HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-23; City Council; 14738; Poinsettia Commuter Rail StationAB# I? 336
MTG. 6 -d3 M 78
VI DEPT. PLN # a, 5
DEPT.HD. &
CITY ATTY. c
CITY MGR 5
TITLE:
APPEAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION ----. SDP 93-03 AND CUP 93-02
rn
*rl rn
M C *r( u ,E M -4 4
a 2
a, tn TI -0 :c
2a,
a yT g4$4
s v -4
c 2
-rl N
al'
4-1 *d 0
ON
-4 u4-I E3 .A 0 * *a aJ ar-l =,Ea
a Qg
47 2 2 0 &4J
Ud-lh
0 yy
2 E.!
gf3&
rn
ou 3 5:
uo F9 0
s gg
g 3a
525
2Sdr-I
a
ala,
Hcd Hw
a3
0-7
\ m
1 hl a
.. z
k 0 4
1 5 z 3 0 0
Q
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 98 -($'ob DENYING the appeal of the del
Conditions No. 8 and 13 from Planning Commission Resolution No. 3642 and the delt
Conditions No. 1, 8 and 13 from Planning Commission Resolution No. 3643.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
SDP 93-03 and CUP 93-02 were originally approved in 1994 with the intent of regulafinc
aspects of the operation of the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station. Since the approval sf the in 1994, the City has been in ongoing discussions with the North San Diego County
Development Board regarding the authority of the City 1) to require the approvals and ultirr
to regulate NCTD within the NCTD rights-of-way. The outcome of the discussions has p
these City initiated amendments to those permits. The amendments delete those conditior
attempt to regulate the operation of the commuter rail station within the NCTD right-of-way
beyond the City's jurisdiction.
Specifically, Condition No. 8 of Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3642 and 3643 req
physical buffering, including noise walls if necessary, be provided adjacent to Lanikai Lanl
Home Park to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Condition No. 13 of Planning Con
Resolutions No. 3642 and 3643 require approval by the Planning Commission for any cl
operation of the commuter rail station.
Condition No.1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3643 was deleted but replaced by
condition establishing a five (5) year approval period versus a three (3) year approval peri0
parking lot Conditional Use Permit. Reinstating this condition would create a conflict wit1
restrictive condition.
The appellants are requesting that the City Council reinstate the aforementioned conditions
' Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval or denial of the appeal will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. If the Ci'
chose to litigate the question of jurisdictional authority, there would be costs associated
litigation.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 98 '206
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3642, 3643, 4080, and 4081
Planning Commission Staff Report , dated April 15, 1998
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 15, 1998
Letter of Appeal, dated April 23, 1998.
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND
Carlsbad City Council held on the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
w ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit Clerk i i; 1
-2-
I /
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
0 OI EX1
PLANNING COMMISSION WESOLUTION NO. 3642
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 93-03 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH COUNTY
APPROXIMATELY 2100 FEET NORTH OF POINSETTIA LANE
TRANSIT DISTRICT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
CASE NO: SDP 93-03
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of CarlsE
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided 1
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the PI
Commission did, on the 4th day of May, 1994, consider said request on property de
as:
That podon of lot 1 in section 29, township 12 south, range
4 west, San Bemardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly
line of the 200 foot wide right-of-way of the Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Railway Company and a parcel of land being in
the City of Carlsbad, County of §an Diego, State of California,
and being a portion of the east half of the northeast quarter of
section 29, township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bemardino
Meridian, according to the official plat thereof.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission consid
factors relating to SDP 93-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Corn
APPROVES SDP 93-03, based on the following findings and subjec
following conditions:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
FilldillRS:
1. That all development criteria used to establish the project design is in corn
with the intent and goals of the General Plan.
2. That the project as located and designed is compatible to the greatest
possible with sunounding existing and proposed development because tb
adequate setbacks and landscaping which provide a duent Mer.
That the North San Diego County Tdt Development Board (NSDCIDB)
agency certified an EIR for the commuter rail project which included the Po
Statioa
That the EIR was reviewed and considered and therefore has been pmc
compliance with Title 19, Environmental Protection Procedures and the Ca
3.
4.
Environmental QualityAct.
That the project has been designed with due regard to environmend fact
preserves sensitive habitat and plant species.
That conditions to provide specified improvements have been added to the
as proposed which men its appropriateness for the area.
That appropriate public improvements will be included as part of
development.
That the project properly relates to the site and will not adversely kq
sumom-, traffic circulation or en+nmental setting.
5.
6.
7.
8.
conditions:
~lanninp conditions:
1. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed bl
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as pro\
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determine
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of
or building plans, whichever occurs first.
Textured paving shall be provided in conformance with ADA. standards.
2.
3.
PC RES0 NO. 3642 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
4. A landscapt? barrier andlor fence shall be provided along the eastem side
north/south circulation aisle to direct movement to the designated walkways
allowing movement through the planters and across the circulation aisle.
A double planter walkway for the two central -west circulation aisles s
considered.
The pla~orm concrete surface shall be textured to the satisfixtion of the PI
Director.
Trash receptacles shall be provided on the platform and at the loadhg/un
sidewalk.
Physical buffehg including sound waUs ifnecessaxy, shall be provided betw
platforms and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park to the satisfaction of the P
Director.
Transition or buffer improvements shall be provided along the south and e
boundaries at the time of development of adjoining properties to the satisfa
the Planning Director.
AU signage shall conform to the q-ts of a comprehensive sign g approved by the Planning Director. Signage and advertising within the
subject to the provisions of the sign ordinance and the compeh&ve sign E
and shall be restricted to information concerning the operation of transpc
services provided by the North County Transit Department Board.
The project must be built and maintained to meet or exceed Amtrack stan
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving conditi from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any change in the operation of the station resulting in, including but not li~
extended hours of operation, additional strum, loudspeaker syste~
ancillary activities, shall require review and approval of the Planning Corn
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10-
11.
12.
13-
~~~keerinjz conditions:
14. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Stan
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design reqUi
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the pro&
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pa(
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
15.
16.
....
PC RES0 NO. 3642 -3-
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
0 e
17. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shc
the site plan, a grading permit for this project may be required. Prior to is
of a building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and i
work be completed in substantial conformance with the approved grading
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed const
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval fi
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply w
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards
hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be pj
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Re
Chapter 11.06.
The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National PC
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provi
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level 1
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approvec
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvemen
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of
permit and in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, c
to install the following improvements:
A.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Full 1/2 width street improvementS hcludingpaving, curb, gutter, si
street lights, and storm drain facilities along tbe project hntage on A
hcinas. Improvements shall be in accordance with City standan
Secondary Artd. Revisions to these improvement requirements
approved by the City Engineer.
The driveway entrance area that provides access to the project Si
Avenida Encinas. These improvements shall match and Join the 1
bcinas road improvements that are to be constructed under 5
conttact by the City.
B.
22. This project shall be identified as "klsbad Poinsettia Station". Prior to
permit issuance, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for mi
approval striping and signing plans that include location and text of the sig
installed on the project site.
water District:
23. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow dem
met.
PC RES0 NO. 3642 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
24, The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which
collected at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego '
Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of applicat
meter installation.
Sequentially the developer's engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire prc
requirements.
B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the PI
Department for processing and approval.
C. Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, commc
approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.) I
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparal
improvement plans.
25.
26. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district
the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facili
available at the time of application for such water service and sewer pern
continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed
Site Development Plan.
Police: -
27. Open parking lots and walkways shall be provided with a maintained mini
one (1) footcandle of light on the ground surface during the hours of d,
Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism covers.
Landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving police,
services and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. Par
shrubs shall be low profle shrubs. Trees shall not counter act the &ec
lighting units.
28.
Walkway landscaping should not provide coverage for someone to hide.
shall be low profile and trees shall be trimmed up to six feet.
Restrooms shall be well illuminated with weather, and vandal mistan
Landscape should not impede vision into restmom areas.
Door of umty room shall be equipped with security hardware.
29.
30.
...
***
PC RES0 NO. 3642 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 1994:
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, EMTin €k Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
Pl&g Director
PC RES0 NO. 3642 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.I 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3643
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMUTER RAIL
STATION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN
THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RAILROAD
POINSETTIA LANE.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATELY 2100 FEET NORTH OF
CASE NO: CUP 93-02
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of C
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as prov
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the P
Commission did, on the 4th day of May, 1994, hold a duly noticed public he:
consider said application on property described as:
That portion of lot 1 in section 29, Township 12 south, range
4 west, San Bemardino Meridian, in the City of Carkbad, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and a parcel of land
being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, and being a portion of the east half of the
northeast quarter of section 29, township 12 south, range 4
west, San Bemardho Meridian, according to the official plat
thereof.
WHEREAS, at said public heating, upon hearing and considei
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Corn
considered all factors relating to CUP 93-02.
line of the 200 foot wide right-of-way of the Atchison,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pkmning Corn
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
e e
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Corm
APPROVES CUP 93-02, based on the following hdings and subject
following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development
comunity because it creates a transportation node, is essentially in harm0
the various elements and objectives off the general plan because it implem
alternate form of transportation, and is not detrimental to existing uses or
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be loca
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accom
the proposed amount of parking and the commuter rail platform;
That the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCI'DB)
agency certified an EIR for the commuter rail project which included the Po
station.
That the EIR was reviewed and considered and therefore has been procc
compliance with Title 19, Enhmmtal Protection procedures and the Ca
2.
3.
4.
Euviromental Quality Act.
5. That the pmposed project meets all of the development standards requirec
zone;
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly ha
traffic generated by the proposed use;
That the normal operation of the commuter rail facility will not advd
the adjoining exkting developments.
6.
7.
Conditions:
Planning:
1. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of three (3) yem
conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yea
to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the I
not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or th
health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use h
significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend t
Planning Commission, after providing the pennittee the opportunity to bc
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. Thir
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the
a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public'
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. Thi:
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed five (5) ye:
PC RES0 NO. 3643 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 'I.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e a
written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior
expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission sh
that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's
and welfare will result because of the continuation of the permitted USI
substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's heal
welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an d&al applkai
a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensic
Planning Commission may grant.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which :
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the appr
grading or building plans, whichever occurs first.
Textured paving shall be in conformance with ADA standards.
A landscape banier and/or fence shall be provided along the eastern sidt
nortWsouth circulation aisle to direct movement to the designated wi
versus allowing movement through the planters and acToss the circulatioi
A double planter walkway for the two central -west circulation aisles I
considered.
The platform concrete dace shall be textured to the satisfaction of the P
Director.
Trash recqtacles shall be provided on the platform and at the loadh@m
sidewalk.
Physical bufFeriq, including sound walls if necessary, shall be provided E
the platforms and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park to the satisfaction Planning Director.
Transition or buffer improvements shall be provided along the south and (
boundaries at the time of development of adjoining properties to the sati
of the Planning Director.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10- AU signage s hall conf~rm to the requirements of a comrehmive sign 1
approved by the Planning Director. Signage and advertising within th
subject to the provisions of the sign ordinance and the c0mpreha.s
program and shall be restricted to information conccaning the oper;
transportation services provided by the North County Transit Departmenl
The project must be built and maintained to meet or excd Amtrack SG
AU landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condit
from weeds, trash, and debris.
11.
12.
PC RES0 NO. 3643 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
13. Any change in the operation of the station resulting in, including but not
to extended hours of operation, additional structures, loudspeaker syster
ancillary activities, shall require review and approval of the Planning Corm
Ennineerinn Conditions:
14. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Stanc
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requir
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the projt
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Paci
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shi
the site plan, a grading permit for this project may be required. Prior to i!
of a building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and ;
work be completed in substantial conformance with the approved gradinj
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any pi
construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and
approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applica
comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may imp0
regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be p in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Re
Chapter 11.06.
The applicant shall comply with the City's requirements of the National PC
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall proVj
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approvec
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvemer
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of
permit and in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, c
to install the following improvements:
k
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Full 1/2 width street improvements including paving, curb,
sidewalk, street lights, and stonn drain facilities along the project f
on Avenida bcinas. Improvements shall be in accordance Wj
standards for a Secondary kterial. Revisions to these imprc
requirements may be approved by the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 3643 -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
e 0
B. The driveway entrance area that provides access to the project ti
Avenida bcinas. These improvements shall match and join the
Encinas road improvements that are to be constructed under :
contract by the City.
2Z1 Tnis pmjm shall be identified as "Carlsbad Poinsettia Station". prior to
permit issuance, the applicant shall submit to the city Engineer for rev
approval striping and signing plans that include location and text of the
be installed on the project site.
WaterDiStrict:
23. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer systt
be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow d
are met.
The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges whid
collected at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of applica
meter installation.
Sequentially the developer's engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire pr
24.
25.
requirements.
Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the P
Department for processing and approval.
Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, corn
approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.)
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the prepara
improvement plans.
B.
C.
26. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building pen
not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water
serving the development determines that adequate water service an(
facilities are available at the time of application for such water service an
permits will continue to be available until the of occupancy. This note
placed on the Site Development Plan.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed
on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as pro1
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determine
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
27.
PC RES0 NO. 3643 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 0
Police:
28. Open parking lots and walkways shall be provided with a maintained mini one (1) footcandle of light on the ground surface during the hours of d:
Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism covers.
Landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving police, services and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. Par
shrubs shall be low profile shrubs. Trees shall not counter act the effec
lighting units.
Walkway landscaping should not provide coverage for someone to hide.
shall be low profile and trees shall be trimmed up to six feet.
Restrooms shall be well illuminated with weather, and vandal resistan
Landscape should not impede vision into restroom areas.
Door of utility room shall be equipped with security hardware.
29.
30.
31.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 1994
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz
Welshons, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO, 3643 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4080
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SITE
RAIL SERVICE, PARKING AND ACCESS FROM THE WEST
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH
APPROXIMATELY 2,100 FEET NORTH OF POINSETTIA
LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME:
,DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SDP 93-03 TO ALLOW COMMUTER
AT THE POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION ON
COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RIGHT-OF- WAY
POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
CASE NO.: SDP 93-03(A)
WHEREAS, North San Diego County Transit Development
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding proper1
by North San Diego County Transit Development Board, “Owner”, described as
That portion of lot 1 in section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly
line of the 200 foot wide right-of-way of the Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Railway Company and a parcel of land being in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to the official plat thereof
and being a portion of the east half of the northeast quarter of
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 1994, the Planning Commission approved SD,
as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3642.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Deve
Plan Amendment. as provided by the conditions of approval of SDP 93-03 and Chapter
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of April, 1‘
7th of May, 1997, the 18th of June, 1997, the 16th of July, 1997, the 20th of Auguc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
the 20th of December, 1997 and 15th of April 1998 hold a duly noticed public hl
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, North San Diego County Transit Development Board
acknowledged that the City of Carlsbad has jurisdiction to issue, or require that Nc
Diego County Transit Development Board obtain any sort of permit and/or appro’
the City for the construction and/or continued operation of the Poinsettia Commt
Station and related uses and improvements. North San Diego County Transit Deve
Board has therefore, protested; (1) the City’s position that North San Diego County
Development Board apply for a Site Development Plan, plan extension or modifica
the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station; (2) the terms and conditions of the Site Deve
Plan as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3642 and as modified
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4080; and (3) the right of the City to revoke
Development Plan in accordance with its terms; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised by North San Diego County
Development Board that it reserves the right to challenge any enforcement of
Development Plan by the City or other past or future action on the part of the City
to the plan and/or any approval from the City for the construction and/or co
operation of the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station and related uses and improvi
and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that some railroad activities pel
by North San Diego County Transit Development Board in the operation of the
line through Carlsbad and at its stations in Carlsbad may be exempt from local I;
PC RES0 NO. 4080 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
6 0
permitting authority; but does not acknowiedge that the activities regulated by
are of that type; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered E
relating to SDP 93-03(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cor
APPROVES POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION, SDP 9
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the Commuter Rail Station is necessary for the development of the co
because it creates a transportation node, is essentially in harmony with the
elements and objectives of the General Plan because it implements an alternati
of transportation to the automobile, and is not significantly detrimental to
uses specifically permitted in the adjacent zone to which the proposed use is loca
That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the existing platfc
parking.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features conditr
be provided to adjust the use to existing or permitted future uses in the neigh
have been provided and will be maintained, in that the project has completed a
development conditions required by the original approval.
That the street system serving the use is adequate to properly handle all traffic g
by the proposed use.
That the operation of the rail station is physically tied to the need for
operation of the adjacent parking lot.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt fi
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
2.
1 3.
4.
5.
6.
? PC RES0 NO. 4080 -3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 0
15301 Class One Existing Facilities of the state CEQA Guidelines and will
any adverse significant impact on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all c(
and modifications to the Site Development Plan Amendment document(s), as n
to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on tht
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any
development different horn this approval, shall require an amendment to this app
All prior exhibits and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3(
remain in full force and effect except as modified below.
Conditions No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 of Planning Commission Resoiution 1
shall be deleted.
North Coundy Transit District (NCTD) shall maintain the 200 foot NCTD 1
way from the northernmost to the southernmost points of the commuter rai
property free of weeds and debris.
2.
3.
4.
...
...
...
...
*'.
.*-
...
...
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4080 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of April 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy. Savary, and
Welshons
Chairperson Noble and Commissioner Nielsen NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAIUSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
I&- \
MICHAEL J. HXZMIIYER
Planning Director
-5- PC RES0 NO. 4080
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
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4081
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR THE POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NORTH
APPROXIMATELY 2100 FEET NORTH OF POINSETTIA
LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22.
CASE NAME:
COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
CASE NO.: CUP 93-02Xl(A)
WHEREAS, the North San Diego County Transit Development
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding propert
by North San Diego County Transit Development Board, “Owner”, described as
That portion of lot 1 in section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
official plat thereof, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly
line of the 200 foot wide right-of-way of the Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Railway Company and a parcel of land being in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
and being a portion of the east half of the northeast quarter of
section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to the official plat thereof (all outside of
the railroad right-of-way)
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 1994 the Planning Commission approved CUP 9
described in Planning Commission resolution No. 3643; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditio
Permit Extension and Amendment, as provided by the conditions of approval of CUP 93
Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Cornmission did, on the 2nd day of April 1997,
day of May 1997, the 18th day of June 1997, the 16th day of July 1997, the 20th
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
August 1997, the 20th day of December 1997, and the 15th of April 1998 hold a dul
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, North San Diego County Transit Development Board
acknowledged that the City of Carlsbad has jurisdiction to issue, or require that Nc
Diego County Transit Development Board obtain any sort of permit and/or appro7
the City for the construction and/or continued operation of the Poinsettia Commi
Station and related uses and improvements. North San Diego County Transit Deve
Board has therefore, protested; (1) the City’s position that North San Diego County
Development Board apply for a Conditional Use Permit, permit extension or mod
for the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station parking lot; (2) the terms and conditior
Conditional Use Permit as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3643
modified by this Planning Commission Resolution No. 4081; and (3) the right of thc
revoke the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with its terms; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised by North San Diego County
Development Board that it reserves the right to challenge any enforcement
Conditional Use Permit by the City or other past or future action on the part of I
related to the permit and/or any approval from the City for the construction
continued operation of the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station and related UL
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that some railroad activities per
by North San Diego County Transit Development Board in the operation of the 1
line through Carlsbad and at its stations in Carlsbad may be exempt from local 1s
PC RES0 NO. 408 1 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
permitting authority; but does not acknowledge that the activities regulated by
are of that type; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered i
relating to CUP 93-02xl(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission APPROVES POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL ST
CUP 93-02xl(A), based on the following findings and subject to the f
conditions:
Findings:
1. That the commuter rail station parking lot is necessary for the developme1
community because it serves a transportation node, is essentially in harmony
various elements and objectives of the General Plan because it implem
alternative form of transportation to the automobile, and is not sign
detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the adjacent zone to m
proposed use is located.
That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the existing parking I
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features nece
adjust the parking lot to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood ha
provided and will be maintained, in that the project has completed all of the 1
improvements required by the original approving resolution.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle a
2.
3.
4.
generated by the use.
5. That current levels of operation of the parking lot consistent with the condi
approval, will not have a significant adverse effect on adjoining
developments.
? PC RES0 NO. 4081 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
6. That the need for the parking lot is generated by the adjacent rail station
operation of that rail service is physically tied to the operation of the parkin
That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt J
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
15301 Class One Existing Facilities of the state CEQA Guidelines and will
any adverse significant impact on the environment.
That the need for the parking lot is generated by the adjacent rail station
operation of that rail service is physicaaly tied to the operation of the parkin
7.
8.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all cc
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit document(s), as necessary,
proposed development or operation different from this approval, shall re
amendment to this approval.
All prior exhibits and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 36
remain in full force and effect except as modified below.
This Conditional Use Permit extension and amendment is granted for a period 0:
years from May 4, 1997 to May 4,2002. This Conditional Use Permit shall be 1
by the Planning Director periodically to determine if all conditions of this per
been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on sur
properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines
use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be he
additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. Thi
substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public’s he,
welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit
extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed five years upon
application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration da
Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there
substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will elin
substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extens
Planning Commission may grant.
Conditions No. 1,3,5,6,8, 9,13, 17, 18 , and 19 of Planning Commission Re?
No. 3643 shall be deleted.
them internally consistent and in conformity with final action 011 the projel
2.
3.
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the U!
4.
...
PC RES0 NO. 4081 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PA!2!2ED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of April 19!
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Cornpas, Heineman, Monroy, Savary, and
Welshons
Chairperson Noble and Commissioner Nielsen NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1 MICHAEL J. HZLZMMLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4081 -5-
E: ae City of CARLSBAD Planning Depart at A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIO!
Item~o. @
Application complete date: October 30. 1996
Project Planner: Christer Westman I- Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: SDP 93-03(A)ICUP 93-02~1(A) - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAI
P.C. AGENDA OF: April 15, 1998
STATION - Request for an amendment to Site Development Plan 93-03 i
allow commuter rail service, parking and access from the west and for 2
extension of Conditional Use Permit 93-02 to allow the continued operation i
the commuter rail station parking lot.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4080 and 408
APPROVING an amendment to SDP 93-03 and extending and amending Conditional U:
Permit 93-02 for a period of five years based on the findings and subject to the conditior
contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
This item has been pending before the Carlsbad Planning Commission since April 2, 1997. Th
issue delaying the project has been the larger problem of the jurisdictional dispute betwee
NCTD and North County cities over the City's land use permitting power. The matter wa
continued numerous times over the past year while staff attempted to disengage this permit issu
from the policy issue which erupted over the proposed NCTD east west commuter line fror
Oceanside to Escondido, and later, the double traclung in Encinitas.
111. PROJEXT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station was approved by the Planning Commission in May o
1994 by Site Development Plan SDP 93-03 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 93-02. The SDI
was required for development within the railroad right-of-way and for the adjacent parking lo
within a Q overlay requires a Site Development Plan. The CUP was required to allow a parkin;
lot within the RD-M Zone.
The proposed amendments will make clear that the Site Development Plan only relates to th
layout of the station and parking lot. The Site Development Plan will not have an expiration an(
will not regulate any operation of the commuter rail station, including number of trains
loudspeakers and days of operation. Staff agreed with NCTD that operational conditions clear11
intruded into the transportation responsibilities of NCTD and its ability to operate the railroad
and transgressed the line of local land use jurisdiction. NCTD staff has acknowledged that it ii
responsible for noise complaints and management of noise and compliance with federal lav
which is in a Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone with a Q overlay. Any developmen
<$
CUP 93-02(B)/CUP 93-0 @ - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL 3 FATION
April 2, 1997
Page 2
relating to noise at the station, and is ready, willing and able to accept complaints and deal wit
them
The proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Extension will now clearly focus on ju:
the parking lot, which is outside the railroad right-of-way, (although owned in fee by NCTD) an
will be focused on land use compatibility with surrounding uses. It will provide a five-year ten
extending from May 4, 1997 to May 4, 2002, because of the sensitivity with regard to ultimat
resolution of the jurisdictional question.
IV. ANALYSIS
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. The following analysis presents th
project’s compliance with applicable policies and regulations.
The application is subject to:
Section 2 1.100 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: Transportation Corridor Zone (T-C);
Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and
Section 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: Conditional Uses. 0
The project’s compliance with the ordinances identified was determined with the original pro; ec
approvals. The requests are to amend operational components and not to alter the physica
construction of the site. Therefore, the requested amendments and the extension request will no
affect the project’s physical compliance with any ordinance or policy.
SDP 93-03(A)
The amendments to the Site Development Plan resolution No. 3642 includes the deletion 0;
conditions No. 4, 5,6, 8, 9, and 13. Conditions No. 4, 5, and 6 are no longer applicable becausr
they have been completed as part of the overall station construction. Condition No. 8 regarding
noise attenuation has been deleted with the acknowledgment that noise attenuation is within tht
jurisdiction of NCTD. Condition No. 13 regarding changes in operation of the station has been
deleted with the acknowledgment that operation of the station should not be regulated by the
City.
STAFF INITIATED AMENDMENTS
Staff has responded to complaints from the adjacent Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park that the
area between the platforms and the park have been neglected and not been properly maintained
Because this area is visually an extension of the station and because of the complaints, it would
be appropriate to add a condition to the amended resolution of approval which states that this
area specifically shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition free from weeds, trash
and debris
P 0 CUP 93-02(B)/CUP 93-0 XI - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL S fATION
April 2, 1997
Page 3
CUP 93-02Xl(A)
NOTE: At the time of the original SDP and CUP approvals, it was the City's practice to cros:
reference conditions of approval when multiple permits were being sought for a sing1
development. Following that practice, the title of the Conditional Use Perm
Resolution No. 3643 did not specify that the CUP related exclusively to the parkin
lot. In addition, conditions were subsequently included in the CUP which did nc
relate specifically to the parking lot, Therefore, for the purposes of clarification, th
attached resolution has been presented to the Planning Commission with the inclusioi
of amendments to re-title the resolution and to modify all of the appropriate finding
and conditions of the original resolution to regard only the station parking lot.
In reviewing an extension request for the parking lot CUP, the circumstances of the project mu5
be considered which include compliance with conditions of approval and applicability o
conditions of approval.
The project was built according to the approved exhibits. Therefore conditions No. 3, 5, 6, 9, 17
18, and 19, regarding the physical construction of the site have been deleted. Condition No. 1
has been replaced with a new condition which specifies that the extension is grated for a perioc
of five years. Condition No. 8 regarding noise attenuation has been deleted with thc
acknowledgment that noise attenuation is within the jurisdiction of NCTD. Condition No. 1 :
regarding changes in operation of the station has been deleted with the acknowledgment tlial
operation of the station should not be regulated by the City,
There has been no evidence that operation of the parking lot itself has been in conflict with thc
conditions of approval nor that its operation has had a significant adverse impact on thc
surrounding community. Staff has reviewed the conditions of approval and as mentioned in thc
note above has amended the resolution to reference only the station parking lot versus the entirc
station including the parking lot.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
This project received a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the Coastal Commission in
March 1994. The CDP did not have conditions regarding the operation of the site nor did it
include expiration dates. The requested amendments and the recommended amendments to the
City approvals are not development under the Coastal Act and therefore does not initiate a need
for a CDP amendment. The project amendments and extension, if approved by the Planning
Commission, will be consistent with the original Coastal Commission approvals.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental analysis of the entire commuter rail project, from Oceanside to San Diego,
was done through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Poinsettia Station segment
analyzed in the EIR assumed a larger mixed use project which included the adjacent 55.9 acre
parcel to the east and south. The EIR was certified by the North San Diego County Transit
Development Board (NSDCTDB) in January of 1990. The EIR identified impacts to vernal
CUP 93-02(B)/CUP 93-02x1 e - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL 3 TATION
April 2, 1997
Page 4
pools and sensitive plant species. Through the direction of the California Department of Fis
and Game (CDFG) the transit platform was moved to the north to avoid those plants and thereb
mitigating the impacts to a level of less than significant. Potential land use impacts wer
identified as mitigable through landscaper buffers and other site planning measures.
The proposed amendments and extension will not physically affect the station. Staff reviewed th
original EIR prepared by NCTD for the Coaster route and concluded that it was an adequat
environmental document in its discussion of noise, and that NCTD is clearly the lead agenc:
with regard to that aspect of operation of the station. The proposed actions are categoricall,
exempt form the California Environmental Quality Act as Class 1 (1 5301 : Existing Facilities:
Class 3 (1 5303: New construction or Conversion of Small Structures) exemptions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5.
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4080
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4081
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3642
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3643
CW:bk:mh
e 0 EXH
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. SDP 93-03(A)/CUP 93-02xIIA) - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION - Request for a
amendment to Site Development Plan 93-03 to allow commuter rail service, parking and acces
from the west for an extension of Conditional Use Permit 93-02 to allow the continued operation (
the commuter rail station parking lot.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that Staff Planner, Christ€
MINUTE
Page
e
April 15, 1998 * PLANNING COMMISSION
Westman, would present the staff report.
Project Planner, Christer Westman, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: Th
project has been pending for approximately one year, waiting for a decision to be made regarding th
jurisdiction debate between the City and the North County Transit District (NCTD). This presentation is
culmination of those discussions. The Site Development Plan and the Conditional Use Permit resolutior
have been amended to reflect the authority of NCTD to operate the Commuter Rail within in the NCT
right-of-way and the authority of the City to regulate the adjoining parking lot which is not within the NCT
right-of-way. Approval of the Site Development Plan and the Conditional Use Permit amendments is a
acknowledgment of these jurisdictional boundaries. It is also an acknowledgment that NCTD must be sel
regulating with regards to operational issues and subsequent impacts that have been brought to th
attention of the City, by the residents of Lanakai Lane Mobile Home Park. The Conditional Use Perm
resolution has been amended to pertain only to the parking lot. The City will have the authority to modif
and enforce the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit regarding the parking lot. Specifics regarding th
negotiations may be directed to either NCTD or the Assistant City Attorney. A letter was submitted b
Jerrold N. Offstein, 6550 Ponto Drive, #28, Carlsbad, stating his opposition to the approval of this project.
As a point of clarification, Mr. Westman stated that the Public Notice stated that this item included i
request for the installation of speakers at the station and the Friday night and Saturday operation of thf
Coaster. However, through the discussions between NCTD and the City, both of those requests havc
become moot.
Regarding Finding No. 2, Resolution No. 4080, Page 3, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Westman o Assistant city Attorney, Rich Ruddf. to explain why that finding does not better explain why the plafforr;
and parking are adequate in shape.
Mr. Westman agreed that the finding could be further expanded, in that the site is adequate in size ant
shape to accommodate the physical existence of the platform and parking, based on the current operatior
which has been evidenced that the number of parking spaces are adequate for the existing operations o
the Commuter Rail Station, based on the current number of train trips, and there is no need to go beyonc
the boundaries of the site for any additional parking. Mr. Westman suggested that something could bc
added to the finding, such as “the site is adequate to physically accommodate the station and the parkin&
lot, under its current level of operation”, to more clearly define it.
Commissioner Welshons stated that a more clear definition of the finding is what she was looking for anc
stated that since the City will have no control over the operations of the station, and the operations impac;
. the site, then the City needs to have some recourse and that recourse would be through a clearly definec
finding.
Mr. Westman suggested that it may be more appropriate to add findings more relative to the Conditional
Use Permit Resolution No. 4081, in that if the Fail operations should change and somehow impact the
conditions.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that the conditions for the Poinsettia Station should be the same, or ai
least similar, to those for the Grand Avenue Station. He pointed out that there is a condition for the Grand
station that states that once a traffic survey shows that there is an 80% load, the system must begin
looking at increasing the parking area.
Commissioner Heineman asked if it could be more simply handled by saying that “the site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the existing parking lot, at current traffic levels”. He pointed out that this
automatically states that if traffic changes, then the issue would have to be re-examined.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, stated that Mr. Westman’s explanation is very accurate as it is a
size and shape issue. Also, if the concern that the condition is based on existing levels, that is always
implied in a CUP. He pointed out that it is under its current level of operation that these conditions are
MINUTES
operation of the parking lot, then the City would have the authority to go in and require additional
Page
being made and that the City has the ability to monitor these things and if necessary, the conditions
approval can be modified (if found to be inadequate). He further stated that the Commissioners ha
clearly stated their intent, on the record, and it is probably not necessary to change the finding.
Commissioner Nielsen asked what will happen when the parking lot becomes overloaded.
Mr. Westman stated the City would then have the authority (regarding the operation of the parking I
itself) to step in and take action to ensure adequate parking. He further stated that it would be at this poi
(hat the CIb would say that the CUP is not operating under it original approvals and something else neet
to be done. The City would then take the issue back to the Planning Commission for discussion ar
analysis to see what other conditions may be placed on the project to alleviate the parking issue.
Mr. Westman further stated that a number of things could trigger the return of the parking issue to tt
Commission, including something seen and reported by one of the Commissioners or a member of tt
Public.
Mr. Wayne pointed out that the City monitors all CUPS, on a regular basis, as well as on a complaint bas
and further stated that the complaints come from a variety of places and people.
Bob Durant, Manager of Capital Projects and Construction, North County Transit District, 81 0 Mi‘ssic
Avenue, Oceanside, stated that when the parking lot reaches capacity, NCTD cannot give any guarantee
as to when and how the parking issue will be fixed and whether or not they will be able to provide
parking structure. It all depends upon funding and the State of California Department of Transportatio
Commission. He stated that there is similar overcrowding in Solana Beach and Oceanside and the on1
way they can fix the situation is to get funding from other agencies.
GOmmlSSlOner %Vary asked Mr. Durant how NCTD will handle noise complaints in the future.
0
April 15, 1998 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
. Mr. Durant explained that the way the permit has been structured is that they want the noise impactec
residents to bring their complaints to the attention of NCTD and they will address them as thoroughly a!
they can. He further stated that if the residents of the Lanakai Lane Mobile Home Park have noisc
concerns, NCTD wants to hear about them. If those concerns are found to be legitimate, NCTD will takc
actions to mitigate them.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that there have been ongoing complaints from Lanakai for the past twc
years and asked Mr. Durant if NCTD will require those residents to again register their complaints.
Mr. Durant replied that the Lanakai residents will not have to re-register their complaints. With regard tc
the noise from bells and horns, Mr. Durant pointed out that NCTD is subject to Federal Railroac
Regulations and under those regulations, NCTD has no other choice but to sound its horns or bells wher
and where the regulations dictate.
Commissioner Monroy stated that at a prior meeting, the parking situation at the Poinsettia Station was
lightly touched upon and it was stated that if the parking lot exceeded its maximum, NCTD would possibly
build a parking StrlJCtlJE! aCrOSS the street. He went on to point out that Mr. Durant, in his earlier
comments regarding parking, mentioned a parking structure. Commissioner Monroy, for the record, stated that in his opinion it would be far better to have a structure across the street than to have 2
structure in the existing parking lot.
Mr. Durant responded by explaining that when he made the statement regarding the “structure”, it was
more because of the way they are responding to the parking issues elsewhere. He further explained that
with the Village Station, NCTD was under a Coastal Commission requirement to do a parking study that
would identify how much more space would be needed for parking. Out of that study came the number of
spaces the lot was increased. Mr. Durant went on to say that the Poinsettia Station parking issue will be
handled in the same manner.
MINUTES
Page PLANNING COMMISSION
Referring to Mr. Offstein's letter to the Commission, Commissioner Welshons. asked Mr. Durant to clar
if NCTD has control over AMTRAC trains and the noises they emit.
Mr. Durant replied that NCTD has control in the sense that they lease the railway to AMTRAC, He funh
stated that he has no knowledge as to why they blow their horns in the area referred to by Mr. Offstei
and that they may be responding to the FRA regulations. If that is the case, he continued, NCTD cann
supersede those regulations because they are federal regulations. Mr. Durant offered to look into wI
they blow the horns at that particular point and, if it is not for legal reasons, NCTD certainly has enouc
influence to do something to alleviate the problem.
Chairperson' Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Leslie Tanner, resident of Lanakai Lane Mobile Home Park, Carlsbad, stated her disappointment in tt
the impending increase in the volume of noise that will be generated from the Pointsettia station at i
hours of the day and night that will severely impact all of the residents of Lanakai. Ms. Tanner suggeste
that the cities of North County band together to allow their citiiens to regain control of their lives and the
rights from NCTD. She went on to urge the Commission to deny the proposal before them and, because
is a policy issue, send it to the City Council and let the citizen homeowners be heard. In closing M
Tanner stated that when NCTD stopped the speakers for safety reasons, there have not been an
accidents or problem. She urged NCTD to keep the guard and do not use the speakers. She pointed OL
that there are already train noises with many more to come.
Mrs. Tanner also presented a petition to the Commission which is on file in the Planning Department.
Mitchell Reese, 6550 Ponto Drive, Carlsbad. suggested that by deleting Conditions No. 8 and No. 13, tht
City has abandoned the NCTD Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Reese also quoted a proposal made b!
County Supervisor Slater at the March 19, 1998 meeting of the North San Diego County Transi
Development Board, and pointed out that if the proposal had been adopted by the Board, it would haw
required NCTD to abide by the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and accept the authority of thc
City of Carlsbad. He further pointed out that among those voting against Supervisor Slater's proposi
Were representatives Of the city Of Carlsbad. Mr. Reese stated that since this issue is still in front of the
Transit Board, and if somehow some of those "no" votes can be changed, this permit will still be in forcr
and the City will have to be acknowledged by NCTD. Mr. Reese concluded by stating that it would br
premature to abandon that authority by accepting staffs recommendations at this time, and urged thc
Commission not to do so.
Jack Horak, President of the Lanakai Homeowners Association and resident of Lanakai Lane Mobile
Home Park, stated that with the deletion of Conditions No. 8 and No. 13, of the Conditional Use Permit,
the residents of Lanakai will have no real effective means by which to extract satisfaction from NCTD in
regard to the noise issue. Mr. Horak acknowledged that there are many legal issues involved and
requested a further continuance of this item, to give his organization an opportunity to meet with NCTD
and attempt to obtain a written guarantee that the trains will not sound their horns at Lanakai and alsc
guarantee that NCTD will work with the residents of Panakai to mitigate the noise with sound barriers to
protect the homes. Mr. Horak pointed out that the number of trains has risen from fifty to one hundred and
two. He went on to say that there are going to bemore trains in the future and he is not against trains.
His primary concerns are directly with the noises generated by the trains and that the problem is real and
must be dealt with. Mr. Horak stated that there are some residents whose bedrooms are a mere seventy
feet from where the trains stop and the horns and speakers are used, and the only sound barrier is a line
Of a few trees. He suggested that perhaps another brick wall. with clear laminated glass mounted on top,
could be installed nearer the train to bounce the noise back into the station. He then offered his own
expertise in the field of laminated glass with anyone interested in the concept. Mr. Horak also pointed out
that, in the past four years, the lighting has not been shielded, the landscaping has fallen into disrepair,
and the noise has not been effectively dealt with.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Horak how long he has lived in Carlsbad and did he know about the
MINUTES
e April 15, 1998 0
actions of the Planning Commission regarding the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station. Ms. Tanner spoke t
.
Pagt
a
April 15, 1998 * PLANNING COMMISSION
trains when he moved into Lanakai.
Mr. Horak replied that he has lived at Lanakai Lane Mobile Home Park for about 1.5 years and yes he (
know about the trains. However, he continued, he lives in the front row of homes which is consideral
further away from the Pointsettia Station than many of the homeowners he is representing.
Commissioner Welshon’s then asked Mr. Horak to describe his business and he replied that he owns h
glass companies which manufactures laminated safety glass, bullet resistant glass, as well as glass ‘I
residential and commercial uses. Commissioner Welshons then inquired as to whether his campanit
built SeparatlOn walls Of the nature he described earlier. Mr. Horak replied that his companies have dol
many glass walls for sound protection.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Horak to again explain why he has requested a continuance of tt
item.
’
Mr. Horak replied that a continuance would give the Lanakai Homeowners Association time to confer wit
and attempt to get from, NCTD, a written agreement regarding noise mitigation that would put ti
association on a level with NCTD that would give them the ability to negotiate a suitable solution for 2
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Horak how long a continuance the association might need.
Mr. Horak replied that he was unsure of the time that will be needed as he has not had the opportunity 1
speak with all of the individuals involved and stated that the length of the continuance could possibly be i
long as sixty days.
In response to Mr. Horak‘s request, Mr. Durant stated that there are two distinct issues regarding Lanak
one is whether or not they put something in writing and the other issue is where the discussions shoul
take place. He pointed out that the whole purpose of this Conditional Use Permit is to focus those types c
complaints with the NCTD Board of Directors and the final decision authority on any action would have t
be with the Board of Directors. Mr. Durant urged the Commission to approve this Conditional Use Perm
and let NCTD deal with Mr. Horak in their own setting, where they will discuss and negotiate the terms
Whether they come up with a written agreement or not, will be determined.
Chairperson Noble stated that he had spent approximately four years on the Citizen’s Advisory Cornmittel
for Commuter Rail and heard a lot of promises made and saw many things promised, in writing, and whei
“push came to shove” NCTD backed away from their promises. Chairperson Noble further stated that, ii
his opinion, the City must not abandon the citizens of Lanakai because it has taken over a year for an
action to be taken on their complaints. He pointed out that the arguments between the City and NCTL
have nothing to do with the complaints from Lanakai and the conditions of the CUP were not adhered to.
Chairperson Noble agreed that there should be some accommodations made for the residents of Lanaka
and the agreements and promises should, in fact, be in writing. He suggested that those persons with thc
authority to enter into any such agreements should meet with the representatives of Lanakai an(
announce that they will work things out and have answers in approximately one more year.. He alsc
pointed out that the citizens of Lanakai are upset because NCTD is not responding to them as it should.
Mr. Durant responded by stating that he cannot take responsibility for things that have been promised, ir
the past, but can say that the Board of Directors has always been very responsive to the needs of’ the
citizens. He again urged the approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble close Public Testimony.
Commissioner Compas asked staff if there will be any recourse if the Commission approves this CUP and
NCTD and Lanakai fail to come to a settlement.
Mr. Westman replied that it is his understanding that NCTD is the governing body that is responsible foi
responding to any of the issues brought before them and that the City doesn’t have the authority to
enforce and therefore there would not be any recourse to the Commission.
MINUTES
Page 0 April 15, 1998 a PLANNING COMMISSION
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, concurred with Mr. Westman by stating that there would not be a
recourse to the City. He further stated that the City does not have the power to fix the problems that tt
residents of Lanakai are experiencing and those problems need to be addressed directly to NCTD.
Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Rudolf if there is any precedent for city staff changing conditions that ha\
been previously approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Rudolf Wied that staff is not changing the conditions but staff is recommending that the Commissi
change its own conditions, because, in staffs opinion the City overstepped its bounds by imposing them
the first place. He pointed out that Conditions No. 8 and No. 13 are beyond the authority of the’ City, whi
the other conditions and the one being added are within the authority of the City. The issuance of tt
permit is also within the authority of the City. He further pointed out that NCTD does not agree as to son
of the authority of the City but are willing to compromise and have the permit issued.
Commissioner Nielsen, referring to Mr. Rudolf s statement regarding the conditions, stated that thes
conditions were set by the Planning Commission and he cannot support deleting them from th
Conditional Use Permit. He further stated that it is his feeling that the rights of the citizens of this city ar
not being benefited by this agreement and he will vote to deny the CUP.
Commissioner Compas stated that he believes that the City has done as good a job as can be expectec
considering all of the circumstances, and he will support the approval of this CUP.
Commissioner Welshons had no comment.
Commissioner Monroy agreed with Commissioner Compas’ statement and stated his SUPPO~ for thc
project.
Commissioner Savary agreed that the City has done all that it can and will continue to try to do what i:
right by the citizens of Carlsbad, and stated her support.
Commissioner Heineman stated that he feels that the City has been caught in the middle of a jurisdictiona
dispute and ha.s done everything it can to resolve the situation and stated his support for the project.
Chairperson Noble stated that’he also feels that City staff has done as much as they can but does not fee
that, for the citizens of Carlsbad, the Commission should accept that at this time. He further stated tha
his feelings are very strong regarding the conditions that were originally levied upon NCTD (which the)
agreed to) and were not adhered to. He pointed out that there are no assurances for the citizens, written
or unwritten, and NCTD has not been fair with the residents of Lanakai in many instances. Therefore he
cannot support this project.
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt .Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4080 and 4081 approving an amendment to SDP
93-03 and extending and amending Conditional Use Permit 93-02 for a period of
five years, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, and including the proposed amendments to Resolutions No. 4080 and
No. 4081, as presented by staff.
Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
VOTE: 5-2
AYES:
NOES: Noble and Nielsen
Chairperson Noble explained his “no” vote as follows: “I do not think that sufficient satisfaction has been
given to the residents of Lanakai Lane Mobile Home Park to have their criticisms and requests looked into.
I just feel that you must have it in writing”.
MINUTES
EX
I (We)appealthedecisionofthe city of rlrich~.i--inn
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: n ny i i 1 c; y 1 a a Q
Subject of Appeal:
APPEAL FORM
BE SP ECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Enginegc's Decision, please say so. If a project ha multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) 1
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the We action, please state that here. Deletion of S.D.P. Conditions 8 and 13 in Plannina Commission Reso
No. 3642, Deletion of C.U.P. Condition l,@ and 13 in
planning Commission Resolution No. 3643.
NOTE: These Resolutions were adopted May 4, 1994 and deleted from
the approvals April 2, 1997 with the approval of Planning
Commissions 4U80 and 4081 . See attached staff report and
Re&%?@%$x8&d: 0 PIoru Note 0 Fmllurm to spocify --on may nrult in donid
ttt~ 8pp081, and yw will bo limitad to tho grwnds statad horn whmn prosmting your app.
BE SPFC IFlC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state (
laws, plans, or policy?
7. Nr'Pn 7yn-a -in 'aan +- +h-'-- .. c-w-1
they had no intention of keersincr meir word-
In making NCTD the only option for complaint and compliance,knc
NCTD cooperation record with the city, why would NCTD listen
to the average group of citizens.
we also believe that th e Cities ot North County must have some
2,
3.
IW,
4, $L., .. SJ- i=-
be under their Drotection.
5. Planning Commission SDP Condition 8 and 13 must be reinstated
UP Conduition No. 1,8 and 13,
7- (760 438 - 7942 PHONE NO.
Tjck rake 6550 Ponto Dr. NAME (please print) ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
April 23, 1998 Carlsbad, Calif. 92009
DATE City. State, Zip CC
3 200 Carlsbad Village Drwe - Carlsbad. California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-280
I
April 23, 1998
Page 2 e a
REASONS FOR APPEAL:
6. We believe that this whole NCTD issue is too big for our I
elected officals to decide. We believe that this issue shoulc
have been forwarded to the City Council. @
,
.-
WhatkR-TRAC e ANew Threat
WhyR-TRACFotmed? 0 Reports
NOW will R-TRAC Proceed?
Nea
Cili7Erl.r In1
A Friend4 CL
Vohtne I I The R-TRAC Jab
PO. h2N5 E& C4 9B23 ‘Ed 7#943-19! Fa 7m.943-1977
Cardiff-By-The-Sea Chamber of Commerce This is the fkt R-TRAC newsletter. studying and iden*ing
Cadff-By-ne-ka Friends ofthe Library More will follow. We are reaching out to problems in the Noah Counq
Cardiff-By-The-Sea Town council business owners, property ownes, Districts plan to build a 1.6 n
organizations and citizens of the North siding at grade, from E S Downtown Encinitas Main Street Assoc.
County coastline who share mounting Downtown Encinitas sou Leucadia Merchants Association
North Coast Chamber of Commerce concern about the increase m rail traffic -Chester in Cardiff-By- Self Realizabon Fellowship along the corridor and what the long Community concern raised
range inpLcations may be. double-tmcking include:
Editorial Contributors: Steve Aceti,
Ida Lou Gley, Heidi Prola, Ralph Rogers R-mc‘s core group CO~S~S of
seven business and community ~OUPS
from the coastal towns within the City of
kcinitas. The acronym ‘%-TRAC” long as one de in IengCh.
R-TRAC is a citizens’ action stands for ‘Xesponsible Treatment of
Residents and Cities”
.traffic back-up and congestit
4 rail crossings in init it as wh
p hu&, pdddy hei&t
committee whose mission is “to advocate
excellence in transportation planning that
is broad in scope; includes the design of
a safe, efficient system; incorporates land
use review with appropriate
municipalities; and engages citizens in
joint problem-solving to mitigate The a*On committee kP as a *increased and more frequ
identifed problems.” from train whistles to decibel!
occurring day and night.
*increased danger from
traveling at speeds up to 90
hour, increasing to 110 des pc
the future.
loosely formed pup for the purpose Of
1. Call or Fax to R-TRAC the names, address, telephone number, Fax of persons and organizations interested in the
2. Tell us if you want to be on or off our contact list. Correct your mailing address.
3. Contribute your ideas and even your researched articles (to 200 words) to our editorial crew.
4. Support your City or county representatives who will work towards comprehensive planning and enhancing the
‘ increasing rail traffic in the coastal rail corridor.
‘ environment..
‘ &- 4-23/’irLa + - -A Q---
tB..-LL /?Ad- cw4, w 134 -
*Further impediment to beach access
Possible threat to fmgile bluff areas
south of Swami‘s Beach from vibrations
md weight o€€~ei@t wms
*lobby for responsible transportation
planning to serve commuters and to
Serve re30nd cOmlerce
the long rmg picture of rd~J u
hecOfitdcomdornydybe
WMS t that transportation planners
look carefully at the North County
resources, its economies, and the quality
oflife throughout the communities from
Del Mar to Oceanside
R-TRAc lobbied for a ‘OroU€$ studY coatlme and protect its natural Of the rarl ‘Orndor which wou1d include
reco~ition 0f the cOmwiq problem
cmed by the mcreased rad traffic 111
order to mitigate such problems
Shortly after R-TRAC became a
formal body, the NCTD Board
announced that the agency would delay
mdefuteb the COnS~CtiOn ofthe Siding
through EnCIfUtas. MOreOITef, the project
would be moved to the bottom of theK
PmOflty 1st h~~ons cited for the change
included lack of funds and resstance
Within the city of Emnitas to the
project
An explanation for NCTD:
At ths pomt 111 tune the most change may be found m two
immediate threat to coastal comtnUn;ties completed &e 1996 The fi
is not only the construction of double entitled “California Trade and
tracks, but ‘also a change in the process of Movement Study” was rmed
“project review”, when a rail project is Parton-Aschman Associated Lr
being planned for one or more completed 111 June, 1996 It sum
jumdictions m the county commuter rad service IS mt the-
force behind rad expansion Rad Increasmgly, mpacts from future
expaded rail traffic have come into focus a members of Encinltas of ~eg~ Counsel, proposes a new freight senice to mansport
communities have researched “Malor project Development Policy” from he border area and *e
documents. The question mes whether Which bYPasses ciq revieW, California
rail traffic w~ pose a threat to the qualiq Coastal C~~sion review, and clams
and beauty of the entwe North Cow9 exemPuon from the California Essentially ths report covers I
COast ,ad those mdlvidudy unique Envrronmental Quality Act passed by the California economy with its ‘
beach towns dong the r, comdor nus California State legislature in 1973. industries, burgeoning internation
a broader perspective suggests problems and its opportunities as the ninth
from r.d traffic reaching beyond our own economY 1I1 the wodd’’ (the
city borders. my city, county, or state Lfluence over words)
ne xm staff, with the aSBtance commerce and he need for in<
Sari Diego.
In essence, the pollq could eluate
NCTD projects tkrough placing project
approval solely m the hands of the It also identifies “reg NCTD Board restraints” (page 37) as impedm
such growth and urges more effici
Cimens should recall that T\Im &
not a "private" enterpme, but rather
prc)cessmg applications, but stop
Of “el~1~a~g” CEQA, as NC-T
Even though the NCID Board has
shelved the double track project m
Encmitas for the me bemg, R-TRAC‘s
work wdl continue since the forces
driving the construction remam The
conlmittee will proceed to
draws from “public hds” to operate. It
IS taxes from citizens that add support to
the agency h the agency’s financial
backers, IS it unreasonable to compare
citizens to “stockholders”, and to respect
them as the “real OWflers” ofthe track?
poses. The studJ’ als0 suggests
efficienC3’ throu& a “reS?on2’ al:
(a opposed to addressing local co
which NCTD *O miers in lustif
P01icies and decISions .gather facts on r;Ul mportafion
along our coast and put them before the
public. Another report, “SANI
Regional Transportation Plan
*monitor mpomtion pollcle~ 111 the envrromentd “dation md local 2020’’ states the aim, “to mcrea
atlnUal 2UllOUnt Of tOMliAgt? On S
5 5 million tons reported m I!
ne effort to remove the agency &om
pmclpahon m decision mhg rGes
the question of “why”, as weu as “whaf,
c0unty and state, aS wefl aS National
trends.
approxmiately lo million annual t
0 a
the year 2OOO.” @age 204) and to Sequentially, the elements that build maintain the cc
increase the amount of carp handed by and maintain ‘livable” communities are environmental quhties, iflclu&
thePortofSanDiegofrom951,OOO tons good pl&g good review and levels, at a &gee that will n,
in 1995 to 1.7 million by the year 2005. enlightened, broad-thinking governing tourists from patrokhg local
@%@04) bodies. All go together, hand in hand. and hotels
These are the forces driving increased
rail &c dong the North county pwkg economy, such as presently downtownareas
coasthe and which its communities are
that R-TRAC does not support a healthy
economy that benefits OUT nation, state,
county and the people therein. R-TRAC ti^^ planners are not
is well represented by membes -unetosuchzd. The beautiful North
supporting commerce and a strong coastline should not, and m
vqprom economy. There is nothing become dominated by a dax
busy, noisy rail co&dor which wrong with that goal. However the rail
barrier separating shorehe fi transportation planning must be
people who live along its edge comprehensive, and provide for
people who have cOme there to community impacts.
Such a sacrifice by trans]
planners and decision makers v
unconscionable.
The danger that lies in a vigorous
exists, is a kmd of mow-eyed zeal,
vision and reason.
.preserve safe access to thei
vrotect residential neigh1
from obnoxious, intruding noise
just bepg to feel. This is not to say focused on a singular goal that can blur
But citizens along the coast must
remind planners and decision makers at
all levels that important local resources
are not to be sacrificed in a hastened
response.
What is wrong is short-cutting
protective measures that preserve
resources and the quality of life
within coastal communities and
cities. Traffic on the mil corridor can
directly influence the economies of the In the next newletter, R-Tl coastal cities and the character of customer base of local citizens and explore the subject ccRe
neighborhoods along the corridor. tourists Transportation Planning”. (
efficient movement of goods be
%sure safe and convenient without damaging the intrinsic
of the North County coast?
Planners and decision makers must
act conscientiously and responsibly to:
.protect the smaller local economies
within North County that depend upon a
pedestrian access to beaches
BULKR
";ullIu b
DOSTAGE
PERMIT 1
I, 1 -n -
~ ANY m
R-TRi4C
P.O. Box 230665
Encinitas, CA 92023
Iln~zde: A Friend4 hi/ Comhbr.2
? 0 0
ff
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Lou Aspell
Council Members
City Manager Lauren Wasserman
From: Steve Aceti
Re: Withdrawal of NCTD Appeal - Federal Preemption Issue
Date: February 24, 1998
This memorandum will address the decision by the North San Diego County Transit
Development Board (NCTD) on February 19 to withdraw both the permit application for
construction of a 1.5 mile “passing track”l (the Project) in the city of Encinitas and the
appeal of the Encinitas Planning Commission’s decision to require an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. I will discuss the merits of the legal theory upon
which the decision was based and an administrative procedure that the city could pursue to resolve the matter in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.
BACKGROUND
Attached to this memorandum is a chronology of the passing track permit process from
the date upon which NCTD filed its application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
through last week when NCTD withdrew the permit and pending appeal. A review of the
permit process shows an ongoing effort by NCTD to avoid the preparation of an EIR in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the various legal
theories that have been put forth by NCTD in attempting to jus@ its position.
When the permit was filed, NCTD claimed that the EIR prepared in 1989 for the
construction of Coaster commuter rail passenger stations satisfied its CEQA obligations
for the Project. After city staff questioned this position, NCTD changed course, claiming
that the Project was categorically exempt under CEQA. The city Planning Commission
rejected this argument and directed NCTD to prepare an EIR to address what staff found
to be significant impacts of the Project. NCTD appealed the decision to the City Council,
abandoning the CEQA exemption theory and resurrecting its previous argument based on
the 1989 EIR. The appeal notice also contained a new argument alleging that the city had
1 Although the Project has been presented to the public to as a “passing track,” the plans
and other NCTD documents refer to it as a “siding.”
1
&T- co*.J A -
J&&.+ a,?- -cQ----;;;tt- k- Wa). pI% u a;f- 61
0 0
I
violated the state’s Permit Streamlining Act, and that, accordingly, NCTD was entitled to
a CDP by operation of law. That theory was not pursued any further.
NCTD’s efforts to avoid CEQA compliance culminated in the its decision, on February
19, to withdraw both the appeal and the application for a CDP, less than a week before the
appeal was scheduled to be heard by the City Council.
NCTD’S FEDERAL PREEMPTION ARGUMENT
NCTD’s decision was based on a legal theory put forth by its General Counsel in a
written memorandum, dated February 3, 1998 (the NCTD Memorandum), that was sent
to the City Attorneys of NCTD member cities. The NCTD Memorandum argues that
NCTD is exempt from state and local land use regulation on grounds that a federal
agency, the Surface Transportation Board (STB), has exclusive jurisdiction over rail
carrier operations. Although the statutes and decisions discussed in the NCTD
Memorandum make it clear that STB jurisdiction is exclusive as to freight rail companies
and other common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, none of the rulings support
the argument that commuter rail agencies are subject to STB jurisdiction. That is not
surprising because the only legal precedents on point show that commuter rail agencies are
clearly exempt from STB jurisdiction. This conclusion is not only supported by federal
statutes and case law, but also in the STB’s own decisions, two of which involved NCTD.
1. Preemption Would Not Apply to NCTD Because It Has Been Granted A Blanket
Exemption From STB Jurisdiction.
NCTD claims that a decision rendered by the Interstate Commerce Commission (KC)
in 1994 held that NCTD was “providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the
Interstate Commerce Commission.” (NCTD Memorandum, par. II.) Because the STB
replaced the ICC, effective January 1, 19962, NCTD argues that it is now subject to STB
jurisdiction. The KC’S ruling in 1994, however is misconstrued in the NCTD
Memorandum.
When NCTD and five other regional transit agencies (the Transit Agencies) purchased
track and related assets &om The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (Santa Fe),
they filed petitions with the ICC seeking exemptions from ICC jurisdiction in order to
avoid common carrier and other obligations that might have been triggered by the
transaction3. In reviewing the transaction, the ICC held that, although the sale of track and
2 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA)
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and transferred its hnctions to the STB.
3 Orange cou nty Transp. -Acquisition Exemption- Atch ‘son, T.& S.F. Ry. Co,, 10
I.C.C.2d 78 (1994).
2
0 0
1
related assets was subject to ICC jurisdiction4, it lacked jurisdiction over the acqu isition of
commuter trackage righis by the Transit AEencies. It is clear fiom the text of the decision
that the ICC was not attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the operations of the Transit
Agencies, but was merely invoking jurisdiction for the limited purpose of reviewing the
transaction to ensure that the transfer of trackage rights did not unduly intedere with the
freight service being provided by Santa Fe.5 Thus, although the ICC determined that it had
jurisdiction to review the sale of assets by Santa Fe to the Transit Agencies, it agreed with
the Transit Agencies that the rail trackage rishtts , and the service provided by the Transit
Agencies, “are not subject to Commission jurisdiction because the operation will be wholly
intrastate.” Orange Cou ne, 10 I.C.C. 2d at 90.
The KC’S finding was codinned and adopted by the STB in a subsequent proceeding6
brought by the Transit Agencies to obtain a “blanket exemption” from the statutory
scheme that grants the STB jurisdiction over interstate rail carriers. In discussing the
exemption requested by the Transit Agencies, the STB clarified the ICC’s previous
decision to exempt the Transit Agencies &om jurisdiction:
When the ICC designated these Transit Agencies to be “rail
carriers” in the first place, its only reason for doing so was
to assure that they did not unduly interfere with the
provision of common carrier freight service by carriers such
as Santa Fe that were selling their underlying rights-of-way
without eliminating their common carrier obligation to carry
freight service over them. The KC never intended t hat
these age nc ies be subiected to t he full panop ly of ca rrier
0bhe;ations under the Interstate Co mmerce Act.
Orange Cou nty Transp. -Acquisition Exemption- Atch ‘son, T.& S.F. Ry. Co., Finance
Docket No. 32173 (March 12,1997) at p. 37 (Emphasis added). The STB exempted fiom
4 The ICC determined that it had jurisdiction to review the sale of assets because the
shared use agreement between Santa Fe and the Transit Agencies contained time
restrictions and other service constraints that affected Santa Fe’s use of the tracks being
conveyed.
5 “At issue here is whether the rights acquired by the Transit Agencies involve the
acquisition of control over freight service to such an extent that the Congressional concern
requiring our review of such acquisitions is implicated.” Orange Cou nty, 10 I.C.C. 2d at
83.
6 This proceeding was not mentioned in the NCTD Memorandum,
7 Page number references are fiom the text of the decision as it appears on the STB’s
website (http://www.stb.dot.gov.).
3
0 0
t
its jurisdiction the Transit Agencies’ operation of the properties acquired from Santa Fe,
stating that “continued regulation of the Transit Agencies is not required to protect freight
shippers because the Transit Agencies will not be providing freight service.” Id at p. 4
We are granting the exemption from 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV.
Under U.S.C. 10505, an exemption shall be granted if: (1)
regulation is not necessary to carry out the transportation
policy of section 10101a; and (2) either (A) the transaction
or service is of limited scope or (B) regulation is not needed
to protect shippers from the abuse of market power. . . .
[W]e find that regulation is not needed to carry out the
or “service” that is being exempted is oflimited scope, and
that regulation is not required to protect shippers from an
abuse of market power.
transportation policy of section 101 01 a, that the transaction
Id. at p. 3. Based on the foregoing assessment, the STB found that “the Transit Agencies
are providing no ‘service’ that we regulate.” (Id. at p.3.)
In addition to Orange Cou nty, the STB has rendered a number of decisions involving
mass transportation agencies who acquire the assets of a common carrier that retains a
permanent easement for freight service. In each of those cases, the STB has declined to
Ry. Co., STB Finance Docket No. 33524 (Dec. 22, 1997) (Acquisition of assets and
commencement of commuter rail service pursuant to a shared use agreement under which
the transit agency assumed the obligation to repair the line and the freight carrier agreed to
a “Freight Operating Period” between 1O:OO P.M. and 6:OO A.M. held not subject to STB
jurisdiction. “We see no basis for finding that our approval is required for the transaction
or that SORTA will become a rail carrier under our jurisdiction.”8); See also,
Consolidated Ra il Corpo ration -Petition for Declaratory 0 rder- C&P Dock, Finance
Docket No. 33296 (Dec. 13, 1996); Sacramento-Placem ‘Ile Transp. Co rridor PA
-Acquisition Exemption- Southern Pacific Transp. Co ., Finance Docket No. 33046 (Oct.
28, 1996); Los Ange les Cou nty Transp. Co mmission -Acquisition Exempt ion- Union
Pacific Railroad CQ ., Finance Docket No. 32374 (July 23,1996). None of these decisions
were discussed in the NCTD Memorandum.
assert jurisdiction. (See, Southwest 0 hi0 Reg. Trans. Auth. - Acqu isition- Indiana & 0 hi0
In light of the STB decisions cited above, it is difficult to understand how NCTD can
claim in good faith that it is subject to jurisdiction of the STB. NCTD’s position not only
ignores the express language of these rulings, but, as discussed below, it is also contrary
to the federal statute upon which STB jurisdiction is based.
8 Id. at p.3
4
0 0
2. The STB Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Local Mass Transportation
NCTD cites selected provisions of a federal statute (49 U.S.C. 10501) which expressly
preempts state and local regulation of rail carriers that are subject to STB jurisdiction,
including construction, operation and maintenance of rail facilities9. ( NCTD
Memorandum, par. 111.) NCTD fails to mention, however, that, with certain exceptions
not relevant herelo, the same statute specifically exempts “local government authorities”
engaged in ‘‘mass transportation” from STB jurisdiction1 l.
The statutory exemption for mass transportation is consistent with the legislative
history of the law which indicates that Congress’ intent was to monitor the economic and
competitive aspects of rail transportation to ensure the free movement of goods through
interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. 10101. (See, for example, U.S. v. Sout h Buffalo Ry. Co.,
69 F. Supp. 456 (W.D.N.Y. 1946), affd., 68 S.Ct. 868,333 U.S. 771,92 L.Ed. 1077
which held that the term “transportation,” when used in determining whether or not the
ICC has jurisdiction? meant transportation in interstate commerce; and Burlington
Northern Railroad Company v. Page Gra in Company, 249 Neb. 821,823; 545 N.W. 2d.
749, 75 1 [ 19961: “State courts no longer have jurisdiction to consider the practices,
routes, services and facilities of interstate rail carriers” because the ICCTA “grants the
9 The NCTD Memorandum quotes from subparagraph (b) of section 10501 which states
that “[tlhe jurisdiction of the Board over (1) transportation by rail carriers , ,. and (2) the
COnStlUCtiOn, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial,
team, switching, or side tracks ... is exclusive. Except as ot henvise prom ‘ded in this part,
the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are
exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.” ). (Emphasis
added.)
lo The exemptions? listed in 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(A), concern safety, employee
representation for collective bargaining and other employment-related matters.
l1 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(2). The term “mass transportation” is defined in 49 U.S.C. S302(a)
as “transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general of special
transportation to the public.” The term “local governmental authority” has two meanings.
It is defined in section 5302(a) as “a public corporation, board or commission established
under the laws of a State” and, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 105Ol(c)(l)(A)(ii), it includes “a
person or entity that contracts with the local government authority to provide
transportation services. With respect to NCTD, this would presumably include Amtrak
Commuter, which provides engineers, maintenance work and other services for the
Coaster commuter rail operation. If not, the STB would still lack jurisdiction over the
Coaster operation under federal statutes which exempt Amtrak Commuter from STB
jurisdiction. 49 U.S.C. 24102 and 24501, et seq. See also, Commute r Rail Service
Continuation Subsxd ies and D iscontinuance Not ices, STB Ex Parte No. 563 at p.2 (June
12,1997). .
..
5
0 0
federal Surface Transportation Board with exclusive jurisdiction over transportation by
rail carriers as part of the interstate rail network.”)
Any question as to whether Congress intended that the STB regulate mass transit after
Code of Federal Regulations various provisions concerning commuter rail tariffs. In doing
so, the STB made clear the legislative intent of the ICCTA to exclude regional mass
transit from STB jurisdiction:
passage ofthe ICCTA was resolved by a recent ruling in which the STB removed from the
Under former 49 U.S.C. 10504(b)(2), the ICC did not have
jurisdiction over mass transportation provided by a local
governmental authority if the fares, or the authority to apply
to the Commission for changes in those fares, were subject
to the approval of the Governor of the state in which the
transportation was provided. The ICCTA broadened this
exemption, and the Board currently does not have
jurisdiction whether or not the Governor can approve a fare.
“This provision.. .changes the statement of agency
jurisdiction to reflect curtailment of regulatory jurisdiction
regulation of passenger transportation is generally
eliminated, public transportation authorities.. .may invoke
the terminal area and reciprocal switching access remedies
of section 1 1102 and 1 1 103.” See H.R. Cod. Rep. No.422,
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 167 (1995). See also, Commuter
Rail Division of the Regional Transportation Authority of
Northeast Illinois, D/B/A Metra - Exemption- Tariff Filing
Requirements, Finance Docket No. 41506 (STB served
Mar. 29, 1996).
in areas such as passenger transportation.. .[A]although
Commuter Rail Service Co ntinuation Subs idies and Discontinuance Not ices, STB Ex
Parte No. 563 at p.2 (June 12,1997). See also, Removal of Obsolete Reslations
Concerning Ra il Passenge r Fare Increases, STB Ex Parte No. 624 (June 18, 1997).
None of the cases cited by NCTD in support of its preemption theory are relevant
because they involve freight common carriers that were engaged in interstate commerce
and, unlike mass transportation agencies, clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the STB.
NCTD’s federal preemption argument is not sustainable under any legal theory. It is clear
that the STB does not have jurisdiction over the passing track project even though the
tracks are also used by Santa Fe and Amtrak in interstate commerce.
DECLARATORY ORDER FROM THE STB
Prior to withdrawing the permit application, NCW had acknowledged in writing that
it was subject to the Coastal Act and that the city had the authority, pursuant to its LCP,
6
0 a
f
to grant a CDP for the project. Assuming that NCTD proceeds with the project, the city
may be required to commence litigation against NCTD to enforce the Coastal Act
provisions relevant to the Project. Prior to doing so, it may be prudent to petition the STB
for a declaratory ruling on the preemption issue12. I have had several telephone
conversations with an attorney at the STB, Pat Schulze, who informed me that the
procedure €or obtaining a declaratory order is fairly simple (Ms. Shulze’s telephone
number is [202] 565-1592). There is no filing fee for government agencies and the
paperwork is minimal. This may be the most expeditious and cost-effective approach to
resolving this matter. Since it appears the preemption argument would be rejected by the
STB, it would be difficult, legally and politically, for NCTD to maintain its position that it
is entitled to install the passing track without participating in the city’s permit review
process.
CONCLUSION
As a local governmental authority engaged in mass transportation, NCTD is exempt
from STB jurisdiction. Accordingly, federal law does not preempt state or local regulation
of the Project. The city should file a petition with the §TI3 seeking a declaratory order in
an effort to resolve this matter.
I2 The procedure for obtaining a declaratory order fiom the STB is set forth at 49 C.F.R. 1117.1
7
0 0
i.?oo ELM AVENUE TELEPHOI
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434-2E
Office of the City Clerk aitg of ~rlshab
DATE : 4/23/98
TO : Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM : Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
RE : SDP 93-03(A)/CUP 93-02~1(A) - POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
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.) 6 -
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 Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, tALlFORNlA 92008
434-2067
c
c , REC’D FROM DATE I/
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
-, RECEIPT NO.
@ Pnnted on recycled paper
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
. - . ___
I
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the Ci +y nf Cxrl shad PI anni ny ai cci nn
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: any i 1 I 5 I 9 9 F
Subiect of Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) plez
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. Deletion of S.D.P. Conditions 8 and 13 in Plannincr Commission ResolL
No. 3642. Deletion of C.U.P. Condition I,@ and 13 in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3643.
NOTE! These Resolutions were adopted May 4, 1994 and deleted from
the approvals April 2, 1997 with the approval of Planning
Commissions 4U8U and 4081 . See attached staff report and
ytxns Reas%Ta Or DDe'ak 0 Please Note o Failure to rprcify a reason may result in denial t
the appaal, and you wilt be limitod to the grounds stated hon when presenting your appeal
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or
laws, plans, or policy? .. 1. ,~i th2 252Y2 zs&t:s,-,c h:k,-,q fzll w::
they had no intention of keeDincr their word.
2. In making NCTD the only option for complaint and compliance,knoi
NCTD cooperation record with the city, why would NCTD listen
to the average group of citizens.
3. w e also believe that th e Cities ot North County must have some
.. 4. ,v6x&& 2ff:-:-lc, r..:z fzcl 7::c zh@2lz
be under their Drotection.
5. Planning Commission SDP Condition 8 and 13 must be reinstated
< (760 438-2942
UP Conduition No. I,% and 13.
SIGNPURE PHONE NO.
NAME (please print)
DATE City, State, Zip C
Tpck & rr5iA * 6550 Ponto Dr.
ADDRESS: Street Name 8 Number
April 23, 1998 Carlsbad, Calif. 92009
1200 Garisbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (619) 434-28c
e april 23, 1998
APPEAL FORM
Page 2
t
REASONS FOR APPEAL:
6. We believe that this whole NCTD issue is too big for our nl
elected officals to decide. We believe that this issue should
have been forwarded to the City Council.
@
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen Of the United States and a resident of
the Counb aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a Pa@ t0 or interested in the above-
entitled f'natter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly kIWm as the Blade-Citizen and The
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
Superior court of the County of San Diego, State of
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing -----------______
---___
(Form A)
0 0
-
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
APPEAL POINSETTIA COMMUTER RAIL STATION - SDP 93-03(A)/CUP 93-02x1
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
May 13, 1998
Date
p!J!LhAb bp a -
CLaA w {yr- ' hiti Prm
CITY OF ENCINITAS
0
SD COUNTY PLANNING
0
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE STE B 505 S WLCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 5201 RUFFIN RD ENCINITAS CA 9202
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SWAG
STE 50 STE B STE 800
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 B ST
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 921C
-. I .P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AI
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNI
SAN DIEGO CA 9218
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
- ---
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
(ABOVE ADDRESS - For City CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
Council No ti ces Only) ENGINEERING DEPT COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CHRISTER WESTMAN
THEODORE T VALLAS 'I
246 gTH ST
0 HSL/BP/MICHAN LTD PARTNER 0 Poinsettia Commuter Rail
Station - CUP 93-02(A) - STE 210
Radius Labels 5055 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 9202
ROBERT BARELMA" PATRICIA SANCHEZ ROWAN FAMILY TRUST
1967 NO HIGHWAY 101 1068 NORDO RD 494 SKYLARK DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN BERNARDINO CA
SHORES MB CORP RICHARD DONAHUE T'RANSCORP
PO BOX 234069 4964 DAVID WAY PO BOX 31051
ENCINITAS CA 92023 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92404 LAGUNA HILLS CA S
VALLONE 1985 FAMILY TRUST KENNETH VALLONE TOMMY WHITE
1024 GRANADA AVE 2813 ATADERO CT 6910 SANDCASTLE DR
SAN MARINO CA 91108 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
MARIE STANTON PST ASSOCIATES MARTELL MONTGOMERY
1438 PACIFIC ST
REDLANDS CA 92373 LONG BEACH CA 90804 CARLSBAD CA 92009
1855 LOTUS CT STE 200
5150 E PACIFIC COAST HWY
JEFFREY MCCABE ANNE ALSOP-VERRIPS THOMAS CAMPBELL
267 LA VETA AVE PO BOX 3472 2603 VAGON WHEEL RI
ENCINITAS CA 92024 FLORENCE OR 97439 OXNARD CA 93030
PATRICIA TARTAGLIA CANNON FAMILY TRUST SALLY CELORIE
56 MONARCH BAY 3937 GAFFNEY CT PO BOX 2748
SO LAGUNA BEACH CA 92677 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 RANCHO SANTA FE CI
MARJORIE EDWARDS LESLIE DEVLIN JOHN BACHMAN
PO BOX 1905 1131 AMETHYST
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 MENTONE CA 92359 LOS ANGELES CA 9C
STE 700
1545 WILSHIRE BLVD
CHARLES DICKIE CHRISTIAN JULLIAY JAENETTE SCOLLARD
5350 EAST BROADWAY 5400 LOS ROBLES DR 2070 CALETA CT
LONG BEACH CA 90803 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92005
SAMMIS CARLSBAD ASSOC JOHN DURRAND RESIDENT
18802 BARDEEN AVE
IRVINE CA 92715 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DIST SPACE 1
810 MISSION AVE 6550 PONTO DR
RESIDENT 0 RESIDENT 0 RESIDENT
SPACE 2 SPACE 3 SPACE 4
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 5 SPACE 6 SPACE 7
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200:
RESIDENT RES ID ENT RESIDENT
SPACE 8 SPACE 9 SPACE 10
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RES I DENT RESIDENT
SPACE 11 SPACE 12 SPACE 13
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 15 SPACE 16 SPACE 17
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 20 SPACE 22 SPACE 23
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 24 SPACE 25 SPACE 26
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200!
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 27 SPACE 28 SPACE 29
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200!
RES I DENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 30 SPACE 31 SPACE 33
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92001
RESIDENT RESIDENT RES I DENT
SPACE 35 SPACE 36 SPACE 37
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200'
RESIDENT RESIDENT ' RESIDENT
SPACE 38 SPACE 39 SPACE 40
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
0
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 41 SPACE 43 SPACE 45
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200:
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 46 SPACE 47 SPACE 49
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 50 SPACE 51 SPACE 53
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RES I DENT
SPACE 54 SPACE 55 SPACE 56
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 57 SPACE 58 SPACE 61
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 62 SPACE 64 SPACE 65
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 66 SPACE 67 SPACE 68
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 69 SPACE 70 SPACE 71
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 72 SPACE 73 SPACE 76
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT ' RESIDENT
SPACE 77 SPACE 78 SPACE 80
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92001
RES I DENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 81 SPACE 84 SPACE 85
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 86 SPACE 87 SPACE 88
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200!
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 89 SPACE 90 SPACE 91
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200!
RESIDENT RES I DENT RESIDENT
SPACE 92 SPACE 93 SPACE 95
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RES I DENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 101 SPACE 102 SPACE 104
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 105 SPACE 106 SPACE 107
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 109 SPACE 110 SPACE 111
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 113 SPACE 114 SPACE 115
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT RES I DENT RESIDENT
SPACE 116 SPACE 117 SPACE 118
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RESIDENT @ RESIDENT e RESIDENT
SPACE 119 SPACE 120 SPACE 121
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 122 SPACE 123 SPACE 124
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 127 SPACE 129 SPACE 131
6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 133 SPACE 134 SPACE 135
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 136 SPACE 137 SPACE 138
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 139 SPACE 141 SPACE 142
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE! 143 SPACE 144 SPACE 145
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 151 SPACE 152 SPACE 153
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
RES I DENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
SPACE 154 SPACE 155 SPACE 156
6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR 6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92005
MITCHELL REISS JAN SHARP JED ROBINSON
SPACE 42 6550 PONTO DR PO BOX 84
6550 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 DOWNEY CA 90241
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES DICIUE
5350 E BROADWAY
LONGBEACH CA 9080:
0 JOHN & ALICE BACHMAN
#700
1545 WILSHIRE BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
0 POINSETIU COIWMVTEK RAIL STATlON SDP 93-03(A) RADIUS LABELS
RICHARD DONAHUE ROBERT BARELMAN CKRISTIAN JULLIAY
4964 DAVID WAY I967 N HIGHWAY 101 5400 LOS ROBLES DR
SANBERNARDINO CA 92404 LEUCADIA CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARIE STANTON JEFFREY MCCABE BRIAN ROSS
1438 PACIFIC ST 267 LA VETA AVE 262 MOMENT0 AVE
REDLANDS CA 92373 ENCINITAS CA 92024 PEWS CA 92571
THOMAS CAMPBELL LESLIE DEVLIN PATRICIA TARTAGLIA
PO BOX 6221 113 1 AMETHYST AVE 56 MONARCHN BAY
OXNARD CA 93031 MENTONE CA 92359 S LAGUNA BEACH CA
TOMMY WHITE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LLC PST ASSOC
69 10 SANDCASTLE DR #4 #200
CARLSBAD CA 92009 904 W SAN MARCOS BLVD 5 150 E PACIFIC COAST I
SANMARCOS CA 92069 LONGBEACH CA 9080:
FMLY CANNON mNNEmvALL0NE VALEONE FMLY TRU
3937 GMF-NEY CT 2813 ATADERO CT 1024 GRANADA AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92130 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SANMARINO CA 91101
FAMILY TRUST ROWAN PATRICIA SANCHEZ SAMMCS CARLSBAD AS
494 SKYLARK DR 1068 NARD0 RD 18802 BARDEEN AVE
SANBERNARDINO CA 92405 ENCINITAS CA 92024 IRVINE CA 92715
-
HSL/BP/MICHAN LP
PO BOX 2524
CARLSBAD CA 92018
e Q
- City of Carlsbac
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad w
hold a public hearing at the Senior Center, 799 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California, i
6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, April 15, 1998, to consider a request for an amendment ti
Site Development Plan 93-03 to allow Friday night and Saturday commuter rail servicl
and to authorize the use of loudspeakers at the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station an1
for an extension of Conditional Use Permit 93-02 to allow the continued operation of thl
commuter rail station parking lot on property generally located within the North Count
Transit District right-of-way approximately 2,100 feet north of Poinsettia Lane in Loca
Facilities Management Zone 22 and more particularly described as:
That portion of lot 1 in section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, lying
northeasterly of the northeasterly line of the 200 foot wide right-of-way of
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and a parcel of
land being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, and being a portion of the east half of the northeast quarter of
section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
according to the official plat thereof.
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 April 9, 1998. If
you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
If you 'challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit
Extension 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: SDP 93-O3(A)/CUP 93-02x1
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH: APRIL 4, 1998
POlNSElTlA COMMUTER RAIL STATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894