engineering staff in consultation with the developer's traffic consultant has determined that it would be in the interest of the City to allow an intersection with Palomar Airport Road at the reduced spacing.
The reason for recommendation is the potential negative impacts that the project traffic would have on the intersection of Paseo de1 Norte (PDN) and Palomar Airport Road (PAR). The consultants traffic analysis indicated that the PAR/PDN intersection would fail at buildout due to the increased left turn demand for this project. The proposed
~ STAFFREPORT CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PAGE 5
intersection reduces the need for left turns at PAR/PDN and will allow the intersection to remain at an acceptable level of service.
There is an additional circulation issue regarding the potential relocation and realignment of Paseo de1 Norte. Basically, this project is being conditioned to reserve a right-of-way which would move Paseo de1 Norte about 600 feet east of its existing alignment to better handle congestion caused by inappropriate intersection spacing at the freeway 'off-ramps. Please see the attached memorandum from the Engineering Department to the Planning Director and also conditions 46 and 47.
Consideration was given to having a frontage road along the south side of Palomar Airport Road that would go from this project east to the existing frontage road at Palomar Oaks Way. Currently, a frontage road extends from Camino Vida Roble to Palomar Oaks Way. City staff is proposing to have adjacent development extend the frontage road from Palomar Oaks Way to College Boulevard and from there to the extension of Hidden Valley Road on the south side of Palomar Airport Road. At this time, staff is not recommending that this proposed frontage road be extended to the proposed Carltas ttAtl Street because the frontage road would not significantly reduce traffic on Palomar Airport Road, and it could impact sensitive riparian and wetland areas. However, if a connection is warranted in the future, an easement will be preserved for that purpose, as conditioned.
This project is expected to generate approximately 187,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The project will also import approximately 6000 cubic yards from beneath Palomar Airport Road in conjunction with the approved PAR widening project. This additional grading will be done to lower PAR to improve sight distance adjacent to the project and to provide a temporary- detour road during the road widening project.
There are three major sewer trunk lines that are located along the south side of Palomar Airport Road to approximately ltAtt Street and then turn in a southwesterly direction along the wetland boundary. These lines range in size from 21" to 39" and belong to the San Marcos County Water District and the County of San Diego. The agencies have commented on the tentative map with concerns relating to placing fill over the sewer lines. The Districts have offered several options: 1) to limit the amount of fill so that the lines would not be affected: 2) replace and relocate the existing clay pipes with stronger iron pipes, if fill is to be placed over them: 3) construct a concrete arch over those pipes which will have
STAFF' REPORT CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINJ3SS CENTER PAGE 6
fill placed over them. The applicant will do a combination of no. 2 and 3 and is working with both districts on other requirements.
Environmental Sensitivities
The property contains both wetlands and steep slopes. These elements, which in and of themselves constitute sensitive resources, have additional significance and regulations when located in the coastal zone. The Local Coastal Program (LCP) 'protects certain categories of coastal resources. Wetlands are statutorily protected and any encroachment requires mitigation, sometimes at ratios higher than 1:l. The project has impacted the wetlands with a small encroachment of .14 acres adjacent to Lot 8. As discussed in the CEQA evaluation (Part II is attached), mitigation must occur to the satisfaction of the Coastal Commission. As also discussed in the Conditional Negative Declaration, an environmentally preferred alternative would be to pull the slopes back so that no encroachment is necessary. Lot 8 would result in a smaller size pad, but still would meet minimum requirements.
Steep slopes also are addressed in the LCP and are basically categorized as sensitive and non-sensitive depending on biological criteria of having chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or endangered species located on those slopes greater than 25 percent. The proposed project does have slopes steeper than 25 percent. One area is along Palomar Airport Road, which will be impacted by and has already been evaluated in the PAR road widening project. The bluff located on the far eastern side of the site contains mixed chaparral, but no development is proposed here, so no impacts will occur. There is a steep slope off of Paseo de1 Norte which is non-sensitive in terms of biology, so needs no further evaluation. In the central portion of the property there are two small areas containing both 25 percent slopes and coastal sage scrub, generally located between Lots 7 and 8. These two areas will be removed by the grading proposed for ItAt' Street. The impact is not considered significant because the slope areas are small and isolated, the sage scrub is of low habitat value, and the areas are separate from the riparian wetland. In addition, its loss will be replaced by revegetating the new slope next to the open space with coastal sage scrub species, a condition of the negative declaration.
Overall, the project has respected the environmental sensitivities of the site with regard to the wetlands. The basic landform also is being retained, which will be discussed in the section to follow on the Hillside Ordinance.
STAFF REPORT CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PAGE 7
Growth Manauement Prwram
The project is located within Local Facility Management Zone 5. The impacts on future public facilities by this project have been analyzed to ensure compliance with the Facilities and Improvements Plan. Attached is Exhibit ItYtV, which is a summary chart highlighting the impacts generated by the project on all 11 public facilities. Those facilities related to residential performance standards, i.e, city administrative facilities, library, and schools, are not 'applicable. For parks, the project will be conditioned to pay the 40c/sguare foot park fee established for industrial projects. Fire Station No. 4 serves the property with a five-minute response time. Additional open space requirements are not applicable because Zone 5 was exempt per the Citywide Plan. Because the project is a subdivision map and actual building construction will occur later, square footages are estimated based on 30 percent coverage of the 20-acre developable area. As such, traffic, sewer, water, and drainage projections were made.
The traffic study for this project indicates that all road segments and intersections impacted by this subdivision will operate at an acceptable level of service with construction of this project. The Zone 5 plan requires widening of Palomar Airport Road from I-5 to the City limits including the I-5 bridges by 1991 or development within the zone will be halted. At present, financing plans for these improvements have not been approved. The City is working with the Zone 5 developers to secure financing of these facilities using a combination of Prop A funding, Bridge and Thoroughfare Funds, and assessment districts. Plans for the widening of PAR from Paseo de1 Norte to Palomar Oaks Way are complete, and a district may be formed as early as this summer to complete the construction. The City is finalizing the contract with a consultant to prepare plans for the construction of the I-5 bridge widening.
This project will be required to pay the traffic impact fee to mitigate buildout impacts at various intersections and roadway locations throughout the City. Additionally, the project is located within the bridge and thoroughfare district and will pay this fee at time of building permit issuance.
Hillside DeveloDment Permit (HDPI 88-2
1. Is the proposed grading consistent with the Hillside Ordinance?
STAFF REPORT 'CARISBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PAGE 8
Hillside Ordinance
The proposed project is required to obtain a Hillside Development Permit because the property has 15 percent and greater slopes, and more than a 15-foot elevational difference. A slope analysis was done on the property, as were slope cross sections -- staff has reviewed this information and has concluded that the project basically meets the intent of the ordinance and has complied with the standards. Cubic yardage per developable acreage is approximately 9,460 yards/acre which is acceptable for non- residential projects. Cut and fill slopes do not exceed 30 feet in height. The property's basic landform, i.e, a gently rolling hill, higher at Palomar Airport Road (100 mean sea level (MSL) and sloping downward towards the wetland (40
MSL) , is being retained. This is evident by a proposed elevation of 85 MSL near Palomar and a gradual slope southward to 50 MSL near the open space. The reason the site is being lowered in the north end is because Palomar Airport Road is being lowered up to 13 feet as part of the roadway widening project
One modification should be made to the grading plan and has been conditioned accordingly. The manufactured fill slope which abuts the wetland area has very little undulation and at times actually has angular turns in it. The Hillside Ordinance calls for contour grading and slope undulation for created slopes that are more than 200 feet in length. Since this slope is adjacent to a natural, open space area and will be vegetated with native species (vs. project landscaping), it is even more important that the new slope look as natural as possible. Therefore, the project has been conditioned to have that slope undulate vertically and horizontally. Within Lots 6, 7, and 8, where the slope is located, there appears to be room to do that without encroaching into the wetlands.
IV. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW .
Environmental analysis was performed on the property -- Part II of the Environmental Impact Assessment Form is attached. As indicated in that document, staff reviewed biology, soils, and archaeology reports that were prepared for the property. The proposed project will impact the wetlands directly, which requires mitigation; potential indirect impacts, i.e, during grading, also could occur. A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on May 4, 1988. No comments were received during the public notice period for the Conditional Negative Declaration.
STAFF REPORT . CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PAGE 9
As discussed earlier in the staff report as well as in the Part II document, an environmentally preferred alternative is possible, which could pull the slope back and avoid any wetland impacts. Since mitigation is possible, it was not appropriate for staff to condition the project to implement the alternative.
Summarv
In summary, the Zone Change would be consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Tentative Map, as conditioned, would comply with zoning and engineering standards. The Hillside Development Permit, as conditioned, also complies with ordinance requirements. Finally, the Conditional Negative Declaration has adequately examined environmental concerns and the mitigation measures have been made conditions of approval for the project. Staff recommends approval of ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Planning Commission Resolution Nos: 2744; 2745: 2746; and 2747 Location Map Background Data Sheet Exhibit ttXtt (Zone Change) Exhibit ItYtt (Growth Management Form) Disclosure Form Environmental Documents Memorandum to Planning Director, dated May 24, 1988 Engineering Standards Variance, dated May 25, 1988 Exhibit ttAtt I dated May 29, 1988
NER:arb/dm 5/20/88
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 87-2/ZC 87-l
APPLICANT: CarltaS DeVelODREnt COmDanY
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reouest for aonroval to rezone Portions of the pronertv consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan and to subdivide the oronertv for future develoDment on the south side of Palomar AirDOrt Road and east of Paseo de1 Norte.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel ttAtt of Parcel MaD 2949 and Portion of Lot H of Ranch0 Aaua Hedionda. MaD No. 823, in the City of Carlsbad, Countv of San Dieso. State of California. APN: 211-040-08, 09, 12.
Acres +56.5 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 9
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation PI, TS/O. OS
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone L-C, P-M, R-P Proposed Zone P-M(O), R-P, OS, L-C
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoninq Land Use
Site L-C, P-M. R-P Vacant
North R-A-10, E-A Asriculture
South PC Floodplain, Residential
East PM-O Vacant
West CT-O, R-P Commercial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water *Costa Real Sewer Carlsbad EDU's N/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Ausust 3. 1987
(*The City of Carlsbad will provide water service to all projects in Carlsbad except those located in the Olivenhain and San Marcos Sewer Districts.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
EIR Certified, dated
OTHER, Conditional Nesative Declaration issued Mav 4, 1988
EXHIBIT “Y”
CITYaFm
-1DEZCCTYAND IMPACTASSESSMENR
FILENAMEANDNO.: CT 87-2/ZC 87-l/HDP 88-2
LocALFAc!ILrIY MiWGMEWZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN:ELI, as, m/o
ZONING: M,cx,R-P
DEVElX)PER'SNAME: carltas ComDanY
AIXRESS: 4401mester. Encinitas, CA
BDNE No. : 944-4090 AssmsoR's PARCELNO. 211-040-08, 09, 12
QWUTITY OF IAND USE,/DEVELOMENT (AC., SQ. FT., IXJ): 20 AC.
ESTIMATED-mm:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Ahhistmtive Facilities; Ikmand in Sqmm Footage = -O-
Library: DemandinsquareFootage= -o-
Wastewater~tmnt Capacity (CalculatewithJ. Sewer)
Parks; Demad in Acrage = N/A
Drainage; DemMinCFS = 8.0 IdentifyDrainageBasin = C (Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation; DanaM in AD-I's = 4,460 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire; Served by Fire Station No. = 4
oP'= spaae; AcreageProvided - N/A
Schcds; -O- (Demar&tobedetemhdbystaff)
sewer: -inEars - 155 IdentifySubBasin- 5K
(Identifytnmkline(s) inpactedun site plan)
Water: DemaM in GPD - 34,000
Based on an estimated 278,784 square feet of develogment.
.7
. . .
APPLICANT:
. .v
_
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
DISC~OSO~i$ PQRM -.
Carltas Development Corrpany, A California Corporatiofi fame (individual, partnership, joint Venture, COrpOratiOn, vrdication)
4401 Manchester Ave. #206, Encinitas, CA 92024 Business Address
(619) 944-4090 Telephone NupiboG ..%-i TI;??.: .-. . Georqe S. Nolte & Associates NaIlIS
9755 Clairermnt Mesa Blvd., San Diego, CA 92124 Business Address
( 619) 278-9392
(
Christopher C. Calkins, President 1435 Guizot, San Diego, CA 92107 Name (individual, partner, joint idome Address venture, corporation, syndication)
4401 Marichester Ave. Ste. 206, Encinitas, CA 92024 Business Address
(619) 944-4090 Telephone Number TelephoneNlnrber
Paul Ecke, Jr.. 441 Saxony Road
Name Bane I&dress
441 !%xony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Business Mdress
753-1134 Telephone Nuder
(Attach mre sheets if
TelephoneNu&er
necessary)
The applicant is required to apply f?r Coastal Commission Approval if located in the Coastal Zone,
I/k declare under penalty of prjury that the information amtained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct ti my ix relied upon as being true and correct until amend
Carltas Deve rnia Corporation
By:
Agent, Owner, Partner
. .
Exhibit *lBrg
Elisabeth K. Ecke Name
N/A Business Address
Telephone Number
Lizbeth Ecke. Name
N/A Business Address
N/A Telephone Number
Paul Ecke, III Name
Business Address
N/A Telephone N,umber
Sara Ecke Name
N/A Business Address
N/A Telephone Number
441 Saxonv Road Home Address
Encinitas, CA 92024
753-1134 Telephone Number
3241 Scott St. Apt. 1 Home Address
San Francisco, CA 92024
(415) 931-5232 Telephone Number
1267 Lafayette Home Address
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(4081 249-7215 Telephone Number
155 E. 29th, Apt. 5-H Home Address
New York, NY 10016
(212) 213-6037 Telephone Number
John C. White Name
4401 Manchester Ave. Ste. 206 Business Address
944-4090 .Telephone Number
N/A Home Address
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone Number
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 1988
MAY ~“f?
, -, . . : . I/, f>i:. . . ,
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
PROPOSED RRALIGNMENT OF PASEO DEL NORTE AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (CT 87-2 CARLTAS)
A major circulation issue for the Carltas project is the potential relocation of the Paseo De1 Norte intersection with Palomar Airport Road. Currently the existing intersection is located within 500 feet of the northbound I-5 freeway ramps. The large volume of east bound traffic on Palomar Airport Road (PAR) making left turns onto Paseo De1 Norte creates severe merging and stacking conditions on Palomar Airport Road. The resulting problems will, as volumes increase, tend to create unacceptable traffic congestion at this location.
In consideration of these llbuilt inI1 problems, Engineering staff developed an alternative location for Paseo De1 Norte/Palomar Airport Road intersection. This alternative location is only a proposal and its construction is not a condition of the proposed Carltas subdivision. The City Engineer is proposing a condition whereby the developer would reserve right-of-way along the proposed alternative alignment for four years after recordation of the final map. This would allow engineering staff time to work out engineering, environmental and political problems associated with the relocation. Engineering staff feels strongly that the proposed alternative alignment for Paseo De1 Norte has significant traffic circulation benefits which warrant serious consideration.
Basically the proposal is to realign Paseo De1 Norte from just south of the Encinas Creek northward across the creek and have it follow along the proposed 'A8 Street alignment in the Carltas subdivision then across proposed Lot 4 and through a portion of the CALTRANS maintenance yard to Palomar Airport Road. On the north side of Palomar Airport Road the alignment would curve west and tie back into Paseo De1 Norte at about the Pea Soup Andersons Hotel entrance. The proposal would call for extension of the Palomar Airport Road median through the existing Paseo De1 Norte intersection thus closing off left turn movements at this location (See attached Concept Plan). Right turn in and out movements would still be allowed facilitating access and service to the adjoining businesses. Freeway oriented travelers would not be unduly restricted by the left turn closure as left turns could be made at the new Paseo De1 Norte (P.D.N.) intersection approximately 600 feet to the east of the existing intersection.
Planning Director Proposed Realignment of Paseo De1 Norte at Palomar Airport Road (CT 72-2 Carltas) May 24, 1988 Page: 2
The new PAR/PDN intersection would be approximately 1100 feet away from the proposed PAR/'A' Street intersection to the east. Staff believes this distance, while not ideal would not create any undue problems as there would not be similar stacking or merge problems associated with the two intersections.
Ownership of all the land with the exception of CALTRANS maintenance yard, is controlled by the City or Carltas. The Carltas representative has reviewed the proposal and consented to allowing the four year reservation over the lots within the subdivision to allow staff time to pursue the concept. If the political, environmental, or financial problems can not be resolved within that time then the reservation would expire and the reserved portions of lots allowed to develop as originally proposed by the developer.
DAVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer
DAH:rp
cc: City Engineer
Bob Wojcik
Nancy Rollman
\ k- p,o;/ _ ,.‘& li .-‘+ ~ .‘3, c‘( M-- ‘\ ..q$// ‘t, ,,oy,..--
\
\,,
‘,, ~~~~~
7
lb&
. / I .i /I/! 1: I
.
May 25, 1988
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY ENGINEER 4-0 , -fl‘ J /
CARLTAS COMPANY REQUES:BOR STANDARDS VARIANCE(CT 87-2)
The Carltas Company has requested two variances from City Design Standards. In accordance with Section 19 of the Street Design Criteria of the City Standards, the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative act to grant variances to the City
1.
Standards provided the following findings can be met:
That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards.
2.
3.
That the granting of such variance will not cause substantial drainage problems.
That the granting of such variance will not conflict with existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use.
4. That the granting of such variance will not be detrimental 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 comprehensive general plan.
City staff has reviewed the variance requests and is making the recommendation that follows in this memorandum.
REOUEST NO:1
1. Location:
Request:
Approximately 1200' south of Palomar Airport Road on the east side of Paseo De1 Norte.
Approve a driveway access on a secondary arterial road way (Paseo De1 Norte). City standards state access is permitted only where no other acess is possible. Since the affected lot includes frontage on 'A8 Street alternative access is possible.
PAGE: 1
.
May 25, 1988 Carltas Company
Reason: This is the only lot in the subdivision with a R-P zoning. The applicant would like to differentiate this lot from the industrial lots by having this lot access onto Paseo De1 No&e. All other existing R-P lots have access onto Paseo De1 Norte.
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Explanation: All other RP uses in the area have access to Paseo De1 Norte. Staff does not believe the addition of this driveway with right turn in/out access only will adversely affect the flow of traffic on Paseo De1 Norte. Staff is proposing and the applicant has agreed do the installation of a median along the project frontage on Paseo De1 Norte to restrict the use of the driveway to right in/out use only. Staff is therefore recommending approval of this standards variance request. If the commission concurs the findings would be as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The situation is unusual in that all other RP lots along this section of Paseo De1 Norte have driveway access. This is the only RP lot within the proposed Carltas Subdivision.
No drainage problems will occur.
The proposed standards variance will not conflict with existing or future traffic, parking, pedestrian or bicycle demands.
The public welfare and private property rights are not injured.
The proposed standards variance will not adverselyaffectthe comprehensivegeneral plan.
PAGE: 2
May 25, 1988 Carltas Company
REOUEST NO. 2
1. Location:
Request:
Approximately 1750' east of Paseo De1 Norte on the south side of Palomar Airport Road.
Approve intersection spacing distance of approximately 1750' which varies from the required spacing of 2600'.
Reason: The applicant desires signalized access into and out of the project site from Palomar Airport Road. The access will help to mitigate impacts to the Paseo De1 Norte/Palomar Airport Road intersectionwhich occur at City buildout. Without this signalized intersection vehicles coming and going from the site will have to make out of direction movements which tend to clog adjacent intersections. Staff Recommendation: Approve
Explanation: The intersection spacing distance along Palomar Airport Raod (PAR) between Paseo De1 Norte (PDN) and the future Hidden Valley Road is approximately 4100 feet. This does not allow sufficientdistancebetweenthemto accommodate an intersection and meet the City standard spacing of 2600 feet along a prime arterial. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an intersection approximately 1750 feet east of Paseo De1 Norte. The intersection will serve the proposed development to the south of PAR and the existing agricultural packing operation to the north of PAR. As the property to the north develops it will also utilize this intersection. Without this intersection the project traffic and the future traffic from development along the north side of PAR would need to use Paseo De1 Norte to reach the freeway. The applicants consulting traffic engineer submitted a traffic analysis, reviewed by staff, which indicated this additional burden of left turn movements at the PAR/PDN intersection would lead to a failure of the intersection.
PAGE: 3
,
May 25, 1988 Carltas Company
-.
Alternative access methods such as a right in/out intersection at PAR and a frontage road connecting 'A' Street to Hidden Valley Road along the south side of PAR were also studied. The right in/outwould not reduce the left turn load at the PAR/PDN intersection. Staff rejected the frontage road concept due to environmental constraints and the fact that it could potentially aggervate the left turn situation at PAR/PDN.
From a traffic engineering standpoint an intersection at this location will not unduly restrict the flow of traffic along Palomar Airport Road. The shorter intersection spacing can assist platooning of traffic and allow for interconnection of signals. For these reason staff is recommending approvalofthe standards variance request.
If the Commission concurs the finding would be as
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
- follows:
This situation is extraordinary in that without the connection traffic loads at other circulation element intersections would fail atbuildout. Also, the adjacent riparian/wetland areas inhibit the City's ability to balance the intersection spacing distance in a more equitable manner.
No drainage problems will occur.
The proposed standards variance will not conflict with existing or future traffic, parking, pedestrian or bicycle demands.
The public welfare and private property rights are not injured.
The proposed standards variance will not adverselyaffectthecomprehensivegeneral plan.
PAGE: 4
MINUTES
Meeting of: PLANNING COF@lISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:OO p.m.
Date of Meetinn: July 6, 1988
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS y
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman McFadden, Coosaissioners Erwin, Holmes, Marcus. Schlehuber, and Schrauan
Absent - Consnissioner Hall
Staff Hembers Present:
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne, Senior Planner
Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Brian Hunter. Associate Planner Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney
David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Bob Wojcik. Principal Civil Engineer Steve Jants, Associate Civil Engineer
Chairman McFadden introduced the neu Planning Commissioner, Tom Erwin, to the staff and gallery.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES:
Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Comission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience.
COHHENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITWS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA:
There were no cosseentr from the audience.
Charles Grti, Assistant Planning Director, reported that Agenda Item 4, La Costa Townhomes CT 85l/CP-307, has been withdrawn by the applicant. Ron Ball, Assistant City
Attorney, advised that a motion was needed to accept the
withdrawal.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to accept
the withdrawal of Agenda Item 4 (CT 85-l/CP-307).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1) zc 87-1/m a7-2tw~ 80-2 - CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER- Zone change from P-M, L-C. and R-P to
reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and Q-Overlay to the P-M area; Tentative Tract Map to create a P-lot subdivision; and a Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading plan, on property
located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo de1 Norte, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the
request and stated that on June 15, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on a
Erwin Holmes Marcus
McFadden Schlehuber Schramm
4
MINUTES
July 6. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION
proposal by the Carltae Development Company to divide a 56 acre parcel located south of Palomar Airport Road (PARR) and east of Paseo de1 Norte (PDN). The proposed subdivision
would create seven industrial lots, one office use lot, one open space lot, and a remainder parcel. Development would also require a zone change and a hillside development permit.
During the public testimony, it was learned that the
notification list supplied by the applicant was not accurate and that one or more property owners who should have received notification--did not. The Planning Commission, on advice from the Assistant City Attorney, voted to continue the
public hearing to July 6, 1988, in order to allow staff time to properly notify all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed development.
Mr. Wayne reviewed the two major concerns raised at the June
15th meeting:
1) Mitigation of potential adverse effects on biological resources, and
2) The potential impacts related to the reservation of an
easement for a realigmsent of the PAR/PDN intersection.
The first issue, adverse effects on biological resources, staff memo to the Planning Coasnission dated June 15. 1988
recosxaended a modification of conditions to (a) require a redesign of the project to eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands, and (b) restrict grading operations to after the
nesting season of the black-tailed gnatcatcher, an endangered species. Carltas (the applicant) and the California Department of Fish and Game have agreed to the modified
conditions.
The second issue, reservation of an easement for a
realignment of the PAR/PDN intersection. concerned the owners and lesrees of property at the existing intersection since it
was felt that (a) the realignment would have adverse economic
impacts on the existing businesses and (b) they were worried that approval of the easement reservation would constitute implied approval of the realignment without environmental review, adequate traffic study, and the required public noticing. The property owners went on record opposing the
proposed realignment. At the June 15th meeting, staff stated that the requested easement did not prejudice the future realignment of the intersection and that the realignment
would be a separate distinct project which would require environmental review and public noticing. Staff also indicated that the need for the realignment would have to be substantiated prior to the City accepting the easement and that the easement reservation was being requested in order to
allow time to study all aspects of the possible realignment; this reservation would allow the Carltas project to proceed.
A second staff memo to Cormnissioners dated July 6, 1988
reconrmends modifications to page 5, paragraph 1, of the staff report. Findings It1 and 112 of Resolution No. 2744, Conditions N45 and 1156~ of Resolution No. 2746. Staff reconmwds approval of ZC 87-1, CT 07-2, and RDP 88-2 with these modifications.
Chairman McFadden inquired about Co=issioner Schraaxs’s suggestion at the June 15th meeting to add the Planning CormPission to Condition #22 on page 7 of Resolution No. 2746.
4
MINUTES
July 6, 1988 PLANNING COHnISSION Page 3
Conrmissioner Schlehuber inquired about his suggestion at the June 15th meeting for clarification of the "A" Street
interconnection with Paseo de1 Norte; the map included with the easement reservation materials was unclear and the
streets did not appear to connect properly. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer replied that Condition //49 on
page 10 covers the reservation and the street connection. Conxaissioner Schlehuber would like to see the map corrected although he presumes the condition would take precedence.
Conrmissioner Erwin reported that he wishes to abstain from voting on this item since he was not at the June 15th meeting and a portion of the tape recording of the meeting was missing.
Commissioner Schraxsn inquired about Condition I\40 of Resolution No. 2746 and where does it show a denial of the two standards variances. Gary Wayne replied that the June 15 and July 6 memos both deal with the standards variance which is issued by the City Engineer.
John White. 4401 Manchester, Encinitas. representing Carltas Development Company, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested that the minutes of the June 15th meeting be corrected on page 10, paragraph 4 to read w.14 acres of wetlands" rather than "1.4 acres." Hr. White stated that
Carltas Development agrees with the staff recoxumndations, however they are concerned about the condition which requires the dedication of a frontage road. Carltas feels that this dedication would send an incorrect message to the coasnunity
since the parcel is not being developed at this time. Carltas feels that this issue is more sensitive than the intersection relocation. Mr. White commended staff on their
excellent job.
Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony
closed and opened the item for discussion among the Cousnission members.
CoumMsioner Schlehuber requested staff's response to the applicant's objection on the frontage road dedication. Gary
Wayne replied that the dedication was included at this time
instead of with the development of the remainder parcel because space needs to be reserved on the existing parcel map and since disposition of the remainder parcel could take several years, with the possibility of a change in ownership of the property, the frontage road may be needed prior to
development of the parcel.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that the 4 year easement reservation period is too short and tinra could run out before
the study is completed. He would like to see a longer period.
Comissioner Schramm inquired about stockpiling on the
remainder parcel. Chairman McFadden requested staff to clarify the reference to "no other entitlements" and Mr. Wayne replied that regarding the suggested modification to Condition 1/45 on Resolution No. 2746, a stockpile permit would be included as well as storing large equipment and any
clearing or grading. Since the parcel has not been used for
MINUTES
July 6. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Paae 4 COMMISSIONERS
agriculture for the past five years it would also include an agriculture permit.
Commissioner McFadden inquired if siltation basins would be excluded. Mr. Wayne replied that a siltation basin would not be excluded. An environmental review would be required to include a desiltation basin. Chairman HcPadden's intent is that the property not be disturbed in any way.
Coeweissioner Holmes inquired how the property owners and tenants are compensated when a road realignment such as this
results in a loss of business. Gary Wayne replied that the matter usually ends up in litigation and deferred response to the attorney.
Cosxnissioner Holmes repeated his question and Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that litigation normally results with compensation paid to any property owner whose property or property rights are taken by the public entity. Appraisals and fair compensation are decided by agremt or by a court. Fair market value is established and compensation is then paid. Mr. Ball advised that this item cannot be considered in the planning issues of this project.
Commissioner McFadden agrees with CoPaDissioner Schlehuber about a longer time limit being needed for the easement reservation; she thinks a minimum of five years is needed.
She can support the project with the modifications.
Cossxissioners Holmes and Schronrm can support the project and the five years.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 2744 recosxxending approval of the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director with the proposed modifications included in the
staff memo of July 6. 1988.
Motion was duly made, seconded. and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 2746 approving CT 87-2, adopt' Resolution No. 2747 approving HDP 88-2. and recommend approval to the City Council of ZC 87-l. per Resolution No. 2745, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein and the amendments provided in staff memo dated July 6, 1988 with the incorporation of modifications suggested in the staff memo dated June 15,
1988, and extending the time period to five years for the eesement reservation, an d amending Condition 1122, page 7, of Resolution No. 2746 to include review by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
2) EXTENSION OF DC 87-l IUTBS - Request for an extension of a large residential Daycare Permit at 4104 La Portalada
Drive.
Charles Grd, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that last year the Planning Commission approved DC 87-l to allow a large residential daycare facility for up to 12 children at 4104 La Portalada Drive. This permit was issued for a period
of one year since neighbors living on La Portalada, a cul-de-sac, had concerns about parking. At that time, the
Erwin
Holmes Marcus McFadden
Schlehuber Schraaxx
Erwin Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber
Schramm
MINUTES
,
June 15, 1988 PLANNING COPMISSION Paae ’ COMMISSIONERS
.day. He has counted six automobiles, including the employee
automobiles, and feels that residents have some rights also.
He cannot accept this facility with more than six children and feels that the applicant should be required to meet City
standards.
Coaxxissioner Marcus has great difficulty with State mandates such as the daycare homes. She does not feel that the State mandate includes approval of illegal conversions. She is concerned about the staggered children since this means that
there could be as many as 14 vehicles per day. She feels that the applicant is dedicated and provides an excellent environment; however, she cannot support it under the present circumstances. She would like to see something worked out.
Commissioner Hall feels that 14 vehicles is a false assumption since there are probably some children who come only once a week. He would like to support it but has difficulty with the garage conversion. He appreciates that the home is FmmPculate, the child care enviroruwnt is
excellent, and that you cannot tell in a drive by that the home contains a daycare facility. He thinks the use is needed and would like to see some way for it to work. However, he feels that it needs to conform to code.
Coaxeissioner Schrm would like to see the permit approved
but has a problem with the garage conversion. For that reason she cannot support it.
Conrmissioner Holmes feels that the big stumbling block is
parking. A parking structure in the grassy area should fit. He feels the staff requirements are reasonable. Otherwise. he can support it.
Chainsan McFadden is not concerned with the extra traffic or the street parking. Her concern is the garage conversion. She does not feel that a precedent should be set and would
like to see the application come back with plans so that enclosed parking is taken care of.
Ms. Probus, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Frazer's would like to return with a plan to mitigate the off-street parking requirement.
Cormnissioner Hall stated that the applicant should consider utilizing the space at the rear of the property.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue
DC 88-l to Augwt 3rd when applicant will return for another hearing with plans for a two car enclosed garage which will meet code requirements. The present daycare use can continue until a final decision has
been made. Staff will renotice the public hearing.
RECESS
The Planning Cosseission recessed at 8:06 p.m. and reconvened at a:22 p-m.
2) ZC 8?-l/CT 8?-2jHDP 88-2 - CAHLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTEH- Zone change from P-M. L-C, and R-P to
reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and a Q-Overlay to the P-M area; Tentative Tract Map to
create a g-lot subdivision; and, a Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading plan, on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east
Hall Holmes Marcus
McFadden Schlehuber Schraren
MINUTES
June 15. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10
of Paseo de1 Norte, in Local Facilities Management Zone
5.
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and stated that the applicant, Carltas Development Company, is requesting approval of an industrial subdivision on 56 acres
located just to the east of Nurseryland on the south side of Palomar Airport Road and extending to Paseo de1 Norte.
Carltas is proposing a nine lot subdivision with an 18 acre remainder parcel. The nine lot subdivision is proposed for
uses that are travel service and office related as well as planned industrial and open space which would be consistent
with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The proposed development necessitates zone changes to reconfigure P-M, L-C, and R-C zones; to place OS over the
environmentally constrained positions of the site; and to place a Q-overlay over the P-M portion of the site. The zone change would not adversely affect nearby properties which are
zoned similarly and have existing compatible uses. The open space zoning designation will ensure that the environmentally constrained areas will be preserved.
The proposed intersection of "A" Street and Paloxur Airport Road does not meet City standards for intersection spacing
and will require a variance approval to be allowed. As proposed, the intersection would provide 1,750 ft. spacing to Peseo de1 Norte and 2.400 ft. spacing to future Hidden Valley
Road. The standard is 2,600 ft. spacing. Engineering is recoaxxending approval of this variance because the intersection would reduce congestion from traffic generated by future development at the Paseo de1 Norte/Palomar Airport Road. Engineering is also recomending the reservation of an
1s
easement for possible relocation of existing Paseo de1
Norte/Palomar Airport Road. The overhead map shows the future relocation of Paseo Dal Norte and Palomar Road to approximately 600 feet to the east. Due to the heavy turn
traffic, this intersection causes a stacking problem and traffic backs up to the freeway. The problem will be
worsened as traffic continues to increase. Engineering fee
that moving the intersection to the east will solve the stacking problem.
The Hillside Development permit is needed because the
property has 15 percent and greater slopes. The property will impact approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands, including several nesting sites of the black-tailed gnatcatcher which is a candidate species for the Federally endangered species
list. The City's biological consultant has developed a mitigation program which reduces environmental impacts to insignificance. In addition, staff is tacomending a change to paragraph 2Oc of the Negative Declaration as well as an additional condition to comply with the requirements of the State Fish and Game Board. Staff feels that the findings can
be met and recosxeends approval of ZC 87-1, CT 8?-2;and WP 88-2.
Cmissioner Schlehuber inquired if a finding would be made
on the Paseo de1 Norte intersection or if the reservation is for future consideration only. Gary Wayne replied that realignment of the Paseo de1 Norte intersection would require a separate environmental review and hearing.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about an easement for the frontage road and Mr. Wayne replied that Condition 1148 on page 10 of Resolution No. 2746 refers to the possible future intersection and not the possible frontage road. Condition
MINUTES 1
June 15. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Paa= l1 COMMISSIONERS \I
//48 requires that a maximum four year “reservation for future street” has been provided. Condition 1122 refers to the frontage road and that condition does not specify any time
limit.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about paragraph 2 on page 8
of the Negative Declaration and David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that this is a standard paragraph on soils
reports and environmental reviews.
Cosxnissioner Schlehuber inquired if there is a problem with
faults and Mr. Hauser was unaware of any historic faults.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Condition 1139 would hold up building permits. Mr. Hauser replied that the applicant would enter into a secured agreesmnt.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the applicant has seen and
agreed to the conditions. Mr. Wayne replied that he has been advised by a second party that the applicant is aware of and agrees to the conditions which have been added.
Colrmissioner Hall inquired about the adjoining property ovner and was advised that both ovners are the same.
Commissioner Hall inquired about Condition 1148 and if four years is enough time. Mr. Hauser replied that the four years was a negotiated time period.
Cosssissioner Schrm inquired about Condition H22 on page 7 regarding the offer of dedication and if this will be returned to the Cormoission. Hr. Hauser replied that Condition 1~22 could be modified to do so.
Chairman McFadden inquired about the width of the reserved
easement for the potential realigned Paseo de1 Norte and stated that she thought it was already 84 ft. but the staff
report states that it will be widened from 72 to 84 ft.
Mr. Hauser replied that the street would be widened from 72 to 84 ft. if the City realigned the street.
Chairman McFadden inquired about the easement in perpetuity. Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney. replied that the applicant should agree to the condition because it is not being
proposed for development.
Chairman McFadden inquired if the applicant had agreed. Hr. Hewer replied thet the applicant offered to provide an
easement. Fir. Hauser stated that a study would have to be conducted.
Chairman McFadden inquired about the lack of a grading permit or stockpile permit requirement for the remainder parcel since she doesn't want to end up with a "bunch of dirt."
Mr. Heuser replied the condition could be expanded to include this requirement. However, the requireuxents should not pertain to entitlumnts necessary to widen and reconstruct
Palomar Airport Road.
Commissioner Schlehuber expressed concern about the four year maximum street reservation since the Planning Comission cannot be bound by a negotiated time limit. If this condition is left in, four years would be the maximum time
period. Coarnissioner Schlehuber is also concerned about the potential "T" intersection.
MINUTES
June 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION
\
\
B 1
Paae ‘* COMMISSIONERS ’
Chris Calkins, 4401 Manchester, Encinitas, representing
Carltas Development Company, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that Carltas Development is owned by
Paul Ecke. Mr. Calkins would like to see the street reservation resolved quickly since long term planning could impact busmesses on Paseo de1 Norte. He requested
Conrmissioners to retain the four year limit. In addition, he would like to return with a complete plan to preserve the open space and drainage, etc.
Chairman McFadden did not see a payment plan for interconnecting traffic signals through to “A” Street and referred to 56C on page 11 of Resolution No. 2746.
Mr. Calkins replied that he would agree to a payment plan.
Coaxaissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant had a
problem with the requirements to redesign the project so there would be impact to the wetlands and to postpone development until after the gnatcatcher's nesting season.
Mr. Calkins replied that it posed no problem and agreed to the conditions.
Chairman McFadden inquired about a public easement and Mr. Wayne replied that the easement would be private, not public.
Chairman McFadden opened the public hearing and issued the invitation to speak.
Mark T. Sisxeon. 7811 University, La Mesa, the Development
Manager for Southland Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that Southland Corporation is against the divider (median) on Palosw Airport Road crossing Paseo de1 Norte at
the existing intersection.
Chairman McFadden replied that this is a separate issue and
will be conditioned and noticed. However, Hr. Simon was concerned about all of the references to the realignment and stated that the realigrxmnt seems to be included in this
application.
Chairman HcFadden inquired of the City Attorney if Mr. Simmon
should be specking to the realignment at this time. Ron
Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he should wait until that project comes before the Commission.
Chairman HcFadden informed Mr. Sinmhm that the median is not being considered at this time. Mr. Wayne also responded that
a street aligmrmnt change would require a future General Plan amendment and this proposal for realignment is being held in abeyance.
Consxissioner Schlehuber stated that it is possible the realignment may never happen.
Chuck White, 850 Pelomer Airport Road, Carlsbad, representing Pea Soup Andersen. addressed the Conmission and stated that
he has similar concerns as the previous speaker. He feels that the plnns being considered will destroy the current development and would incapacitate Pea Soup Andersen's business.
Chairman McFadden inquired what Mr. White was requesting and Mr. White replied that he does not agree about the traffic stacking problem. He feels it is cross traffic that causes the backup problem.
MINUTES
June 15. 1988 PLANNING COHHISSION Page l3 COMMISSIONERS v
Ken Huepper. 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego, representing Mobil Oil Corporation. addressed the Coaxaission and stated that he echoes the complaint of previous speakers. Mobil Oil
Corporation is planning a $1 million expansion at Palomar Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte and he feels the proposed
changes being discussed would be detrimental to their business. He would like to be noticed on all proposed activity in the area. Mr. Ball informed Hr. Huepper that requests for notice should be made to the City Clerk.
James H. Gaiser, 3340 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns 1.5 acres of land on
Paseo de1 Norte. He does not understand why the proposed realignment is on all of the IMPS and referred to in the
staff documents if it is not under consideration at this time.
Dennis Wickham. 3003 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, representing
Hadley Fruit Orchards , addressed the Commission and stated that he had also written a letter to the Planning Department about the proposed project. He wants to make sure that this project will not effect a need to realign Paseo de1 Norte.
hr. Wickham's letter is Included with these minutes.
Dick Crandall, 5205 Avenida Rncinas, Carlsbad, the Marketing
Manager for 7-11 Stores, a ddressed the Coaxaission and stated that he has recently been involved in a similar situation in Escondido on Center City Parkway where a median was
installed. It has affected sales by 15% and 7-11 has been unable to recover the loss. Although the median is not an issue tonight, he would like to go on record that he is opposed to it.
Ted Rees, 4021 Highland Drive, Carlsbad. owner of the 7-11 Store on Paseo de1 Norte, declined to speak but would like to
go on record thet he is opposed to any realignment of Paseo de1 Norte.
Ron Rouse, 4250 Executive Square, La Jolla, representing the Winter Family Partnership and Winter Trust, addressed the Commission snd stated thst Ur. and lirs. Winter own property on the southeast and southwest comer of Paseo de1 Norte. He
stated that construction of a median on Palomar Airport Road would cauu an impairment of activity which is compensable under Cslifornfa law. He wants to mske sure that the median
or the rulignamnt of Paseo de1 Norte is not an issue at this time. He expressed concern that his client had not received any notice whatsoever about the public hearing and since their property is within 220 feet of the proposed project, the ordinance states that they must be given written notice. He would like this omission investigated. Two letters from
fir. and Mrs. Winters on behalf of the trust and the partnership are included with these minutes.
Chairman McFadden inquired which of the Winters property is
within 220 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Rouse replied
that the Hr. and Mrs. Winters own the corner lots and that the ordinance states that owners within 600 feet will be
noticed.
There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission
members.
MINUTES
June 15. 1988 PL.ANNING COMUSSION Page 14
Colrmissioner Schlehuber directed an inquiry to Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, whether there was a problem since
the Winters did not receive written notice about the hearing. Mr. Ball replied that staff's only responsibility is to
verify whether notices were sent--not received. The applicant takes the risk since they must provide envelopes for the notice.
Chairman McFadden inquired if any action taken at this hearing would be null and void if notices were not sent. Ron
Rouse responded that the Winters are prepared to waive notice as long as the wording is changed. Mr. Ball replied that defective notice cannot be waived but the Planning Commission
does not need to accept a wording change. He recommends that the public hearing be continued and that notice be sent.
Gary Wayne replied that the list for notices was from last August and that the property was sold to the Winters in
January 1988. Hr. Winters responded from the gallery that Gary Wayne's statement was incorrect.
Chris Calkins of Carltas Development stated that their list was based on the property tax list of August 1987. The property was transferred to the Winters in January 1987 and
the assessors list was incorrect.
Cousaissioner Schlehuber inquired what the ruling would be for
an incorrect list.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that if a
person shows up at a public hearing, they are assumed to have received notice.
Hr. Rouse replied that staff is missing his point--all he is requesting is a langusge clarification on the median or realignment of Paseo de1 Norte. He would like to see the project approved.
Cmfssioner Schlehuber replied that he does not want to set a precedent of chsngfng langusge in response to a waiver of
notica.
Uotion was duly msde, seconded, and carried to continue
ZC 87-l/CT 87-Z/EDP 88-2 to July 6th. Staff will renotice the public hearing.
DISCUSSION ITB4S:
Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to provide
some type of street diagram showing house numbers so that Commissioners can cross off speskers. It would have been helpful on both items heard at this ameting tonight.
nINDTRS:
The Planning Cormnission approved the minutes of
June 1, 1988 as presented.
Hall Holmes
Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schram
Hall
Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schram
. .
Winter Family Partnership
1745 Rocky Road Fullerton, CA 92631
June 13, 1988
The Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
We are general partners of the Winter Family Partnership
which owns APN 211-050-05 (the new 7-11 store) and
APN 211-050-11 (Don Shinn Cleaners). This property is located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road
and Paseo de1 Norte.
We strongly oppose the idea and even the serious consider- ation of the partial closure of Paseo de1 Norte. Our
lessees had no idea that their traffic circulation would
possibly be altered after all the years as it is now
established when their leases were signed only a few months ago.
The city should not, in good faith to it's tax paying businesses and citizens, make such arbitrary and confisca- tory decisions. The financial loss to the properties on Paseo de1 Norte and near Palomar Airport Road will be terrific and uncalculable.
We request that the planning commission terminate all consideration of the plan to alter the Paseo de1 Norte
traffic circulation.
Yours truly,
General Partner Barbara Ecke Winter, General Partner
Ray and Barbara Winter Trust
Dated May 15, 1981
1745 Rocky Road
Fullerton, CA 92631
June 13, 1988
The Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
As trustees of property at the southwest corner of Palomar
Airport Road and Paseo de1 Norte identified as APN 211-050-01
(Denny's): 211-050-02 (Mobil Oil) and 211-050-03 (undeveloped
land) we strongly object to the consideration of the
idea of limiting the traffic flow to and from Paseo de1
Norte from Palomar Airport Road.
Although we can not say how much the financial impact will be, we know that, in the case of the present leases,
it will be very great. In the case of future leases,
we are sure that many tenants will not even consider the
locations.
It appears that this action, if taken, will be the equiva-
lent to partial condemnation without compensation.
We, therefore, request that this idea be discarded.
Yours truly,
Ray WY Winter, Trustee Barbara Ecke Winter, Trustee
-1 3
LAW OFFICES
SELTZER CAPIAN WILKINS & MCMAHON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT,ON
3003-3043 FOURTH AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX X33999
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92103
TLLCPHONC @zllSl 195-3003
TELECOPY 14319) zse-8904
ROmLRT w CVLVLR *-MN.LC-m* ; 0, COUNSL‘
June 15, 1988
. :- . .L \
Honorable Jeanne B. McFadden, Chairperson, HAND DELIVERED and Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2 - Carlsbad Ranch Business Center June 15, 1988, Agenda Item No. 2
Dear Ms. McFadden and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc., which is located at 6115 Paseo De1 Norte, just south of Palomar Airport Road ("PAR").
While Hadleys is not opposed, in concept, to the Carlsbad Ranch
Business Center, Hadleys strongly objects to the proposed blocking of Paseo De1 Norte at PAR. Blocking the intersection could devastate Hadleys' business in Carlsbad.
Many of Hadleys' customers travel north on Interstate 5 and
stop at Hadleys to buy the quality dates, nuts and other products
that Hadleys has been selling at the same location in Carlsbad
for over 10 years. A critical need for these customers, who
generate substantial sales tax revenues-for the City of Carlsbad, is to have quick and easy access back onto the freeway to continue
north to their destination. For over 10 years, they have been
turning west onto PAR from Paseo De1 Norte, and then onto the
adjacent freeway on-ramp.
We understand from the Staff Report that the City is concerned that people travelling east on PAR may in the future cause some problems turning left (north) onto Paseo De1 Norte. Hadleys' customers do not contribute to this problem as they turn right (south) onto Paseo De1 Norte. Blocking the intersection, however,
will prevent Hadleys' customers from immediately returning onto
the freeway. In fact, blocking the intersection may aggrevate the congestion eastbound on PAR as those driving north on Paseo
Honorable Jeanne B. McFadden, Chairperson, and Members of the Planning Commission June 15, 1988
Page Two
l I
De1 Norte would be forced to turn east onto PAR and then try
to negotiate a U-turn later.
To the extent the Planning Commission believes that the proposed project will contribute to the need to block the intersection, Hadleys objects to the proposed negative declaration, zone change,
tentative tract map and hillside development permit because
of the extreme, unmitigated, adverse impacts the project would
have on existing uses, such as Hadleys, in the area.
We request that rather than blocking the intersection, the City consider placing a "NO Left Turn" sign on PAR. This alternative would achieve all of the City's goals of preventing those driving along PAR from turning left (north) on Paseo De1 Norte without
devastating our client's business.
Very truly yours,
Dss J. Wickham
SELTZER CAPLAN WILKINS & McMAHON
DJW:sh cc: Hadley Fruit Orchards, Inc.
,i”
/
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
OIlice of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE (619) 434.2808
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the , . Pl mn
. to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
Carlsbad Ranch Business Center (CT 87-2)
Date of Decision: July 6, 1988
Reason for Appeal: Applicant requests deletion of Conditions 22 and 23.
Dedication and lien contract for the frontage road connection through
the remainder parcel is not consistent with either the traffic generate1
by the proposed project, the open space objectives of the City, .or the
environmental constraints of the property. Future proposals for the
remainder parcel will require additional City discretionary review.
July 15, 1988
Date
Name (Please Print)-
4401 Manchester Ave., Ste. 206
Address
Encinitas, CA 92008
(619) 944-4090
Telephone Number
‘1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989
Of&e of the Clfy Clerk
City of CatWab
TO: Bobbie Hoder
FROM: Karen Kundtz
DATE: July 15, 1988
RE: CT 87-2 - Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
TELEPHONE
(819) 438-5535
_.~ -._ ’ ? 5.. ‘,‘,‘.
\ -,+I., r.
! Jl!L 1988 $.‘. ‘( /. .-q*FEF!l
j .! l’f. :, q::!., 9
: 5‘
The above item has been appealed to the City Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of uA4
f
Signature
Mobil Oil Corporation c js’:” ~~~~~~~~~~~ C!.,t:j; #j$ @f+WTf”E WILDING
17822 EAST 17TH STREET
@j fl If; _ fj “)“yyv FfJIb,?jN’A 92680-2151
August 4, 1988
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Rea ZC 87-l/CT 87-Z/HDP 88-2 Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
I regret that I am unable to attend the public hearing for the above referenced project scheduled for Tuesday evening, August 9. I would request that my letter be read at the hearing and made a part of the official record.
I represent Mobil Oil which has a leasehold interest in the property located at the SWC of Palomar Airport Rd. & Paseo de1 Norte, Our business success depends upon convenience and access- ability into and out of the site, The success of our independent franchisee who operates the business also depends upon the same factors.
The potential installation of a median and relocation of the existing traffic light at our intersection will divert traffic away from our site and create a loss of business, While certainly not opposed to the entire project, Mobil must go on record as ooposed to this particular point that staff has raised in their report. To ensure that this staff recommendation is not interpreted as a potential condition of this project, I believe your consider- ation to delete this noint from the record is warranted.
I would like to add that Mobil is presently contemplating a major investment to remodel the existin g facility at a cost approach- ing l,OOO,OOO dollars. Installation of a median and relocation of the traffic signal could negatively imnact upon our plans.
By copy of this letter to the City Clerk, I wish to be contacted regarding any future consideration of the median and traffic signal, and should this project require further consideration and continue to include any reference to the median and traffic signal relocation I would also request notification. I can be reached at (619) 592-0344
? , . --
Mobil Oil Corporation
and at 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego CA 92128
CCI City of Carlsbad City Clerk
Very truly yours,
If3 W~-p$&-q
Kenneth B. Huepper Senior Real Estate Representative
-
R.W. Winter
_-
+ Ray & Barbara Winter Trust Dated May 15, 1981
and Winter Family Partnership 1745 Rocky Road Fullerton, CA 92631 (714) 526-3035
The Honorable Mayor August 9, 1988 The City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Subject: (CT 87-2 CARLTAS) Proposed Carlsbad, CA 92008 Realignment of PASEO DEL NORTE at PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have no comment in regard to the CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER.
I only address my comments to the possiblilty of realignment
of Paseo De1 Norte which is attached to the STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM, dated May 24, 1988: PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF PASEO DEL NORTE AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (CT 87-2 CARLTAS).
As lessor to DENNY'S INC., the MOBIL OIL CO., HADLEYS FRUIT
ORCHARDS, the 7-ELEVEN STORE and the (dry) CLEANERS and a potential
future lessee, I most strongly protest this possibility and
EVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF ITS CONSIDERATION.
The MINUTES of the Planning Commission hearing of June 15, 1988
contain the statements of owners and lessees' agents: Mark Simmons,
Southland Corp. (7-Eleven); Chuck White, Pea Soup Andersen; James Gaiser, 1.5 acres; Ken Huepper, Mobil Oil; Dennis Wickham, Attorney for Hadleys; Dick Crandall, 7-Eleven; RON ROUSE, Attorney for Winter, (owner as above). (I believe that Larry Young represented
Denny's Inc. but his remarks were omitted from the minutes).
Since I realize that this issue is not the question for the
meeting tonight, I will make few more comments. BUT, since
this issue was included in the Carltas Tract Map, it, therefore,
becameasubject for discussion and concern.
A major lease now being seriously considered by the writer may well be in jeopardy and the financial loss may be quite great.
Trustee & General Partner
. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZC 87-l/CT 87-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, August 9, 1988, to consider an application for a Zone Change from P-M, L-C,
and R-P to reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and a Q-overlay to
the P-M area, and to consider an appeal of Conditions 22 and 23 of Tentative Tract
Map CT 87-2. The project will create a g-lot subdivision on property located on the
south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo De1 Norte, in Local Facilities
Managment Zone 5, and more particularly described as:
Parcel "A" of Parcel Map 2949 and Portion of Lot "H" of Ranch0
Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California
If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Zone Change, and/or Tentative Tract Map in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
PUBLISH: July 29, 1988
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
, 4 PROPOSED
dARLSBAD RANCH E&S. CENTER I ZC 87-l
‘k _ RITE IT - DON’T SAY IT!
. Date July 22, 19 88
To Karen Kundtz q Reply Wanted
From Anita Ramos-Bonas ONo Reply Necessary
Attached is a set of labels, list of labels and a copy of the notice for the above-
mentioned subject.
Attachment
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRlNTED IN USA
. t 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
Office of the Clry Clerk
ditp of tLarI$bab
TO: Bobbie Hoder
FROM: Karen Kundtz
DATE: July 15, 1988
RE: CT 87-2 - Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
TELEPHONE
(819) 438-5535
. . .
-A. -; ,*
?* -;; .
$ \ .
The above item has been appealed to the City Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the,City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of uA4
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
APPEAL FORy
I (We) appeal the following decision of the . . Pla.nninu cl-
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
Carlsbad Ranch Business Center (CT 87-2)
Date of Decision: July 6, 1988
Reason for Appeal: Applicant requests deletion of Conditions 22 and 23.
Dedication and lien contract for the frontage road connection through
the remainder Darcel is not consistent with either the traffic generatec
by the proposed project, the open space objectives of the City, .or the
environmental constraints of the property. Future proposals for the
remainder parcel will require additional City discretionary review.
July 15, 1988
Date
Y Carltas Company
Name (Please Print)
4401 Manchester Ave., Ste. 206
Address 34 Encinitas, CA saoag
(619) 944-4090
Telephone Number
. 11200 EiM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
Ofllce of the C/ty Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
QLitp of VCsrIs’bsb
Bobbie Hoder
Karen Kundtz
July 15, 1988
CT 87-2 - Carlsbad Ranch Business Center
TELEPHONE
(619) 4385535
The above item has been appealed to the City Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of .
Signature Date
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE (819) 434-2808
(situ af thrlsbdd v
APPEAL FORM
. . I (We) appeal the following decision of the -on
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
Carlsbad Ranch Business Center (CT 87-2)
Date of Decision: July 6, 1988
Reason for Appeal: Applicant requests deletion of Conditions 22 and
Dedication and lien contract for the frontage road connection through
the remainder parcel is not consistent with either the traffic generate1
by the proposed project, the open space objectives of the City, .or
environmental constraints of the property. Future proposals for the
remainder parcel will require additional City discretionary review.
July 15, 1988
Date
Name (Please Print)
4401 Manchester Ave., Ste. 206
Address
Encinitas, CA 920&i
(619) 944-4090
Telephone Number
. CITY OF CARLSBAD .* %.’ 1200 ELM AVENUE i CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
438=5621 -
./ L #
REC’D FROM (2 f)Q - , /I i J : /> ; ,~,‘j / cr DhfE
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I
;I J j )(:, ,, $ J $ J - )&gfs ;, i / JJ / $ 1 :y,, /‘\ ,), /‘,: :‘j L. /= -T- I L ,-I,] *q 1 ;‘7 J / .
RECEIPT NO. 85 1 1 ‘3
.- ._l__-,~, .I” _,LI.. m-4 ^ .-.. _ I. _-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June
15, 1988, to consider approval of a Zone Change from P-M, L-C, and R-P to reconfigure those designations and add an OS designation and a Q-Overlay to the P-M area.; Tentative Tract Map to create a g-lot subdivision: and, a Hillside Development Permit for the proposed grading plan, on property located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, east of Paseo de1 Norte, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5, and more particularly described.as:
Parcel "Al1 of Parcel Map 2949 and Portion of Lot *rH'l of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZC 87-l/CT 87-2/HDP 88-2 APPLICANT: CARLSBAD RANCH BUSINESS CENTER PUBLISH: JUNE 3, 1988
CITY OF CARJSBAD PJ~ANN.lX!G COMMISSION
William & Ruth
1282'Crest, Dr Encinitas, CA
Dealy
92024.
Richard B. Williams - P.O. Box 117 San Luis Rey, CA 92068
Grupe Real Estate Investors 39 P.O. Box 7576 Stockton, CA 95207
James & Dorothy M Gaiser 3340 Ridgecrest Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Richard C. Kelly Robert P. Kelly 2770 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ray & Barbara Winter 1745 Rocky Rd Fullerton, CA 92631
Carroll & Alice Kelly Richard C. Kelly 2770 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Paul Ecke Sr. P.O. Box 607 Encinitas, CA 92024
Carltas Company 4401 Manchester Ave. #206 Encinitas, CA 92024
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
McWin Corp 6102 Avenida Encinas Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008
Andrew McReynolds 2316 Calle Chiquita La Jolla, CA 92037
Sun Pacific Inc P.O. Box 6189 San Diego, CA 92106
Cal Mil Plastic Prod. Inc.
6100 Paseo De1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Executive Co Western Bankers Investment 8380 Miramar Road, #200 San Diego, CA 92126
Paul & Peggy Hadley 4743 W. Hoffer St. Banning, CA 92220
Shaughnesst Opcon Corp. c/o Allstar Inns, Inc. P.O. Box 3070 Santa Barbara, CA 93130
Andrew MC Reynolds 2316 Calle Chiquita La Jolla, CA 92037
Sun Pacific Inc. P.O. Box 6189 San Diego, CA 92106
Otto J. & Carol J. Rose 18832 Winnwood Lane Santa Ana, CA 92705
Denny's Restaurant 889 Palomar Airport Rd. Carlsbad,$ CA 92008
Ukegawa Brothers 4218 Skyline Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tip Top Market
6118 Plaza De1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
_ Mobil Oil Co. 899 Palomar Airport Rd. * Carlsbad, CA 92008
Frazee Farms, Inc. 6145 Laurel Tree Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tabata Brothers P.O. Box 1338 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Manager Southland Corp.
901 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Alfredo's Dos Mexican Rest.
6030 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Oreo Hardware
6125 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Hadley's Orchards
6115 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pea Soup Andersen's
880 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Nurseryland Sunbelt Nurseries 925 Palomar Airport Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Ranch Market
6118 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tip Top Meats
. 6118 Paseo de1 Norte Carlsbad, CA 92008
Kirk Taylor Partners Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte A-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gentlemen's Hairquarters Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, C-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Strahan Chiropractic Center Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, E-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Century 21 Elite Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, J-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Enterprise Rent A Car Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, D-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Bruce M. Jordan, D.D.S. Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, K-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Medical Staffing Services Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, O-1 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Savant Enterprises Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, Q-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
North Coast Hand Rehabilitation Crown Real Estate Co., Inc. Plaza de1 Norte Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, G-l 6120 Paseo de1 Norte, H-l Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
First National Bank Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, L-l Carlsbad, CA 92008
Kimberly Nurses Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, A-2 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Safeway Stores Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, B-2 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Viasat, Inc. Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, J-2 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Farmer's Insurance Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, G-2 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Corroon & Black Benefits, Plaza de1 Norte
6120 Paseo de1 Norte, M-2 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Computer Graphics Image Plaza de1 Norte Paseo de1 Norte, G2 Plaza de1 Norte 6120 Pasel de1 Norte, H-2
Cleaners
6020 Paseo de1 Norte
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT Beach Crest Dr. Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
Carl-8 -08
OCCUPANT %L,kBeach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %i?-k Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT y&oBeach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT L&--D Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT CfH-UBeach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 912~&Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT VOcA Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT W/-.&Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 173;+Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ‘H-8 Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT. (in-0 Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @F-0Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT k%i-/t Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
%@-A Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9Tl-h Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 33-R Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 961-8 Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q&+%-~~Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?&;1.2 Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %I-fi Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '113-&Beach Crest Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Beach Cry&-Dr;-- Cay,, 92008
OCCUPANT Beach Cres<- Carl&-A 92008
OCCUPANT
Carr%%i8
OCCUPANT qh%!-GWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT' q43-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?Ji-GWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ~~~~~ Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT GZ/c,k Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
. . OCCUPANT '?I?:& Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '%5--o Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT - '345“(;Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 95e.h Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9% D Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Lif;L?-DWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @3*/k Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT "/*-6 Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9~)i-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '14r-kWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %?-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 933X)Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q&e-DWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q/I-/~-Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
CCCUPANT @t&g Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '$33AWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ‘1%-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad,' CA 92008
OCCUPANT c&-V Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Li4z-h Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 952-c Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %%'-C Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT gB-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT $'lS -A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qj2-12 Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %'d-l$Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ciF?-AWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT rl~s--I: Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
^_ OCCUPANT 'if;2-& Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT T@-~Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT rjq4-0 Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q%-AWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
CCCUPANT 9’36% Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 93pAWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad7 CA 92008
OCCUPANT g34-oWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
926-p Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT su-/% Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q/P-C Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT CrOg-c Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '@C-A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9+,5-P Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
&?%$!d Drift Dr ' Cklsbad, CA 92068
OCCUPANT %-0Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @4-0Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
7/6--A Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT c114-DWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q&--O Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %L-/1, Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %FCWind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 5%~C Wind Drift Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %%+Mariner St. Carlsbad,, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 'i2J-h Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT no-& Mariner St. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT y6z.A Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
._ OCCUPANT Wt-'DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA '92008
OCCUFANT ‘?/L-A Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT "log1> Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %$kMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ~%+#vIariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?f+?-kMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %?hpMariner St. ' Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %Z'RMar+~er St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT qC\4-AMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT 9W0Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 'i%-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qsb DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 982-h Mariner St. 'Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 5%4--AMariner St. Car&bad, CA 92008
CCCUPANT VW/t Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT W-AMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Lik-C: Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q#-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT. WZ-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q@-C Mariner St. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %b- "Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %h-OMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %%-A Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 70-k Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qLJ*hMariner St. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9%-/s Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 950-C Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %q-t>Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %2-OMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 74ri-t Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 146-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q%-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qh-kMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %z-Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
cccuPANT %6.-k Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q%-AMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %-&Mariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT y*-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q3;1-DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 416,DMariner St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ci%YkSea Wind Court Carlsbad', CA 92008
- OCCUPANT L?S!?,h Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %-@u Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '75~2~1.7 Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT (j%-jJSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Vr'to Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q4Hk Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 93kh Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT cj3Q-1/3 Sea Wind Court Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT VvO Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %,J-,h Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT CizffA Sea Wind Court Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q\%-kh Sea Wind Court Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qi0.C Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT cib2-DSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT CiOSC, Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %4/r> Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q&--ASea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %"fiSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %%C Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
cc UPANT 1w $- Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q34-Oh Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 71bUSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
116-h Sea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Cf\+aSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %b-DSea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9&z-Mea Wind Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT -- OCCUPANT c14zk SeacJiff Dr. j&kSeacliff Dr. Car&bad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT q4#cSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT !hL Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?/VC S&cliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %Weacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT (i5ZC Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 45#L Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT WcSeacliff Dr. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ci'5y h Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT C&I,,& Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT W2.A Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
1
OCCUPANT cjlp4P Seacliff Dr. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 01706 Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 76SDSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 'i&b 0 Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ‘WA Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT g'*kSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?@ k Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT CigzASeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 'jwESeacli.ff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %%fl Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '?#o Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qYoC Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @4P Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT (?&17 Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?%keacliff Dr. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT cj?gA Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Citi,4-Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 4z~,kSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ‘izz A.-Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '%4A Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qlbk Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qS);.h Tide% Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT i59 0 Tide Courts Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q4b 0 Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 'i'% A Tide Courts Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT :]1S4 A Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
occuPANT %& .A- Tide Courts Car&bad, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT 957;h Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
1 OCCUPANT qSCTide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qsD0 Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Cti4CTide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q&O Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q@ATide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q3L.k Tide Courts Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
%?@A Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Cj3AA Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT WJA Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %ZZ/k Tide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?%fATide Courts Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q/$',A. Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad,t CA 92008
OCCUPANT ')/z'j Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 4;‘CGO Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?lc C Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT &%GSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?@k Seacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
-- OCCUPANT 414LXeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '@dPSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT $$zhSeacliff Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q(6'hSailfish Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
- q:'rglfish Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT '?\4 0 Sailfish Place 4120 Sailfish Place Car&bad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '?obD Sailfish Place Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ci(?40 Sailfish Place Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
cjoZ#t Sailfish Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %QCSailfish Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008 .
OCCUPANT. %rrCSailfi,sh Place
' Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %tIASailfish Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT "& ,Shore Crest Rd.
Car&bad,' CA 92008
OCCUPANT -- ‘3F”, Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
- OCQJPANT 1 @?A. Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
%Y- -Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 524 Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
932. Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
?iG Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
'?X4- --'Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @-.. Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 5Lz. Shore Crest Rd. Car&-bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q/b-. Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?fg- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
q/0 Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qr4--- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
%Z- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT c-t,% Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '?d- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '?& Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qtiu shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @zri Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT Cf4z.. Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 5%) Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT q'rr-- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 946.. Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT W-- Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 954. Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT %Y Shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
953 Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
453 Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9sb Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
%?~p&%e Crest Rd Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
6 c;;'gmse Crest Rd. , CA 92008
OCCUPANT <jb(C! Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbati, CA 92008
- OCCUPANT ykg Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA '92008
- $$?!~e Crest Rd. '
Carlsbad, CA 92008 .
OCCUPANT ?* Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
q% Shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT. %' Shore Crest Rd.
'Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 9m Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
i OCCUPANT Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT @ia Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT ?@ Shore Crest Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT.
@# Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
9% Shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT qw Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT 92 Shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
$%??!ke Crest Rd Carlsbad, CA 9200;
OCCUPANT
c%yo Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT '?q8 Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT $??b Shore Crest Rd. Car&bad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
/dbq Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT /m~Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT
/d86 Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT /Oaf Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
OCCUPANT. /d/D Shore Crest Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
0 c cc4 Pf+-NT
crcs ta
OCCU f?h-N7- io/q .5hwf l(yZ~b\Qf-e c!-f-t& prd
cd-f-is bi!!$ c-4 9 2cwl3 cdsbe +J / CA @mom