HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-13; City Council; 12863; Vehicles UnlimitedTY OF CARLSBAD - AG - IDA BILL
TITLE: APFW3.L OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING VEHICLES UNLIMITED - CUP 154(B)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council direct
the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING CUP 154(B), as approved by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3689.
ITEM EXFXANATION
This item is an appeal of three conditions of a Planning Commission decision to approve
a conditional use permit (CUP) for the temporary storage and impound of vehicles in the
Palomar Airport Business Park. This appeal was filed by the project applicant.
On July 20, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit CUP
154(B) for Vehicles Unlimited, located at 2175 Camino Vida Roble. The Planning
Commission approved Vehicles Unlimited CUP 154(B) with conditions (6-l).
The applicant has appealed three of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission
as follows:
a>
W
4
Condition #20, which limits the number of vehicles stored on the site to 69, was
appealed by the applicant as they believe that the 69 vehicle limit would cause
unwarranted financial strain; the 69 vehicle limit would not serve a value to the
public as the public is not permitted onsite; and, neither the City nor adjacent
property owners would benefit from the condition. The Commission imposed this
condition to address their concerns about safety issues involved in storing large
numbers of vehicles without adequate emergency access. The Commission was
also interested in reducing potential visual impacts by limiting the maximum
number of vehicles which could be stored on the lot. The 69 space parking plan,
which was approved as part of the earlier Pacific Bell improvement plans, was a
compromise proposed by staff to establish a specific number of vehicles which
could be stored on the lot and still maintain adequate emergency access.
Condition #22, which requires a six foot high masonry wall, was appealed by the
applicant as they do not believe the wall will improve the screening of the site and
they do not believe the City or adjacent property owners will benefit by the screen
wall. The Commission imposed this condition to address potential visual impacts
of the proposed use on adjacent industrial developments. The Commission did not
believe that the existing vinyl screening was adequate, especially along the western
portion of the site, and therefore, recommended a six-foot high masonry wall be
constructed along the western property line.
Condition #7 limits the time period for this CUP to 3.5 years. The applicant has
appealed this condition as they do not believe that either the City or adjacent property owners benefit from the reduced term, from 5 years to 3.5 years, as the
CUP as conditioned already requires an annual review of condition compliance by
the Planning Director. The Commissioners were very concerned about the long
term compatibility of this use in the area. As a result, they recommended limiting
the term of the CUP to 3.5 years, the time remaining on the Vehicles Unlimited ’
_-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL?hq J?i@
.
lease. The 3.5 years would allow staff adequate time to analyze the long term
impacts of the use and would ensure a timely, formal review of the CUP.
More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning
Commission. Public testimony is included in the attached Planning Commission minutes
dated June 15, 1994, July 6, 1994 and July 20, 1994.
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
On July 20,1994, the Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director on April 18, 1994.
FISCAL INIPACI’S
No fiscal impact is anticipated from City Council action on this appeal.
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665 and 3689
Location Map
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated June 15, 1994, July 6, 1994 and July 20, 1994, with attachments
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 1994, July 6, 1994 and July 20, 1994
Letter of Appeal, dated July 28, 1994.
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
EXHIBIT l-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING
TELEPHONE ELECTRONIC SWITCHING FACILITY AND TO
PERMIT TEMPORARY PARKING/IMPOUND OF SEIZED
VEHICLES IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE JUST WEST OF YARROW DRIVE.
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
CASE NO: CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of June, 1994, and
on the 6th day of July, 1994, and on the 20th day of July, 1994, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, 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 Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
“ND”, dated April 18, 1994 and “PII”, dated April 4, 1994, attached hereto
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findims:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in’size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly 3
impacted by this project.
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of July, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble, Compas,
Monroy and Nielsen.
Commissioner Erwin. .
None.
None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOaMILL%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3665 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2175 Camino Vida Roble
Carlsbad, CA 92009
South side of Camino Vida Roble just west of Yarrow
Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit Amendment to permit an expansion of
an existing telephone switching facility and to allow temporary
auto storage/impound of seized vehicles in conjunction with a
towing business.
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 Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issuid 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
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Terri Woods in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447.
DATED: APRIL 18, 1994
CASE NO: CUP 154(A) Planning Director
CASE NAME: VEHICLES UNLIMITED
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 18, 1994
lw:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-l 161 m
.
ENVIRONMENTAL [MPAm ASSESSMENT FORM - PART [I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Vehicles Unlimited
CASE NO. CUP 154(A)
DATE: April 4, 1994
2. APPLICANT: Varlev Enternrises -- ------
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLiCANT: 2095 W. Vista Wav. Suite 219
(619) 941-5444
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 17. 1993
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP lS4A)
to allow an exnansion of the existing telephone switching facilitv and to permit temDoraw auto
storaae/imaound or seized vehicles in coniunction with a towing business on the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, secrion 15063 requires that the Ciry conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environmenr.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This
checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projecr
and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
:‘: An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-sig” and ‘YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mirigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
t
.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands+ or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a significant archeological,
paleonrological or historical site,
srrClctute or object?
YES (ski9 YES
(inslg)
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-2-
.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT I
WILL THE PROPOSAL DLRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig)
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
x
.-IL
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and inset ts?
Introduce n.ew species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
x.
x
x
WILL THE PROPOSAL DLRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(sip) (ins&
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? x
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? x
-3-
.
. HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR [NDIRECTLY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2s.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid wasre or hazardous wasre
control systems?
[ncrease existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
tnvolve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited ro, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
tmpact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne; rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
[nterfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
YES YES NO big) (insig)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-4- 4
.
.
MANDATORY FtNDlNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO Gig) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environmenr, substantially
reduce the.habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife > population ro drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten ro eliminate a planr or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, ro the dis-
advantage of long-rerm, 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.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the. project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
- x
x
. -se
.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is a request ro expand an existing telephone electronic switching facility and .a request
ro permit vehicle storage/impound or seized vehicles in conjunction wirh a separare and unrelated towing
business on a lot in rhe Palomar Airport Business Park. The-structure for the telephone switching facility was
previously expanded beyond that approved under their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 154). The
requested conditional use permit would legitimize the expanded structure. Further, the applicant is requesting
permission to srore vehicles, in conjunction with a towing service, on the southern portion of the lot. Auto
storage/impounds are permitted in the PM Zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The lot is currently
tully improved with paving, screen fences and landscaping. #No additional improvements are proposed as part
of the application.
Phical Environment
l-11. The project site was previously graded and padded-our as pgrt of the Palomar Airport Business Park
development. Only fine grading would have been necessary ro pave the rear portion of the lot.
The area surrounding rhe site is fully developed. No native vegetation is likely to have been on rhis
sire prior to rhe improvements being made, as the lot was fully graded previously. The telephone
switching facility employs three persons at the site. The combined traffic impacts from rhe
telephone’facility and the temporary vehicle storage business are negligible at less than 25 trips per
day. The projecr should not result in substanrial adverse effects on ambient air quality, change the
course or flow of water, substantially affect the quantity or quality of surface water, substantially
increase usage of natural resources or energy, nor alter a significant archeological, paleontological
or historical site.
3iolonical Environment
12-16. [t is unlikely that there was significant sensitive native vegetation on the site prior ro improvemenr
as the sire had been previously graded and the area surrounding the sire is fully developed. The
project is unlikely to have had a significant impact on the diversity of sensitive species or their
habitat or resulted in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
-human Environment
.7-32; The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with the existing uses
of rhe area. With only three employees on-sire, no significant impacrs are anticipated to public
services or utilities. No increases in noise or light and glare are anticipated. This is not a
residential project, therefore, no housing is proposed. With only three employees, no significant
demand for additional housing is anticipated. Impacts ro traffic and parking are negligible with less
than 25 average daily trips. The project should not significantly impact scenic views or affecr rhe
quality or quanriry of recreational opportunities.
-6- II
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: I
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of developmenr,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
fI alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
No impacts have been identified as a result of project implementation. The proposed project is small in size,
requiring no additional improvements. Thus, alternatives are impractical and unnecessary.
-7-
.
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmenral review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- 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 Negarive Declaration will be proposed.
- 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significanr effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
q&Y
Date Signature
4 I-++-
Dkte
rw:vd
-EL
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3689
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT
TEMPORARY PARKING/IMPOUND OF SEIZED VEHICLES IN
THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO
V-IDA ROBLE JUST WEST OF YARROW DRIVE.
CASE NAME: VEHICLES UNLIMITED
CASE NO: CUP 154(B)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been fled 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, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 6th day of July, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Lot 15 of Palomar Airport Business Park Unit No. 1, of Map
854 recorded December 31, 1974, City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California.
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 CUP 154(B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
J3 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CUP 154(B), based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
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
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary and desirable for the development of the
community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of
the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically
permitted in the PM zone in which the proposed use is to be located.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use.
3. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on April 18, 1994 and
APPROVED by the Planning Commission on July 6, 1994. In approving this
Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the
staff analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments received
regarding the significant effects this project could have on the environment.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
9. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for industrial development on the General
Plan and the area has been fully developed with compatible planned industrial
developments and the stored vehicles are screened from view due to topographic
changes2 vinyl smening and landscaping.
PC RESO NO. 3689 -2-
I
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
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Approval is granted for CUP 154(B), as shown on Exhibit “A”, dated July 6, 1994,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shall occur substantially as shown. All conditions of CUP 154 are superseded by
the conditions contained herein. All Conditions of CUP l!%(A), Resohtion No.
3666 are incorporated herein by reference.
The developer shah provide the City with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy of
the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission within 30 days of approval
of the project. The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approval required by
the City.
This project is 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, If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the
General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may
be required as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendment made to that plan prior to the issuance of any 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 the time of
building permit issuance.
PC RESO NO. 3689 -3-
.
I
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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
_- -
This conditional use permit is granted for a period of 3.5 years. This conditional
use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not
have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public
health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such
significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has
a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health
and welfare, or the conditions &posed herein have not been met. This permit
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 5 years upon
written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find
that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health
and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a
substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for
a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the
Planning Commission may grant.
If the property owner/owners’ address changes from that which is shown on the
conditional use permit application, a notice of a change of address shall be
reported, in writing, to the Planning Department within 30 days.
Existing onsite trees shall be retained and shall be trimmed and/or topped. Dead,
decaying or potentially dangerqus trees shall’ be approved for removal at the
discretion of the Planning Department. Landscaping shall continue to be trimmed
to provide an adequate line of sight from the driveway.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
No signage shall be permitted for the kqxmry auto storage/impound of vehicles
on this site.
The applican~owner shall repair and maintain all asphalt surfaces.
The storage of any single vehicle on the property is limited to 45 days, except that
vehicles being held for evidence in a Homicide case may be stored for up to 90
days under police authority.
No outside storage, other than the tempomy storage&npound of vehicles
expressly permitted under this permit, shall be allowed on the property.
PC FLESO NO. 3689 -4-
.
.
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
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
-,
Within 30 days of approval of this application, the applicant shah permanently
remove the C-storage container located on the property. A modular storage unit
that is architecturally compatible with the surrounding area may be permitted on
the site subject to the approval of the Phuming Director.
All facing and vinyl screeniq shall be maintained in a good condition-
The parking of large-hauler tow trucks is limited to the subject property. No
parking of the large-hauler tow trucks is permitted on the Creekside development
site located directly to the west of the project site, the street, or any adjacent 3 Pn4=tY-
The applicant shall not engage in any retail auto towing or recychq business on
the subject site. No cleaning or repairs of stored vehicles shall he permitted on
site. In general, vehicles will be in an operable condition and not considered
-P-
Within 60 days of approval of this application, existing dead plants located on the
front, side and rear portions of the property shall be replaced in hind with healthy
plants. Additional trees and/or other plants shall be planted along the rear portion
of the site to fully screen the parking area from the property to the south.
Additional trees and/or plants shall also be planted along the western portion of
the site to better screen the entry to the storage area of the site as approved by the
Planning Director.
The rear portion of the lot shall be striped for 69 parking spaces pursuant to
Exhibit ‘Y’, attached hereto, as may be modified by the City Engineer. The
maximum number of vehicles stored on this site at any one time shall be 69.
The applicant is limited to the temporary storage of not more than 2 wrecked
vehicles on this site at any one time.
Within 90 days of approval of this permit, a six foot high decorative masomy wall shah he constructed along the west side of the property as approved by the
Planning Director.
Should Vehicles Unlimited discontinue use of this site, the site shall be cleared of
all vehicles and all materials and supplies associated with the business and the site
shall be restored to its original condition prior to Vehicles Unlimited occupying the
site, except that the six foot masonry wall constructed along the west side of the
Property n=Y remain at the discretion of the property owner.
Within 90 days of the approval of this CUP Amendment, the applicant shall obtain
approval from the City Fqineer of a Best Management Practices Plan to reduce
PCRESON0.3689 -5-
-
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
12
14
1c
1E
17
1E
1s
2c
21
2:
2:
24
2:
2t
2'i
2E
25.
26.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
//I
///
///
///
pollutants from the drainage and meet the needs of the National Pollution
Dkcharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The plan shall include but not be limited to providing measures to
contain and control any spill of materials considered hazardous, provide measures
to keep the site swept and clean of such hazardous materials and notify the County Hazardous Materials Diqosal Unit when a spill occurs. All materials removed as
a result of these operations shall be diqosed of in a lawful and approved manner
for disposing of hazardous materials.
All vehicles including large hauler trucks shall be parked in a safe and lawful
manner. No loading or unloading of vehicles shall he permitted in the public
street. Public travel lanes shall not be blocked while parking vehicles unless a
traffx control plan has been approved and a right-of-way permit has been issued.
Upon discontinuing the operations permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, the
applicant shall test the site and soils for contamination with hazardous materials
and if contamina tion is found, restore the site as may be required by the property
owners and the County Health Authorities using approved methods standard to the
industry of hazardous waste diqosal.
PC RESO NO.3689 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of July, 1994, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners Welshons, Noble,
Compas, Monroy and Nielsen.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING-COMMISSION
ATTEST:
0
MICHAEL J. HOxMItiER
Planning Director
1 PC RJZSO NO. 3689 -7-
I
\ b *. !zl UT ..-
t
,’ l #-c”“-- -x-
\ -. .p 7 Ll”l
I
\ I I
L
I \
F f
, iL- Ad
\
I0 s 1.
\,
1 I
2 1
II !- *----
.
e5’Lc.‘: ,iJ
IIS
Ii
I8
t -- N 89 u7w 33P.W -- --1 .
- _-
I I
EXHIBIT 2 - . .
PALOMAR AIRPORT
PACIFIC BELLYVEHICLES. UNLIMITED . CUP 154 A >s- CUP 13 154 B
-
EXHIBIT 3
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
APRIL 4. 1994
STAFF PLANNER: TERESA WOODS,
DATE: JULY 20, 1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ’
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 1!54~AVCUP 154(B) - PACIFIC BFUJVFHCLES UNLIMITED -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and two Conditional Use
Permit Amendments (1) to allow the expansion of an existing telephone
electronic switching facility and, (2) to permit temporary parking/impound
of seized vehicles, at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, in the PM zone in Local
Facilities Management Zone 5.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665, APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3666 and 3689 APPROVING CUP 154(A) and CUP 154(B),
respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. DISCUSSION
This item was originally heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 15,
1994, at which time it was returned to staff with instructions to split out the two
applicants thereby creating amendments “A” and “B” to CUP 154. At the meeting of July
6, the applicant requested continuance to allow additional time to respond to a request for
information from staff. Additionally, Commission had requested that a representative from
Pacific Bell be present to respond to questions. The individual was on vacation and would
not return until July 11, 1994.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3666
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3689
4. Staff Report dated July 6, 1994, with attachments
APPLIch. ION COMPLETE DATE:
APRIL 4, 1994
STAFF Pm TERESA WOODS
0 2
AMENDED STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 6, 1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP 154[AKUl’ l!+(B) - PACIFIC BELLMWICLES UNLMITED -
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and two Conditional Use
Permit Amendments (1) to allow the expansion of an existing telephone
electronic switching facility and, (2) to permit temporary parking/impound
of seized vehicles, at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, in the PM zone in Local
Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665,
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3666 and 3689 APPROVING CUP 154(A) and CUP 154(B),
respectively, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Il. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On June 15, 1994, the Planning Commission heard the Pacific Bell/Vehicles Unlimited
request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 154(A)). At that hearing, the
Planning Commission directed staff to split the project into two separate amendment
requests, CUP 154(A) - Pacific Bell and CUP 154(B) - Vehicles Unlimited. The project was
continued at the hearing to allow staff time to prepare the necessary documents to address
the CUP requests separately. The two amendment requests have been addressed separately
in this report, although the analysis of issues has been combined where appropriate.
Further, separate resolutions have been prepared for the two amendment requests. Finally,
in response to issues raised at the hearing, additional conditions have been included in the
two amendments.
CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B)
PACIFICBELL,MZHICLESUNLIMITED
JULY6,1994 PAGE2
The proposed project addresses two Conditional Use Permit requests as follows: (1) to
expand an existing telephone company electronic switching facility (CUP 154(A) and, (2)
to permit the temporary storage and impound of seized vehicles (CUP 154(B). The site is
located on the south side of Camino Vida Roble just west of Yarrow Drive in the Palomar
Airport Business Park. The site is owned by Pacific Bell. In 1975, Pacific Bell constructed
the original telephone electronic switching facility without a Conditional Use Permit. In
1978, the applicant processed a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 154) to legitimize the
existing use and to expand the existing structure. CUP 154 was approved permitting the
telephone electronic switching facility in the PM zone and allowing the 1,570 square foot
expansion of the existing building for a total building square footage of approximately 6,730 square feet.
In 1986, Pacific Bell completed the building expansion, approved under CUP 154, however,
apparently due to a staff oversight at that time, the expansion was constructed larger than
that approved under CUP 154. The expansion as constructed was approximately 2,566
square feet larger than approved under the CUP 154, for a total building square footage
of 10,866. Further, the applicant paved and striped for parking, the southern portion of
the site. The building expansion was necessary to accommodate additional telephone
switching equipment to provide telephone switching capacity to meet future service
requirements in the City of Carlsbad. The additional equipment did not involve increasing
the employee population of three at this location. Telephone electronic switching facilities
are permitted in the PM Zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in
Section 21.42.010(2)(J). CUP 154(A) is a request to legitimize the additional square
footage of the existing building. No further development is proposed at this time.
CUP 154(B) is a request to permit the temporary storage and impound of vehicles on the
site. Pacific Bell proposes to lease a portion of their property to Vehicles Unlimited for this
purpose. This request is the result of a letter notifying them of the violation for storing
towed vehicles on the site without a CUP. Vehicle storage is a permitted use in the PM
zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in Section 21.42.010(6)(B) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Vehicles Unlimited, a towing business, has been in operation at
this site since December, 1992. Vehicles Unlimited contracts with Local, State and Federal
governments to seize vehicles on behalf of the government. There is no private towing
associated with this business. The public is not permitted on the subject property. The
offices for this business are located in an adjacent building to the west, at 2101 Camino
Vida Roble. All public contact is handled in the adjacent office building.
III. ANALYSIS
1. Are the proposed uses consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive
Land Use Plan?
CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(d) PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JULY 6,1994 PAGE 3
2. Can the findings required for approving a Conditional Use Permit be made? More
specifically:
Is the telephone switching station expansion and temporary vehicle
storage/impound necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, and, not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically
permitted in the zone; 8
b) Is the site adequate in size and shape to accommodate the uses;
4 Are all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features
necessary to adjust the requested uses to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood provided and maintained; and
d) Is the street system serving the proposed use adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the uses?
DISCUSSION
1. Comnatibilitv with the Air-not-t Comnrehensive Land Use Plan
The proposed projects are located within the Airport Influence Area, but is located outside
of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours. The project site is not located within either the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) or Flight Activity Zone (FAZ). The Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport only addresses uses impacted by noise
levels above 60 dBA CNEL or properties located within the RPZ or FAZ. As such, the
proposed uses are consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP.
2. Findings Required to Grant a Conditional Use Permit
a) Desirability and Haxmony of Proposed Use
Both the telephone switching facility and temporary vehicle storage are desirable for
the benefit of the community. The telephone switching facility makes telephone
service available to businesses and residents of the City of Carlsbad; the temporary
vehicle storage facility provides vehicle storage for vehicles seized by the Border
Patrol in Carlsbad and surrounding communities.
To ensure that the temporary vehicle storage does not become a junk yard in the
future, conditions have been included prohibiting retail towing or the operation of
a recycling business on the premisses, limiting the maximum number of vehicles
stored to 69, and, limiting the number of wrecked vehicles stored at any one time
to two (2). Further, a 45 day time limit for temporary storage of a single vehicle
CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B) PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JULY 6,1994 PAGE 4
has been included. To ensure that neither the expanded telephone switching facility
nor the temporary vehicle storage would impose any detrimental impacts to other
uses in the same vicinity, the proposed projects have been conditioned to enhance
and maintain landscaping; repair and maintain all asphalt parking areas; maintain
all fencing; and, maintain all vinyl screening. The uses in the surrounding area have
already been established, and the proposed vehicle storage/impound, as conditioned,
is compatible with these uses.
b) Adequate Size and Shape
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate both the telephone switching
facility and the temporary vehicle storage facility as conditioned. The site is fully
improved, no additional improvements are proposed. Only 12.5 percent of the site
will be covered with a structure.
c) Necessary Features Provided
The telephone switching facility already exists, as does the temporary vehicle
storage/impound facility. The site is fully developed with the telephone switching
facility, fencing, landscaping, and paved parking area. No further grading or
development is proposed. The northern, approximately 50 feet of the site, along
Camino Vida Roble, is heavily landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The
landscaping along Camino Vida Roble almost totally obscures the telephone
switching facility as viewed from the street. Some of the ground cover on the site
has died. The applicant/owner will be conditioned to replace this ground cover.
As identified in the table below, with the exception of the building’s front yard
setback, the development meets the standards of the PM zone. As constructed, the
building was consistent with the Palomar Airport Business Park (SP-145) front yard
setback standard of 40 feet. Subsequent to the approval of the Specific Plan, the PM zone was amended requiring a 50-foot front yard setback along secondary
arterials. The building as constructed, has a front yard setback ranging from 42-54
feet, with an average of 50 feet. The building was constructed to standards in place
at the time of approval and the expansion of use does not involve building
alterations nor encroachment into required setbacks more than already exists.
Therefore, the expansion is allowable per Section 21.48.090 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
The telephone switching facility is a single story structure consisting of a stucco
exterior which is painted beige. There is a Pacific Telephone logo on the front of
the building, with little other building articulation or relief. The landscaping within
the front yard setback almost totally obscures the structure as viewed from the
street.
CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B)
PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JULY 6,1994
PAGE 5
DEVJXOPMENT STANDARDS COMPI ANCE II
Front Yard Setback
l=QW
50 feet
Side Yard Setback I 10 feet
Rear Yard Setback
Height
25 feet (10’ landscaped)
35 feet
Parking 11 spaces
Lot Coverage I 5Ooh max
~ PROPOSED
42-54 feet
25-125 feet
200 feet (20’ landscaped)
17.66 feet
20 spaces II
12.5% II
d) Adequate Street System
The traffic impacts of the telephone switching facility and temporary vehicle storage
facility amount to an average increase of less than 25 trips per day, which is
insignificant. The street system is adequate to handle this minor increase in traffic.
ENvIRoNMENTALREvIEw
The site was previously mass-graded and padded-out as part of the Palomar Airport
Business Park development and no additional grading is proposed. The site has been fully
developed with structure, paving, and landscaping. Staff has determined that no significant
adverse environmental impacts will result due to this project. The Planning Director,
therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on ,April 18, 1994.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3666
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3689
4. Location Map
5. Background Data Sheet
6. Disclosure Statement
7. Reduced 8 %” x 11” Site Plan
8. Exhibit “A”, dated July 6, 1994.
TW:lh
MAY 4,1594
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
APPLIC iON COMPLETE DATE:
APRIL 4. 1994
STAFFP- TERESAWOODS ,,/\
0 1
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 15, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CUP 154(A) - PACIFIC BELUVEHICLJZS UNLIMITED - Request for
approval of a Negative Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
to allow an expansion of an existing telephone electronic switching facility
and to permit temporary parking/impound of seized vehicles at 2175 Camino
Vida Roble, in the PM zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
RF.COMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665,
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3666 APPROVING CUP 154(A), based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT’ DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project addresses two requests as follows: 1) to expand an existing
telephone company electronic switching facility; and, 2) to permit the temporary storage
and impound of seized vehicles. The site is located on the south side of Camino Vida Roble
just west of Yarrow Drive in the Palomar Airport Business Park. The site is owned by
Pacific Bell. In 1975, Pacific Bell constructed the original telephone electronic switching
facility without a Conditional Use Permit. In 1978, the applicant processed a Conditional
Use permit (CUP 154) to legitimize the existing use and to expand the existing structure.
CUP 154 was approved permitting the telephone electronic switching facility in the PM
zone and allowing the 1,570 square foot expansion of the existing building for a total
building square footage of approximately 6,730 square feet.
-
CUP 154(A) PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 2
In 1986, Pacific Bell completed the building expansion, approved under CUP 154, however,
apparently due to a staff oversight at that time, the expansion was constructed larger than
that approved under CUP 154. The expansion as constructed was approximately 2,566
square feet larger than approved under the CUP 154, for a total building square footage
of 10,866. Further, the applicant paved and striped for parking,. the southern portion of
the site. The building expansion was necessary to accommodate additional telephone switching equipment to provide telephone switching capacity to meet future service
requirements in the City of Carlsbad. The additional equipment did not involve increasing
the employee population of three at this location. Therefore, the first part of the CUP
amendment request is to legitimize the additional square footage of the existing building.
No further development. is proposed at this time.
The second part of the CUP amendment request is to permit the temporary storage and
impound of vehicles on the site. Pacific Bell proposes to lease a portion of their property
to Vehicles Unlimited for this purpose. This request is the result of a letter notifying them
of the violation for storing towed vehicles on the site without a CUP. Vehicle storage is
a permitted use in the PM zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in
Section 21.42.010(2)(J) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Vehicles Unlimited, a towing
business, has been in operation at this site since December, 1992. Vehicles Unlimited
contracts with the State and Federal government to seize vehicles on behalf of the
government. There is no private towing associated with this business. The public is not
permitted on the subject property. The offices for this business
building to the west, at 2101 Camino Vida Roble. All public
adjacent office building.
are located man adjacent
contact is handled in the
III. ANALYSIS
1. Does the use comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan?
2. Can the findings required for approving a Conditional Use Permit be made? More
specifically:
Is the telephone switching station expansion and temporary vehicle
storage/impound necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, and, not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone;
b) Is the site adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use;
CUP 154(A)
PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 3
cl Are all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features
necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood provided and maintained; and
d) Is the street system serving the proposed use adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the use?
DISCUSSION
1. Comnatibilitv with the Air-nor-t Comnrehensive Land Use Plan
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area, but is located outside
of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours. The project site is not located within either the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) or Flight Activity Zone (FAZ). The Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport only addresses uses impacted by noise
levels above 60 dBA CNEL or properties located within the RPZ or FAZ. As such, the
proposed use is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP.
2. Findings Required to Grant a Conditional Use Permit
a) Desirability and Harmony of Proposed Use
Both the telephone switching facility and temporary vehicle storage are desirable for
the benefit of the community. The telephone switching facility makes telephone
service available to businesses and residents of the City of Carlsbad; the temporary
vehicle storage facility provides vehicle storage for vehicles seized by the Border
Patrol in Carlsbad and surrounding communities.
To ensure that the temporary vehicle storage does not become a junk yard in the
future, conditions have been included prohibiting retail towing or the operation of
a recycling business on the premisses. Further, a 45 day time limit for temporary
storage of a single vehicle has been included. To ensure that neither the expanded
telephone switching facility nor the temporary vehicle storage would impose any
detrimental impacts to other uses in the same vicinity, the proposed project has
been conditioned to enhance and maintain landscaping; repair and maintain all
asphalt parking areas; maintain all fencing; and, maintain all vinyl screening. The
uses in the surrounding area have already been established, and the proposed
vehicle storage/impound, as conditioned, is compatible with these uses.
.
CUP 154(A)
PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
JUNE 15, 1994
PAGE 4
b) Adequate Size and Shape
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate both the telephone switching
facility and the temporary vehicle storage facility as conditioned. The site is fully
improved, no additional improvements are proposed. Only 12.5 percent of the site
will be covered with a structure. +
c)‘Necessary Features Provided
The telephone switching facility already exists, as does the temporary vehicle
storage/impound facility. The site is fully developed with the telephone switching
facility, fencing, landscaping, and paved parking area. No further grading or
development is proposed. The northern, approximately 50 feet of the site, along
Camino Vida Roble, is heavily landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The
landscaping along Camino Vida Roble almost totally obscures the telephone
switching facility as viewed from the street. Some of the ground cover on the site
has died. The applicant/owner will be conditioned to replace this ground cover.
As identified in the table below, with the exception of the building’s front yard
setback and size of eating area provided, the development meets the standards of
the PM zone. As constructed, the building was consistent with the Palomar Airport
Business Park (SP-145) front yard setback standard of 40 feet. Subsequent to the
approval of the Specific Plan, the PM zone was amended requiring a SO-foot front
yard setback along secondary arterials. The building as constructed, has a front
yard setback ranging from 42-54 feet, with an average of 50 feet. As the building
was constructed to standards in place at the time of approval and no building
alterations are proposed, staff believes that the 50 foot average front yard setback
is acceptable.
The telephone switching facility is a single story structure consisting of a stucco
exterior which is painted beige. There is a Pacific Telephone logo on the front of
the building, with little other building articulation or relief. The landscaping within
the front yard setback almost totally obscures the structure as viewed from the
street.
CUP 154(A)
PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMLTED
JUNE 15, 1994
PAGE 5
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLTANCE
II
Front Yard Setback
REQUIRED PROPOSED
50 feet 42-54 feet
Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Height
10 feet
25 feet (10’ landscaped)
35 feet
25-125 feet
200 feet (20’ landscaped)
17.66 feet
Parking
Lot Coverage
11 spaces
50% max
20 spaces
12.5%
d) Adequate Street System
The traffic impacts of the telephone switching facility and temporary vehicle storage
facility amount to an average increase of less than 25 trips per day, which is
insignificant. The street system is adequate to handle this minor increase in traffic.
Iv. ElwIRoNMENTALREvIEw
The site was previously mass-graded and padded-out as part of the Palomar Airport
Business Park development and no additional grading is proposed. The site has been fully
developed with structure, paving, and landscaping. Staff has determined that no significant
adverse environmental impacts will result due to this project. The Planning Director,
therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on April 18, 1994.
ATI’A-:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Z:
7.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3665
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3666
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Reduced 8 ‘/2” x 11” Site Plan
Exhibit “A”, dated June 15, 1994.
TW:lh
MAY 4,1994
.- BACKGROUND DATA SHEI -
CASE NO: CUP 154CAI
CASE NAME: Pacific Bell/vehicles Unlimited
APPLICANT: Varlev Enterorises
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow an exnansion of an existing telenhone electronic switching facilitv and to allow the temoorarv auto storane/imr>ound of seized vehicles in coniunction with a towing business.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Palomar Airnort Business Park Unit No. 1 of MaD 854 recorded December 31. 1974, Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Dieno. State of California
APN: 213-050-13 Acres 2.0 proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
(Assessois Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation PI
Density Allowed N/A Density proposed N/A
Existing Zone PM proposed Zone N/A .
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Cardsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoning Land Use
Site PM Industrial
.North PM Industrial
South PM Industrial
East PM Industrial
West PM Industrial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CarIsbad Water District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) N/A
Sewer District Carlsbad
public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated
x Negative Declaration, issued April 18.1994
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
DISCLOSURESTATEMENT
APPUcNmS STATEMEM OF olscLosu# OF CERruN OwNEmHlP tMEREsTs ON ML APPuanmm WHICH wtu REour# DlSCAElloNARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE cm COUNCL OR ANY APPONEO SoAm. coMMtssloN OR coMMlTrEE.
(Plruo Prlftq -1
The following information must be disclosed:
1. &allcan~
List the name8 and addresses of all persons having a financial Interest in the application. Varley Enterprises 3n95 w- ViRi-a Wnv 4+0 ‘#219 Vista. CA 97083 Alutra Enterprises Same as above Vehicles Unllmlted Asset Recovery 2105 Camino Vida Roble. Ste A Carlsbad, CA 92009
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Pacific Bell 3848 7th Ave. rm. 120 San Diego Ca. 92103
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above Is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of all individuals owning more than 1096 of the shares &I the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the
partnershlp. (1) Arthur J. Varley 2095 W. Vista Way Ste. 219
(1) Ula M. Varley Pasta ca. YLuuJ
(1) Arthur J. Varley, Jr.
4. lf any person Mentffled pursuant to (1) or (2) abova k a non-prolft organization or a trust, Ilst the names and addresm of any person serving a¶ offlc~ or dlrector of the non-prolh organkation or aa tn~stee or benefkiary of
the trust.
FRMOOOI 12/91 .
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, Callfomla 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 @
JLL-Z-1313 48: 32
* stiurHLRND
FRQkl ?N DIEGO EEQL ESTQTE TP- lo .9411615 I
.
9411615 P.03 -93 16:37 No.010 P.02
PROJECT INFORMATION. - ’ e(r> d
TYPnl~:.~ - - +RLw - - -----_. - . ---- - -.---- _.__ WC we3-r vm~-armrrr -. -~~m&L~~s~-~-.,-.~~ - - -
W-P: i7wPW mL - ~~%wumpve: wlw _ ._ - 544 net-, c&n. _*lt lo2 .._
Y-Bn-237-%77 ___-
-1 Pl=w=T : -. -~~3&--
_ mmJITps, WI- ~zpi?Ic -- bPT- %Z- 102 I -.
rzmz~~:‘~~ rz, I+?%5
F?+J%S NM0 : ’ f?+w~ ’
PPPL+sTloH w : ~0l-r~ Lb@ PawIT
4w Dm=!dT : mEp+
wF+ 915mGT: @FE%+0
SUMMARY TABLE
LEGEND
bltiiNlTY MAP 1 -* =?v3 _ --~---
I
EXHllBlT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION - June 151994 PAGE 2
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday, Carlsbad, addressed the Co
stated that he would like the item continued until July 6, 1994 at which time a decision
about whether or not to continue the item indefinitely.
Vice-Chairman Wetshons opened the public testimony and iss
There being no persons desiring
declared the public testimony clo
on this topic, Vice-Chairman Welshons
r discussion among the Commission members.
/
1.
de by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue CT 90-05(A)
wtoJuiy6, 1994..
NOES;
Vice-Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, and Noble
None
ABSTAIN: None
CUP 154(A) - PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED - Request to consider approval of a Negative
Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow an expansion of an existing
telephone electronic switching facility and to permit temporary parking/impound of seized vehicles at
2175 Camino Vida Robie, in the PM Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Terri Woods, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the proposed
CUP 154(A) is requesting to expand an existing telephone company electronic switching facility and also
permit the temporary storage and impound of seized vehicles on the site located on the south side of
Camino Vida Roble, just west of Yarrow Drive, in the Palomar Airport Business Park. The site is owned by
Pacific Bell. She showed slides of the site and stated that in 1975, Pacific Bell constructed the original
telephone electronic switching facility without a CUP. In 1978, they processed a CUP permit (CUP 154) to
legitimize the existing use and to expand the existing structure. The CUP was approved for a total building
size of 6,730 s.f. but the building was not completed until 1986. The expansion was constructed 2,566 s.f.
larger than approved under the CUP, for a total building size of 10,866 s.f. The building expansion was
necessary to accommodate additional telephone switching equipment to meet future service requirements
in the City of Carlsbad. The first part of CUP 154(A) is to legitimite the additional square footage of the
existing building.
The second part of the CUP amendment request is to permit the temporary storage and impound of
vehicles on the site. Pacific Bell leases a portion of their property to Vehicles Unlimited for this purpose.
Vehicle storage is a permitted use in the PM zone, subject to a CUP. However, Vehicles Unlimited, a
towing business which contracts with the State and Federal government to seize vehicles on their behalf,
has been in operation at this site since December 1992 without a CUP. There is no private towing
associated with tfte business. The offices for Vehicles Unlimited are located in an adjacent building to the
west 1;f the telephone switching facility building, at 2101 Camino Vida Roble. All public contact is handled
within the office area and the public is not permitted on the lot were the vehicles are stored.
Staff believes that both the telephone switching facility and the storage yard are beneficial and useful to the
community. The telephone switching facility makes telephone service available to residents and business
within Carl&ad and the surrounding community. The temporary storage of vehicles provides vehicle
storage for automobiles seized as part of border patrol activities in Carlsbad and the surrounding
communities. Vehicles Unlimited has estimated that approximately 75 vehicles per month are towed in
Carlsbad as a result of border patrol activities in and around Palomar Airport, Poinsettia, and Cannon
Roads. Staff estimates average daily trips of 25 for these uses. To ensure that this use does not become
undesirable, many conditions have been added, including the prohibition of retail towing and recycling.
There is also a condition limiting the storage period for a vehicle to 45 days, except in the case of vehicles
stored in a homicide case, where storage of a vehicle would be permitted for 90 days. There are also
38
.-
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 3
various conditions for landscaping, maintenance of all fencing and screening, and upgrading the asphalt
onsite, as well as a condition to mitigate oil or other vehicular fluids spilled on the site in accordance with
NPDES standards.
The telephone switching facility is a single storage structure. It is a beige-colored stucco building which
bears a Pacific Bell logo on the side. Landscaping almost totally obscures the building from the front yard
setback. With the exception of the front setback, the building meets all standards in the PM zone. The
front yard setback of 40 ft. met the requirements in place at the time construction took place. The PM zone
has since been amended, however, and the front yard setback was increased to 50 ft. along secondary
arterials. Since the building met the setback requirements at the time of construction, staff feels that the
setbacks are adequate. No negative environmental impacts are anticipated and all of the findings for this
two-part project can be made. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration and CUP 154(A).
Commissioner Erwin questioned why two separate uses were being placed on one CUP. Ms. Woods
replied that it is permissible for a CUP to cover more than one use. The CUP originally covered the
telephone switching facility. This amendment adds the use of temporary vehicle storage.
Commissioner Erwin is not in favor of two uses in this instance because the liability of one business could
possibly jeopardize the other. If the CUP is pulled because Pacific Bell is doing something it shouldn’t, he
inquired what would happen to the auto storage. Ms. Woods replied that Vehicles Unlimited is a lessee.
As long as their lease is valid, the use would be able to continue because a CUP runs with the land. If the
CUP was revoked, it could jeopardize the Vehicles Unlimited use under the CUP. Pacific Bell and Vehicles
Unlimited are joint applicants.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what happens to the one business if the CUP is pulled because of a problem
with the other business. It seems that both businesses are jeopardizing themselves by being tied to the
activities of the other company. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that Pacific Bell is the
property owner and they are in control of the situation. Staff enforces conditions on Pacific Bell. The CUP
runs with the land. Pacific Bell would enforce conditions on the people they lease to. However, if Pacific
Bell is in violation, then Vehicles Unlimited would run the risk by being tied to them.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if Vehicles Unlimited is creating the problem and the CUP gets pulled, does
it not affect Pacific Bell. If that were to happen, the Commission could go in and alter the CUP and change
the conditions or create new ones. They could also abate that portion of the CUP where there is
noncompliance.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there are also remedies between the two parties because
they are lessor and lessee. Therecould be a civil action if Vehicles Unlimited violated the terms of the
lease. There coutd be injunctive relief forcing them to comply or eviction for breach of the lease. Actually,
there are many remedies available between themselves.
Commissioner Erwin referred to the PM zoning code 52134.090 (Performance Standards), page 641, and
stated that the code requires 6 ft. high concrete wall enclosures around all outside storage and equipment
for screening. He doesn’t see a condition in the CUP requiring a concrete wall. Mr. Wayne replied that this
yard is subject to a CUP, and is not for the storage of manufacturing materials which that section of the
code was intended to regulate. Staff feels that the landscape screening is adequate.
Commissioner Monroy stated that when he visited the site, a tractor was trying to make a U-turn with great
difficulty. He inquired about the possibility of Vehicles Unlimited doing this maneuvering on the property
instead of on the public street. He thinks there might be a traffic problem and would like to see a condition
to remedy the problem. Ms. Woods replied that this was given consideration but staff did not feel it was
feasible from an economic standpoint because the adjoining property is included in a Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 4
Parking would have to be removed in order to permit access at that location. Engineering staff felt that the
number of trips making that U-turn would be insignificant and should not create a hazard.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that when he read §21.42.012(J), he thought it applied only to utility vehicles.
He doesn’t think this section applied to impound yards. Ms. Woods replied that temporary storage of
vehicles is permitted in the PM zone under another section of the code. She cited .the post office and
Hawthorne Machinery, which both store vehicles onsite. They are quite close to the proposed project.
There is a brewery on Loker Avenue which recently received a CUP allowing storage of their trucks. There
is also a plumbing company in that general vicinity which is allowed to store their vehicles onsite.
Commissioner Nielsen feels that vehicles stored overnight and being used daily for business is much
different than impound vehicles. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that there are two
sections of the code that deal with this project. The first section, §21.42.01 O(J), deals with the electrical
station. The second section, 521&.010(6)(B), page 688, deals with vehicle storage. This section was
inadvertently omitted from the staff report.
Commissioner Nielsen questioned the compatibility in the PM Zone. Ms. Woods replied that staff believes
the use is compatible with adjacent uses. The business operation of Vehicles Unlimited is permitted in the
PM Zone. The storage of the vehicles would be an accessory use permitted by a CUP. It doesn’t matter
where the cars being impounded originate from.
Commissioner Noble inquired if all of the vehicles being impounded are coming from the Border Patrof.
Ms. Woods replied that those cars towed within the City of Carl&ad are primarily from the Border Patrol.
They also tow cars from other jurisdictions for various agencies.
Commissioner Noble inquired how many of the vehicles have been involved in drug busts or accidents.
Ms. Woods deferred response to the applicant.
Commissioner Erwin noticed that 10 year CUPS are usually reserved for businesses having to make a
significant financial investment. Ms. Woods replied that since staff felt the use was compatible, and no
problems were anticipated, they recommended 10 years. Staff could accept a shorter period of time if the
Commission would prefer that.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he recalls one other auto storage business off Loker Avenue which
specializes in storing more expensive vehicles. They were required to store all vehicles inside a building.
He would like to know why Vehicles Unlimited is not being given the same rules. Mr. Wayne replied that
this project is a little different, primarily due to the location. Stars 8 Stripes had purchased a building and
since there was no way to screen the site, they were required to store vehicles inside. The Vehicles
Unlimited site is unnoticeable because of its location and landscaping. If Stars & Stripes had been in
another location, they may not have been conditioned to store vehicles inside. Stars & Stripes has also
been given permission to do minor automotive work and staff didn’t want that performed outside.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he read somewhere that vehicles would be limited to 1 O-20 vehicles. MS.
Woods replied that is incorrect. The site wuM accommodate approximately 50 vehicles, but no condition
limits the number of vehicles stored.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired when staff first realized that Pacific Bell and Vehicles Unlimited didn’t
have a legitimate CUP. Ms. Woods replied that it was in February 1993.
Vice-Chairman Welshons stated that was more than a year ago. Ms. Woods stated that staff was unaware
that Pacific Bell had expanded their building larger than what was approved until Vehicles Unlimited turned
in their site plan. Staff received the applicant’s materials in November 1993. Some turnaround time was
required because the site plan needed to be revised to reflect the correct building dimensions.
P
MINUTES
COnr;lECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION - June 151994 PAGE 5
Mr. Wayne stated that it is important to note that the oversight was discovered in February 1993.
Enforcement action was then started to force a remedy. The application for a CUP was the remedy. The
CUP application was received in November 1993 but it had to be returned to the applicant for revisions.
The complete application was only received in April 1994 (two months ago).
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired about the environmental impacts. Finding #5 of Resolution No. 3666
(page 2) seems to conflict with Condition #22 which states that “all required mitigation measures must be
completed within 90 days.” Ms. Woods replied that this is not a mitigation measure of the Negative
Declaration, but rather a condition of the project approval. Staff determined that the minimal amount of
oils and fluids dripping off cars in a parking lot is not a significant environmental impact requiring
mitigation under the Negative Declaration. However, the National Pollution Control requires mitigation of
all fluid leaks onsite.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired why this information could not have come forward earlier. Ms. Woods
replied that the applicant is not used to processing projects through the City. They had to meet with
Engineering staff several times in order to agree on a mitigation plan.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if staff feels comfortable checking “No” on #19 on the Negative
Declaration. Ms. Woods replied yes. The impacts would not be considered significant for any parking
area.
Commissioner Compas inquired if staff knows the average number of cars stored on the impound lot
during the past year. Ms. Woods replied that she does not know the average number, even though she
has visited the site 8 times. She has seen as few as 12 vehicles and as many as 50. The applicant can
probably give better statistics.
Commissioner Nielsen is uncomfortabfe with two usea on the same CUP.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if the two uses could be broken out separately. Mr. Wayne replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin referred to Exhibit “A” regarding average daily trips. It mentions that Pacific Bell
would have 20-30 vehicles and there would be temporary parking for 1 O-20 vehicles. He inquired if this is
referring to traffic going in and out, or whether it is referring to vehicles parked there. Ms. Woods replied
that it refers to vehicles parked, although she has never seen more than 5 Pacific Bell vehicles parked at
this location in the eight times she has visited the site. The estimated ADT is 25 for the site.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, wished to darify for the record that this case was not prosecuted by
her office. However, acconl/frg to Mr. Wayne, she did write a letter to Pacific Bell in late 1992 Or e&U/y 1993
telling them that they were obliged to comply with the CUP.
Vice-Chairman Wefshons invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Arthur Varley, 2095 West Vita Way, Vista, addressed the Commission .and stated that he had nothing
to add to the staff report, but would be happy to answer questions.
Commissioner Noble inquired how many vehicles he tows which have been involved in traffic accidents.
Mr. Varley replied about 5% or less. Approximately 90% is generated by INS and 10% from the Sheriffs
Department.
Commissioner Noble stated that his car was almost in the middle of a collision a short while back as a
result of a drug bust in Carlsbad. He inquired if any of the vehicles come from the Carlsbad Police. Mr.
Varley replied no, not at this point in time; he usually deals with the Department of Justice.
PLANNING COMMISSION . June 15,1994 PAGE 6
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the statement that owners would not be retrieving their vehicles at the site
is correct. Mr. Varley replied that the person would have to come to the office next door. The car would
then be delivered to them if it is cleared through INS and the Department of Justice.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired about the’operations and timeline of impounding, storing, and
disposing of a vehicle. Mr. Varley replied that the car is impounded at the discretion of an agency. The
cars may be held as evidence of an accident or homicide. His company is called in as a specialty unit if
there is an officer down. He is then requested by the various agencies to remove the vehicle and store it
according to certain perimeters. In the case of contraband, i.e. smuggling of illegal substances, those cars
are seized and could be brought to his yard or another yard down in Otay Mesa. Cars are generally stored
for less than 45 days but, on occasion, an agency may request that a vehicle be held longer for evidence.
The cars are disposed of by three methods: An individual can pick up their car when it has been released
by the agency involved; the car could be sold, which is done offsite; or they can be taken by the agency
involved and placed at another location.
Commissioner Niejsen inquired what percentage of vehicles impounded come from Carlsbad. Mr. Varley
replied more than 15% but less than 25%. He handles the No,rth County coastal area.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired about the length of the contracts, if they are annual renewable. Mr. Varley
replied that his contract is with the Department of Justice and it is a five year renewable contract. That
includes the Border Patrol and all Department of Justice activities.
Commissioner Compas inquired if he has been in operation since December 1992. Mr. Varley replied that
he has been in business longer than that. He relocated his business to Carlsbad in December 1992. He
applied for and received a business license at that time and thought there was nothing else he needed to
do. He was told later on that he needed a CUP. _
Commissioner Compas inquired if the amount of business has changed much since December 1992. Mr.
Varley replied that it fluctuates depending on what the population is doing relative to seizure and
smuggling. It generally stays fairly consistent throughout the year.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he had located the statement he was looking for. It states that the public
is not allowed on the property and must transact their business in the adjacent building to the west. Mr.
Varley replied that the public will be going to and from the area but they will not go into the storage yard
area.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he agrees with a maximum of 50 automobiles. Mr. Varley replied that he
fluctuates around 50. He does not overpark the yard but it is possible that he could go over 50 cars at
some point.
Cotx&sioner Nielsen inquired about the maximum allowable number of cars which can ba stored. MS.
Woods replied that a number was not stated. Staff felt that it would be limited by the number of cars which
would fit on the lot. She estimates that about 50 cars would fit there.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Engineering has a parking standard for stored vehicles. Sob Wojcik,
Principal Civil Engineer, replied that there is no standard per se; just the amount that would fit on the lot
and still meet the conditions of the CUP.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if they could go two tier. Mr. Wojcik replied that they could not do that
because they would be getting into some type of structure, which would require an amendment to the CUP.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 7
Commissioner Nielsen inquired about Fire Department access; have they voiced any restrictions. Ms.
Woods replied that it was reviewed by the Fire Department and they indicated approval per the plans
submitted.
Mr. Varley concluded his remarks by stating that he moves his trucks in and around in a circle inside.
Generally, the cars are parked in a perimeter-type parking so that they can wme out easily and safety
vehicles could come in. This limits the number of cars which will fit on the lot.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, stated that anytime there is a drug bust, the Carl&ad Police
Department may or may not be involved with their under wver officers, even outside the jurisdiction of
Carlsbad. If there is a seizure of a vehicle and the Carlsbad Police has been involved in some capacity,
they can apply for a portion of the proceeds of the sale of that vehicle.
Vice-Chairman Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Hugh Terrell, 2719 Llama Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he works at the
Carlsbad Airport Center Park. He is opposed to the vehicle storage use and thinks that the
recommendation to split the two issues was a good one. He thinks vehicle storage is a totally different
issue than Pacific Bell’s use. He has had a couple of experiences occur at this site and felt that the
Commission would be aware of some problems. Mr. Terrell stated that a transport carrier which carries
eight vehicles has been used in this operation for over two years. He encountered the transport carrier
backing out of the driveway at 9:15 a.m. on May 24, 1994 and it completely blocked the entire street. Then
again on June 1, 1994 at 11 :15 a.m. it blocked the entire bicycle lane and a cyclist could easily have gotten
injured because a curve in the street inhibits the sight distance. In fact, he almost hit it. His second
concern is that criminals will be coming to Carlsbad to pick up their cars. He doesn’t like that idea at all.
Everyone located in the business park is trying to enhance Carlsbad. He feels this use will bring it down.
The CUP might state temporary storage, but it is really permanent storage of temporary vehicles. Mr.
Terrell doesn’t feel Vehicles Unlimited should be given special consideration just because he has a
government contract.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if his primary concern is that it will reduce property values. Mr. Terrell
replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what his business is. Mr. Terrell replied that he deals in commercial real
estate. In his experience, people do not want to rent property next door to a storage yard for junked
vehicles.
Commissioner Compas inquired if he thinks tie business is dangerous. Mr. Terrell replied yes. The
transport carrier is huge and holds eight cars. It is dark at night on that street and if the carrier pulls out
and blocks the street, there could easily be a fatality. The cars don’t wme from Carlsbad but criminals get
to pick them up here.
Matt Hall, 4048 Garfield St., Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he represents Milana
Atanasovski of La Costa Towing, Tom and Bea Monice of A-l Towing, Jobe and Claudia Gay of Andrews
Towing, and Steve Dugan and Rusty Russell of S&R Towing. He stated that all of these people are
competitors. They compete against each other and they believe in free enterprise. They each have one
thing in common. They each have a City business license. Each has been before the Commission to
receive whatever permits are necessary to operate in this City. They did this, knowingly, before they turned
a wheel. Mr. Varley knows and understands the towing business. He knows what permits he needs. He
has done business in other cities throughout North County. There was no misunderstanding and he knows
what he’s doing. Mr. Hall is concerned about (1) fairness and (2) the land issue. In fairness, he thinks
some attention needs to be made to history. The people he is representing have been in business for 12 to
14 years. In 1988, La Costa Towing came before the Planning Commission and wanted to open a storage
Jc’
MINUTES
-
.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 8
facility in the City. He had picked out a site downtown on State Street. In the discussion with the Planning
Department, they discussed that site, sites on Poinsettia, and sites out in the industrial park. One thing
was made very clear to Mr. Atanasovski before he left. In order to get a favorable review from the City of
Carl&ad, he would need to put his facility within a building. In 1989, when Jobe and Claudia Gay had
their permits up for review, they had picked out a site they wanted to move to which was within two blocks
of the one Mr. Varley is using. In their discussions with staff, it was made very clear that they would have
to operate out of a building. A few years ago, there was a site approved for vehicle storage. Conditions
were placed on the CUP requiring the vehicles to be stored indoors. There was never any mention of
outdoor storage--it always had to be indoors.
As regards the land use issue, in the Lego campaign over the last six months there has been heated
debate on what the citizens of Carlsbad want in their city. One thing that both sides agreed upon was the
quality they wanted to SW in the industrial corridor. One week and one day later, tonight, the first project
to be reviewed is a towing facility and storage yard which doesn’t even have solid walls. You have heard
Mr. Terrell speak about property values. If this is our vision of this area, he doesn’t think this is what the
citizens of Carl&ad had in mind.
The people he represents have been in business in Carlsbad for many, many years. They have done
everything by the book. When they came here to do business, they went to the City first. It was made very
clear what they had to do and how they had to do it. In this case, some two years later, a person who is
already in business, has had an economic advantage in the fact that he hasn’t had the required permits
and now he has a business in which 75% wmes from outside the City boundaries. He has agreements
with the Encinitas Sheriffs office and will soon tow from the Vista Sheriffs office. All these cars will soon
wme to Carlsbad. Mr. Hall thinks the Commission needs to send a message that if you want to do
business in Carlsbad, you do it right, you do it by the code, you do it by the ordinances, and you plan and
do it right up front. You don’t wme in and build a business and then two or three years later decide to
permit it. Besides the people he represents tonight, there are other people in the towing industry that are
looking at your decision tonight. If this is approved, you can look forward to other people wanting to do the
same thing on similar sites. It will be setting a precedence and, in effect, changing an established policy
for the industrial park. He thinks the Commission should also give consideration to the drainage of vehicle
fluids which will be coming from wrecked cars. He also has a question as to what constitutes a “retail”
customer.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if everyone in this business that came to the City in the past has been told
that they had to put their towing yard inside a building. Mr. Hall replied that is his understanding. Mrs.
Gay is in the gallery tonight and will probably speak to the issue. Mr. Atanasovski is not in attendance
tonight but he has spoken with him on several occasions recently and that is what he has been told.
Bea Monice, A-l Towing, 3181 Roosevelt, Carl&ad, addressed the Commission and stated that she and
her husband have been in the towing business for 14 years. On numerous occasions, people who came to
retrieve their cars tried to jump the fence. They walk the neighborhoods looking for their cars. You can
expect a lot of foot traffii from people looking for their cars. She can attest that increased crime goes right
along with it because many people try to steal their cars without paying or else steal the stuff out of the
cars.
Claudia Gay, 3997 Hibiscus Circle, Carl&ad, addressed the Commission and stated that she and her
husband have owned Andrews Towing in Carlsbad for 13 years. When she went to renew her CUP five
years ago, she walked into the Planning Department to get some paperwork. Their facility is located on
Tyler Street and is an open facility which was approved by the City when they started business. She and
her husband were considering the purchase of another storage lot very close to the site Mr. Varley OpefatW
on. Planning staff told them very firmly that if they wanted to do that, their entire facility would have to be
housed in a building. As a result, they shelved the idea. She can also attest to the type of people they deal
with on a daily basis. Her husband is a very large man (6’6”) and he has had people pull guns on him,
MINUTES
-
.
PLANNING COMMISSION = June 151994 PAGE 9
people have jumped the fence looking for drugs, the police have had to be called. She feels that the
Commission needs to be aware of these issues.
Commissioner Erwin stated that it sounds as though she is supporting the idea of putting the facility
indoors. Ms. Gay replied that she doesn’t think being inside a building will keep the people away.
Arthur Varley, Jr., applicant, was given an opportunity to respond to the public comments and he stated
that Vehicles Unlimited is not a towing company. He uses vehicles to tow other vehicles which have been
seized or impounded by law enforcement agencies. Anyone who had an accident and needed a tow truck
could not call him. His business is not available to the public and they do not deal with the public on a
regular basis. He thinks other tow companies do have a problem when they pick up cars and don’t know
what’s in them. They have a problem controlling that type of situation. When his cars come in, they are
searched by the agencies involved. If contraband is found, the cars may be moved to another facility. He
does not get surprised. Anyone coming into his facility will SW that everything is on camera. No one
checks in or out without a federal computer check. This doesn’t happen in the normal tow company.
Vehicles are not released without approval of the agency and a cross-check of the individual coming in.
Because of the contracts, his yard is basically a federal yard. His last break-in was two and a half years
ago in Escondido. A young man got into the yard and was stopped by one of the patrol dogs. The FBI
took him downtown the next day. The word got around quickly and he doesn’t generally have people
break into his yards. He has facilities and the ability to control the people and vehicles which he tows.
Nobody is put at risk and the people that wme into his office are quite polite. There is very little difficulty
because if they aren’t polite, law enforcement is on their doorstep soon thereafter removing them again.
He doesn’t have the same problems that normal towing operations have. He would not be bringing
vehicles in from the Vista Sheriff’s station because there are rules that the tow yard must be within a
certain distance.
Commissioner Monroy inquired about the length of the transport trailer. Mr. Varley replied that the tractor
and trailer together are approximately 75 ft. long. It holds 6-8 vehicles.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the trailer rig has to back into the facility. Mr. Varley replied that the rig
is generally being used to transport vehicles to the seizure yard in Otay Mesa. On occasion, they may
bring a vehicle in on the trailer which doesn’t belong in Otay.
Commissioner Monroy inquired how long it takes to back that trailer in from the street. Mr. Varley replied
that it depends on the driver. All of his drivers are Class I. They have federal clearances. They can have
no driving records or felony arrest records. His drivers could easily move the tractor trailecoff the street
within a minute or two. It could take longer to back it up the driveway. When this is being done, there is
usually another person with a radio helping guide the truck in.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he could assign a couple of flagmen to assist the driver. Mr. Varley replied
that they do that already. A truck is never backed in on its own. There is good sight distance on either
side and should not cause a problem unless someone driving down the street is exceeding the speed limit.
Commissioner Erwin stated that this road is a fast road. He knows because he drives that area frequently.
There is good sight distance in that area. He inquired if arrangements could be made for flagmen to assist
the truck driver. Mr. Varley replied that he woutd be happy to do so if the Commission desires it.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if all cars being impounded are as a result of some criminal activity. Mr.
Varley replied no. There may have been no criminal activity but a vehicle may have been ID’d by an
agency for pickup. The car may have been left somewhere it shouldn’t have or it may have been in an
accident where the car needs to be searched or investigated.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION June 151994 PAGE 10
Commissioner Nielsen inquired what percentage of cars have been involved in accidents. Mr. Varley
replied less than 5%. They are usually moved in and out fairly quickly.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired what percentage of cars come from Carl&ad. Mr. Varley replied 15-25%.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the only tow vehicles coming into that lot are owned by him. Mr. Varley
replied yes.
Commissioner Noble inquired if he still has a business in Escondido. Mr. Varley replied that he closed
down the yard in Escondido. I
Commissioner Noble inquired if Escondido has a CUP process. Mr. Varley replied that he purchased the
business and doesn’t know. He later closed it down because the yard was too small. That’s when he
moved the business to Carlsbad.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if he could accept a 5 year CUP rather than 10 years. Mr. Varley
replied that he could accept 5 years.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if he could accept making the two uses separate. Mr. Varley replied
that it would be okay with him. Pacific Bell is piggybacking on his request.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if he had thought about putting the business inside a building or behind
a solid masonry wall. Mr. Varley replied that he could not put the use inside a building. As far as a wall,
he put up the one that is there now but it is not masonry.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired about the size of the yard he had in Escondido. Mr. Varley replied that it
was about one acre. The Carlsbad site is twice that size.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if he remembered who he dealt with when he first came to Carlsbad. Mr.
Varley replied that it was the Planning Department.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Vice-Chairman Welshons
declared the public testimony closed and requested staff to address some of the issues which had been
raised.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that City staff was responsible for rolling the Pacific Bell
CUP into this one. It was when Vehicles Unlimited applied for the amendment that staff found out that
Pacific Bell was not in compliance, that they had built 2,500 extra s.f. The Planning Commission can do a
number of things. The two uses can be separated into two parts of one CUP, or into two CUPS. One CUP
could have ten years and the other five years. One use could be approved and the other denied.
Ms. Woods stated the she doesn’t know who recommended the vinyl screening for this site since it was in
place when the application was submitted. The applicant stated that someone from the City had told him
to install the vinyl screening to separate it from adjacent uses.
Commissioner Erwin would like a staff response to the comment that approval of the storage yard could
financially impact adjacent properties. Ms. Woods replied that she is not a financial expert and could not
answer that.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if there are penalty fees for someone not incompliance. Ms. Woods
replied that there are no penalty fees in this case. In the case of a building permit not being taken out, the
penalty fee charged would be double the cost of the building permit.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 11
Vice-Chairman Welshons polled the Commissioners and there was a general consensus to separate the
two issues. She asked staff how the motion should be reworded.
Gary Wayne replied that there is an existing CUP 154 on the site for Pacific Bell. This is the first
amendment which is “A”. Amendment “A” legitimizes the square footage and Vehicles Unlimited. Staff
could put the expansion into Amendment”A” and the Vehicles Unlimited use into Amendment “B”. He
would suggest that staff return with the reworded documents because they need to b8 customized.
Commissioner Erwin would like to see the CUP contiqued to the next meeting because he would like to see
it in two separate documents.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if this separation of the CUP would cause a problem for the telephone
company. Mr. Wayne replied that the CUP runs with the land. In this case, the landowner is Pacific Bell.
It is really an obligation of the landowner to agree to those conditions and then enforce those conditions.
At that point, they pass that responsibility on to a lessee by a contractual document.
Ms. Hirata added that part of that is in the enforcement. The City takes the position that the landowner
must have permits for all uses. Even if they lease out the land, it is their responsibility to see that the uses
are legal and they are held legally responsible if a certain use is not permitted. The City can also go after
the person who is doing the use in violation. The City would go after both parties.
Commissioner Monroy stated that when staff brings back these documents, he would like staff to have that
information spelled out.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the City Attorney’s recommendation as to the preferred form of this
CUP. Ms. Hirata stated that it doesn’t really matter en8 way or another. The issue is that fhere are two
uses and you are either saying yes or no to them. It may be cleaner to have the uses separated but it was
probably done this way because it was a lessee and it was a package deal.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired what will happen to the CUP if Vehicles Unlimited doesn’t adhere to the
conditions. Mr. Wayne replied that Pacific Bell holds the CUP. The Commission is approving an impound
yard with certain specific conditions. When Vehicles Unlimited leaves, what remains is the CUP for an
impound yard under those conditions. Pacific Bell could get another tenant. There is case law on this.
Commissioner Erwin would like to have a maximum of 5 years on the CUP and based on 521.34.090(7),
he would like to se8 a minimum of a solid masonry wall around the project that is approximately 6’ tall.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that if the uses are not separated, it sounds like Pacific Bell’s use would be in
jeopardy. He would like to know how the 5% of wrecked vehicles would apply to Negative Declaration
No. 22. Ms. Woods replied that No. 22 deals with explosive and hazardous materials onsite. During her
environmental review, she stated that she consideredthis to be a parking area. She was told there would
be a negligible number of wrecked vehicles on the site and that the majority of vehicles would be in good
working order. Mr. Wayne do8s not feel that 5% of the cars would represent impacts significant enough to
warrant a new full EIR. He feels that any potential leakage problems could be controlled by adding a
condition to the CUP requiring compliance with NPDES standards. The other extreme would be to add a
condition prohibiting wrecked vehicles of any kind.
Commissioner Erwin would like to also make sure that there is a condition for flagmen whenever there is
any large vehicle backing into the site. He would also like a condition stating the maximum number of
vehicles which could be accommodated.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION June 15,1994 PAGE 12
Commissioner Monroy stated that before we proceed with a requirement for a solid wall, the Commission
might want to determine if it is economically feasible. Mr. Wayne replied that a masonry wall around the
lot would probably cost $10,000 or more.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if this would be creating a financial hardship on this businessman. Mr.
Wayne replied that staff would like very clear direction on this issue.
Commissioner Erwin stated that the industrial park is the platinum region of Carlsbad. There has always
been an attempt to seek the high end. This project in its current form is not the high end. If a project like
this is going to be located in this area, we at least need to do the minimum. The code states that all
outdoor storage, including equipment, shall be completely enclosed by a solid decorative concrete or
masonry wall. This is a requirement we have for everybody. This is the minimum and he doesn’t think it is
asking too much.
Vice-Chairman Welshons stated that many of these items will need to be discussed at the next meeting
once staff has had an opportunity to separate the two uses and add the appropriate conditions. She thinks
the time to discuss these things is when we have the conditions in final form.
Commissioner Noble stated that he still has a problem with wrecked vehicles because there is definite
leakage and it doesn’t look good. He feels allowing wrecked cars would be setting a precedence, even if it
only amounts to 5% of the total impounds. He did not see any condition which would require some type of
notification if a spillage occurred. What constitutes a dangerous spillage also needs to be defined.
Vice-Chairman Welshons inquired if Condition No. 22 wvers mitigation for leakage and spills. Mr. Wojcik,
Principal Civil Engineer, replied that staff has already discussed this with the applicant and is awaiting an
answer as to what their response to a spill might be. Staff also wants to make sure they have absorbent
materials onsite to clear a spill. The City is currently doing testing on all storm drains in the industrial area
which will allow them to track where spills originate.
Commissioner Monroy wncurs with Commissioner Erwin’s concerns but if it is determined that building a
wall around the storage yard would create a financial hardship on this businessman who is already doing
business at this location, the Commission might want to allow this man to continue doing business for the
remainder of the five years. Vice-Chairman Welshons replied that approval of the CUP will require a
majority vote of the Commission.
Commissioner Nielsen commented that this discussion is premature. Vice-Chairman Welshons concurred
and requested that the discussion on these items be tabled to the next meeting when the written conditions
are in front of the Commission.
Vice-Chairman Wefshons stated that she would also like a condition included to restore the site if the
tenant (Vehicles Unlimited) leaves.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, that staff separate this
CUP into two separate CUPS and return for a vote to the Planning Commission meeting
on July 6, 1994.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Vice-Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, and Noble
NOES: Non8
ABSTAIN: None
Vice-Chairman Welshons stated for the record that although the public hearing is continued, the public
testimony for this item is closed.
MINUTES
-
.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 6, 1994 PAGE 2
rn portion of Aviara Planning Area 7 of the Aviara Master Plan (Phase I) locat
est wrner of Alga Road and Ambrosia Lane in Local Facilities Management
nt Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested
Chairman Savary invit
Mike Howes, Hofman Planni 2386 Faraday, Carl ed the Commission and
stated that he would like the item wner is currently in negotiations to
sell the project and there may be cha like to have made before it is heard by
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Noble inquired if two weeks w ient time for the negotiations and related matters
to be completed. Mr. Howes replied yes.
There being no other persons dress the Comm topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed an item for discussi Commission members.
ade by Commissioner Compas, and duly s
CP 90-02(A) fo July 20,1994.
Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielse
2. CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B) - PACIFIC BELVVEHICLES UNLIMITED - Request for approval of a
Negative Declaration and two Conditional Use Permit Amendments (1) to allow the expansion of an
existing telephone electronic switching facility and, (2) to permit temporary parking/impound of
seized vehicles at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, in the PM zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Terri Woods, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to July 20, 1994 in
order to resolve issues brought up at the last meeting. Also, the Pacific Bell representative will not return
from vacation until July 11,1994 and he had been requested by the Commission to be in attendance at the
hearing.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, to continue
CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B) to July 20,1994..
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, and
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None L
ith an office building. This project proposes the re
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
\
July 20, 1994 PAGE 2
definitely to enable the new owners to evaluate their options and integrate their plan
‘red if, by continuing it indefinitely, it means that the applicant will need to reapply as though it w new project. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that for all intents and purposes, it new project and, yes, they would have to reapply.
Commissioner Noble stated that he u the action deadline was in September. Mr. Wayne replied
that the applicant could, if h8 desired, r y extension. However, it appears that they do not
wish to exercise this option.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
the public testimony closed and opened the item for d
epic, Chairman Savary declared
Commission members.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Compas, and duly
90-05(A)/CP 90-02(A) to a date uncertain.
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen,
Welshons
NOES: Non8
ABSTAIN: None
2. CUP 154(A)/CUP 154(B) - PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED - Request for approval of a
Negative Declaration and two Conditional Use Permit Amendments (1) to allow the expansion of an
existing telephone electronic switching facility and (2) to permit temporary parking/impound of seized
vehicles at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, in the PM Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Chairman Savary stated, for the record, that although she was not present at the meeting when this item
was originally discussed, she has listened to the meeting tapes and has read all of the material related to it.
She will participate in this hearing.
Chairman Savary acknowledged that the public testimony period was closed. However, she would b8
reopening public testimony in order to hear from the Pacitic Bell representative. .Aft8r discussion, it was
decided to also allow testimony from the public.
Terri Woods, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item was
originally heard by the Planning Commission on JUn8 15, 1994, at which time it was returned to staff with
instructions to split out the us8s of Pacific Bell and Vehicles Unlimited on the Pacific Bell owned site. At
the July 6th meeting, the Vehicles Unlimited applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time to
respond to a request for information from staff. Additionally, the Commission requested that a
representative from Pacific Bell be present to respond to questions. The individual was on vacation and
not scheduled to return until July 11, 1994. In addition -to the revised dofXm8nts which staff provided to
the Commissioners in their packets, Vehicles Unlimited also prepared a document which was passed out
before the meeting began. Any questions on the Vehicles Unlimited document should be addressed to
them.
Chairman Savary invited the Pacific Bell representative to speak.
Patricia ,Hamilton, 3646 Seventh Avenue, San Diego, representing Pacific Bell Company, addressed the
Commission and stated that she was available to answer questions on their portion of the use permit.
Commissioner Erwin requested the city attorney to speak to the underlying responsibility Pacific Bell has to
their building in addition to the one being used by Vehicles Unlimited. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, 5
0
MINUTES
.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1994 PAGE 3
Stated that when a CUP is issued, the owner of the property is responsible to SW that all the conditions of
the CUP are fulfilled, including those responsibilities of the tenant. The CUP can b8 revoked and any
repercussions from that would then have to be worked out b8twWn the property owner and the tenant. If
the tenant violates the CUP, causing the CUP to be revoked, and the tenant has a long term lease but
wants to move out because of the revocation, there would be a cause of action between Pacific Bell and
the tenant. In’ effect, both parties are responsible to SW that the conditions of the CUP are met. Pacific
Bell could not walk away from it and say it is not their responsibility.
Ms. Hamilton stated that Pacific Bell is aware of their responsibility and that the CUP is all inclusive.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if Pacific Bell is aware that they are liable to ensure that Vehicles Unlimited
meets the conditions for their use. Ms. Hamilton stated Yes.
Chairman Savary invited the Vehicles Unlimited applicant to speak.
Arthur Varley, Jr., 2175 Camino Via Roble, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he would
be happy to answer questions.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the quote for the masonry wall and if it was for one, two, three, or
four sides. Mr. Varley replied that the quote was for three sides (west, east, and south), without the gate.
The gate is on the north side.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the remark in his report which states there will b8 no city or county
work. Mr. Varley replied that many times when business is slow, a towing company will contract with city
or county agencies to pick up dead vehicles or inoperable cars as part of their abatement program.
Commissioner Erwin asked about the difference between this type of contract and his work with the
Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Varley replied that Vehicles Unlimited will only pick up a vehicle requested by a
policing agency. An abatement program is normally handled by another agency and Vehicl8s Unlimited
does not do that type of work. The cars he picks up have been involved in some type of criminal activity.
Commissioner Erwin noticed in the report that there were no aerial pictures of his lot. Mr. Varley replied
that staff provided views of his lot during their initial staff report. Therefore, he did not feel it necessary to
repeat those pictures.
Commissioner Erwin noticed that there swms to be a lot of comparison to Hawthorne Machinery but they
only park vehicles one or two deep and have a tremendous amount of space available. Vehicles Unlimited
tends to park vehicles in multiple depths. Mr. Varley replied that he generally keeps an open transit way
within the lot. Sometimes he parks vehicles three or four deep in certain areas of the lot; it depends on the
turning radius of trucks which need to get in and out.
Commissioner Compas refecred to the statement in the report that a limitation of 69 cars would impose an
adverse economic consequence and inquired how many cars he usually has on the lot. Mr. Varley replied
that he averages between 70-l 00 cars, but not consistently. Cars typically only stay there 2-3 days and
then are moved out.
Commissioner Compas inquired what effect a ceiling of 69 cars would have. Mr. Varley replied that it
would stop the viability of the lot.
Commissioner Compas asked staff about the 50 cars mentioned in the original staff report. Terri Woods,
Associate. Planner, stated that on the several occasions when she visited the lot not more than
approximately 50 cars were stored on the lot. The applicant did not mention having a problem with the
estimated 50 car ceiling at the original hearing.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1994 PAGE 4
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the cost to construct a masonry wall on the west side only. Mr.
Varley stated that he was not prepared to estimate the cost nor could he break down the 646,000 figure
which was in his report.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if Vehicles Unlimited would be able to provide someone to direct traffic, if
needed, to avoid traffic problems. Mr. Varley replied that he could have someone there if necessary, for
safety purposes. But these arrangements would limit the use of the truck. He stated that there are many
tractor-trailers used in that area and he doesn’t feel he has obstructed traffic as badly as some of his
neighbors.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation for others to speak.
Thefe being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the 69 vehicle ceiling was an arbitrary figure. Terri Woods, Associate
Planner, replied that the site has been approved for 69 parking spaces. Since she had only observed
approximately 50 vehicles on the lot at the time she conducted her site visits, she felt that a 69 car ceiling
would be sufficient.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the 69 parking spaces was set to provide adequate acc8ss by the Fire
Department. Ms. Woods replied that with a 69 car ceiling, most emergency vehicles would have sufficient
room to maneuver.
Commissioner Compas inquired if staff had considered allowing 100 cars on the lot. Ms. Woods replied
that she would have to SW how the cars would be parked and if it would be safe.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the CUP is,approved with 69 cars and it causes a problem, would the
applicant be free to come back for a variance to add more cars. Ms. Woods replied that the condition
could be modified to state that if the applicant would like to park more than 69 cars, he would have to
prove to the satisfaction of the city engineer that additional cars could be parked safely and still allow room
for emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he has a problem with the applicant’s comment about all of the other
violations going on in the park. He is concerned that any conditions we place on this CUP would not be
enforced. The industrial park is considered to be a pristine area and he hop8s it will stay that way.
Commissioner Erwin does not believe we should have to live with this project unless it meets our minimum
standards. The first standard is that it is supposed to be surrounded by a full masonry wall. The parking
should be established so it is safe and has easy access by the Fire Department. Thirdly, there needs to be
a condition for a flagman if traffic will be blocked. Three minutes blocking a major road is a significant
amount of time.
Chairman Savary inquired if Condition #24 wouM satisfy his concern about blocking traffic. Commissioner
Erwin replied that it does not specifically state there will be someone present to direct traffii. He heard Mr.
Varley say that they didn’t want to do that.
Chairman Savary inquired about Condition #22 which would require the site to b8 restored to its original
condition once Vehicles Unlimited vacates. The lot is very well screened from view. If we require a
masonry wall, it swms unreasonable to her that he would have to spend $46,000 and tear it down in three years when he vacates.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1994 PAGE 5
Commissioner Erwin stated that if Vehicles Unlimited vacates, then Pacific Bell will use the yard for storing
their own vehicles.
Commissioner Welshons asked staff if a masonry wall would have to be removed. Ms. Woods replied that
the condition could be modified to leave removal of the wall to the discretion of the property owner.
Commissioner Noble stated that it bothers him that Pacific Bell did not follow the CUP process when
Vehicles Unlimited began doing business there. He thinks Pacific Bell has a lot of legal talent on staff and
they know better. Now they are talking about 70-100 cars when we originally approved a parking plan for
69 vehicles. He will definitely vote against it unless the city standards are upheld.
Commissioner Welshons also believes the standards should be met. She thinks a masonry wall should be
built but may only be needed on the western side.
Commissioner Monroy can support the traffic control. He feels it definitely needs a flagman present when
trucks are blocking traffic. He also has a problem with the wall. He wuld compromise and accept a wall
on one side only, the side facing the street.
Commissioner Compas agrees. He doesn’t feel that a full masonry wall is necessary.
Commissioner Nielsen agre8s with Commissioner Erwin that the use must comply with city standards: He
also agrees with Commissioner Noble that a CUP should have been requested before Vehicles Unlimited
started conducting business. He could accept the CUP with a 69 car ceiling, a masonry wall along one
side of the property, and traffic control. Otherwise, he will vote No.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that the Commissioners be polled on adding a new condition to
require a masonry wall along the western side of the property only and modification of Condition #22 so
that the Wall need not b8 removed When the tenant vacates.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to add a new
condition to Resolution No. 3689 requiring a masonry wall to be constructed along the
western side of the property and to modify Condition #22 so that the wall need not be
removed when the tenant vacates.
VOTE: 4-3
AYES: Commissioners Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, and Welshons
NOES: Chairman Savary; Commissioners Compas and Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3665, approving the Negative Declaration issued by the
Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3666 and 3689
approving CUP 154(A) and CUP 154(B), respectively, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein, including the amendments to Resolution No. 3689
requiring a new condition for a masonry wall to be constructed along the western side of
the property and a modification to Condition #22 which will not require the wall to be
removed when the tenant vacates.
VOTE; 6-l
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1994 PAGE 6
Commissioner Erwin requested the record show he voted No because the standards call for outside
storage yards to be completely enclosed by a masonry wall.
- Request for Planning Commission approval
Corte del Cedro in the PM Zone. The project is located within Local Facilities
e 5 in the Palomar Business Park.
Eric Munoz, Associ reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is
requesting approv onal Use Permit (CUP) to allow the Holy Cross Episcopal Church to
relocate into an exi approximately 4,570 s.f., within an existing industrial office complex, .at
6066 Corte de Cedro in th M Zone. A church is allowed in this zone with a CUP. The site is within the
Palomar Airport influenc s subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the airport.
This land use plan estab contours and also establishes permitted uses in relation to noise
contours around the airport. Thi s located between the 65 and 70 CNEL contour line and it would
allow assembly or church use this area if an interior noise level of 45 CNEL could be
attained. The CLUP also has one. This does not allow any assembly or church uses to be
located within the flight activity zone. ect site is close, however it is just outside this flight activity
zone. Since a CUP is involved, it req eview of the project. The CUP could be revoked at
any time if conditions are not met. In recommend approval of this use, staff has added the
following conditions:
* No off -site signage will be allowed:
. Adjacent tenants will be restricted from using or s hazardous materials in the adjacent suites;
* A noise study must be done by the church applicant a noise mitigations integrated into their
building tenant improvements:
* An avigation easement will be required;
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was done for this project. The mitiga
noise mitigations and compliance with the CLUP. Staff recommends
centered around the required
Commissioner Noble inquired why no outside signage would be allowed.
primary concern is directional signage, i.e. small signs with wooden posts whi
rights of ways and landscaped areas, leading the congregation to the facility.
relieved. He had thought this meant that the name of the church could not be a
exterior.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how many people will be attending services at one time. Mr.
that the floor plan shows 93 seats. The occupancy load of 245 persons is based on UVC r
the fire code. The applicant should be able to discuss how many persons they realistically
the services.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the times on Sundays that the senrices will be conducted.
deferred response to the applicant.
MINUTES
APPEAL FOfUl
I (We) appeal, the following decision of the PLAN~G
COMMISSION * to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): RESO: 3665. 3666, 3689
CUE' 154 (B) VEHICLES UNLIMITED
Date of Decision: JULY 20. 1994
Reason for Appeal: SEE ATTACHED ADDRNJXJM A.
JULY 27, 1994
Date . .
ARTHUR J. VARLEY JR.
Name (Please Print)
2095 W. VISTA WAY -STE. 219
Address
VISTA, CA. 92083
(619) 941-5444
Telephone Number
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 a3
.
ADDENDUM A
Condition:
Maximum number of vehicles in lot not to exceed 69. Lot to be striped.
Appeal:
The 69 vehicle.limit would place an unwarranted financial strain on this company. In addition, the public is not allowed access to the lot thus negating the value or usage of striping. The City and the subject property's adjacent neighbors will not derive any benefit from the imposition of this restriction.
Condition:
An approved and permitted 6 foot masonry wall will be constructed along the west boundary of the subject lot.
Appeal:
A masonry wall on the west side of the subject lot will not improve the screening of the lot. There are no benefits that the City or the subject property's adjacent neighbors will receive by requiring this company to comply with this condition.
Condition:
The conditional use permit is to expire after 3.5 years.
Appeal:
The conditional use permit requires compliance and, is to be reviewed annually. Considering this, the reduction of the term from the requested 5 years to 3.5 years adds no benefit or value to the City or the subject property's adjacent neighbors.
SEP-13-94 TUE 12:32 TBC CITY OF CARLSBAD COMM DE I ILL NU .d1Y .4t)L-eoar FAX NO,
.ii
BRAW
cmlmms *
l?cx lwx I mu
LA MM,. GALIPORNIA
92et4.033l
fsww7375
septunber 13.1994
City of Carlsbad planning Commission Zvhbem
Cky of Carl&ad VhFiBX
k Conditions for CUP 154(B)
43808g!y,# LY, *- _ _ J? 02/02 .m-
FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE CITY MANAGER
Dear commh8k?n Mcmbus:
I am the Owner8 reprcsa\tathrc for the property adjacent on the wwt side to this pmpmy. My properq addrem ts 2225.2245 &2265 Camho Vida Roblc. I have
received the notice of public hwing for the appeal of the conditian~ fw CL@
154(B). I will not be able to attend and muld like ta have lnpu~ to the Wring. I
have read the 26 conditions fat the Cup and .would like to make the following
rcwmmcndatione for your wm&ieration.
. I support the annd review of the CUP IS listed w condition #‘?
. I would rccmmcnd that the ram rq&unent for t.rm at the “rear portIon” as
listed in condition #I 9 be also applied to the east property line M) as to fu@
scretn the 8torage lot.
1 have no opinion on the appeal of conditionr 20 & 22.
Thank you for your con&&ration of tlw obovc items.
Bob Harris
FA% 619l462-86j7
.
S. ELAINE LYTTLETON
3400 Seacre8t Drive Carlebad CA 92008 619-438-2059
September 10, 1994
Mayor Bud Lewis and City council City of Car3sbad 1200 Carl&ad Village Drive Carlrbad CA 92008
Re: CUP 154 (a) and CUP 154 (b) Pacific Bell/Vehicles Unlimited
Dear Bud and Councilwomen;
As you may know, Lyttletbn & Associates has been a tenant in the Business Park area for thirteen years. We recently moved to 2141 Palomar Airport Road, just two or three blocks from the site being addressed by the referenced CUPS.
I believe a variety of uscas and services should be permitted in the industrial corridor, including but not limited to restaurants, dry cleaners, banks, child care facilities, car washes, and even storage facilities.
However, I am concerned about the storage of abandoned, impounded, or wrecked vehicles that these CUPSs are permitting, especially when the minimum standards of the zone are not being met. We have all worked hard over the years to create an upscale, campus image for Carlsbad's industrial corridor, Please let's not compromise that.
If this unsightly use is to occur here, let's keep it inside or at the very least, well concealed behind solid masonry walls. I understand that a condition of this zone is to have masonry walls cornplstely surrounding the facility, but that this CUP is only requiring a masonry wall on one side, facing the adjoining property on the west.
Why are we suddenly reducing our notoriously strict standards? I have a list of other business-strangling standards that could and should be eased, but they certainly don't include exposing wrecked cars to potential public view.
Sincerely,
S. Elaine Lyttleton
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the PLANNINr,-
COMMISSION r to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject'of appeal): RESO: 3665. 3666, 3689
CUP 154 (B) VEHICLES UNLIMITED
Date of Decision: JULY 20. 1994
Reason for Appeal: SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM A.
JULY 27. 1994
Date
ARTHUR J. VARLEY JR.
Name (Please Print)
2095 W. VISTA WAY STE. 219
Address
VISTA, CA. 92083
(619) 941-5444
Telephone Number
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
-
ADDENDUM A
Condition:
Maximum number of vehicles in lot not to exceed 69. Lot to be striped.
Appeal:
The 69 vehicle limit would place an unwarranted financial strain on this company. In addition, the public is not allowed access to the lot thus negating the value or usage of striping. The City and the subject property's adjacent neighbors will not derive any benefit from the imposition of this restriction.
Condition:
An approved and permitted 6 foot masonry wall will be constructed along the west boundary of the subject lot.
Appeal:
A masonry wall on the west side of the subject lot will not improve the screening of the lot. There are no benefits that the City or the subject property's adjacent neighbors will receive by requiring this company to comply with this condition.
Condition:
The conditional use permit is to expire after 3.5 years.
Appeal:
The conditional use permit requires compliance and, is to be reviewed annually. Considering this, the reduction of the term from the requested 5 years to 3.5 years adds no benefit or value to the City or the subject property's adjacent neighbors.
ClTY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSbAD VILLAGE DRIVEW*w?42ARLSBAu, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
DESCRIPTION
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
VEHICLES UNLIMITED ASSET RECOVERY Vista, California 92086-2319
/
004092
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Olfice of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
DATE: July 28, 1994 .
TO: Bobbie Hoder, Planning
FROM: Karen Kundtz, Clerk's Office
RE: CUP-154(B) - VEHICLES UNLIMITED
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ;. j
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Councii
Meeting of .
Signature Date
-
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
APPEAL of the Planning Commission Decision Approving Vehicles Unlimited -
for a public hearing before the City Council. CUP 154(B)-
Please notice the item for the council meetlng of
.
Thank‘ you.
I
Assistant City Man--
August 11, 1994
Oate
.-
PROOF OF PUBLlCATlON
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Oiego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for
the City of Oceanside and the North County Judicial district with substantial circulation in Bonsall, Fallbrook, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Vista and Carlsbad, County of San Oiego, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego, State of California,
under the date of June 30,1989, case number 171349;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 2, ,1994
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside,Califomia, this 2 of day
September, 1994
BLADE-CITIZEN Legal Advertising 1722 South Hill Street
RO. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92054
(6 19) 433-7333
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearin -_-_------_------------------------------- ----------
Paste Clipping of Notice SECURELY In This Space.
NOltCE.IS HERESY GIVEN that the City Council of ,W witI hold a pubiii hearing at the City Council Ctiambm, Village Lkiw, Cartsbad, Catifornia, at 6% pm, w T~,~~~~ 13 MM, to oonrider an appeal of the conditions d ** fpr Ccktional Use Permit 164 (b) which would allow MI eXp@e of an existing telephone electronic switching facility and permit wrary park- ing/impound of seized vehides on property $ neraUyloeaWdat2175 Ca@no vida Roble, in the PM zone in Loea Facilities Management Zone 5, and more padcularly described as:
Lot 15 of Palomar-Airport Business Park Unix &$. *i.of ‘:!b Map 354 reaxded December 31,1974, City of C&bad, County of San Diio, State of California. I. ,
Those parsons wishing to speak on this mattW ar’? iiwited to at& 9: public hearing. If you have any questions, please @alI Teresa Woods WI the Planning Department at (619) 436-l 161, ext. 4447.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit Amendment in coclrt, be limited to iaisiig only those issues you or someone else rats public hearing desaibed in this notice or in written correspondence deli? ered t&the City of Carl&ad City Clerk’s Office at 6r prior to the public heating.
APPUCANT: ..-..-,_ .._“_. ChiL$iSAD CITY COUNti!L Legal 40323 September 2.199%
- -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL - CUP 154(B), PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 pm, on Tuesday, September 13, 1994, to consider an appeal of the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 154(b) which would allow an expansion of an existing telephone electronic switching facility and permit temporary parking/impound of seized vehicles on property generally located at 2175 Camino Vida Roble, in the PM zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5, and more particularly described as:
Lot 15 of Palomar Airport Business Park Unit No. 1, of Map 854 recorded December 31, 1974, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this matter are invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4447.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit Amendment 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: Vehicles Unlimited/Pacific Bell PUBLISH: September 2, 1994
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
-. I
PACIFIC TELEPHONE 3848 SEVENTH AVENUE ROOM .126 SAN DIEGO CA 92102
EQUITY GROWTH INVESTMENTS
PO BOX 1780 LA MESA CA 92037
DAVIS PALOMAR I ASSOCIATES
C/O EVERETT DAVIS PO BOX 1686 RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
GILDRED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
550 WEST C STREET SUITE 1820
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SUUNTO INCORPORATED 2151 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
PALOMAR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED
1801 AVE OF THE STARS SUITE 936
LOS ANGELES CA 90006
VIRGIL AND PATRICIA ANGLIN
6432 SEABRYN DRIVE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA CA 92027
PLETA TRUST SAN GAL TRUST PHILIP GILDRED JUNIOR 550 WEST C STREET SUITE 1820 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SIERRA LAND GROUP INCORPORATED
620 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD GLENDALE CA 91203
DANNY AND CAROLYN ASHCRAFT 1543 SAPPHIRE LANE VISTA CA 92083
MISSION WEST PROPERTIES
-C/O G JOSEPH LABRACHE
6815 FLANDERS DR SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO CA 92121
HUDSON COMPANY
23041 AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA SUITE 210 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653
PALOMAR 910 ASSOCIATES LIMITED C/O ELI PERLMAN REALTY COMPANY 7777 FAY AVENUE SUITE K137
LA JOLLA CA 92037
YARROW DRIVE PARTNERS LIMITED
C/O GRUBB AND ELLIS COMPANY 1 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
DYNA INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED
6200 YARROW DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELLIOTT SILVERSTEIN
PO BOX 8372
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
JACK WILLIAMS AND ELLYN WILLIAMS C/O PACIFIC RECORDERS AND ENGINEERS 2070 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
CREEKSIDE BUSINESS PARK
16672 MILLIKEN AVENUE IRVINE CA 92714
KSH ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED 3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 805
r
LOS ANGELES CA 90010
- --
CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES
LIMITED 50 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 635 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
7‘
CARLSBAD I C/O STEVE NISHIMURA 2255 INDIA STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90039
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK
TRUST PO BOX 90610 PASADENA CA 91109
.J
PA&TON
TIMOTHY HEINEN VARLEY ENTERPRISES 2095 W. VISTA WAY STE 219 VISTA CA 92083.
4.
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 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 600 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 1994, to consider a request for approval
of a Negative Declaration and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow an expansion
of an existing telephone electronic switching facility and to permit temporary
parking/impound of seized vehicles on property generally located at 2175 Camino Vida
Roble, in the PM zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly
described as:
Lot 15 of Palomar Airport Business Park Unit No. 1, of Map 854 recorded
December 31, 1974, 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. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 9,1994. If you have
any questions, please call Teresa Woods in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161,
ext. 4447.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration and/or Conditional Use Permit Amendment 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: CUP 154(A)
CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
PUBLISH: JUNE 3, 1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
lW:Vd
-- -. , .
*
PALOMAR AIRPORT
4
City J Cd&d
PACIFIC BELL/VEHICLES UNLIMITED
1
CUP 154(A)
c CITY OF CARLSBAD
- ’ / REQUEST FOR REFUND
- Account No. 001-810-00-00-8813 Vendor No.
Amount of Refund $163.00 Fee Paid For: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision -CUP-154(B)
Date Fee Paid: T/28/94 Fee Paid By: Arthur J. Farlev, Jr. for Vehicles Unlimited
Facts Supporting Request: Conditions of approval for CUP-154(B) were appealed to the Citv Council.
Council approved one of three conditions and requested that l/3 of the ($490) appeal fee be
refunded to the appellant. (Action taken at g/13/94 Council Meeting)
Name of Applicant: Arthur J. Farley, Jr.
Address: 2095 W. Vista Way, Suite 219 Vista, CA 92083 (619) 941-5444
Street City State Zip Telephone
Finance Investigation:
Ret: 0 Amrove Cl Disarmrove Dent. Head Sianature Date
City Manager’s Action:
Cl Approve i Cl Disapprove City Manager Signature Date
.,
-(
I ;.; .
; I,.
..I
:..,.’
. .
., .’ : ‘. .
t 9 .,I .’
. . ,”
.‘,
. :
. : ., .
’
. .
: ’
.
; ‘a
.’ /’ ,I .’ ‘. :
..., ..,
‘. : . . . .