Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-28; City Council; 15417; Follow Up Report SE Corner Poinsettia Lane & I-5II3 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# 437 -1 MTG. %+!/+9 FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL - SE CORNER OF POINSETTIA/INTERSTATE 5 DEPT. PLN DEPT. HD. w CITY ATTY. CITY MGRa RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Follow-up Report and direct staff as necessary. ITEM EXPLANATION: On May 18, 1999, the City Council approved the CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. As part of the approval, the Council requested a follow-up report on the potential follow-up items that might be pursued as a follow through of the Overlay Zone approval. Another requested element of the follow-up report was a comparison of office vs. commercial trip generation rates relative to the parcel at the southeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and Interstate 5. Th6 follow-up report was made to the City Council at the July 8, 1999 meeting. After receiving and reviewing the trip generation comparisons, the Council requested a final follow-up report that provided a brief overview of the history and past permit processing efforts specific to that site. This agenda bill provides that overview. Staff research has confirmed that the subject parcel carried a commercial designation (C-2) since 1974 as reflected on the City’s Zoning Map of that year. The C-2 designation remained on the vacant parcel until 1982 when Zone Change (ZC) 232 downzoned the commercial designation from general commercial to neighborhood commercial with the Qualified Overlay Zone attached (C-2 to C-l-Q). Staff research indicated that Sea Cliff homebuyers were disclosed of the commercial parcel adjacent to their development. The C-l-Q zoning remained on the parcel from 1982 until 1989 when, in June of that year, a neighborhood commercial development was submitted for processing. The June 1989 submittal of the Poinsettia Country Plaza, CT 89-21 and SDP 89-08, involved: retail space (31,350 sq. ft.); financial use/bank (5,750 sq. ft.) and two restaurants (7,000 sq. ft.) for a project total of approximately 44,100 sq. ft. The Sea Cliff homeowners initiated and submitted a petition with 500 signatures calling for the property to be redesignated from C-l-Q to Office. The petition and citizen request to review this property’s designation was considered at the July 18,1989 City Council meeting. After reviewing the background, project issues and public testimony, the Council voted unanimously (5-O) to allow the project to continue its standard processing. After the July Council consideration, a joint meeting between the developers and Sea Cliff took place on August 10, 1989 at the Sea Cliff clubhouse facility. Project issues were discussed and outlined. The next activity that occurred was the submittal of a letter of withdrawal by the project applicant, withdrawing the project from further processing. The withdrawal letter was dated October 2, 1989. Between 1989 and 1994, the City underwent a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. Part of that effort was a citywide assessment of commercial land uses and designations. The subject parcel was not identified as an area that was inappropriately designated for commercial development. The existing neighborhood commercial designation (C-l-Q) was not identified as needing any further assessment based on staff analysis or public input via the series of citywide public input forums that were held as part of the General Plan Update. Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update of 1994 further confirmed the commercial designation for the subject parcel. A final point of background, is that the LFMP for Zone 4 per the City’s Growth Management Plan anticipated up to 10,680 Average Daily Trips and up to 89,000 square feet of PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /4 417 commercial retail space on this parcel. Any projects submitted for this parcel would have to conform to these development intensity maximums. FISCAL IMPACT: None. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Memo Regarding OHice vs Commercial Trip Generation Rates, dated June 16. 1999. EXHIBIT 1 LOCATION MAP 3 - EXHIBIT 2 JUNE 16,1999 TO: CITY MANAGER VIA: Planning Director FROM: Senior Planner Munoz OFFICE VS. COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION RATES At the May 18, 1999, City Council hearing which considered and approved the Overlay Zone, the Mayor requested that staff make a presentation on trip generation rates; and to specifically assess office vs. commercial development at the vacant 5 acre pad designated for neighborhood commercial uses located at the southeast corner of l-5 and Poinsettia Lane. Commercial Uses All data is based on SANDAG figures for July 1998 which is in use throughout San Diego County and a preliminary submittal by the applicant in compliance with the Overlay Zone’s pre-filing procedures. The basic neighborhood commercial shopping center trip generation rate is 120 trips per 1000 square feet of area (or 120:1000). A 50,000 square foot center on the subject parcel would therefore generate 6,000 trips oer dav. Another method of calculating trips using SANDAG data is to assess trip generation based on specific commercial uses and their related trip generation rates. Using this method, there is a range 4,142 trips per dav up to 5.792 trips per dav to represent potentially generated trips from the commercial development. Some cities and traffic engineers account for by-pass and linkage situations whereby cars already on the road enroute to a destination visit a site thereby potentially reducing the trips per day. It has been Carlsbad’s practice to acknowledge these situations but not to account for them by reducing trip generation amounts; the most traffic intensive scenario is assessed and presented to decisionmakers. Office Uses The basic office trip generation rate is 2O:lOOO. Assuming a 150,000 square foot office building (50,000 square foot footprint with three levels and underground parking and/or a parking structure) would yield 3.000 trips per dav from the office development. By-pass and linkage trips associated with commercial project do not significantly apply to office developments. Relationship to Growth Management Plan -Zone 4 The Zone 4 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) considered the subject parcel as vacant with a commercial designation. The amount of commercial square footage associated with this parcel in the LFMP is 89,211 square feet which translates to 10,680 trips. The proposed neighborhood commercial site, with approximately 50,000 square feet and 4,142 up to 6,000 trips generated, represents a 38% to 56% reduction in development intensity based on the maximum commercial development intensity as allowed in the LFMP to comply with the City’s Growth Management Program for Local Facilities Management Zone 4. SOURCE: SANDAG Trip Generation Rates - San Diego Region, July 1998 4 ” 09128199 15:18 FAX 7606028460 - September 28,1999 Mayor Lewis and City Council Members Attn: AnnKukhin City Hall 1200 C&bad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Dear CounciI: LEONARD MARTYNS @lo2 AGENDA ITEM # /I C: Mayor City Coundl Ciiy Manager City Attorney city clerk The Board of Directors of the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association requests that the Follow-up Report to City Council Regarding the SE Comer of Poinsettia/Interstate 5 be continued from September 28,1999 to October 26, 1999. This continuance is requested to allow the Association to present additional data to assist the Council in their study and deliberations. Sincerely, Lois J. M&&IS Acting President Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Qctobor 25,1999 ‘, P-.rFIC ,~EVELOP&lEN?' .' ~PARTNERs;LLC Mayor “Bud” Lewis City Council Members; CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive C&&ad, CA 92009- 1576 RE: Council AgendaIt& AI3 H5.417, . . .. ’ Neighborhgod Commercial vs. PM &ming SEC of Poiusettia Ave. & Paseo Del~Norte ‘. 1. . . Local Facrlm ManrigsfmpLLt Plan - Zone-4 : C!&sideied the ~iinprsd of tbe, subjact property as a commercial designation. Based on the Local Facilities ‘Managemti Plan, the property would generate 89.21 I quare feet of commercial developmcfit which according to SANDAG translates to 10,680 ADTs (uverage ddy tr@w) per day. Akording to SAblDAG, the 300 imiti at Sm Cliff gemkate t-r&k at a rate of 8 trips per unit, totaling 2,400 ADT’s pix day. Adding the two tog&her brings the total to 13,i.oO ADTs per day ‘. ., 2. m Dedicatedonl3&ember3, ~973,~acokctorstmetlsdesignedtoe&yas many as 10,000 ADTs over a 24 hour period. Pas& De1 Norte could be mi&&n as a locai street b&ausC; local streets and collector streets both have a 6i)‘. dedicatidn. Aecordkg to SANDAG, Seti Cliff irs a, multi-family complex, should generate 2,400 ADTs per day or 24% of F%aeo De1 Norte’s capacity. If Paseo Del Norte were intended to be a tocal str&, the maximum tratX0 allowed ,b design is 1,200 ADTs, in which case Sea Cliff would not have been buiit o&x&y nor w&@ the City. issue building permits today. : \ 3. eraI Plan i&&&&p: Accon%ng to the General PI& Update, and the-w& Ikkter BTR and General Plan, adopted andapproved in 1994, the pmpert$ in question was considered arxl analyzed as Neighborhood Commercial with the current i&&ctum and Pa&o Del Nor% in place. Based on the current development standards for the Tourist Serving Gverlay Zone, our site could develop 50,000 SF of retail. Using SANDAG cri&ria, a 50,090 SF retail carter on IO aores .or las wotild’pmd- 120 ADTs per 1,000 SF of retail. This t&m&es to 6,000 ADTs per 24 hour m. plus .Sea ClifI’s~2,400 ADTs brings the total to 8,400 @Ts per day. 4. JVovaxed NeiaSlborhd Cmtet- SANDAG ais6 provideri traffic ealetdationa for rmc&ttv r&J such as our Neighboskod C&. SAkAG’s criteria for a spaklty &ii cut&r, as propo& fm this site, pmvides for 4,142 ADTs par day, wit&x$ credit for pass-by & Ii&e&rips. With both Se&t Cliff and ourprapostdccntcr,the~wouldbomduaodto6,542ADTspaday. 1 ., : ; ‘.. . . . 177 S. BEVERLY DRIVE ., lihNDLIEc;oopplce .’ i EEVERLY HILLS. CA 9021+3002 ", FOBCiX?;r188. DeLM~n,CA92014-1788 3lO.278.95& 310.278.6566 FAX ” ., 858.755.0675 PAX 858.7153708, ,. i m 8, ,.,B,, l l ,B . -; : .,‘. - Council Agenda Item AB #15.417 Neighborhood Commercial vs. PM Zoning SEC of Poinsettia Ave. & Paseo De1 Norte 5. Neiahborhood Center/Sea Cliff By-pass: The City of Carlsbad does not support consideration for by-pass or linked trips when determining ADTs. The question was posed to Mr. Dave Rick, City of Carlsbad Public Works/Engineering, if all (5) members of the Sea Cliff board of directors were to drive to Henry’s Market, how many trips (ADTs) are counted on Paseo De1 Norte? Considering how the City of Carlsbad counts traffic without credit for pass-by trips, the answer is as follows: One ADT as each board member passes through Sea Cliffs front gate onto Paseo De1 Norte (5 trips), one each, as each board member drives into the parking lot at Henry’s Market (10 trips), one each, as each board member leaves Henry’s parking lot (15 trips) and one each, as each board member drives through the gates to go home (20 trips). A second question was posed to Mr. Rick is it really fair to count every person in Sea Cliff that may drive to our Neighborhood Center as (4 trips) when in fact, it would mean doubling the actual traffic count. After consideration, Mr. Rick did agree that a pass-by/linked trip credit of 138 trips would be acceptable. The trips were determined as follows: 69 of 300 home owners may shop once a day at our center as they drive to and from other destinations, thus reducing the total number of ADTs generated by our center to 4,004 ADTs plus Sea Cliffs 2,400, again reducing the total to 6,404 ADTs. 6. PM Zone Change: This site with a PM zone could build approximately 150,000 SF of general office. SANDAG calls for 3,000 ADTs per day plus Sea Cliffs 2,400 ADTs for a total of 5,400 ADTs. Note: Do to the nature of office hours, an office will create a major traffic impact at the following times; 1,500 ingress trips between 7 and 9 AM, up to 3,000 lunch trips between 1l:OO A.M. and 1:30 P.M. and 1,500 egress trips between 5 and 7 P.M.. 7. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Study: On June 10, 1999, Mr. Rock Miller, traffic engineer with Katz, Okitsu & Associates was asked to analyze the subject property based on 50,000 SF of retail. Mr. Miller used the current SANDAG traffic information including SANDAG’s segment covering pass-by and linked trips. According to SANDAG, 50,000 SF of retail on less than 10 acres equals 6,000 ADTs, less <2,400> pass-by trips and less <2,400> linked trips leaving a remainder of 1,200 NEW ADTs per day. Sea Cliffs 2,400, plus the new trips total 3,600 ADTs per day. 8. Paseo Del Norte Actual Traffic: In August 1999, Traffic Data Services metered Paseo Del Norte mid-week for a 24-hour period. The traffic was metered for both north and south bound travel. From 7-9 AM the count was 193 trips and from 5-7 PM the traffic count was 225 trips. The total count for both north and south bound traffic over a 24-hour period is only 1,900 trips (ADTs) per day. We believe a Neighborhood Center is consistent with the City’s vision for future development in Carlsbad. Our Neighborhood Center id compatible with the surrounding uses and the actual traffic generated will be well within the traffic parameters established for the area. We have been accommodating and patient Developers and have responded positively to every request from the City including compliance with the Overlay Zone submittal. However our patience does have limits, down zoning the property, will cause substantial damages to Mrs. Smith and Pacific Development Partners. An action to down zone the property will leave us no choice but to do a thorough and exhaustive legal review of why the property was down-zoned. We will determine the responsible parties and attempt to recover all losses. We absolutely do not desire to go down that path, however, we do have property rights. We have an excellent record of developing the finest quality developments and we know this Neighborhood Center will be no different. We request the current zoning remain in place and we be allowed to restart processing our Neighborhood Center Thank You Page - 2 * Sea cdcZ## Ramceafu~e466 42bsaciatZiam c/o: CURTIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. 10455 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 102, San Diego, California 92121. (858) 587-9844 (760) 436-4560 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 October 19, 1999 Hand Delivered Re. Concerns of Sea C&fHomeowners Association Regarding the Proposed “‘Sea View Pointe ” Commercial Development on 5. I Acre Parcel at Corner of Lowder Lane (Paseo De1 Norte) and Poinsettia Lane - Prelim 99-43 Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council: INTRODUCTION This letter contains the official comments of the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Board of Directors (“Sea Cliff’) with regard to the Sea View Pointe commercial center proposed for construction on the 5.1 acre vacant lot at the corner of Lowder Lane (Paseo de1 Norte) and Poinsettia Avenue (“Sea View Pointe” or the “project”). On behalf of the residents of the 300 homes at Sea Cliff, we welcome this opportunity to comment on the project and trust that the City will find our remarks helpful in its deliberations. We recognize that this letter is long, andfor that we apologize; it is not our intent to burden the City with more paperwork. However, the length (and complexity) of this comment letter simply re$ects the seriousness of our concerns regarding the project under review. As the City well-knows, the south end of the subject property abuts Sea Cliff and is immediately adjacent to existing homes. In addition, the only access to the proposed commercial center is along Lowder Lane, which provides the sole means of ingress and egress for Sea Cliff and its residents. This local street terminates at the Sea Cliff property line, just 110 feet from the entrance to the proposed project. Thus, any decision regarding the Sea View Pointe proposal will also affect Sea Cliff and its residents. 888a88.88888eJ181sos.1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 2 While we recognize that the project is only at the Preliminary Review stage, we feel it necessary to identify for the City the kinds of adverse impacts Sea Cliff will experience should the Sea View Pointe proposal be approved.’ Further, it is our opinion - developed after much study and discussion - that southwest Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and that placing a “neighborhood” retail center on the parcel in question serves no land planning purpose. As an alternative, we would propose that the project site be rezoned for residential uses, which would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his investment, and would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with existing adjacent properties. The comments which follow below are organized in four parts. Part I sets forth the history of Sea Cliffs involvement in the planning process for the subject property, and seeks to correct numerous misrepresentations made by the project applicant, Pacific Development Partners, LLC (“PDP”), regarding Sea Cliffs alleged support for Sea View Pointe. Part II analyzes the proposed project and identifies its potentially adverse environmental impacts. Part III discusses the need to include the subject property in the City’s ongoing study of the demand (or lack of demand) for new neighborhood commercial uses in Carlsbad. Finally, Part IV explains why rezoning the 5.1 acre parcel for residential uses makes sense fi-om a community-based (as opposed to a developer-driven) land planning perspective. I. HISTORY OF SEA CLIFF’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A. The 1989 Project: “Poinsettia Country Plaza” It is our understanding that the 5.1 acre parcel in question is owned by Carolyn Smith, who purchased the property in the early 1980s as part of a much larger transaction involving land on the west side of I-5. In this transaction, Mrs. Smith and her husband, Cecil Smith, gained title to the 5.1 acre parcel plus the 40 acres on which the Poinsettia Village shopping center is now situated. Mr. and Mrs. Smith developed Poinsettia Village in 1986, but left vacant the 5.1 acre parcel now under review. Although orphaned from Poinsettia Village and geographically detached from any other commercial center, the 5.1 acre parcel was nevertheless designated “neighborhood commercial” with a Qualified Overlay Zone attached, i.e., C- 1 -Q. It held this designation from 1982 to 1989. In June 1989, Ms. Smith and her son, Peter Walsh, submitted a proposal to develop a “neighborhood commercial” project at the site, to be named Poinsettia Country Plaza (CT 89-2 1 and SDP 89-08). The proposal called for 44,100 square feet of commercial space: 3 1,350 square feet for ‘We understand that the developer of the proposed project has not yet submitted a complete “Formal Application.” 888848.888888/1815051 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 3 retail; 5,750 square feet for a bank; and 7,000 square feet for two restaurants. Sea Cliff objected to the proposed project and collected more than 500 signatures on a petition requesting that the property be redesignated.fiom C-l-Q to Office. The petition and the signature were submitted to the City, but the request to rezone the property was denied. On August 10, 1989, a meeting was held between the developers of Poinsettia Country Plaza and Sea Cliff at the Sea Cliff clubhouse. A multitude of issues was discussed concerning the project but nothing of substance was decided. However, on October 2, 1989, Mr. Walsh and his associates sent a letter to the City withdrawing the project from tirther processing and consideration. B. Development of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone From 1989 to 1997, the 5.1 acre lot remained vacant, and there was little or no planning activity with regard to it. However, in early 1997, the City became concerned that the Legoland theme-park would encourage landowners to quickly develop visitor-serving commercial uses without adequate land use and aesthetic controls. To prevent this from happening, the City, on September 2, 1997, adopted an “urgency” ordinance, pursuant to which all proposals for commercial development within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Planning Area (“Carlsbad Ranch”) had to receive final approval from the City Council itself. City staff was then directed to prepare a new zoning overlay which would impose strict new development regulations on new visitor-serving uses in Carlsbad Ranch. The 5.1 acre lot just south of Poinsettia Avenue was to be included in the new visitor-serving overlay zone. C. The Sea View Pointe Proposal While the urgency ordinance was in place and while the new visitor-serving overlay was being drafted, Mr. Walsh and his family reinitiated their efforts to develop the subject property. They began to shop the property; and in June 1998, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Smith opened up escrow with PDP for purposes of building a commercial center (Sea View Pointe) on the 5.1 acre site. Things began to move quickly after that. In November 1998, PDP succeeded in persuading the California Coastal Commission to re-issue Coastal Development Permit No. 6-82-537 for the project. Then, on December 1, 1998, Mr. Walsh and Mark Burger of PDP met with Sea Cliffs Board of Directors to discuss PDP’s plans for Sea View Pointe. The board members received the information provided by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Burger, but took no action either in support of, or opposition to, the project. No subsequent meeting was scheduled. Then, on January 9, 1999, Mr. Walsh sent a letter to Ray Patchett, Carlsbad’s City Manager, requesting that the 5.1 acre property he and PDP hoped to develop be removed from the Carlsbad Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 4 Ranch Overlay Zone.* This would exempt the property from the stricter development controls imposed by the proposed “visitor-serving” overlay. Martin Orenyak, Director of Community Development, responded to Mr. Walsh by letter dated January 27, 1999, stating that “at the December 9, 1998 workshop, Council gave clear direction to staff to include the subject property into the overlay because of its freeway frontage, commercial land use designations, and the recognition that theme park influences go further than the immediately adjacent freeway off ramps.“3 Mr. Orenyak then recommended that Mr. Walsh and PDP “process a Preliminary Review application with Planning staff to assess the scope of potential impacts of the overlay zone ordinance.“4 However, Mr. Walsh and PDP did not immediately follow the advice of Mr. Orenyak. Instead, they requested that the City Council formally consider their request to remove the subject property from the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone.’ Mr. Walsh then asked the President of the Sea Cliff HOA, Howard HefIner, to write a letter expressing support for the Sea View Pointe that Mr. Walsh could then present to “various City officials.“6 However, Mr. Heffner prepared no such letter. At its March 9, 1999 public hearing, the City Council formally considered Mr. Walsh’s request to remove the 5.1 acre parcel from the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. After receiving comments from Mr. Walsh and from members of the public, including residents of Sea Cliff, the City Council denied Mr. Walsh’s request to have his property removed or exempted from the proposed overlay zone. Sea Cliff supported then, and supports now, the City Council’s decision in this regard.’ ‘See, Exhibit 1, attached hereto. ‘See, Exhibit 2, attached hereto. khibit 2. ?See, Exhibit 3, attached hereto. %ee, Exhibit 4, attached hereto. ‘This point cannot be over-stressed. PDP, in a letter to Mayor Lewis dated July 9, 1999, stated that in a prior meeting with the Sea Cliff Board of Directors, the board “voted in support (with one abstention) to support the removal of the 5.1 acres from the Overlay Zone.” (See, Exhibit 5, attached hereto.) This is cutegoricdly false. The Sea Cliff Board of Directors never held a formal, noticed meeting to consider supporting Mr. Walsh request that his property be removed from the overlay zone. Nor did the Board of Directors ever vote on such an item. 888888.8888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 5 On March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the draft overlay zone prepared by staff. At that hearing, PDP repeated its request that the 5.1 acre parcel in question be exempted from the overlay zone’s requirements, particularly as they relate to setbacks and tree planting.8 As to the first issue, PDP claimed that under the new zoning rules, 27% of the entire site would be consumed with setbacks, which PDP considered excessive.’ As to the second issue, PDP argued that under existing zoning, it would only have to plant six trees, whereas under the overlay zone’s rules, it would have to plant approximately 3 00 trees. lo Further, PDP claimed that it had made an agreement with the Sea Cliff homeowners to keep tree plantings to a minimum so as not to obstruct existing views.” However, this is false. There was (and is) no agreement between PDP and the Sea Cliff HOA regarding tree plantings and view preservation. Few, if any, Sea Cliff homes are so situated as to have their views blocked by trees installed at the proposed commercial site. We therefore strongly encourage the City to require that PDP comply fully with the tree planting requirements of the overlay zone. D. Adoption of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone and PDP’s “Pre-Filing Submittal” On May 18, 1999, the City Council.formally adopted the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone, imposing new, more restrictive development requirements on commercial properties within the zone, Mr. Walsh’s property included. In June 1999, Mr. Walsh and PDP prepared a “pre-filing submittal” as required by the overlay zone and presented this to the City’s Planning Department. After reviewing the pre-filing submittal, staffwrote a letter to John Edwins of PDP, dated August 12, 1999, identifying 26 issues that would have to be addressed in order for the project to conform with the new requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone.‘* It is surprising to note, however, that the Planning Department’s preliminary review of Sea View Pointe, as set forth in its August 12 letter to Mr. Edwins, falls to mention that the project will have to undergo environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before it can be considered formally by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. For the Further, Sea Cliffs position has always been that’the property should remain in the overlay zone. ‘See, Minutes from the March 17, 1999 hearing of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit 6, at p. 14. ‘Exhibit 6, at p. 14. %xhibit 6, at p. 14. ‘*Exhibit 6, at p. 14. ‘*See, Exhibit 7, attached hereto. 888888.888888l181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 6 reasons discussed in Part II of this letter, it is Sea Cliffs position that the City’s CEQA review of the proposed project should begin immediately upon the completion of PDP’s application. II. THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE SEA VIEW POINTE PROJECT According to the Site Plan prepared by PDP, the proposed Sea View Pointe project will consist of 50,194 square feet of retail space and a lighted parking lot capable of storing 265 cars. The primary tenant will be a grocery store of approximately 22,000 square feet. It will be located at the southwest comer of the 5.1 acre parcel and joined to smaller retail shops (including a restaurant) in a linear or “strip” fashion facing Lowder Lane (Paseo de1 Norte). Lowder Lane provides the sole means of access to both Sea Cliff and the proposed commercial project. At the north end of the site, PDP intends to install a drug store (with a 24-hour drive-thru pharmacy) consisting of 13,800 square feet, and another small retail area of 5,750 square feet where PDP hopes to place yet-another Starbucks Coffee franchise. The backs of the these stores will be directly opposite Poinsettia Lane. Moreover, the entire commercial center will be visible from motorists traveling along I-5 and up the ramp leading from the freeway to Poinsettia Lane. There is no question that transforming the existing undeveloped site into a strip-style commercial center will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding environment, reducing the quality of life for nearby residents. From Sea Cliffs perspective these impacts fall into the following sii categories: (1) traflic and road safety; (2) noise; (3) light and glare; (4) air pollution and odors; (5) aesthetics and community character; and (6) crime. We will discuss each of these in kind. A. Traffk and Road Safety Impacts The traffic problems associated with the Sea View Pointe project are obvious to anyone who has looked at a map of the project site or physically inspected the property. Access to the project from Poinsettia Lane is legally foreclosed, which means that all cars and trucks seeking to enter or exit the commercial center will have to use Lowder Lane, which is often misidentified as Paseo de1 Norte.” Lowder Lane is a two-lane street that dead-ends at the Sea Cliff entry, approximately 110 feet from the proposed driveway into Sea View Pointe. Although Lowder Lane is not shown on the General Plan’s circulation map, it is considered a local street by the City’s engineering staK14 As such, it has a design capacity of 1200 Average Daily Trips (ADT) - a number already exceeded by 13The attached Tract Map for the property properly identifies the roadway in question as Lowder Lane. (See, Exhibit 8, attached hereto.) However, in its pre-fling submittal to the City’s Planning Department, PDP referred to the road as Paseo de1 Norte, which is incorrect. 14Sea Cliff resident Leonard Martyns obtained this information verbally from the City’s engineering staff. 888888.888888H81505.1 - Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 7 the 1930 vehicles which enter and exit Sea Cliff each day.” The proposed Sea View Pointe project will place an additional 6,023 ADT on Lowder Lane, exacerbating existing congestion, In such situations, traffic standards set forth in the City’s General Plan may be violated.. Under the General Plan, all city streets must operate at Level of Service (“LOS”) C.16 Any project which causes service levels to deteriorate to LOS D or worse creates a significant impact that must be mitigated. In this case, Lowder Lane is already over-taxed; and forcing it to absorb an additional 6,023 ADT will certainly trigger a General Plan violation. What is worse, it is highly doubtful that the project’s traffic impacts on Lowder Lane - as well any associated violation of the General Plan’s Circulation Element - can be cured or reduced to acceptable levels. Road widening alone, even if possible or feasible, would not address the more fundamental problem, which is that Lowder Lane is a dead-end street which functions as the sole means of access to the 300 homes in Sea Cliff. Note also that congestion along Lowder Lane is severe throughout the day, not just at the traditional peak-hours. Cars often stack up at the entry gate, with vehicle queues frequently stretching beyond the proposed curb-cut into the Sea View Pointe commercial center. When and if the center is constructed, cars seeking to exit Sea View Pointe may become blocked by cars driven by residents seeking to enter Sea Cliff. This will aggravate everyone concerned. In short, without access along Poinsettia Lane, the Sea View Pointe commercial project will have to rely on Lowder Lane for ingress and egress; and Lowder Lane cannot handle another 6,023 vehicles per day. It is simply not up to the task. B. Noise Impacts In the Noise Element of the General Plan, the City has established two well-founded policies regarding noise impacts in Carlsbad: (1) residences are among the most noise-sensitive receptors in the city and must be protected as such; and (2) land uses along I-5 already receive significant amounts of noise and, to the greatest extent possible, should be protected from additional noise intrusion.” Sea Cliff is one of those rare properties that is covered by both policies. It is a residential community, and therefore a “sensitive” noise receptor, and it also receives substantial road noise from ‘%‘his ADT figore is drawn from the City’s most recent traffic study for the area. 16General Plan, Land Use Element, at p. 29. Relevant excerpts from the General Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit 9. “See, Exhibit 9, General Plan, Noise Element, at pp. 2 and 4. 888888888e8w181505.1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 8 I-5.18 Indeed, as traffic along I-5 has increased - especially heavy truck traffic - exterior and interior noise levels at Sea Cliff have also increased.” The proposed commercial project will almost certainly make things worse, because the road noise from the project’s 6,023 ADT will be received directly by those Sea Cliff homes which back up to Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane. However, road noise is not the only problem. Noise from within the commercial center itself will also add significantly to the burden placed on Sea Cliff residents. Parking lot noise -. characterized by car door slams, car alarms, vehicle start-ups and tire squealing - can be especially annoying, as it tends to be high intensity noise which punctuates the ambient sound environment. According to the Site Plan prepared by PDP, most of the commercial center’s parking spaces are located in the eastern portion of the subject property, where they will have a maximum noise impact on Sea Cliff homes. Most troubling of all are the 46 parking spaces nearest the southern boundary of the site, as these will be only a few feet away from existing Sea Cliff residences along Dahlia Way, many of which sit above the proposed Sea View Pointe development and will not benefit from standard noise attenuation measures. One must also keep in mind that the stores and restaurants at Sea View Pointe will keep very late hours, not closing until 10 or 11 o’clock in the evening. Indeed, the proposed drug-store plans to stay open 24 hours a day. This changes not so much the amount or character of the noise, but the level of its intrusiveness. Noise in the evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents. It interrupts conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as watching television; and it makes sleep difficult. Car door-slams, car alarms, squealing tires and the other parking lot noise will surely occur in the evening and nighttime noise periods, and it is unclear how (or whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels.*’ Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries, especially those for grocery stores, often occur late at night or very early in the morning, well-prior to the opening of the business day. Such deliveries are made with semi-tractor trailers and other large vehicles which generate significant amounts of noise (e.g., noise from diesel engines, noise from “back up” beepers, and noise from roll-up bay doors). The disruptive, high intensity nature of this noise, combined with 18Sea Clil!f also receives substantial road noise from Poinsettia Lane. “The traffic increases along I-5 in City Zone 19 (which covers Sea Cliff and Sea View Pointe) have been phenomenal and well beyond the projections of the City and SANDAG. For example, in the LFMP approved on December 22, 1987, traffic volumes on I-5 north of Poinsettia Lane were projected to be 153,000 ADT at build-out. However, in the summer of 1998 - before the opening of Legoland - Caltrans counted 186,000 vehicles per day on I-5 at Tamarack. Since the opening of Legoland, these numbers have almost certainly gone up. 20Single-event, high intensity noise such as that from parking lots is typically measured on an Leq or Lmax scale and not on the CNEL scale. .3.%38&888888/181505.1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 9 the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake Sea Cliff residents from their sleep and create general annoyance. Finally, there are the stationaT noise sources internal to the commercial project. These consist primarily of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed on the roofs of the commercial buildings. Not only is this equipment noisy, it operates continuously (albeit on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with the truck deliveries and late night parking lot noise, the loud whirring from these mechanical systems will create noise just when everything else has quieted down and people are trying to sleep.” Given the overwhelming number of existing commercial uses within a 3 mile radius of Sea Cliff, and given the weak demand for this project, the potential noise impacts from Sea View Pointe - both direct and cumulative - can hardly be justified.** C. Lighting and Glare Impacts Sea Cliff currently receives very little light wash and glare from external sources.23 Few if any residential windows are exposed directly to existing light sources. Unfortunately, this will change with the advent of Sea View Pointe. Light and glare from the project - namely in the form of car headlights, store lights and signs, and parking lot light standards - will necessarily affect those Sea Cliff homes nearest the proposed commercial center. As with the project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most disruptive during the nighttime hours, when Sea Cliff residents quiet their own interior lights and prepare for bed. Simple things that we all take for granted - such as watching television without exterior glare or sleeping in a room without heavy curtains on the windows -become difficult or impossible when homes are not adequately shielded from nighttime light sources. We are not convinced that PDP can soften the light and glare impacts of Sea View Pointe sufficiently to mitigate these impacts to Sea Cliffs residents. D. Unpleasant Odors and Other Air Quality Impacts *IA short but important demographic note is in order here. Sea Cliff is not an adult-only residential community. Many Sea Cliff homeowners and tenants are families with school-age children. The scientific literature abounds with studies establishing that children exposed to excessive noise levels, especially when such exposure results in sleep disruption, often develop learning disabilities and other problems. (See, e.g., the article regarding noise impacts on children, attached hereto as Exhibit 10.) We at Sea Cliff want to protect are youngest residents from this kind of hazard. **Under the City General Plan, exterior noise levels may not exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and interior noise levels may not exceed 45 dF3A CNEL. Exhibit 8, General Plan Noise Element, at p.7. 23Sea Cliffs internal lighting (i.e., lighting within the Sea Clitf community) has been designed to enhance street security without impacting home interiors. 088888.888888/181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 10 In addition to the vehicle exhaust from the 6,023 ADT generated by the project, we at Sea Cliff are also concerned about two other types of air quality impacts - odors from the restaurant and grocery store, and diesel emissions from delivery trucks. PDP has not stated what kind of restaurant it plans to install at Sea View Pointe, but all restaurants emit significant amounts of cooking exhaust, usually dispelled though vents on the roof, which is then dispersed to off-site receptors (e.g., Sea Cliff homes). Because such exhaust is the by-product of cooking, it is often unpleasant or even repellant to one’s sense of smell. This is one reason why restaurants are rarely located next to residences. Odors from trash are another problem. Both the proposed restaurant and the proposed grocery store will generate “food-trash” which begins to stink when left in trash areas exposed to sunlight and air. Sea Cliff homeowners should not be subjected to these kinds of odors. The project’s diesel exhaust impacts create a less obvious, but perhaps more vexing issue. Since 1990, diesel exhaust has been on the State of California’s list of “Proposition 65” known carcinogens. And in August 1998, after years of scientific study, the California Air Resources Board voted to list diesel exhaust particulate as a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) because of its carcinogenic properties. In fact, the regulatory authorities, including the South Bay Air Quality Management District, now consider diesel exhaust to be the primary cause of pollution-related lung cancer in Southern Califomia.24 Due to Sea CWS proximity to I-5 - a major trucking corridor - Sea Cliff residents already receive more than their share of diesel exhaust. The Sea View Pointe commercial center will only make things worse. Trucks delivering food and other items to the proposed grocery store are diesel powered; and it is standard practice to allow these trucks to idle while deliveries are being made. Further, since deliveries must take place during certain prescribed hours in the day (usually early in the morning or late at night), it is not uncommon for a number of trucks to arrive at the store at the same time. In such situations, the trucks sit idling in queues, waiting for the loading dock to clear, substantially increasing diesel emissions.25 Given the off-shore wind flows at the project site, diesel exhaust from these delivery trucks will almost certainly be blown over to Sea Cliff, exposing Sea Cliff residents. E. Aesthetic and Community Character Impacts No matter how Sea View Pointe may be characterized by its proponents, it is nothing more than a “strip mall” seeking to take advantage of its freeway frontage. In appearance and in tinction, the proposed project is no digerent than the many small, “detached” commercial centers which have 24See, Los Angeles Times article, attached hereto as Exhibit 11. *%afeway stores were recently sued for allowing delivery trucks to idle excessively in queues, on the ground that such idling generated unhealthful emissions of diesel exhaust. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit 12.) 888888.@.88888/1815ci5 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 11 so thoroughly blighted neighboring cities. Historically, the City Planning Commission and City Council have admirably and successfully prevented such projects from locating in Carlsbad and tarnishing the Carlsbad aesthetic. However, City approval of Sea View Pointe would signal an unfortunate reversal of this sound and protective land planning policy. Given the small size of the lot (5.1 acres), PDP will find it difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate the kind of spatial designs and landscaping plans necessary to ensure aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. Already, PDP has balked at the landscaping setbacks and the tree planting requirements imposed by the Ranch0 Carlsbad Overlay Zone. Without these setback and trees, the project will look especially urban and barren, as it will consist of almost nothing but buildings, light standards and asphalt parking lots. Given the aesthetic impacts of the project, and given the physical limitations of the project site, it would appear that some other use would be more appropriate at this location. Moreover, within a 3-mile radius (or 5-minute drive) of Sea Cliff, there are nine grocery stores, three coffee shops, three pharmacies, 36 restaurants, and three health food stores.26 It is an embarrassment of riches. Do we really need another 50,000 square feet of retail at this particular location?*’ F. Crime and Safety Impacts Apart from the strictly environmental impacts of the proposed project, we at Sea Cliff are also concerned about the project’s potential to increase crime in the area and compromise the security of our residential community. The proposed drug store with the 24-hour drive-thru pharmacy is a good case in point. In its planned location, the drug store would be just a short walk (amounting to a couple hundred feet) from the balconies and windows of Sea Cliff homes. We are worried that the drug store, particularly late at night or in the pre-dawn hours, will attract criminals seeking to steal prescription pharmaceuticals. We are uncomfortable knowing that this activity, while not an everyday occurrence, will take place periodically right outside our doors. Then there is the issue of security gate breaches. As indicated above, entry into Sea Cliff is controlled by electric gates which swing open to allow vehicles to pass once the proper code is *?‘he 3-mile/5-minute radius criterion for determining a “commercial demand area” was used in the City’s Neighborhood and CommuniQ Commercial Land Use Study dated October 1996, at pp. 25-26. The same 3-mile/5-minute criterion was used by the City during its August 1999 workshops on the “Shopping Center Policy Scenarios.” *‘It has been suggested that the project’s location would encourage existing homeowners to walk instead of drive to their shopping destinations. However, there is no evidence to support this theory. In fact, experience suggests that most existing residents will not walk to the proposed project: There is too much traflic and it is too difficult to carry a household’s worth of groceries back home on foot. The potential dangers of walking at nighttime will also encourage people to drive to the store. 888860.88888811815051 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 12 entered on the key pad. After the vehicle passes through the gate, the gate closes. The problem is that the security gate opens and closes rather slowly. An unauthorized vehicle traveling closely behind a resident’s car can easily enter the complex before the gate shuts. We have no security guard taking names and checking identification. Currently, unauthorized vehicle and foot traffic into Sea Cliff is a significant problem for our residents. It is not uncommon for uninvited “guests” (i.e., trespassers) to enter Sea Cliff and use our tennis courts and pools, and sleep in our common areas. If Sea View Pointe is approved, this problem will surely worsen. The project will place 6,023 vehicles per day on Lowder Lane. Any of these cars could ride in the “wake” of a resident vehicle entering Sea Cliff and gain unpermitted access to our residential community. Unauthorized foot traffic into Sea Cliff would also increase. Such a situation would render our security gate largely ineffectual, and make Sea Cliff a less safe and desirable place to live. In summary, there is substantial evidence that the Sea View Pointe project will create significant impacts on the surrounding environment, potentially reducing the value of the homes and quality of life in Sea Cliff. Moreover, it would appear that at least some of these impacts cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels. A full environmental review under CEQA is required for this project; and that review should begin immediately so that the requisite technical studies are completed prior to the City’s formal consideration of PDP’s proposal. HI. THE PROJECT SITE’S COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED A. The Subject Property Should be Included in the City’s Ongoing Study of Consumer Demand for Commercial Uses in Carlsbad Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the General Plan undeveloped commercial sites are to be reviewed every five years to determine whether their zoning designations remain appropriate. (Gen. Plan, Land Use Element, Policy C. 12.) From the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of March 9, 1999, it appears that the zoning for the subject property has not been re- examined since 1994, when the City did a comprehensive General Plan update. Thus, it is now time (five years later) to evaluate whether the 5.1 acre parcel in question is appropriately zoned for neighborhood commercial - a determination that will largely depend on existing and foreseeable demand for retail services at that location. Fortunately, the City has already begun to develop the market data necessary to assess the zoning designation of the property. In October 1996, the City’s Planning Department prepared a report, entitled Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Stu@, which analyzed the demand for additional commercial uses in Carlsbad. This land use report, whose study area originally included the 5.1 acre site at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane (Paseo de1 Norte), then became the basis of a later report, issued in July 1999, entitled Commercial Development Survey Report (the “1999 Report”). 88&388.888088/181505 1 .- Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 13 In the 1999 Report, staff conducted a scientific survey of 605 residents to determine their shopping preferences and to learn if other non-shopping interests counter-balanced any perceived demand for new commercial uses. Unfortunately, the subject property was not included in the 1999 Report’s study area. So the seven “outcome scenarios” which emerged from the 1999 Report did not consider the 5.1 acre parcel that PDP now wants to develop as a commercial center. This is a serious omission that must be corrected. We at Sea Cliff respectfully request that the City include the subject property in its commercial demand study, so that the site receives the kind of re-evaluation required by Land Use Policy C. 12. B. Southwestern Carlsbad is Over-Saturated With Existing Commercial Uses If the City were to focus on the 5.1 acre parcel in question, and make a list of the various retail stores within a 3mileKminute radius of the project site, the City would likely be astounded by the abundance and diversity of existing shopping opportunities for Sea Cliff residents and the residents of other neighborhoods along Poinsettia Lane and Paseo de1 Norte. For example, PDP intends to “anchor” Sea View Pointe with a “Henry’s” grocery store. However, within a 3-mile/5- minute drive of the project site, there are nine grocery stores: Von’s Grocery Ralphs Grocery Tip Top Market Carlsbad Ranch Market Hadley ’ s Market Pelly’s Market 7-Eleven Mini Market Chevron Mini Market Costco Grocery There also appears to be little latent demand for the proposed drug store at Sea View Pointe, since there is a Rite Aid pharmacy in the Poinsettia Shopping Center, a pharmacy at Von’s in the Alga Shopping Center, and another pharmacy at Costco off of Palomar Airport Road. We are also full to the brim with coffee shops. There is the “Coffee Time” coffee house in the Poinsettia Shopping Center, a Starbucks at the Company Stores, and the La Costa Coffee House in the Alga Shopping Center. As for restaurants, health food stores and specialty food stores, these ,can be found in virtually any direction, with an incredible variety of offerings, by driving less than 3 miles/5 minutes.** It is simply hard to imagine an area more saturated with neighborhood commercial opportunities. We **By last count, there are 36 restaurants and three health food stores within a 3-m&/5-minute radius of the project site. 888888.888888lle.1505.1 h Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 14 do not need more; and we are concerned that existing business will begin to fail when newer retail stores (especially chains) enter the market and attempt to capture an already sated clientele. Please consider these issues when determining whether Sea View Pointe, or any commercial use, should be placed at the corner of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane (Paseo de1 Norte). Iv. A MODEST PROPOSAL: REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES We at Sea Cliff do not begrudge Mrs. Smith the economic use of her property. She is entitled to a reasonable return on her investment. However, that “return” must not come at the expense of Sea Cliff residents. Our quality of life should not be degraded simply to allow PDP, whose principals do not even live in the City of Carlsbad, to maximize their profits and build a commercial center for which there is little demand and no perceptible need.29 Our investments, too, must be considered, and these will surely erode if the “strip mall” center proposed by PDP is approved and constructed. There is, however, a potential solution to the problem: Rezone the subject property for residential uses. Ideally, homes similar in type and style could be constructed on the site and then annexed to Sea Cliff. There would be no need for the developer to install additional homeowner facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools, as these are already in place at Sea Cliff and under-utilized. If developed for residential purposes, the project site would create few, if any, of the adverse impacts associated with the Sea View Pointe commercial center proposed by PDP. Further, we would be happy to work with the developer and the City to ensure that the annexation process goes smoothly. Our proposal to rezone the subject site for residential uses is not without precedent in Carlsbad. In fact, as recently as 1997, the City changed the zoning designation of the former Aviara Information Center site from neighborhood commercial to residential. The City made this rezoning decision after determining that there was sufficient commercial coverage in this part of Carlsbad, and that a new commercial project was not needed. Our position is that the City could, and should, make the same finding with regard to the 5.1 acre parcel at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane, since this parcel is only 1.4 miles (less than a 3 minute drive) from the former Aviara Information Center site. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Sea Cliff does not support the proposed SeaView Point commercial project. The environmental impacts of Sea View Pointe - traffic congestion, noise, *%DP is based out of Beverly Hills, California. Mr. Edwins of PDP also a P.O. box in De1 Mar. 888888.888888/181505.1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 15 light and glare, air pollution, aesthetic degradation, and increased crime potential - cannot be justified by the supposed benefits of the project, which are few and small. In fact, the project provides nothing beyond what is already available to Sea Cliff and its neighbors. Put simply, the property should be considered for uses other than commercial, i.e., residential. We at Sea Cliff appreciate greatly the City’s willingness to focus so much of its attention on the difficult issues presented by the Sea View Pointe proposal. We know the City Council will study our remarks closely in the course of its deliberations, and for that we thank you. If you or anyone at the City have questions regarding the comments set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Enclosures 888888.888888/181505.1 Exhibit INDEX Document Description 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. January 7, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Ray Patchett, City Manager re: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone with map and permit January 27, 1999 letter from Martin Orenyak, City of Carlsbad, Community Development Director to Peter Walsh re: property at southeast comer of I-5/ Poinsettia Lane February 19, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Ray Patchett re: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone January 13, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Seacliff Homeowners Association requesting letter of position July 9, 1999 letter from Pacific Development Partners, LLC to City of Carlsbad letter of support to remove parcel from Overlay Zone Report to the Planning Commission, March 17, 1999, recommending Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment August 12, 1999 letter from City of Carlsbad Planning Department to John Edwins Tract Map for subject property Carlsbad General Plan excerpts League for the Hard of Hearing article “Noise & Its Effects on Children” September 10 Los Angeles Times article “AQMD Focuses on Dangers of Diesel Exhaust” Mealey’s Emerging Toxic Torts article “California, Environmental Groups Sue Grocery Chains For Diesel Fume Emissions,” dated June 26, 1998 108407cG#o111.3oe.281 _- Januaty 7, 1999 -. Ray Patchett CITY MANAGER - CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 REI: CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE Dear Mr. Pat&et%, I am writing to you on behalf of my mother, Caroline Smith, who is the owner of the undeveloped 5 acres on the southwest comer of Paseo de1 Norte and Pointsettia Lane, regarding the City’s proposed inclusion of that lot into the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. This action threatens to signi&ntly reduce the value of that land ifit is included in the zone. We are respectllly requesting that the City’s Community Planning Department reconsider their recommendation to include this lot and allow it to be developed according to the existing requirements. , In reviewing this matter please consider some of the background of that proti and its ownership. My parents purchased that Sot as part of a forty-five acre transaction in the I early ‘80’s and my tier, Cecil Smith, master-planned and sold the acreage on the west side of the f&way through 1986. During that period, specifically November 10,1982, the City approved a zoning change for the five acre parcel to C-1-Q Neighborhood Commercial (Resolution #2037). mer my father’s death in 1996 we received hundreds of inquiries and numerous fbmai offers on the property and my mother ultimately accepted a proposal and opened escrow with Pacific Development Partners (PDP) in June, 1998. Since that time John Edwins of PDP has worked diligently with the California Coastal Commission to clari@ title issues and his efforts resulted in the Commission re-issuing a Coastal Development Permit (#&82-537) on November 4,1998. Immediately after receiving this permit John, his partner, Mark Burger, and I met with the Board of Directors of the SeaCliiFHomeowners Association to inform them of PDP’s planned development of a neighborbood center anchored by a specialty food market and a drugstore. This meeting, while more informative than conclusive, was cordial and several specific types of retail uses were discussed along with SeaCliffs input about objectionable uses. A second meeting was scheduled for this week, but we postponed it to give the parties involved an opportunity to re-evaluate their plans in light of the decisions made at the December 9th workshop. L r After reviewing the Intent and Purpose of the overlay zone (21.208.0~0) we strongly disagree that this lot should be considered “tourist serving”, especially in light of its long- standing tuning designation as “neighborhood commerciai”. By Definition (21.208.015) the concerns of Staff are “uses involving the provision of goods or services designed primarily for tourists and visitors to the city”. The proposed uses in this development would be for the benerit and enjoyment of the residents in the immediate area and would not target the tourists. As a matter of fact, it is the continuing residential buildout in this area that has made this site attractive to these stores. Furthermore, as defined in Boundaries/Applicability (21.208.020) “the provisions , . , shall not be applied to industrial, office or residential uses”. Although this lot is zoned commercial it is located two miles south of C&bad Ranch and is encircled by homes. This lot cannot be assembled into a larger parcel and its distance from the subject area and its size should be considered as valid reasons to exclude it from the zone. It is, after all, the only commercial property on the east side ofthe freeway included in the zone other than the properties along the Palomar Airport Road corridor. In summary, please realize that if the decision isfinahzed to include this lot into the zone a long- time property owner will sufFer a substantial financial loss in the value of her property. The natural topography of the land would not be able to offst the reduction in the “net useable” area that would be the result ofthe increased setbacks. PDP has already made substantial progress with two anchor tenants for this site and this turn of events has put both deals in jeopardy. Our pIaas were to firm up the tenant commitments, discuss them with the SeaCUT Association and then begin the submittal process with the City, confident in the fact that the Coastal Commission had already issued their permit. My f&y has invested heavily in Carisbad and we entered into this agreement with PDP out of respect for their expertise in developing small, unique sites. As we said at the workshop we will gfadly agree to City Council review as part of the process to achieve the objective of this ordinance. We believe the events that preceded the workshop, however, should be taken into account and we urge you to request Staff to reconsider and reverse their recommendation and exclude this property f?om the zone. If you would like to discuss this matter in person please feei free to call me anytime. I appreciate this opportunity to express our coneerns to you. Sincer &r d ($&/7. Peter A. Walsh (760) 720-1281 (6 19) 456.9907 C.C. Mayor Claude (Bud) Lewis Councilwoman Ramo.na Finnila Councilwoman Ann Kulchin J Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilman Matt Hall e~c: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Map Cafifomia Coastal Development Permit h -- / CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE ZCA 98-01 /tCPA 98-05 -, * pi ulttoma ) m4- t)rowR- ---- . George Gcukrnc+m. Gcrveror Jatiornia Coasfai Commission San Diegc;r District 6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220 San Diego, California 92120 (711) 280-6992 ms 636.5868 03/‘&T/L mmfl PERlIT No. 6-a-537 ! Page 1 of 6 1 i On February 23, 1983 , The California Coastal Conmission granted to R. C. Jewett Co. and Cecil A. Smith, an individual this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions. Description: Subdivide 5.13 acres into four (4) parcels consisting of the following: Parcel #l = 1.35 acres, Parcel #2 = 1.1 acres, Parcel #3 = 1.4 acres, and Parcel f4 = 1.25 acres. Project also involves site preparation including installation of utilities, construction of roads and approximately 35,444 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. Lot area 5.13 acres Zoning C-l-Q . Plan designation CN- Neighborhood Commercial Site: Easr of Interstate-5, south of Poinsettia Lane and west of Paseo de1 EJorte, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN 214-171-34 Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Ccmnis Ir,,-r,.ee. ..- 7:': P-e-.- . . . . .I .- -I.." k---. . - . -‘ .: . ..., . , . . . -a:-': :?.r,fq :j;ys;i . . . .'L.d . .I .- p;:j :,.:* .;:* ; 1:: 1: . Ofwtive Director , . 1" ..-i.;: ': :;i c.7 -... t 1 , ..-;. .,. -6 :’ ’ ‘.. ‘:.: i: ? cd. 1. : I dim ; s ,,‘..,.I \. . . _,.- . . . -7 . . ,.A$ ..w --- -......* ,... . . . - 1.; ‘:‘I :.*:; :‘b’ :.., y,s-.A-<,: ..:...,..‘J .::.‘;‘,c:. C.r.:z,r ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thr 2 undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit-and agrees to abide by all terms and 5/81 / . / - ,\ EXHIBIT I City of Carlsbd )anuary 27, 1999 Pe!er Walsh 6452 Avenida Manana La Jolla, CA 92037 PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I-;/PO1NSElTIA JANE The City has received your letter dated January 7,1999 stating your dejire to be excluded irom the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. As’ you are aware, at the December 9, 1998 workshop, Council gave clear direction to staff to include the subject property into the overJay because of IU freeway frontage, commercial land use designations, and the recognition that theme park influences go further than the immediately adjacent freeway offramps. Also consistent with this, was the Council’s direction to correspondingly expand the overlay zone northward to include the commercially designated parcels east of I-5 between Chestnut and Tamarack Avenues as well as the commercial parcels aroupd the intersection of I-5 and Tamarack Avenue. With regards to your future development plans, we suggest you process a Preliminary Review application with Planning staff to assess the scope of potential impacts of the overlay zone ordinance. The City notes and appreciates your diligent efforts to include the adjacent residential areas into your initial devefopment efforts. The City also notes that your commercial center is geared toward neighborhood commercial uses and not tourists. Nevertheless, the Council’s concern is for commercial and tourist-serving uses within the coverage area of the overlay zone and the ability to develop allowed land uses IS not berng elimmated. The desired scale of intensity, signage and other features may need modiflcatlon given the overlay zone ordinance; however, the Preliminary Review process will help assess the most likely impacts (until the overlay zone is formally approved, all standards and criteria contained in the draft ordinance are not finalized). Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding this Council initiated project. You are urged to consider processing a Preiimman/ Review and participate in the Pianning Commission and City Cou’ncil hearings to further express your views to the decision makers in this matter. Sincerely, - MO:EM:bjn c: Ray Patchen, City Manager File - ZCA 98-01 2’ 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Cartsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 EXHl6lT 2 l February 19,1999 Ray Patohett CITY MANAGER - CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad 7(illage Drive Carlsbad; CA 92008 RE: CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE Dear Mr. Patchett, I have written to you before concerning the inclusion of my mother’s property, the five acre parcel at Paseo De1 Norte +nd Pointsettia Lane, in the Carl&ad Ranch Overlay Zone. As much as I appreciate the response from the Community Planning Director i do not believe hjs suggestion to submit a~Prelimktry.Plan Review alters the impact this proposed decision will have on this property. Time is ofthe essence and with no criteria established to review site plans my mother stands to lose substantially due to this delay. I am respectfully requesting that this matter, specisically removing this property from the overlay &trict, be placed on the agenda of the City Council for the March 2,1999 * meeting. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. Sincerefy, ,7 -* , &cl.&../ # . ,, Peter p. Walsh (760) 720-1281 f ’ . 3 3 . LA JOtLA MARKffP.LbCE ” . ” ; Peter A. Walsh ’ Telephone (6 f9J 456-9907 7514 Giro:0 Avenue, Suite 84 La Jolla. CA 92037 Fax (6 19) 4,56GF 19 January 13,1999 H&&j &ff@,.p+&& ‘. .’ ” ..‘_ ,I. ; ;.: ,y ,‘, ,’ . ;‘, :,..i ; ,(’ ,:::.’ ,SEACLm Homqownqs Assocjation ” I ‘_ , 7154LantanaTerrace C&bad, CA 92009 : Dear Howard,. ,’ .’ I would ‘like to take.t&,opportunity to t&&y@ and the Boar@‘okI%rektors for Meting * with ‘me and PDP regar&ng the development Qf oui five acre’ lot $>ur support of our 7 position to maintain the existing development standar#s and oppose the Cityincludini this ‘ lot into the ‘Carl&ad @aqcb.ovqrlay zoge. Woyid you be so kind as to writq a letter io me; xonfkming your position ti that I can have it for review by the variou,s City oqicials? It w&Id bg tiost h&pm.. * , . * -:. AS pr&ked please find enclosed a map of the oVerlay zone for your file. ,. .’ s Cordjally yours, *;,:.:;, ~,~.~@~;,:,~ ..; !. 1; ., :., ~~.-~;.~~ . !,:..,[!L.’ :.y -;;; .‘....:.~,‘,‘--:‘.:~‘~~~‘~:~~~ . ‘herA. Walsh . . , I -- \qpl\-g - :-a P July 9. 1999 M;~yor Claude “Euddy” Lewis City Council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD It00 Cart&ad ViIiage Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 I &ACIFIC EVELOPMEYT PARTNERS,LLc RE: Council Meeting JuIy 6. 1999 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: At tie Council m.:eting on July 6. 1999, rhe question was raised concerning Pacific Development Partners, LLC working niationship with the Sea Cliff Home Owners Association (HOA) Board of Directors. Pacific Development Params, LLC and Mr, Peter Walch have met three (3) times with the Board of Directors to discuss a Neighborhwd Center at the SW comer of Pasco De1 Norte and Poinsettia Lane. At our last meting the Board of Dimctors voted in support (with one abstention) to support the removal of the 5. I acres fmm the Overiay Zone, On April 22, 1999.1 spoke to Mr. tfoward Heffker concerning our efforts to redesign the center to meet the Overlay Zone standards and requested a meeting with the residents of Sea Cliff. Mr. Hefier. informed me thnt I would have to meet with the Board of Directors, and if the Board decides to hold a general meeting they will give notice. It is our intention to hold a general ncighborhood meeting with all the residents in the area to discuss the merits of our ndghborhood centcr. This information should help to clear up any misunderstanding; however. .I will be happy to answer any funhcr questions you may have, and can be reached at 858 .755.0675. gd$&&3 PmJcct Director 1 7: C. BEVERLY DRIVE 6E\‘E’iL\ H:LLS. CA 90212-3002 3 10.1T9.9595 313.278.6566 FAX SAN Dmo OFFICE PO Box 2488 DELMAR, CA 92014-1788 851.755.0675 FAX 858.7552708 l B 8 l l l TOT& P. 93 ExHBlT7 The city of Carlsbad Planning Department . A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: March 17,1999 SUBJECT: OVERLAY ZONE - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map and the City’s Local Coastal Program to establish a Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone for various properties that are located near, or on roadways leading to, the Legoland theme park within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. That the Planning Commission &PT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4527, 4528, and 4529, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 9S-01, Zone Change ZC 99-03 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 98-05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. T II. INTRODUCTIOh The proposed Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone is being processed pursuant to City Council direction to prepare new procedures and regulations for certain uses in general proximity to the Legoland theme park within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The primary concern is to ensure high quality commercial/visitor-serving developments, prevent the over-proliferation of certain uses and establish the City Council as the final decision maker for such projects within the overlay zone coverage area. The primary elements of the overlay zone involve: new procedural details for processing a commerciavvisitor-serving project within the overlay zone; the requirement of a conditional use permit for commercial/visitor-serving projects; new parking standards for certain uses; architectural, signage and landscape provisions; and, new enforcement provisions. . The configuration and coverage area of the proposed Commercial/Visitor-Sting Overlay Zone is the result of direct City Council input as to which areas and parcels need to be covered by the provisions of the overlay zone. The basic rationale was to include commercially designated parcels near the Legoland theme park, or adjacent to freeway frontage. Vacant parcels as well as developed parcels are included. The overlay zone will replace an Urgency Ordinance which is currently in effect until August 30, 1999. It is anticipated that City Council consideration of the o\.erlay zone will take place in April or May, 1999. By May 3 1, 1999, LCPA 98-05 will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for processing so that the Local Coastal Program .tiendment, and therefore the overlay zone, will be effective by September 1, 1999. k ZCA 9S-OVZC 99-03/LCPA 98-05 - COMMERCIALMSITOR-SERVING OVER.LAY ZONE March 17,1999 Page 2 III. PROJECT DmTION AND BACKGROUND Below is a timeline of past and future events for the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. June 24, 1997 - Mayor requested a City Council agenda item to discuss the need for City Council review and approval of commercial projects near the Legoland theme park. September 2, 1997 - Urgency Ordinance NS-418 passed and adopted by the City Council. Requires City Council review and approval of any commercial project within the Urgency Ordinance’s coverage- area. October 15, 1997 - Consistent with Government Code Section 65858(a), which regulates urgency ordinances, Urgency Ordinance NS-424 is passed and adopted which extends NS-41 S for 10 months and 15 days, until August 30, 1998. Council also accepted staffs findings which recommended the development of an overlay zone to replace the Urgency Ordinance. March 12, 1998 - City Council Workshop conducted to assist in the development of, and provide policy guidance for, the proposed overlay zone. Public input was solicited and.received. April 30,1998 - Anaheim/‘Buena Park field trip conducted by Planning staff with Mayor Lewis and then Mayor Pro-Tern Finnila to visually assess various elements in the urban landscape which should be prohibited, encouraged, or otherwise regulated, by the overlay zone. August 4, 1998 - One year extension of the Urgency Ordinance I&-424, consistent with Government Code Section 65858(a), by the Council adoption of NS-454. This allows for the completion of the staff work on the overlay zone and is a one time extension until August 30, 1999. No more extensions of the Urgency Ordinance are allowed by the applicable government codes. December 9, 1998 - A noticed Public Workshop to further develop the overlay zone was conducted with the City Council, affected property owners, and the general public. December - March 1999 - Finalization of the contents and format of the overlay zone. Coordination with the City Attorney’s office; extensive property owner contact and briefings; and final preparation of the overlay zone, staff report and related documents. March 17,1999 - Planning Commission public hearing. Am-i1 - Mav. 1999 - City Council public hearing takes place. Mav 31.1999 - Submit LCPA 98-05 to the Coastal Commission by the end of May 1999 June - August. 1999 - Coastal Commission review and approval of the LCPA/overlay zone. September I. 1999 - Urgency Ordinance expires; replaced by the new CommercialNisitor- Serving Overlay Zone which will be effective by September 1, 1999. ./ 72 . ZCA 98Ol/ZC 99-03ILCPA 98-05 - COMMERCLALMSITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE March 17,1999 we 3 The proposed CornmerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone is attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4527 as Exhibit “‘X”, dated March 17, 1999. A brief overview is provided below. The overlay zone defines Commercial/Visitor-Serving Uses and requires such developments within the overlay zone to process a conditional use permit that would be approved by the City Council; the Planning Commission typically is the final decision maker for conditional use permits. The overlay zone has some requirements that are unique including a mandated pre- . filing submittal and review process; a project site notification process that physically posts a sign on the project site during project processing; and, enforcement provisions designed to provide rapid, effective code enforcement for code violations within the overlay zone. A Performance Monitoring Condition is required and will be a standard condition of approval for conditional use permits within the overlay zone. Required findings are also provided to ensure that applicable projects satisfy the intent and purposes of the overlay zone. Existing uses will be subject to the provisions of the overlay zone if they propose new or expanded Commercial/Visitor-Serving uses that either invoke a higher parking standard, or add ’ more than 200 square feet of floor area to existing structures. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan is not part of the overlay zone; residential, church, school, industrial and office uses are exempt from the overlay zone; and, automobile dealerships witbin the Car Country Specific Plan are exempt from the overlay zone. The Development Standards section of the overlay zone addresses the following: Parking, Signs, Building Height, Building Setbacks, Building MaterialsXolors, Architectural Style, Landscaping and Use Separation Standards. In general terms, the overlay zone provides for: increased parking space requirements for certain uses; less signage than is allowed citywide (1 square foot of signage per lineal foot of building frontage vs. current allowance of 1.5 square feet of signage per lineal foot of building frontage); architectural criteria and the allowance for the review of building materials, texture and colors; and, specific landscaping criteria. Motels/hotels are subject to a 600 foot separation standard and gas stations are assigned locational and design criteria within the overlay zone. Prohibited uses within the overlay zone include: stand-alone a liquor stores, RV parks, campgrounds, outdoor display of goods or’ services, any drive&u facility, and sales from temporary displays or mobile platforms on private or public property. Under the Parking Development Standards, parking provisions are established in the overlay zone for the following: Motels/hotels/suites/inns/lodges/resorts; Time Share Projects; Gas Stations/mini-marts; Restaurants; Coffee shops/beverage-serving uses/delicatessens; Meeting roomsiassembly space/convention facilities; individual retail/gift shops/toy stores/convenience stores/general sales; Shopping center retail; Museums; Visitor/information center; Bed and Breakfasts; Car rental agencies; and, Movie theaters. In most cases, the overlay zone requires incrementally more parking than do current codes citywide and/or accounts for employee parking. Some uses are assigned parking provisions in the overlay zone that are not directly addressed in citywide parking provisions. . ZCA 9S-Ol/ZC 99-03/LCPA 98-05 - COMMERCIALMSITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE March 17,1999 IV. ANAT,YSIS 1. Does the proposed Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone address the concerns of the City Council which prompted the initial adoption of an Urgency Ordinance in June 1997? 2 Are the requested legislative actions adequate to establish the new overlay zone? 3. Is the proposed overlay zone consistent with the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program? DISCUSSION 1. ~ercia]Nisitor-Se~~g Overlav Zone . The prospect of a major new theme park opening in the City (Legoland) caused the City Council to reconsider the standard approval process for commercial projects within the area around, and near roads leading to, the Legoland theme park. Based on the experience of other cities which haveundergone an accelerated economic stimulus due to new land uses, the City Council wanted a safeguard against unchecked, uncontrolled commercial development. Council clearly wanted to be established as the final decision maker for such projects. The overlay zone is intended to be a tool by which the Council can become part of the standard processing of cornmercial/visitor- serving projects while also instituting regulations to ensure high quality projects. It is also intended to be sufficiently detailed so that property owners and development applicants may design projects using established standards and criteria. The contents of the proposed overlay zone have been conceptually supported by the City Council during previous workshops designed to solicit and incorporate Council direction. Property owner input has also been considered and integrated into the ordinance where applicable. S.ection 21.208.060 lists prohibited uses in the overlay zone and gas stations, motels and hotels are subject to use separation and locational standards. The overlay zone focuses on quality appearance, adequate and compatible functioning of a commercial use, adequate parking provisions, controlling signage, ensuring high quality architecture and providing detailed landscaping criteria. The conditional. use permit is designated as the entitlement permit for applicable projects in the overlay zone. Related to the processing of such conditional use permits are unique regulations requiring pre-filing interaction between the city and applicant, project site notification to maximize public disclosure about a pending project, and new enforcement provisions which provide more rapid code enforcement compared to current citywide enforcement procedures. Given the above described elements of the overlay zone, and considering the circumstances leading to Council’s involvement in this issue, the intended objectives of the overlay zone and the high degree of City Council direction and input into the development of the overlay zone, staff recommends that the Planning Commission support the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. A ? . ZCA 98-Ol/ZC 99-03/LCPA 98-05 - COMMERCIALMSTTOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE March 17, ! 999 ve Actions Adding a new overlay zone chapter to the City’s Zoning Qrdinance requires a Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 98-01). Placing the overlay zone onto the City’s Zoning Map to establish its boundaries and coverage area requires a Zone Change (ZC 99-03). Since the Civ’s Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City’s Coastal Zone, a Local Coastal Progam Amendment (LCPA 98-05) is necessary to ensure consistency between coastal and city designations and regulations. Subsequent to Coastal Commission’s consideration of LCPA 98- 05, these legislative actions will collectively establish the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone within the City. Staff believes that the new development standards, use of a CUP, and designating the City Council as final decision maker, is adequate to establish the level of commercial development control desired by the Council without over-regulating, or placing e<xcessive limitations on future development. 3. General , The proposed overlay zone does not alter any General regulations. In fact, several development standards designations so that inconsistency between zoning and Plan or LCP land use designations or are more restrictive than underlying the General Plan or the LCP will not result. Existing zoning regulations, which implement the General Plan, will be supplemented via new processing procedures, standards and enforcement provisions for commercial/visitor-service uses within the overlay zone. LT. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impacts on the environment. Section 15061(b)(3) exempts projects which can be seen with certainty, will have no possibility of having a significant environmental impact. The proposed CommercialMsitor-Serving Overlay Zone qualifies for this exemption because the overlay zone’s procedural regulations and development standards will not create environmental impacts when applied to applicable projects in the future. A Notice of Exemption will be issued by the Planning Director after project appro\ral. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 3 -. 3. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4527 (ZCA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4528 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4529 (LCPA) Location Map - EXHIBIT 8 7. ZCA 98-OlKC 99-03LCPA 98-05 - COMMERCIAL VISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map and the City’s Local Coastal Program to establish a Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone for various properties that are located near, or on roadways leading to the LEGOLAND theme park within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced the item and announced that the Commission’s action is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Mr. Wayne introduced Senior Planner, Eric MuAoz who described the project and presented the staff report as follows: Since June, 1997, when the City Council placed an emergency ordinance over the area surrounding LEG0 and directed staff to work on the overlay zone, there have been workshops and property owner input and those results are reflected in this report. (Mr. Mutioz submitted an errata sheet.to the Commission and the public). Using slides and other exhibits, Mr. Mufioz described the overlay zone and discussed the errata sheet as follows: The Overlay Zone was initiated by the City Council. The current Urgency Ordinance MINUTES c-a y A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. - . . PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 Page 10 expires on August 30, 1999. The City Council supports the overlay zone’s area of coverage. The overlay zone has unique Conditional Use Permit processing requirements, unique development standards, and it has rapid enforcement provisions. The location of the overlay zone centers itself around Cannon Road, Palomar Airport Road, and Interstate Highway 5. It also extends to the north to include commercially zoned properties around Tamarack Avenue and the east side of Interstate Highway 5 and extends southward along the freeway frontage to the area around Poinsettia Lane at l-5. The unique Conditional Use Permit processing details are as follows: 1. The Conditional Use Permit is the required permit and it is approved by the City Council. There is a pre-filing submittal process, a pre-filing meeting process, a project site notification procedure, and there is a performance monitoring condition, all standard to the overlay zone. 2. The Development Standards that are covered by the overlay zone include parking, signs, building height, building setbacks, building materials and colors, architectural style, landscaping, and use separations. There is a reduction in the overall signage allowance compared to elsewhere in the City. The building height requirements are basically reiterating the underlying zoning designations, so there is no true change of standard with regards to building height but requires assessment of some special details (roof-top equipment, etc.,) that are not currently required. This will allow building elevations to be properly reviewed. Currently there are no building setbacks, on commercially zoned property, specified in the zoning ordinance. It has been left to negotiations with staff and the ultimate decision maker(s). The building setbacks that are in the overlay zone allows a project to be designed to specified standards. Where underlying zoning designations are in place (the PM Zone, for example) those setbacks will remain in place. Currently, building materials and colors are not regulated and the Site Development process prevents that review. This overlay zone allows the review of building materials and colors. Architectural style is open for proposal. However there are two styles promoted in the overtay zone; Contemporary Southwest and Village Architecture. There is a third alternative, however, which leaves the door open for any architectural style to be proposed as long as it receives support, is appropriate for the area, and is a high quality design. There are some spectfic landscaping criteria, with regard to free-standing signs and the landscaping around them, the landscaping requirement of setback areas, some ratios requiring greater sized trees where there are ratios required for trees relative to setback areas or parking spaces. Ratios have also been established for larger size trees (24 inch box vs. 15 gallon). Use separation standards apply to hotels and motels (a 600 foot separation proposed), gas stations (specific design and location criteria put forward in the overlay zone). Currently the parking standard for hotels, motels, and resorts is 1.2 spaces per unit. The proposed standard is also 1.2 spaces per unit with the exception of additional uses associated with a hotel or motel (gift shop, meeting rooms, restaurants, etc.) will need to park independently of the 1.2 space requirement. Time-share projects currently have a requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit. ” Lock- ow’ units are being defined and a higher ratio will be required for those units MINUTES , - -1’ 5 PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 Page 11 because they may generate more parking demand. Standard units will remain 1.2 spaces per unit. One feature of the time-share regulations concerns the interim parking/unit marketing effort for time-share projects. Time-share developers can pre-plan their sales efforts, and prove to the satisfaction of the Commission that they will be able to park the full scope of their marketing and initial sales efforts. The restaurant parking ratio is doubled in the overlay zone. Many of the restaurants in the area are currently suffering from parking shortages and this parking requirement will add more parking spaces to future restaurants. Shopping center retail parking standards have not changed from the current code, with the exception of adding some spaces for employees, and restaurants required to park independently of shopping center ratio. Museums and Visitor Centers currently have a ratio of 1500. The 1500 is being restated and adds spaces for employees. Car rental agencies are not clearly addressed in the current zoning ordinance, at this time, but the overlay zone has a standard as well as a requirement for a fleet parking plan so that a car rental agency operator can properly plan for the maximum size fleet they anticipate and have adequate storage and can provide screening for the vehicles. The current code requires 1 space for every 5 seats in movie theaters. However, it is a very old code and the movie theater industry has become very dynamic and changes quickly. This has been addressed by requiring the applicant to justify their proposed movie theater parking ratio as part of the pre-filing submittal process so that a reasonable . - parking provision for movie theaters can be made on a case-by-case basis. In summary; prohibited uses are listed in the overlay zone to clearly delineate the uses that are not allowed in the overlay zone. There is a limited impact to existing uses unless they want to expand or intensify their uses beyond the thresholds that are contained in the code. The ordinance does reflect the City Council’s support, via past workshops and solicitation of. input. The plan is to have City Council consideration in April or May, 1999; Coastal Commission processing completed. by September 1, 1999; and the overlay zone effective by September 1.1999. Mr. Murioz reviewed and explained several items in the errata sheet to help clarify its contents, including new wording to clarify the allowance of produce selling stands in response to an inquiry by Attorney Nick Banche, regarding Leslie Farms.. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Mufioz to comment on the letters received from F.F.R. Fisher and Attorney L. Gail Gordon (copies of which are on file in the Planning Department). Mr. Mufioz stated that the letter from Ms. Gordon primarily raises legal issues and deferred that portion of the question to Mr. Rudolf. In response to Mr. Fisher’s concern that if he ever does a redevelopment of his current restaurant site, he will be required to conform with the new restaurant parking standard. Mr. Mufioz stated that the direction given to staff by the City Council, is to put out the most restric- tive/conservative ordinance possible. This overly ordinance reflects that direction. Staff would still propose that the overlay zone’s restaurant standard and a redevelopment of the size of the building will be subject to the constraints of the site and the appropriate development standards. The general feeling is that restaurants get a lot of use and there are times when their parking areas are completely occupied. This ordinance is intended to relieve those types of parking problems. . Commissioner Compas stated that his interpretation of Mr. Fisher’s letter is that this ordinance would place an unfair financial burden on the future of the existing properties such as his, and asked Mr. Mutioz if he agreed with Mr. Fisher’s assessment. Mr. Mutioz replied that without seeing what Mr. Fisher wants to do in the future, it is all conjecture. Without a Site Plan it is impossible to respond to whether or not there might be a financial burden or any other burden. Commissioner Noble asked if it is true that this property has presented several different proposals, over time, all of which have been denied for lack of parking. Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that that was several years ago and nothing has been received recently. MINUTES “i(;; PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 Page 12 Commissioner Welshons referring to a point early in Mr. MuRoz’s staff report, where he stated that “existing uses will be subject to the provisions of the overlay zone if they propose new or expanded commercial/visitor expanded uses”, asked Mr. Mufioz if he has made any changes in the errata sheet that would affect that statement. Mr. Munoz replied by stating that the threshold of invoking the higher parking standard or creating more than 200 square feet of footage is already in the ordinance under 21.208.130. The staff report made a general statement that existing uses would not be exempt unless they intensify; the thresholds that define that intensification is found in the code. The staff report was general and the ordinance gives the specific thresholds. Commissioner Welshons then asked if the intent of this ordinance is to go back and m-capture old developments to bring them in line with the standards that are being established in the overlay zone. Mr. Mufioz replied that. that is not necessarily the intent. If the existing use wishes to keep operating the way they have been, there will be no effort to impose the new standards on them. Commissioner Welshons asked if,- in addition to the 200 square foot threshold triggering the increased parking requirement, will that 200 square foot expansion also trigger the new requirements regarding signs, landscaping, etc. Mr. MuAoz replied that they only have to park that additional 200 square feet and that is their window of expansion without triggering the full scope of the overlay zone, including the CUP requirement. Commissioner Welshons asked what would trigger the full scope of the overlay zone. Mr. Mufioz replied that the trigger would be an expansion of more 200 square feet or invoking a higher parking standard, (for example, by changing from a retail use to a restaurant). Also, the Conditional Use Permit is only for the new or intensified portion of the existing use. Commissioner Welshons asked if they would be required to obtain a CUP in the case of remodeling. Mr. Muiioz replied that if there is no change, and no triggering of the previously discussed thresholds, and the remodel is only to cosmetically enhance the building, there would be no requirement for a CUP. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Munoz to explain the reason for the modification of the first sentence of 21.208.100H2 to clarify that the hotel/motel separation standard is only applied to CommercialNisitor- Serving hotels and motels and not business hotels located on PM zoned property. Mr. Munoz replied that the PM zoned property with a business hotel/motel should not factor into the iocation of a commerciaWvisitor serving hoteVmotel on commercially zones property. Commissioner Welshons asked if Council has expressed any interest in having a like separation or a mix of restaurants instead of 3 fast food versus sit-down types of restaurants all in a row. Mr. Mufioz replied that Council did not get into that level of differentiation between types of restaurants. He added that, as a use, hotels and motels are seen as more sensitive, given Council’s concerns. He also stated that he doesn’t think that restaurants have the same level of concern warranting the same separation standard as hotels and motels. Commissioner Welshons pointed out that specifically left out of this overlay zone is the Carlsbad Ranch and yet many of the things that are being regulated in this new proposal exist or will be existing in the Carlsbad Ranch area such as time-share parking, parking for rental cars, or selling items from roadside stands that are grown on the premises. Yet at the Flower Fields, they sell flowers that are not grown there and they sell other items that are not produced on the premises. Commissioner Welshons then asked if there is a reason why the Carlsbad Ranch has been specifically left out of this proposed overlay zone. Mr. Muiioz replied that original staff recommendations were to include the Carlsbad Ranch but since it is a MINUTES , 7 PLANNING COMMISSIGN March 17, 1999 recently approved Specific Plan, it was determined by Council that there is enough protection in place. However, Council did suggest in workshops leading up to this overlay zone that they wanted the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan amended to put the City Council as the final decision maker for CommerciatNisitor Serving Uses. They did not go further with that to direct staff to implement the standards of the overlay zone within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan as well. Their primary objective was to establish a level of control with their decision making ability. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf to address the possibility of discrimination suits brought by neighboring uses (in the overlay zone) in close proximity to the Carlsbad Ranch. Commissioner Welshons pointed out that there are markets that currently display fruits and vegetables on tables outside the markets and asked if such display will now be prohibited. Mr. Muiioz replied that, technically, Commissioner Welshons is correct. Commissioner Welshons then asked if this proposed ordinance also addresses any kind of freeway signs or do all of those types of signs fall under the existing ordinances. Mr. Mutioz replied that freeway service facility signs would fall under the sign provisions of the zoning ordinance and are referenced in this overlay zone. Commissioner Welshons then asked if pole signs will no longer be allowed. Mr. MuAoz replied that tall pole signs are only allowed for a qualified freeway service facility use which has to be in a certain location 600 feet from the apex of the intersection, etc., and that provision has not been taken away by the overlay zone. Except for. such freeway service facilities, the maximum height for freestanding signs (mounted on a pole) is six feet within the overlay zone. Commissioner Welshons asked if Council asked for something more restrictive than that after looking at other sites, such as Disneyland, with large pole signs along the approaches to the park. Mr. Mutioz replied that signage was one of the top three issues of major importance to the Council and their primary comment was to reduce the overall signage allowance. The current .signage allowance is 1.5 square feet for every linear foot of building frontage. As an example, a building with 200 linear feet along the frontage, their sign allowance would be 300 square feet of signage. Those kinds of numbers caused the Council great concern about the City’s sign allowance, citywide, but especially in the overlay zone. Council’s concern was not so much about pole signs as much as the overall signage allowance and their feeling that the allowance should be reduced. Chairperson Heineman asked Mr. Rudolf to respond to the letter from L. Gail Gordon and also to Commissioner Welshons’ question. Mr. Rudolf stated it would be nice to have comments, such as the ones in the letter, in advance so as to have a little time to prepare answers regarding constitutionality. However,. he stated that he is not impressed that there are any great constitutional problems that the City .need be concerned about the current form of the ordinance. There are some interesting points, all of which have good answers. He stated his feeling that the author of the letter does not seem to have ever visited. Disneyland nor to have read the introductory remarks in the ordinance about what it is that the Council is attempting to achieve by adopting this ordinance. The author also does not seem to have a lot of familiarity with zoning (in general) or in this City (particularly). There are many things that are not approved administratively in this City and are approved either by the Planning Commission or the City Council and that is the way it normally occurs in most of the cities and counties he is familiar with in the U.S. The fact that this is a very highly regulating ordinance does not make it unconstitutional: it just makes it difficult. Mr. Rudolf further stated that he finds interesting the argument that the City’s control over architecture is a First Amendment violation. In his opinion that is not what the law is. He pointed out that there are cases going both ways (constitutional and unconstitutional) across the country. He also pointed out that the City has gone far in providing equal protection and due process protections in this ordinance, more so than in any other ordinance in this City. The provisions that are in place, with regard to approvals, review, and enforcement are even-handed and fair and are in appropriate relationship to the evils sought to be regulated by the ordinance. He stated he is more than ready to defend the ordinance, in a court of law. MINUTES 4E A PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 Page 14 In response to Commissioner Welshons question, Mr. Rudolf pointed out that there are many instances of two different zones divided by a street or road with different rules applicable to each and the City Attorney’s office has consistently found that to be constitutional. Responding to Commissioner Welshons’ question regarding roadside stands and the merchandise sold from them, Mr. Wayne stated that each is governed by the zone in which they are located. If a merchant is in violation of a zone code, it becomes a Code Enforcement issue and is dealt with accordingly. Chairperson Heineman opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Mark Berger, Pacific Development Partners, 177 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, addressed the Commission regarding a property in the southeast quadrant of Poinsettia Lane and Interstate Highway 5. He pointed out that the overlay zone certainly does have a place in the overall scheme. However, the very small 5 acre property he has referred to will be severely impacted by this overlay zone. He passed out a sketch of the conceptual Site Development Plan and a list of prospective tenants for the project proposed for the property. He stated that they had met with the Board of Directors of the adjacent residential community to determine how they would develop the site. As a result of the meetings, the design was created taking into account all of the things the residents of Sea Cliff wanted to see developed. The homeowners had a voice in the way everything is laid out in the plan and the overlay zone would require a reconfiguration that would radically change the overall concept as well as go against the wishes of the neighbors. One of the things the Sea Cliff residents want is a 24 hour pharmacy with a 24 hour access drive-up window. Mr. Berger went on to point out that this overlay zone will adversely impact this property perhaps more so than the other properties in the overtay zone because of its small size. John Edwins, Pacific Development Partners, P.O. Box 2488, Del Mar, stated that this property has a burden greater than most because in 1983, the State of California recorded CC&Rs against the property with development standards that included setbacks, building heights, signage, landscaping, etc., so that the site plan (as it exists today) was designed with the help of the neighboring homeowners keeping those setbacks in mind. The difference between the original setbacks for this property and the ones proposed in the overlay ordinance is that the area in the setbacks could not be used for anything but landscaping. In reviewing the draft overlay plan, there are many areas of concern. One of the concerns is the building setbacks. If this property were required to conform to this overlay ordinance, 27% of the entire project site would be in setbacks. For a small piece of property like this one, that is a significant amount of real estate to be tied up on setbacks. Based on the landscaping standards, this project would be required to plant 300 trees, (150 of them 15-gallon and 149 of the 24-inch box trees). The problem with that is that in working with the neighbors, they agreed to preserve the views for many of the homeowners. Now, with this proposed ordinance, they will be required to eliminate or abandon their view preservation promises. By contrast, the standard landscaping standards would require them to plant only six trees because the property is so small. Another problem is the proposed requirement for a 42 inch wall around the entire 5 acres which creates an aesthetic problem as well as a practical one. Finally, because of the recently passed restriction on drive-through facilities, there is a question as to whether a drive-up pharmacy window will be considered as a drive-through. In closing, Mr. Edwins stated that if they meet the overlay zone they can’t meet the homeowners’ conditions and if they can’t keep the homeowners happy, they can’t expect to have a viable NeighborhoodKommarcial canter. Commissioner Compas asked if Pacific Development Partners has an alternate proposal. Mr. Edwins replied that they would like to be released from the overlay zone, and they would like to develop the property under their Coastal conditions that are recorded against the property. Commissioner Noble asked if Mr. Edwins realized that the wall requirement is intended as a noise mitigation wall. Mr. Edwins replied that he understood it to be for screening of automobiles and that a 42 inch wall would do nothing for noise mitigation. Morgan McPherson, 520 S. Virgil Avenue, Los Angeles, representing the Carpenter’s Pension Trust which owns Pea Soup Andersen and the property surrounding it, stated that the proposed overlay zone will MINUTES , j - ,’ PLANNING COMMISSION March 17,1999 Page 15 create the opposite effect than what it intended. He pointed out that he has been negotiating with two restaurants to take over the restaurants at Pea Soup Andersen and because of the proposed overlay provision, both restaurants have refused to continue negotiations until legal opinions can be gathered. It has literally brought the negotiations to a stop. These are very well known, high quality restaurants that he is sure will be welcomed in Carlsbad. He stated that they are sympathetic to the intent of the overlay in that Carlsbad wants to assure the community that the developments will be quality developments. L. Gail Gordon, Attorney at Law, representing the Carpenter’s Pension Trust, 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1200, Los Angeles, responded to Mr. Rudolf’s earlier comments regarding her letter dated March 17. 1999. She stated that she believes there are serious equal protection questions relating to this ordinance. She further stated that in all of her years as a Deputy City Attorney and in private practice, she has never seen as restrictive an ordinance as this one, and, for that reason feels that it has serious constitutional impediments that should be researched thoroughly. Ms. Gordon added that she and her colleagues were not present at this meeting to try to intimidate or make anyone uncomfortable about a court challenge, but were there only to say that there will be an enormously detrimental effect on the possibility of quality development if these kinds of standards are imposed. That is why the law exists. She quoted the U.S. Constitution as follows: “Property rights are only those economic advantages that the law protects. Take away the laws defacto protection and all you are left with are some empty words on an old piece of parchment.” She urged the Commission to ask the City Attorney to look at the equal protection arguments, the trademark infringement arguments, the potential taking arguments. and beyond that, think about fairness. Ms. Gordon urged the Commission to continue this matter and ask the City Attorney to report back on his findings. Regarding Carpenter’s Trust’s expressions of cooperation and interest in presenting a good image, Commissioner Welshons pointed out that she has observed rows and rows of vehicles, storage units, trash bins, tractor-trailer rigs, etc., parked against the fence behind the Pea Soup Andersen property and questioned the consistency of image on their property. Mr. McPherson responded by stating that many of the items mentioned are there because of the refurbishment to the property that is in progress. As for the tractor-trailer rigs, Pea Soup Andersen accommodates truckers who sometimes stay only for one night or they may stay for several days running, depending on their particular hauling schedules. Ron Rouse, representing Mr. and Mrs. Winter, their chi!dren, and grandchildren, who collectively own several small properties representative of nearly every element in the overlay zone. What they don’t have is the benefit of a fair or level playing field in relation to the immediately surrounding retail and commercial serving circumstances. Regarding Item #6 in the errata sheet, Mr. Rouse suggested that the third line, beginning with “. . . the adjacent industrial ofice area, and not the general public,. . .” be deleted and replaced with ” . . . and meeting the requirements for such uses contained in the PM zone.” That way the exact restrictions and prohibitions will be carried into the overlay ordinance. Mr. Rouse also expressed concern as to the fairness of the calculations for signage where very small properties or frontages are concerned. He also suggested a formula for calculating signage for a comer property where one frontage is narrower than the other. For example: A comer lot with a building 100 feet long and 25 feet wide would be allowed approximately 87 square feet of signage under the current signage allowance. However, if the signage allowance were to be calculated using the longer of the two measurements (in this case 100 feet) or .75% of the combined linear footage, the signage allowance would ba considerably more fair and an owner of a corner parcel could never be cheated out of his or her fair signage allowance. Mr. Rouse further stated that to impose severe setback requirements on properties, when the immediate neighbor does not have the same requirements, in his opinion is counter productive and also susceptible to some legal concern. Regarding gas stations, Mr. Rouse suggested that there are some major inconsistencies. On one hand gas stations are required to be on intersections of prime, major, or other arterials, and on the other hand access is prohibited off prime and major arterials. With regard to the 600’ separation rule for hotels and motels, Mr. Rouse suggested that such a rule would be a disincentive for people who would otherwise upgrade and rehabilitate their properties. In conclusion, Mr. Rouse stated his belief that the City should re-think this proposed overlay zone. Leonard Martyns, 7304 Lantana Terrace, Carlsbad, a member of the Project Review Committee appointed by the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Board of Directors, stated his support for the continued inclusion of the 5.1 acre parcel, located on the southeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo del Norte, in the MINUTES -~ PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 proposed Overlay zone. Because of major impact issues it is imperative that any and all development be carefully scrutinized by the City. By retaining this parcel within the overlay zone, the proper objectives can be achieved. Mr. Martyns also stated that this is the first he has heard that any residents of Sea Cliff have been able to review a Site Development Plan for any proposed project on that parcel. Nicco Carrigan, Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150. Carlsbad, stated that his company has reviewed the proposed overlay zone and the changes in the errata sheet and are comfortable in their support of it. Ted Rhoads, 7452 Trigo Lane, Cartsbad. stated that he is the owner of a motel on Pio Pica in Cartsbad and voiced strong objections to that property being included in the proposed overlay zone. Mr. Rhoads pointed out that at the last widening of the freeway, he lost approximately 35 feet of his property to that widening. As a result of that loss and the additional setback requirements with the overlay, Mr. Rhoads stated that he will never be able to expand or improve his motel property. He stated that he feels that this sort of ordinance is designed for much larger parcels with much more modem development and should not be forced upon the small business owner. He went on to say that his property was never included in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and should not have to suffer because of it. He also pointed out that his motel is located on a very lightly traveled, almost 60 year old street. His property does not adversely impact the neighborhood or the traffic in that neighborhood and should therefore be excluded from the overlay zone. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Heineman closed Public Testimony. Mr. Muiloz responded to some of the Public Hearing comments as follows: 1. In all of the time this project has been in progress, he has minimal comment or correspondence regarding any,concems. 2. Regarding Mr. Burger’s comment regarding the importance of collaboration, Mr. Murioz stated that if that were the case, they would have acted upon both written and verbal repeated invitations (over the last 4 months) to come in and meet with staff in an attempt to work through some of the technical issues they feel are impacting their development in the overlay zone. They have never responded to any of the invitations to meet with Mr. Muiioz. 3. Staff is working on some new allowances for setbacks and without seeing the Site Development Plan (Pacific Development Partners), he cannot address Mr. Edwin’s setback concerns at this time. 4. Regarding the trucks at Pea Soup Andersen, Mr. MuAoz stated that something may have been overlooked. 5. Regarding comer lots and the way signage is calculated for them, if. the Commission or City Council feels that the current method of calculation is too restrictive, that can be adjusted. Also, a comer lot with its building visible from two elevations instead of one, is a form of visual exposure that the interior lots will never have. 6. Regarding the 600 foot separation standard, tt was a part of the December 9, 1998, draft ordinance and has been out for public review since then. The only difference is that it was designed specifically for motels and now it also covers hotels. In the December 9, 1998 version of the draft ordinance there was an architectural design based difference between hotels and motels, in that motels are generally thought of as lesser quality than are hotels and focus on travelers in motor vehicles. The motel is defined by individual doors, all facing the outside of the building, and a hotel is considered more of a resort with a different design. Therefore the December draft ordinance only covered motels. The Council workshop disagreed and said that hotels and motels, regardless of design attributes, need to be subject to a separation standard. 7. Regarding Mr. Rhoads’ motel on Pio Pica. the reason his motel has been included in the MINUTES 2-i PL4NNING COMMISSICN March 17, 1999 . Page 17 overlay zone is that the entire block has a Travel/Recreation/Office General Plan Designation. Since the time the motel was built, the R-3 zone has eliminated the allowance for hotels and motels. There is probably .a larger challenge there for either a zone change or a zone code amendment to re-introduce the allowance for hotels and motels in an R-3 zone. That aside, if he wished to expand his motel, this ordinance would require a Conditional Use Permit for the new intensified portion and is theoretically possible. It is also theoretically impossible, without a design and site plan, to say what is possible. The other reason it was included in the overlay is not so much for what it is today, compared to newer buildings that were referenced elsewhere in the City, but by its redevelopment potential because it is immediately adjacent to the freeway with freeway visibility, and adjacent to the last off ramp before you cross Agua Hedionda Lagoon and reach the off ramp to LEGOLAND. Regarding the references to gas stations, Mr. Wojcik stated that it is recognized that it is a rather tough standard but it is felt that driveways should not be permitted on prime or major arterials because it degrades the service level of the intersection as well as the road segment itself. As far as the 130 feet standard, a lot on the corner of Avenida Encinas and Cannon was observed and found to have a depth of 150 feet. As a result, that corner was used as a model to emphasize the need to get as far away from the arterial intersection as possible because it was recognized that without an additional driveway on that arterial, the allowable driveway would have to be a left turn in and left turn out. Again emphasizing the need to get it further away from the intersection to avoid gridlock at the intersection. Referring to Mr. Rouse’s comment regarding dis-incentives,..Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Muiioz if he agrees with Mr. Rouse’s statement. Mr. MuAoz, replied that if the basis for their improvement is along the lines or paralleling the reason for the overlay zone, now that LEGOLAND is in, an economic stimulus is there that was never there before, the thought may be that they want to put some money into renovation and expand the envelope of the original approval and try to increase the intensity as much as possible. If that is the case, then that could impact that type of proposal. If, however, the thought is to expand within those windows of allowance for not being subject to the overlay zone, then it would be a non-issue as far as the proposal at hand. It comes down to magnitude and degree of the specific proposal. : Commissioner Compas asked Mr. MuAoz if anything said during this meeting has given him cause to re- think or change anything he has proposed. Mr. MuAoz replied that unless there is some legal basis for changes, he would not change anything unless directed by Council to “pull back” on certain items. Commissioner Welshons -asked Mr. MuAoz for his impressions regarding comments about visual discrimination between the existing 20 foot setbacks on Cannon and the overlay ordinance requirements for new development of 50 feet. Mr. Murioz replied that what is there now was built according to the existing codes. However, it was City Council that directed that there be 50 foot setback on all new construction only on Cannon Road and only east of Interstate Highway 5. Referring to Carlsbad Boulevard, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Muitoz if he expects to see the overlay zone being spread to include any parcels along the boulevard if the alignment of Cartsbad Boulevard changes. Mr. MuAoz replied that it is a possibility because the realignment project is in its early stages now, and nothing can really be precluded or eliminated from the potential of what it could produce. Also, there are some parcels in the overlay zone that may be affected by such an alignment of the boulevard. Commissioner Welshons stated that, as pointed out, the low income housing project was approved earlier in this meeting, and asked if there is any conflict with the potential approval of this overlay zone. Mr. Mutioz replied that that area is a recently approved Specific Plan, with Council’s recent support, and MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION March 17, 1999 Page 18 primarily residential land use is excluded from the overlay zone. Also, in a recently approved Specific Plan, commercial properties have been approved and Council probably feels that safeguards are in place and therefore not subject to the overlay zone. He therefore sees no conflicts. Commissioner Welshons asked if it is appropriate to attach suggestions to the City Council with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Muiioz replied that all suggestions would be welcomed at Council. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4527, 4528, and 4529, recommending approval of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 98-01, Zone Change ZC 99-03, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 98-05, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the errata sheet dated March 17, 1999 as submitted by staff. Commissioner Noble stated his support for the proposed overlay zone. Commissioner Savary stated that she can support changes in ordinances and is in support of this overlay ordinance. Commissioner Welshons stated her agreement with the proposed overlay zone. She added that there is probably some fine tuning that will be required. She asked that her following comments be made part of the record for the benefit of City Council. . 1. While part of the overlay ordinance addresses the subject of not allowing four gas stations on four comers of one intersection, it is the Commissioner’s suggestion that a similar restriction be put in place to require a mix of restaurants in an area so as to not end up with several fast-food restaurants in a row. An example would be the mix of restaurants west of Interstate 5, between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. 2. Commissioner Welshons stated that she feels that the overlay ordinance should apply to everything th,at is being excluded, specifically the Carlsbad Ranch, Car Country, the Flower Fields, etc. The concerns that Council specifically asked to be regulated in this overlay zone ordinance are occurring in the Flower Fields (selling products not produced on the premises), in Car Country (employee parking on the streets), and in the Time Shares (specifically the rental cars that could be stored there). 3. Commissioner Welshons feels that the undeveloped properties in the Poinsettia Properties project should be covered by this overlay zone ordinance as well as the, other properties if they expand more than the allowed 200 square feet. The suggestion would be that the intent of the new ordinance should be to eventually make everything subject to the new ordinance by recapturing older parcels and making them consistent with the new. 4. Commissioner Welshons believes there should be an ordinance to control the tractor/trailer rigs parked on premises for a period of time. Commissioner Nielsen stated that the standards appear to be appropriate and he does support the proposal. Commissioner L’Heureux agreed with Commissioner Nielsen and supports the proposal. Commissioner Compas stated he feels the concept is a good one but questions whether the overlay zone should be extended as far north and as far south as it is. He stated that he feels it may be somewhat over restrictive and is going to be unfair to some. He agreed that Carlsbad Ranch should be included in the zone. The Commissioner stated that he will support it but hopes that Council will hear what has been discussed and suggested here at this meeting. MINUTES __ - A d -’ PLANNING COMMlSSiON March 17.1999 Page 19 . Chairperson Heineman stated that he echoes the sentiments of all of the Commissioners and since this is an ordinance that .carries out the views of the City Council, he feels that the Commission’s job is to comment, not to change. He stated his support with the assurance that comments made this evening will, indeed, go to City Council. VOTE: 7-o AYES: Heineman, Compas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Welshons, Savary, Noble NOES: None ABSTAIN: None . Citypf- m M 0 m-0. August 12,1999 John Edwins P.O. Box 2488 Del Mar, CA 92014 SUBJECT: SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW - PRELIM 99-43 APN: 214-471-53 A preliminary review of your project was conducted. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The rxeliminarv review does not reoresent an in-death analvsis of vour oroiect. Additional issues of concern mav be raised after vour aoolication is submitted and processed for a more seecific and detailed review. Planninq: 1. 2. Given the site’s C-1-Q zoning and location within the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, the project would require the processing of a Conditional Use Permit to be approved by the City Council. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a valid coastal development permit must be in full force and effect. Given the existing coastal development permit issued by the California Coastal Commission, it is likely that an amendment to that permit would be required by the Coastal Commission. On future exhibits, accurately plot/locate all of the following features ,within 100’ of the subject site’s boundaries: structures, roadways, sidewalks, the Seacliff entry structure and entry gate. This is required by item 2 a. (1) of the conditional use permit checklist (all checklist items should be provided as part of the formal CUP submittal). Overall qradinq concept/hillside develooment/wall heiahts: The proposed grading concept and resulting crib wall on the freeway and Poinsettia Lane frontages are major project issues. It appears that the project would be technically exempt from the new/pending hillside development ordinance if the subject slope does not meet the dual criteria of 15% slope gradient and greater than 15 feet in elevational difference. If this dual criteria are met, then the regulation of downhill perimeter slopes per 21.95120 C b would apply which limits wall heights to 6 feet. If the dual criteria are not met, then the downhill perimeter slope regulations would not apply. Furthermore, nonresidential projects are exempt from the grading volume and slope height standards of the hillside ordinance per section 21.95.140 D. 5 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carkbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @ PRE 99-43 - SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW August 12,1999 3. Nevertheless, if technically exempt from the ordinance, staff support for the regrading of the subject site is contingent upon further assessment of the realistic, long term appearance this wall could maintain based on landscaping design and maintenance. The Keystone Idea Book supplied to staff as part of the preliminary review contains some examples of wall elements that would need to be incorporated into the subject wall’s design; such as a narrow bench or platform type feature located mid-wall or slightly lower that could support landscaping/tree plantings (see page 13, 22 and 41). Additional, larger sized tree plantings would also need to be proposed at the top and bottom of the wall in addition to the basic vine/landscape plantings to be within the crib wall. Every opportunity to provide landscaping (trees and vines or attaching plant forms) adjacent to buildings with a freeway or Poinsettia frontage would also assist in refining the wall concept for staffs continued review. , While it is understood that the grading concept is to flatten a site that was previously manufactured (through prior, authorized grading) to accommodate the modern commercial development as proposed. The issue is to balance the development intensity of the site against the aesthetic, long term visual impact of the high wall and corresponding buildings; as well as keeping this in the scale of a neighborhood commercial site despite its freeway location (it is not a typical commercial project with freeway frontage that can design itself to not only be highly attractive but also draw customers off the freeway). Estimated, but accurate, grading quantities would also be helpful in staffs continued review of this issue in addition to cross-sectional analysis and possibly visual simulations. Pedestrian movements/circulation: Poinsettia Lane has a good pedestrian connection to the site and a similar pedestrian connection is needed between the site and Paseo del Norte. Pedestrian links via sidewalks, adjacent to circulation lanes and/or setbacks to the eastern edge of the site and to a lesser degree the southern edge of the site should be provided. As part of the site’s improved pedestrian circulation system, pedestrian markings or crosswalks/stamped concrete areas, could designate pedestrian crossing points or paths and create more a neighborhood commercial feeling rather than an automobile dominated/freeway accessible commercial center that discourages pedestrian movements. 4. Parkinq: The calculated parking space requirement appears to be correct except that without floor plans staff can not verify the amount of indoor and outdoor seating areas (which park at I:1 00). The Coffee House is shown at 1:300 but that is only for the retail/sales area; is there any indoor seating area associated with the coffee use that also needs to park at 1 :lOO like the outdoor seating areas? It appears that Pad A will contain any proposed restaurant or coffee/beverage drinking use; so a parking breakdown just for Pad A may simplify the review of the parking requirements. Floor plans associated with the PRE 99-43 - SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW August 12,1999 Paae 3 5. 6. 7. a. 9. formal s-1 will help verify the restaurant locations and amounts of seating areas. A restaurant located within the commercial suites noted as Shop 1 should be clearly noted on the site plan/summary table as well as floor plans. Based on the uses proposed, the retail uses will park at I:200 to reflect the shopping center retail standard; any restaurants or beverage/seating uses will park at the standards required for those uses. The 5.2/1000 parking ratio noted on the site plan can be removed since it does not reflect any code requirement; the parking standards for the proposal are described above. Sians: The level of proposed/shown freeway oriented signage will not be supported by staff in the context of a neighborhood commercial center. The freeway location adds sensitivity to the site as far as architectural style and overall development; it does not create an allowance to propose freeway/visitor serving signage to a neighborhood commercial site.. Elevations should reflect signage but only at dimensions and in locations that would be allowed by an Overlay Zone compliant sign program. Such a program was not submitted as part of the prelim review. Staff would be willing to review and comment on a sign program for this project that meets the Overlay Zone prior to formal CUP submittal. Buildina Heiaht: Provide dimensions to the maximum building height and maximum tower height on all elevation exhibits. The maximum building height of any structure is 35 feet; only architectural protrusions that satisfy the required findings of 21.26.030 may be permitted beyond 35 feet and up to 45 feet. Building heights over 35 feet need to be redesigned to have a 35 foot maximum height with only verifiable architectural protrusions allowed between 35 and 45 feet. Buildina Setbacks: Setbacks per the Overlay Zone appear to be adequately provided. All site plan, grading, civil and landscape exhibits should show the required 30 x 30’ minimum decorative paving on the approach driveway (decorative paving to be located outside of city right of way). Buildinq Materials/Architectural Stvle: The building materials and architectural style are noted and generally supported, however, staff would like to perform a focused color review of the final proposal with the project’s color scheme and architectural details. Some elements such as awning or trim colors may need modification after the focused review of colors. No illuminated or metal awnings . are allowed by the Overlay Zone. Landscaoinq: The calculated setback and parking lot tree requirements appear to be correct. One detail is to calculate the tree requirement and then round up after the calculations have been completed. Also, for setback and parking lot trees, note how many are required/proposed to be 24 inch box sizes. The corresponding tree and plant list should accommodate the required numbers and PRE 99-43 - SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW August 12,1999 Paoe 4 sizes (15 gallon vs. 24 inch box) of project trees. If the wall issues can be adequately addressed as raised in comment #2 above, a focused landscaping effort for the wall will be required and will likely involve cross sectional analysis, detailed review of proposed plantings and possibly visual simulations. Freeway and Poinsettia Lane frontages will be closely reviewed as far as landscaping and visual mitigation. Demonstrate compliance with the freestanding sign landscape theme as part of any future sign program submittal. It appears that the use of screen walls will not be necessary to screen surface parking areas since the grade separation will perform the screening function. The CUP submittal should include Poinsettia Lane and Paseo del Norte cross sections to verify this analysis. In addition, the cross-sectional analysis will allow for the project to demonstrate compliance with the Overlay Zone’s requirement to screen loading, refuse and delivery areas. &he drive-thru lacEfor the drugstore remains in the project proposal, a screen wall that is at least 4 feet high will be required around the drive-thru lane’s perimeter to significantly screen queued vehicles. 10. Use Separation Standards : Only applies to gas stations and hotels/motels, 2. 3. 4. The driveway approach needs to be reduced to a single lane for ingress and a single lane for egress. The proposed project is projected to generate 6,023 // Average Daily Trips, of which only a fraction will derive from the Sea View Cliffs Community. Therefore, the middle ingress lane is not needed to accept left turns w& from vehicles exiting the Sea View Cliffs Community. Creating two lanes for koa3 ingress can sometimes cause confusion or conflicts between motorists entering 1’730 the site from opposite directions. The motorists may try to converge into to the -. 77 ~3~~. same lane. .I Cal Trans needs to be notified of any proposed drainage or encroachment onto their right-of-way early in the process. Storm water exiting the site needs to be filtered for surface pollutants as required per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit held by the City. Since the design proposes to collect storm water runoff via inlets into storm drains, filters in the inlets provide one possible method of compliance. However, a preferable method would be to add an area of vegetation at the terminus of the rip-rap dissipater. The vegetation would need to be of a type which tolerates and accepts oils and other particulates commonly found in storm water originating from parking lots. Irrigation lines would need to ,be installed to ensure plant growth and stability during the summer months (see attached information on, best management practices for biofilters). ,I// ia Within the drive-thru lane for the drug store, a curb needs to be placed at least ,:’ -. i.-- h---.:. -P.-i- ;. / PRE 99-43 - SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW August 12,1999 Paae 5 two feet from the edge of the building to prevent vehicles from accidentally scraping the wall. 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. Fire: 1. 2. The minimum surface grade permitted on asphalt concrete is 1%. The minimum grade permitted on Portland cement concrete (concrete swales) is 0.5%. Provide a vertical cuNe of the driveway approach as required with grade breaks greater that 1.5%. Show how the location of the trash enclosure at the rear of the market will be located such that trash pick-up service can be provided. It appears that the loading bay will interfere with pick-up. A semi-tractor trailer must comply with the turning radius requirements established by Figure 407D of the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual. Based on this requirement and contrary to what is shown, it appears that the trucks will not be able to complete all of their turns without colliding with obstructions such as curbs or the market. This problem is especially evident as the truck exits the loading bay and turns eastward approximately 90 degrees. A hydrology and soils study will need to be submitted with the CUP application. Additional information is needed on the grading plan in order for us to determine whether the proposed crib wall is acceptable. Information needed includes grading quantities and several cross sections of the wall. In addition, permitting the wall and grading in general will depend on the grading ordinance in effect at the time of application submittal. Currently, the development is subject to Chapter 11.06 (Excavation and Grading) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. However, this ordinance may eventually be superseded by a new grading ordinance (Chapter 15.16 - Grading and Erosion Control) which was adopted by the City in December 1996 and is currently pending the California Coastal Commission’s approval. Although the new ordinance was adopted by the City Council, the Coastal Commission could modify the ordinance or deny it entirely. Due to this variable, we cannot determine with any certainty that the proposed grading will comply with City ordinance at the time of application submittal. The Market, Shop 1 and Drug buildings shall be protected by automatic fire sprinklers. Two on-site fire hvdrants will be required. PRE 99-43 - SEA VIEW POINTE PRELIMINARY REVIEW August 12,1999 Paae 6 Water: 1. Meet with the Fire Marshall and establish fire protection requirements (fire hydrant locations, fire sprinkler/fire department connection locations, etc.) 2. Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss preliminary layouts for public water line improvements (looped pipeline system) and the fire detector valve location. 3. Meet with the District’s Project Engineer to discuss potable water meter, recycled water meter and sewer lateral locations. 4. The Developer must also work with the District to establish the areas required to be irrigated with recycled water. Please contact Eric Munoz at (760) 438-1161, extension 4441 if you have any Planning questions: David Rick at extension 4324 for Engineering issues or Mike Smith at (760) 931-2121 for Fire issues. - Sincerely, GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:ENM:eh c: Michael J. Holzmiller Don Rideout David Rick Mike Smith Bill Plummer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Peter Walsh, Property Owner CARLSBAD ‘1 I- I I SOUT;Y L/&r’ L 5TATE OF CAL/r I l . . . . . kmu x/y - Lt?/-SC3 5.126 ACS. -\ -.2--\ c21 / 4%2fEV’ / - I -~- 13: ‘- ! General Plan - - -- .a. &ighborhood Commercial (NJ:--- chandise in shopping and specialty goods than the neigh- This category includes commercial uses that Pro- vide limited retail business, service, and office fGlities for the daily needs and wnvenience of residents in adjacent neighborhoods. These wm- mercial uses generally exist as a group of small stores and service shops but, on small sites, may exist with only one tenant. Typically, such centers include a grocery store as the principle anchor tenant and such uses as banks, drug stores, beauty shops, barber shops and laundromats. Frequently, a quick stop conve- nience store is an adjunct to a neighborhood wmmercialcenterand assuch,isanintegralpart of that center. It may be a f%xstanding entity or combined with one or two other wnvenience uses, such as a coin-operated laundry, or food service. Sometimes a neighborhood commercial center is located adjacent to or within a wmmu- nity wmmercial site. The neighborhood center serves the daily needs of nearby residents while, at the same time, the comrmmity center provides a greater variety of services. Due to their rela- tively small size, not all potential neighborhood commercial sites are indicated on the Land Use Map. borhood center although this category may include some of the uses also found in a neighborhood center. Often a supermarket, large variety store, cinema, or discount department store functions as the anchor tenant. The emergence of new anchor tenants (i.e., high volume spe- Gal@ or warehouse stores) has resulted in new, special forms of community commercial centers. As an example, this type of center may have a grouping of special tenants who operate a retail/wholesale business dealing with home improvement items. Sometimes a wmmunity commercial center is located next to or across the road from a regional center because the two types of centers offer different ranges of merchandise. Community wmmercial centers also may include commercial uses ranging from individual, small lotsinthevillageandintheindustrialareastolarger wmmunity shopping/office centers and complexes. Ap- propriate uses include personal and business retail and service, automobile service, restaurants, and recreation wmmercial. Itisreasonabletoexpedthatasthecitywn~ues to g-row and the population increases, the need for addi- tional wmmunity wmmercial sites will be generated. It is also reasonable to expect that at such a time, some existing land uses will be redesignated to wmmercial uses. Although future wnununi~ wmnercial sites are not located on the Land Use Map, they should be located so as to prevent detrimental effects on adjacent land and toensureaccesstothestreetsystem. Locationsshouldbe suitably separated from residential development. All areas proposing a community wmmercial land use shall provide details regarding location, architecture, site de- sign, landscaping, circulation, signage, height, and scale of the proposed,development. Neighborhood commercial uses are gen- erally located within a convenient walking and/or bicycling distance f?om intended customers and should be linked with surrounding neighborhoods by pedestrian and/or bicycle access. Landscaped buffers should be provided around the project site betweenneighborhoodcammercialusesandather uses to ensure compatibility. All buildings should be low-rise and should include architectural/ design features to be compatible with the neigh- borhood. Permitted uses and building intensities shouldbecompatiblewithsurnnmdinglanduses. b. Community Commercial (C): The Wmunity commercial category plans for cen- ters that offer a greater depth and range of mer- c. Regionai Commercial (R): Regional wm- mercial centers provide shopping goods, general mer- chandise, automobile sales, apparel, furniture, and home furnishing in fill depth and variety. Two or more depart- ment stores are typically the major anchors of a regional shoppingcenter,whileoshcrstoressupplementandwmple- ment the various department store lines. New fixms of Page 17 - III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS OVERALL LAND USE PATTERN A. GOALS A.1 A City which preserves and enhances the environment, character and image of itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented community. A.2 A City which provides for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout the commuru ‘tyanden- sum that all such uses, type, amount, design and arrange- ment serve to protect and’enhance the environment, char- acter and image of the City. A.3 A City which provides for land uses which through their arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the community. B. OBJECTIVES B.l To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and neighborhood ofthe City through the development and arrangement of various land use components. B.2 To create a visual form for the community, that is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety, highly identifi- able, reflecting cultural and environmental values of the residents. B.3 Toprovideforthesocialandeconomicneeds ofthecommunityinconjunctionwithpermittedlanduses. - . . . . C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION P~oGfuMs C.l Arrange land uses so that they preserve communi~ identity and are orderly, functionally efkient, healthful, convenienttothepublicandaestheGcailypleas- ing. C.2 Establish development standards for all land use categories that will preserve natural features and characteristics, especially those within rural, coastal and/ or hillside areas. C.3 Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land uses along the interface of Merent density categories. Special attention should be given to buffering and transi- tional methods, especially, when reviewing properties where different residential densities or land uses are involved. C.4 Encourageclusteringwhenitisdoneinaway that is compatible with existing, slajacent development. C.5 Enter into discussions and negotiations with other cities, the county, or responsible agencies when prospective developments in their areas are incompatible with adjacent Carlsbad areas in regards to land uses, density, type of dwellings or zoning. Attention should be given to the use oftransitional methods to ensure compat- ibility. C.6 Reviewthe ar&tecture ofbuildings withthe focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the chamcter of each neighborhood. C.7 Evaluate each application for development of property with regard to the following specific criterk 1. Site design quality which may be indicated by theharmonyoftheproposcdbuildingsiatermsof size, height and location, with respect to existing neighboring development. Page 26 ) I i I I I I I I c 1 1 I I 1 I 0 - 2. Site design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of landscaping and screening. 3. Site design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efkiency of circulation, or onsite and offsite tra& safe@, privacy, etc. 4. The provision of public an&or private usable open space and/or pathways designated in the Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements. 5. Contributions to and extensions of existing systemsoffootorbicyclepaths,equestriantrails, andthegreenbeltsprovidedforintheCirculation, Parks and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the GeneraI Plan. 6. Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Management Plan. 7. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle link- ages to nearby transportation corridors. 8. The provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate inwme households. 9. Policies and programs outlined in Local Coastal Programs where applicable. C.8 ProvideforasuBicientdiversityoflanduses so that schools, parks and recreational areas, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity to each resident of the City. C.9 Consider the social, economic and physical impacts on the wmmunity when implementing the Land Use Element. C. 10 Encourage and promote the establishment Of childcare facilities in safe and convenient locations throughout the wmmunity to accommodate the growing . . demand fbr childcare in the wmmunity caused by demo- graphic, economic and social forces. C.11 Restrict buildings used for large public assembly, including, but not limited to schools, theaters, auditoriums and high density residential deveIopment, to those areas which are relatively safe from unexpected seismic activity and hazardous geological conditions. C. 12 Develop and retain open space in all categories of land use. C.13 Pursuant to Section 65400(b) of the Gov- ernment Code, the Planning Commission shall do both of the following: 1. Investigate and make rewmmendations to the City Council regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the general plan or ele- mentofthegeneralplan,sothatitwillserveasan e%kctive guide for orderly growth and develop- ment, preservation and conservation of open- spacelandandnatural resources, andtheeflicient expenditure of public funds relating to the sub- jects addressed in the general plan. 2. Provide an annual report, by October 1 of each year, to the City Council, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding: (a) The status of the plan and progress in its implementation inchuiingtheprogressinmeet- ing its share of regional housing needs deter- mined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts to remove governmental wnstraints to the rnahmance, improvement, and develop- ment of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583. (b) The degree to which its approved general plan complies with the guidelines developed and adopted pursuant to Section 65040.2, and the date of the last revision to the general plan. % 3 1% il d C.7 Locate higher density. residential-uses in dose proximity to open space, community facilities, and other amenities. C.8 Consider high and medium high density residential areas only where existing or proposed public facilities can accommodate the increased population. C.9 Coordinate provision of peripheral open areas in adjoining residential developments to maxim& the benefit of the open space. C. 10 Encourage a variety of residential accom- modations and amenities in commercial areas to increase the advantages of “close in” living and convenient shop- ping. C. 11 Require new residential development to provide pedestrian and bicycle Ii&ages, when feasible, which connect with nearby community centers, parks, schools, points of interest, mjor transportation corridors and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System. C .12 Require new master planned developments and residential specific plans of over 100 acres to provide usable acres to be designated for community facilities such as daycare, worship, youth and senior citizen activi- ties. Theexactamountoflandwillbedekxmkdbya future amendment to the Planned Community Zone. C.13 Introduce programs to revitalize all resi- dential areas which are deteriorating or have a high potential of becoming deteriorated. C.14 Ensure that all hillside development is designed to preserve the visual quaky of the preexisting topography. C-15 Consider residential development, which houses employees of businesses located in the PM Zone, when it can be designed to be a compatible use as au integra part of an industrial park. ... COMMERCIAL A. GOALS A.1 A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growtb and stability to attract quality commercial development to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of Carlsbad residents. A.2 A City which provides for the development of compatible, conveniently located neighborhood shop- ping centers. A.3 A City which promotes economic develop- ment strategies, for commercial, industrial, office and tourist-ori~ land uses. A.4 A City which promotes recreational and tourist oriented land uses which servevisitors, employees of the industrial and business centers, as well as residents of the city. B. OBJECTIVES B. I To limit the amount of new commercial land use desiguations to that which can feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community. B.2 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately se& by commercial areas in terms of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services. B.3 Toestabhshandmaintaincommerkaldevel- opmentstandardstoaddresslandscapingpark&signs, andsiteandbuiWngdesign,toensurethatall existingand future commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses. Pane 3 1 C.7 Encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as theyprotecttbe residential character of the community and the opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in a safe, attractive and convenient manner) the continued use of the beach, local transporta- tion, and parking facilities. C.8 Orient travel/recreation commercial areas along the I-5 corridor, in the Village, or near resort/ recreation areas. C.9 Revise Section 21.29.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Tourist Zone, Permitted Uses and Structures) to more accurately reflect the intent of the Travel/Recreation Commercial general plan designation to serve the traveling public, visitors to the city, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. C. IO Review parking requirements for commer- cial areas on a periodic basis to ensure adequate parking and to address identified parking problems. C. 11 Establish procedures that require a concep- tual site plan and statistical analysis of the market service area to be analyzed to determine the feasibility and apprpriateness of the proposed development (anchor tenant(s), trade area, location, etc.) as a neighborhood, communi~, or regional commercial center. C. 12 Since the existence of a Neighborhood, Community, or Regional commercial land use designation impacts the ability for other sites in the vicinity to meet the location requirements of an adequate market these com- mercial land use designations (future) that are not devel- oped will be reviewed within two years from the date of approval of this document and every five years thereafter to determine whether the designation remains appropriate. lfitis foundthattheclassifIcationis nolongerapproppriate, the site shall be redesignated by the City as Unplanned Area (UA). For the site to then be redesignated from UA to another land use classification, a general plan amend- ment must be approved. For the site to be redesignated to residential uses, a finding of consistency with the City’s Growth Management Program must be made. Commer- cial sites with these designations which are located within Master/Specific Plan areas will be exempt from the periodic commercial review because by definition these are long range, forecast plans. Such sites, however, will be subject to the regular five year review required for unde- veIoped Master Plans. C.13 Strip commercial development shall be discouraged along scenic roadways and major thorough- fares, including but not limited to El Camino Real, so that land uses and scenic roadways are preserved and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of the local community through sensitive planning and de- sign of transportation and utility corridors. VILLAGE ‘A. GOALS A.1 A City which preserves, enhances, and maintains the Village as a place for living, working, shopping, recreation., civic and cultural functions while retaining the village atmosphere and pedestrian scale. A.2 A City which creates a distinct identity for the Village by encouraging activities that traditionally locate in a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, including offices, restaurants, and specialty retail shops. A.3 A City which encourages new economic development in the Village and near transportation corri- dors to attract additional tourist-oriented uses and to also retain and increase resident-serving uses. A.4 A City that encourages a variety of comple- mentary uses such as a combination of residential and commercial uses to generate pedestrian activity and create a lively, interesting social environment and a profitable business setting. B. OBJECTIVE To implement the Redevelopment Plan by devel- oping a comprehensive plan to address the unique residen- tial and commercial needs of this segment of the commu- nity. Rev. RIOA Pana 22 I a % .- ‘. 13 . . ; II 1 I 1 I 6 , .- I i. 1 i i. 1 : 1 t D I. i TABLE 1: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS m 8 8 rnwlst=fi . m < l : * provide immediate access to adjoining properties f * are designed to discourage through-traffic : * carry a minimum amount of traffic (estimated average daily trips: 500 maximum) 8 m m collecto 8 f streets: 8 5 * provide immediate access to adjoining properties ’ * sexve as the connecting link for tratE between local and arterial streets 8 : * generally carry light to moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 500 to 5,000) 8 8 8 Controlled Collectors: m m :* 8* 8 8* 8 8 provide no access or limited access to adjacent properties serve as a major connecting link for traffic between local and arterial streets carry moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 5,000 to 10,000) 8 l f * provide limited access to adjacent properties ; * serve to move traffic between collector streets and larger arterials or the freeways 8 * have two traffic lanes in each direction with a painted median : * carry moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 10,000 to 20,000) m m : Maior Arterials: 8 : * prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists : * provide in&a-city circulation and connections to freeways and regional roads .’ * have a minimum of two traffic lanes in each direction with a raised median : * carry moderate to heavy trafk volumes (estimated average daily trips: 20,000 to 40,000) 8 m l f * prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 m n 8 8 l 8 8 m 8 8 8 m 8 n m 8 8 8 8 l m 8 m m 8 8 8 8 8 8 m m 8 m n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 m 8 8 m n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 m 5 W provide for regional and intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and other regional roads: : * carry very heavy traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 40,000 or more) l 8 I C.2 Establish a network of truck routes through- outthe Citytoprovideforthesafemovementoftrucksinto I ad out of commercial zones while reducing wnfhcts with MC in residential, school and recreational areas. I C.3 Use the street design standards wntained in this element (Figure 1: Street Design Standards) as guide- lines for what is reasonable and desirable. Allow varia- i tion~ to occur in accordance with established City pohcy regarding engin~ring standards VtiZUNXS. I C.4 Minimire the number of access points to I major and prime arterials to enhance the functioning of these streets as throughways. C.5 Use good road design practice to minim& the number of intersections and other conflicting tra& movements. C.6 Use good road design practice to minimix noise on adjacent land uses. C.7 Provide traflic control devices along all roadway segments and at intersections. C.8 Provide for the safe movement of traf5c and pedestriansaroundallraadandutilityw~oastructionprojects. C9PursueTransnetandotherregional,stateand fedml fhiing sources to finance regional roads and transportation facilities. Cl0 Provide greater flexibility in the design standardsforhillsideroads~~ ~pacts. grading andvisual C. 11 Interconnect and synchronize the operation Of traffic skds along arterial streets, whenever feasible. C~l2PrepareandrnamuunaTrat~cSigna1 Quali- fiatiOn List to recommend priorities for the wnstruction Of new traac signals. C.13 Establish and maintain an official street naming and addressing plan to remove wnflicts, duplica- tion, and uncertainty. C.14 Encourage joint public/private efforts to improve parking and circulation in developed areas. C. 15 Encourage increased public parking in the Vie and beach areas of the City. C.16 Require new development to wnstruct all roadways needed to serve the proposed development prior to or wncurrent with the circulation needs created by the development. C.17Coordinatetheplanningandwnstructionof newroadswithexistingroadsinadjoiningneighborlloods. C. 18 Require new development to dedicate and improve ah public rights+f-way for circulation facilities needed to serve development. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION A. Goal A City which promotes, encourages, and accom- modates a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. B. Objectives B. 1 To provide it&structure and facilities nec- essary to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and other non-automobile modes of transportation. B.2 To reduce the number and severity of vehicu- lar, bicycle and pedestrian-related accidents. B.3 To priori&e future sidewalk construction. - CIRCULATION PLAN CrrY CIRC PAcmC OCEAN OF CARLSBAD LJLATlON PLAN ++I- RAILROAD - FREEWAY - PRIME ARTERIAL - MAJOR ARTERIAL - SECONDARY ARTERIAL .............. COLLECTOR STREET : 9 ; 5:: $ i /-‘. . MAP t STREET DESIGN STANDARDS PL * IO’ , _ 106’ -I- 5 1 IO’- pL 1- w --% & ,,,, . . ,& I 2’h_ b./,, ““” , I I T / ; ,lil,, j--k d . < R/W: to.2 IO' FL-;: 02’ SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET d R/W.04 * 64’ c R/w:60 L . ‘FOR CONTROUED CdCLECTOR R/W I 68’ AND CURB-TO-CURB WIDTH UUST BE 48’. PL 3 FDR CUL-DE-SACS. R/W UAY BE REDUCED TO 56’ AND CURB-TO-CURB MOTH TO 36’. ‘These illustrations represent lwicol cross sections of the streets describe6 in the Circuk~t~on Element. They ore not tntenaea to reoresent oofokde stonoards. KEY R/W = RlCHT OF WAY e = CENTER LINE PL = PROPERTY LINE . ing and future residents from undesirablenoise impacts. Consistent with state law, it is the policy of the City that the Noise Element be consistent with all General Plan Elements. II. SOURCES OF NOISE A. CIRCULATION 1. ROADS Roadwaytrticnoiseisthemostextensivenoise problemfacedbyCarlsbad. Barringanydrarnaticchanges in truck or automobile usage patterns, it is likely that the amount of traffic in Cadsbad will grow with the City’s population. New development is occurring adjacent to major roadways throughout the City. Unlessprecaution- ary measures are taken, serious noise problems could result. Vehicularnoisehasthreemaincomponentsources: engine/transmission noise, exhaust noise and tire noise. The intensity of noise emissions from any given vehicle will vary with its size and other factors, such as speed, acceleration, braking, roadway grade and conditions of the roadway surface. Thus abusy downtown arterial with stop and go traffic is often noisier than an open highway with comparable traffic volumes. Noise contours have been prepared for all Circu- lation Element roadways in Carlsbad as shown on the current and future noise exposure maps (See Map 1: Existing Noise Exposure Contour Map and Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map). Interstate 5 has the greatest existing and pro- jectedroadway noise emissions. In addition, I-5 impacts the greatest number of existing dwellings. There are a considerable number ofexisting single family and multi- family dwellings which are impacted by freeway noise levels in excess-of 65 dBA CNEL. For these existing dwellings, noise attenuation is difficult. Construction of solid barriers along the freeway is possible, but cost may be prohibitive. The City can, however, educate property owners as to the methods ofinsulating existing residential units from freeway noise through the use of barriers and insulationmaterials. TheCity’s“DevelopmentReview: Noise Guidelines Manual” is a useful reference. While other routes within the City have alesser impactthan does I-5, many roads will still havesignificant noise impactpotential andnewprojects should therefore be subject to noise impact evaluation. It is important thatnew developmentfiontingon majorroadwaysbecompatiblewiththerecommendations of this element. The action plan section of this element contains the measures intended to avertfinureproblems caused by traffic noise. 2. AIRPORT McClellan-Palomar Airport is presently operat- ing as a general aviation facility and is located west ofE1 Camino Real, just north ofPalomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad. The airport’s current annual operation ofapproximately 23 5,000 aircraft is expected toincrease at the airport’s ultimate buildout condition to approxi- mately 3 34,000. In general, land in the immediatevicinity of the airport or under the take off or landing approach is subjecttonoiselevelswhichareunsuitableforresidential development, schools, hospitals and other similar noise sensitive uses. Projected noise contours around the air- port are provided in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and have been included in this Element (See Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map). In 1989 the FAA began a detailed noise study for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The findings of this study have been published in the proposed 1992 Part 150 Study forthe airport, which is currently under review as part of its adoption process. However, all new devel- opment in the vicinity ofthe airport should continue to be reviewed to ensure compliance with thenoise standards Page 2 Newprojectsshouldmaximizethephysicalsepa- ration ofstructures from the railroad tracks. Additionally, project design should stress the orientation of units away fromthe railroad, limiting or acoustically designingwin- dow openings onto the right-of-way, and construction of noise barriers such as solid walls, earthen berms, or berm/ wall combinations. B. LAND USE To agreat extent, the future ambient noise levels of the City will be determined by the type, intensity and location offuture land uses. Future noise levels will also be affected by the construction ofnew roadways to serve new development and by land uses that generate noise. Noise levels may affect the desirability or livability of a community. Noise may also negatively impact the eco- nomicviabilityofacommunitybyreducingthedesirabil- ity of an area as a place to live, work, play, or shop. For these reasons, noise continues to be an important consid- eration of the City in future land use planning.. “Toagreatextent, thefutureambient noise levels of the City will be deter- mined by the type, intensity and loca- tion offuture land uses. ” Some land uses are more compatible with higher noise levels than are others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are generally consid- ered more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. To respond to the sensitivity of certain land uses to higher noise levels, this element includes policies to reducenoise impacts onnoise-sensi- tive uses suchas residences. It may be appropriate to develop noise-sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, or churches in noisy areas. In these instances, it is important that the proper measures are used to reduce noise impacts. In all cases sensitive site plan design is to be used as the first method to reduce noise impacts on a project. Sensitive site plan design measures will include, for example, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; plac- ing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, main- tenancefacilities,andutilityareasbetweenthesourceand the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source. These and other noise mitigation techniques are discussed in more detail in the City’s Noise Guidelines Manual available in the Planning Department. C. OTHER MOBILE SOURCES I. OFF ROAD MOTORCYCLE NOISE Motorcyclenoisehas beenaprobleminCarlsbad. In particular, complaints have been registered against recreational use ofdirt bikes or two-cycle engine motor- cycles. The Police Department continues to enforce the prohibition of motorized off-road vehicles within the City, except as permitted at the Carlsbad Raceway. Local jurisdictions have the authority to control loud or faulty mufflers, horn blowing, off-road vehicles and vehicle speed. Although noise limits may be set for off-road vehicles, they arerarelynecessaty since statutes againsttrespassing nearly always apply. Most trail bikes are not outfitted with theneces- sary lights, fenders, mufflers, spark arresters or baffles required by law. Consequently they are not licensed and cannot be legally operated on public streets. Continued policeenforcementagainsttheseunlicensedvehicleswould likely reduce motorcycle noise on public streets. 2. MOTOR BOAT This noise problem does not affect very many of Carlsbad’s residents. However, in response to noise complaints, the City has adopted a maximum speed limit for boats on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and has pur- chased a boat for enforcement. The reduction in speed does reduce noise somewhat. Iffurther control appears warranted,theCityshouldconsidersettingcurfewsonthe use of the lagoon or limit the types ofboats which could use the lagoon. Page 4 C.3 Review existing City ordinances which relate to noise control for compatibility with the goals and policies ofthis Element. C.4 Continue to enforce building codes to ensure adequate sound insulation between dwellings and to en- sure adequate sound insulationofinterior areas from loud extemalnoisesources. TheCityshallcontinuetoenforce project conditions of approval related to noise control. C.5 Attempt to control noise primarily at its source. Where this is not feasible, controls along the transmission path ofthe noise should be required. C.6 Control noise generated through its own functions and activities and minimize noise impacts re- sulting from City-sponsored or approved activities. C. 7 Review City operations to make sure that noisegenerated by construction, maintenance activities, and street sweeping minimize significant adverse noise levels. C. 8 Periodically review the noise contours con- tained in this element. Substantial changes in traffic pattemsortheavailabilityofnewnoisecontourdatamay indicate the need for revisions. C.9 Participate in noise control and hearing conservation programs in all appropriate work environ- ments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control of the City. LANDUSE A. GOALS A. 1 A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. A.2 A City with industrial and commercial land uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts. A.3 A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that mobile noise sources do not substantially contribute to the noise environment. B. OBJECTIVES B. 1 To achieve noise compatibility between in- dustrial/wmmercialands~undinglandusesand~~eve an acceptablenoise environment in industrial/commercial areas. B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility be- tween land uses through the land use planning/develop- mentreviewprocess. B.3 To actively control mobile noiseviolatiors. C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses in areas which are subject to excessive noise levels. C.2 Develop specific noise standards for use in reviewingnoisesensitivedevelopment. C.3 Require the useofproject design techniques, such as, increasing the distance betweenthenoisesource and the receiver; placing non-noisesensitiveuses suchas parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and, orienting buil’dings to shield outdoor spaces from anoisesource to minimizenoise impacts during any discretionary review of a residential or other noise sensi- tive project. C.4 Continue to enforce the StateMotorVehicle Codeasitapplies toexcessivenoise. TheCarlsbadPolice Department should continue to reduce the number of Page 6 I I I I 1 I I 1 2 I I I I excessively noisy vehicles on city streets. The Depart- ment should also continue to deter persons from operating their motor vehicles in a noisy manner. C.5 Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which a!! residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum noise level to which residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions (easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc.) may be required of developers/sellers of noise im- pacted residential units. For residential properties identified as requiring a noise study, a study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional. This study shall document the projected maximum exterior noise level and mitigate the projected exteriornoiselevel to amaximuma!lowab!enoise level as identified in this policy. Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dBACNELwhenopen.ingstotheexterioroftheresidence are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to the level allowable as iden- tified in this policy or less, the development should not be approved without one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect(noise). (2) Changes or alterations to avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another Pub!icagencyandnottheCityofCar!sbad. Suchchanges have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ._ (3) Specific economic, social, or other consid- erations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives to avoid or substantia!ly lessen the significant environmental effect (noise). If a project is approved with exterior noise levels exceeding the level allowable pursuant to this policy, a!! purchasers of the impacted property sha!! be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchas- ing is, or will be, noise impacted and does non meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. Notwithstanding project approval, no residen- tial interior CNEL should exceed 45 dBA. C.6 Require that a “Noise” Study be submit- ted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more single family dwelling units or any multiple family dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map. C.7 Enforce the policy of the City that site design techniques such as increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; placing non- noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source, be the first too! used to mitigate noise impacts on noise sensitive land uses rather than the construction of walls or berms. C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element road- ways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not be funded by the City. However, the City Page 7 . Yoke Center: Noise & Children - -\ http://www.Ihh.org/noiseichiIdretiealth.htm 1888 NOISE 88 Noise & Its Effects on Children Noise poses a serious threat to our children’s hearing, health, learning and behavior. Recent research suggests that quiet promotes an environment which will foster learning, as well as the opportunity for parents and children to enjoy each other’s company. Parents must analyze their own home and recreational activities and make every effort to include quiet times with their children, reading, talking around the dinner table and listening to their children. Noise & Children’s Health Research has correlated exposure to noise with physiological changes in blood pressure, sleep, digestion and other stress-related disorders. People complain that noise makes them sick. The word noise is derived from the Latin word, noxia, meaning injury or hurt. In a 1997 study by Dr. Bronzaft et a!. in which a questionnaire was distributed to two groups, one living within the flight pattern of a major airport and the other in a quiet neighborhood, found that nearly seventy percent of the residents surveyed living within the flight corridors reported themselves bothered by aircraft noise. They also reported that these noises interfered with daily activities. Further, the subjects who were bothered by aircraft noise were more likely to complain of sleep difficulties and more likely to perceive themselves to be in poorer health. When we examine noise in our communities, we must remember that the noise which injures parents may very likely be injuring our children, as well. A study by Cohen, et al., in 1980, examined the impact of aircraft noise on children’s health and found higher systolic and diastolic pressure in children living near the Los Angeles airport when compared to children living further away. Evans, et al. in 1995 found a relationship between chronic noise exposure and elevated neuroendocrine and cardiovascular measures for children living near Munich’s International Airport. LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARBNG 1888 NOISE 88 LEAGUE HOMEPAGE 11 Noise Center 11 Links 11 EMail II EXlT -- Inf7 8 IO/l l/99 3:45 PM Eloise Center: Noise & Children http://www.lhh.org/noise/children/leaming.htm 1888 NOISE 88 Noise & Its Effects on Children Noise poses a serious threat to our children’s hearing, health, learning and behavior. Recent research suggests that quiet promotes an environment which will foster learning, as well as the opportunity for parents and children to enjoy each other’s company. Parents must analyze their own home and recreational activities and make every effort to include quiet times with their children, reading, talking around the dinner table and listening to their children. Noise & Children’s Learning Studies show that noise negatively impacts children’s cognitive development. Dr. Arline Bronzaft and Dr. McCarthy, in a landmark study in 1975, found that student’s reading scores were affected by noise. Dr. Bronzafi and Dr. McCarthy examined the reading scores of children in school where the classes were located adjacent to elevated train tracks and compared them with the reading scores of students on the quiet side of the school . The researchers found that by sixth grade, the students on the noisy side of the school tested one year behind those on the quiet side of the school. In a follow-up study in 198 1, noise abatement had been provided by the Transit Authority and the Board of Education Dr. Bronzafi found that reading scores between the two groups were now equal. Several studies have shown that children’s cognitive development is affected by aircraft noise. In a 1982 study, Green found that children living near airports had lower reading scores than children living further away from airports. In a recent study by Gary Evans and Lorraine Maxwell at Cornell University (1997), it was found that children whose schools were affected by aircraft noise did not learn to read as well as those who were in quiet schools. The researchers compared children in a noisy school (in the flight path of a major international airport) with similar students in a quiet school and found that children in the noisy school had difficulty acquiring speech recognition skills, impacting on the ability to learn to read. References & Suggested Resources LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING 1888 NOISE 88 lnll II00 I.AA PM Noise Center: Noise & Children http://www.Ihh.org/noise/children/hearing.htm 1888 NOISE 88 Noise 62 Its Effects on Children Noise poses a serious threat to our children’s hearing, health, learning and behavior. Recent research suggests that quiet promotes an environment which will foster learning, as well as the opportunity for parents and children to enjoy each other’s company. Parents must analyze their own home and recreational activities and make every effort to include quiet times with their children, reading, talking around the dinner table and listening to their children. Noise & Children’s Hearing According the American Academy of Otolaryngology, three million children under the age of 18 have some kind of hearing difficulty. A study by Judy Montgomery in 1990 found that 7% of second- graders, 15% of eight-graders, and 13% of twelfth-graders and 26% of high school seniors who played in the band had a measurable hearing loss. As early as 1972, Lipscomb studied 1,000 sixth, ninth and twelfth graders and found that 3.8 percent of the sixth graders, 11 percent of the ninth graders and 10.6 percent of twelfth graders failed the hearing screening. A follow-up study by Lipscomb in 1972 studied the hearing of college freshmen and found that 32.9 percent of one group and 60.7 percent in a second group had a measurable high-frequency hearing loss. In a more recent study (1996), the League for the Hard of Hearing found that 10% of 9th graders failed a hearing screening and more alarming was the fact that these students had never before been identified as having hearing difficulties. Furthermore, their teachers reported that these students exhibited learning and behavior problems in the class. Noise-induced hearing loss among children is a serious public concern and impacts on speech, language, cognitive, social and emotional development. The National Hearing Conservation reported that in a survey of 110 children, ages 6 to 14, the average noise level during the day was 90 decibels, about the level of city traffic. On the playground, these levels reached 115 decibels, similar to that of a noisy subway or rock music. Parents must pay attention to noise exposure in children’s recreational activities. Listen to toys before purchasing them, encourage children to lower the volume on stereos and noisy computer games, avoid or limit exposure at noisy movies and video arcades, and keep the volume down on personal stereo systems with headphones. If your child is in a school band, discuss the volume with the music teacher and encourage your child to wear hearing protection. References & Suggested Resources ,nll 1100 -2.A? ImA . Noise Center: Noise & Children - http:Nwww.Ihh.org/noise/chiIdren/behavior.htm 1888 NOISE 88 Noise & Its Effects on Children Noise poses a serious threat to our children’s hearing, health, learning and behavior. Recent research suggests that quiet promotes an environment which will foster learning, as well as the opportunity for parents and children to enjoy each other’s company. Parents must analyze their own home and recreational activities and make every effort to include quiet times with their children, reading, talking around the dinner table and listening to their children. Noise & Children’s Social Behavior Researchers are now finding what parents have known instinctively for a long time - noise in the home brings chaos to our lives. Imagine a home at around 5 p.m. The television is on, perhaps the stereo is blaring upstairs. The phone rings, one child pulls at your leg, another is screaming about a sibling knocking down a carefully designed block construction, all while you are trying to make dinner and help with the homework. Now, imagine the same home without the background noise. Turn off the television, turn down the volume on the stereo and lower the voices. Theodore Wachs (1993) studied the level of “noise confusion” in the home and its impact on early childhood development. Wachs concluded that high levels of noise, crowding and traffic pattern in the home were associated with lower caregiver attentiveness and responsibility. Noise, it seems, can affect the temperament and social interactions of children . Just like adults, our children need quiet time at home, to create, learn, relax and just “be”. References & Suggested Resources LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARlNG 1888 NOISE 88 Ezl noisecti@~oLcom LEAGUE HOMEPAGE 11 Noise Center 11 Links 11 EMail II EXlT -- I ofl 0 Copyright 1996-1998 LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING - Updafed Ocfobet 7,1998 IO/l l/99 3:46 PM . doise Center: Noise & Children .- hnp:i/www.lhh.org.‘noise/children/reference.htm 1888 NOISE 88 ,----- .--___ Noise & Its Effects on Children References & Suggested Resources of2 A. L. Bronzafi, Effects of Noise, Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, J.R Pfafflin & E. N. Ziegler (Eds), Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1998. C. W. Wilson, Noise, in same encyclopedia. Encyclopedia of Environmental Science an Engineering, J.R. Pfafflin & E. N. Ziegler (Eds), Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1998. Bronzaft, A.L. & McCarthy, D.P. (1975). The effect of elevated train noise on reading ability Environment and Behavior, 7, 5 17-528. Bronzaft, A.L. (1981). The effect of noise abatement program on reading ability. Journal o Environmental Psychology, 1.2 15-222. Bronzaft, A.L. (1996). Top of the Class. Norwood, NJ; Ablex. Bronzaft, A.L. (1997). Beware: Noise is ,hazardous to our children’s development. Hearin Rehabilitation Quarterly, 22,4- 13. Bronzaft, A.L. Noise: Issues for environmental and health policy. (1997) In: Environmental issue for the 21st century. Editor: Thompson, P.J., New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Bronzaft, A.L., Ahem, K., McGinn, R., O’Connor, J.A., Savino, B. (1998). Aircraft noise: a potential health hazard. Environment and Behavior, 30, 117- 132. Cohen, S. Evens, G.W., Krantz, & Stokols, D. (1980). Physiological, motivational, and cognitiv effects of aircraft noise on children. American Psychologist, 35,23 l-243. Cohen, S., Glass, D.C. & Singer, J.D. (1973). Apartment noise, auditory discrimination an reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology. 9,407-422. Dallas, J.D. (1996). No more Jerichos! Hearing Rehabilitation Quarterly, 20,9-l 1. Deutsch, C.P. (1964). Auditory discrimination and learning: social factors. Merrill-Palm Quarterly, 10,277-296. Evans, G.W., & Lepore, S.J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children: A critical review. Children’s Environments, 10, 3 l-5 1. Evans, G.W., Hyge, S. & Bullinger, M. (1995). Chronic noise and psychological stres Psychological Science, 6,333-337. Evans, G.W., & Maxwell, L., xxxxx, Environment and Behavior, 29, Fay, T.W., Noise and health New York, NY; The New York Academy of Medicine. Green, K.B., Pastenak, B.S. & Shore, R.E. (1982). Effects of aircraft noise on reading ability o school age children. Archives of Environmental Health, 37,24-3 1. Hambrick-Dixon, P.J. (1985). Effects of experimentally imposed noise on task performance o Black children attending day care center near elevated subway trains. Developmental Psychology, 22,259-264. Jones, F.N. & Tauscher, J. (1978). Residence under an airport landing pattern as a factor in teratism. Archives of Environmental Health, 33, 10-12. IO/l l/99 3:46 PM . Koise Center: Noise & Children - http://www.lhh.orglnoisekhildrenireference.htm l Kryter, K.D. (1985). The effects of noise on man. Orlando, FL; Academic Press. l Lipscomb, D.M., Hearing Conservation in industry, schools, and the military. San Diego, CA Singular Publishing Group, Inc. l Lipscomb, D.M. (1972). The increase in prevalence of high frequency hearing l impairment among college students. Audiology, 11, 23 l-23 7. Montgomery, J. (1990). l Nadler, N.B., (1997). Noisy toys: Hidden hazards. Hearing Health, 13, 18-21. . Nadler, N.B. (1997). Noisy toys: Some toys are not as much fun as they look. Hearin Rehabilitation Quarterly, 22, 8- 10. l Nadler, N.B. (1996). Hearing conservation programs: A review. Hearing Rehabilitation l Nadler, Hearing Conservation in the Classroom, volume 20, pages 12 - 2 1. l Stenzel, J. (1996). Flying off course: Environmental impacts of America’s airports. New York NY: Natural Resources Defense Council. l U. S. National Research Council (1982). Report of working group, 85, Prenatal effects l of exposure to high level noise. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. l Wachs, T. & Gruen, G. (1982). Early experience and human development. New York, NY Plenum. l Wachs, T.K. (1993). Nature of relations between the physical and social microenvironment of th two-year-old child. Early development and parenting, 2, 8 l-87. l Woodford, C. & O’Farrell, M.L. (1983). High frequency loss of hearing in l secondary school students: An investigation of possible etiologic factors. Language, Speech, an Hearing Services in Schools, 14,22-28. 1888 NOISE 88 LEAGUE HOMEPAGE 11 Noise Ceder 11 Links I1 EMail II EXIT 9 Copyright 19964998 LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING - Upduted March II, 1999 ‘nf7 In/l l/99 3:46 PM FRIDAY. !sFlEMBER IO. 1999 DAILY 9% SD WICNATEDARE\SHICNE.Q d in Moscow Blast AssaciatEd Press 1 explosion at a people. Russian officials say a bomb caused the lled at least 47 blast, which is being investigated as terrorism. A4 nan& .End ‘lfissve Threat Violetice ; _. -. ilk&y ties with Jakarta and : ili&ts are not k&bed. to independence have slain an un- known number of civilians and driven an estimated 200,000 people from their homes. -.. _ Clinton. speaking to reporters to us. seriois, ,:_- .- Report jVam - . BY BOB DROGlN Tl-\IES >TAFF WHITER shortly before departing for an eco- nomic conference in Nrw Zealand that probably will be dogged by the tunei in East Timor, warned indo- nesian authorities to end the vio- hce or risk sanctions that could PI.-.-ws - F. TIMOR. Al 0 WASHINGTON-The U.S. intel- ligence community warned Thurs- ’ day that proliferation of medium- range ballistic missiles, driven pri- marily by sales from hiorth Korea. presents an “immediate. serious and growing threat” to U.S. forces and allies in the Middle East and Asia and has “significantly altered” the strategic balances there. ‘PI.,- r*-rwoorrorll~r rfirr 29S(r<.+ Ambitious Plan toReform HMOs : Nears Corn&k n Legislature: Measures would ease access to second opinions and grant new power to appeal de&&s, as well as mandate coverage for severe mental illnesses. 7 :, .*,. / AQMDFOC@S Senate, consumers would have easier access to second medical opinions, new power to appeal medical disputes, and coverage for treatment of severe mental ill- nesses. on Dangers of& .Diesel l&hatis~ ‘The bills-the bulk of a package negotiated with Gov. Gray Davis, managed care executives, patient advocates and health care provid- ers-returned to the Assembly for a final nod before the Legislature adjourns for the year today. . Coupled with legislation passed Bv MARLA CONE Ti\IES EY~IRONXIE?4ThL WRITER Wednesday that would let patients -1 sue their managed care providers for damages, the new proposals bring lawmakers cioser to their goal of curing the state’s ailing health maintenance organisation system. The I33IO liability bill was sent Thursday to Davis, who has indicated that he will sign it. Expanding its role into new terri- tory, the Southland’s air pollution agency is crafting a sweeping strat- egy to reduce the health threat people face from breathing diese! exhaust and other carcinogenic chemicals polluting the air. The ambitious plan, already un- der attack by the trucking industry, could lead to the nation’s first comprehensive regulations for bat-’ tllng airborne toxic substances. The South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District board is e.xpected to formaliy direct its staff today to complete work on the outline for new and revised rules, which would rival in scale the agency’s massive strategy to combat ozone. the pri- mary ingredient of smog. By cm INGRAbl and DAN MORAIN, TIMES STAFF WRITERS . ’ SACRAMENTO-In a day of frantic lawmaking that could dramatically affect the health care of virtually every Californian, legislators Thursday completed most of an ambitious state pIan to reform managed care. . . . - Under changes approved by the “If you take the .package to- gether, it’s one of the most ambi- tious HMO reforms in the nation. Texas ls the only state that rivals it,” said Jamie Court, of the Foun- dation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. On Thursday, the Senate ap proved: l A bill. sponsored by the con- sumer group Health Access of Call- fomia, requiring health care plans to pay for a second doctor’s opinion if a patient or primary physician requests one. The legislation was Pleme see REFCRM, &5 The Los Angeles Basin’s air ranks among the worst in the country for an array of pollutants linked to cancer and other serious health problems. Because diesel engines-not fat- tories--are blamed for most of the high risk, the AQMD is laying the groundwork for regulations, as Plesse see TO‘XICS. Al 6 L:l! liUIAlIlCllL~~~~L~ .--:-LIC ” “-..’ Skcptical of AQMD rule once forced busmcsses t Offer ntives for employees t carpo< rucking companies sa ,.- Local environmentalists also are air quality officials should focu skeptical of the AQMD’s motives in instead on providing more subs developing a far-reaching plan. dies to help truckers voluntaril -They worry that it may be a delay replace old, smoking trucks wit tactic that will postpone strength- new, cleaner ones. - ‘ening rules that requue industrial Truck and bus engines that bur .plants, such as refineries and aero- natural gas are already on th space factories, to reduce the can- market. But there has been littl s .cer risk they pose in residential incentive for truckers and others t yeas. try them because of the high cost c ; The AQMD’s goal is to complete the engines and limited availabilit -the plan outlining specific regula- of the fuel. i 3ions on toxics for a variety of %idustries and other sources within ’ ;six months and begin implementing Some Carrots, some of them ne?rt summer. For three decades, the South- Some Sticks , land’s air quality agency has fo- Environmental experts hav -cUsed on smog-forming pollution long argued about the best way t from businesses-so-called station- promote low-polluting technol , -ary sources-and has had little ogies: Should government jump : .authority to tackle cars, trucks and start them by forcing businesses t , pther vehicles, which are re,gulated ’ gradually switch? Or should th instead by state and federal offi- free market, boosted by some fi ‘cials. . ‘nancial incentives, reign? In recen ’ And when it comes to toxic ; $hemicals, the AQMD has long years, state and local officials hav focused on the latter, making mot ,-been leery of taking action. Previ- measures voluntary. ous.board members were skeptical WaIlerstein said the AQMD pla! _ &fit the chemicals caused cancer at will try both-some carrots an :sh$-levels people breathed them, some sticks. . ‘* +sn&they worried about harming .zH businesses. The agency has “There are clearly niches when :&7@ented only one major anti- alternative fuel technology is no only available but efficient,” hi +sFs, initiative-a pair of mles said. “Airports come to mind as : -adopted in 1994 and widely consid- :,=&I ineffective, that impose limits timely area.” Shipra Bansal, of the Los An G-a&he cancer risk that industrial .$LL . geles-based Communities for: a Bet Iants Pan pose from toxic emis- ter Environment, said pushing U-r *Imns. fkmder the direction of AQMD use of alternative fuels is importani is-rgd Chairman William Burke, But she said pollution from industria facilities should be the top priorit: been increased concern because the AQMD has “a reall: danger of airborne toxics. weak regulation” that is leaving the first African American people unprotected in Wilmington Carson, Santa Fe Springs and othe communities near large plants. “I certainly don’t want to dimin ish the importance of [regU!atinI diesel trucks], but we just don’ want [industrial pollution] swep under the rug,” she said. AQMD staff and business group! g t!?$~c~~e?~ Wallerstein denied that tht toxics plan. which would include ar overhauled version of the industr) rule. will go easy on refineries ant to Stand Trial in Horses’ ir ‘hmciared Prerr .=‘. .L ~bIA WI’Y, Nev.-Two ey %n?, and a. former high schob; rrirlv were ordered Thursdav to $ trial in the killings of more 1 b0 dozen wild horses that lshot with rifles last winter. z.StOreY County justice of the :e ruled that there was enough ence t0 order all three bound FJ District Court on felony and p’j’y misdemeannr char?00 -: I.. missed four other charges against the three young men who attended high school in Reno together, in- cluding theft and grand larceny charges. Storey County Dist. Atty. Janet Hess said she was pleased with the outcome, as did lawyers for the three defendants-former Lance Cpls. Scott Brendle. 22. and Darien Brock. 21. and AnthOnY Marlino. 20. a Reno construction worker. For A L~IE ‘lnspird Elnd of Mormana And I! Nialy Equippd E Evaything bu Ned Nothing You Don’t! Nicdy Equippd at W,248 Inm,cEd Horsqowa! Quidw Nicdy Equippd at we challenge You To Test hive ~he Future At Yor DRIVE? . . . ” A16 FXD4.Y. SZTE!vlBE4 IO. 1490 .# .- -- x I .k . lICS L L 10 c Sr ut l ?C --: '~O&lUWifiOIIlAl .I j early as nex: :‘ea;. that :vculd force c some f&s . di vehicies. es;eciailp . ~r$s, to us2 aiternative fue!s * rather than diesel. Over time. the . rg@lations wouid aifec: many .’ other irdusc-+ec * A. -. : AQXD officials originaily in- - tended to focus enrire!y on reduc- : inn,0 toxic emissions from industry. l But while searching for toxic hot ~G%i last 1723. the;’ discovered &$-the air :hroluohout :ZP regon :$Frfes a hioh risk. large57 ‘oecause . -c?&ese! &dr.es in tech and ‘F&&here. I< is auuarenriv more :1a3erous to breathe the air nex ;:sz~ busy intersecrion than that + next to an oii refiner]. ‘z-e AOMD estimates that 1.500 :s&:jery 1 miilion residents in Los -:*nge!es, Grange, Riverside and %?ii:Bernardino counties could be l .&$itracticn cancer 0~2: a lifetime I$$ri. breathing toxic ch2micais. --Diesel exlnaust is considered so ::%%dant and potent that it ac- TzgEts for roughiy three-fourths of 13hat tisk. according to the AQMD’s .,*Z$Yiiations. - -:-“Tiiere’~ c!ear!y no si!ver bullet here,” AQND Executive Officer parry Wal!erst2in said. “so I de- cided we needed to take a st2p back and have an overail game plan. .Diese! in par:ic*Jlar must be hioh- liohted as a rfk.” ._ EThe AC?JD has disciosed fey,v j?erails of &a; :k2 r.2’.Y Air Tosics .Controi P!an wil encompass. But WaIlersrein ToId The Times t,%t his off is d---;: .uL.,ng a regulation-the fist of its kid any-xhere--that v70$d recuire a cer:am percenrae2 0: some truck fl2PtS to be pox-e& bpqaiternsti~.-e zc.%oioqies xc:? a5 Jl3ttiai a3S Oi ?!?2ZiC:t~~. ‘: $any observers dcuct that t?x +$$JD-sv~:c~ has eased its artac4 on smog ir, rfcex :7esGhas th2 .‘p,olirical xi1 to stand ‘up to .businesses bianxd for toxic air pollution. T,ci<ing companies and d&se! cng!r.* manuiacxrers are among the .mcc: ~ow2r:‘lJ! !oco:rs. ‘Vie wonl~d considtr this a dir2cr attack on t;12 :rxk:r.z inc!x:ry.” said St~phx:e \Viilia&. en:‘~ror.- rr~!lL31 rr”-“7” of the Califor:.:; .dl.cl- . . Tric!<iEg .~SSZ. ‘*TG r~1.1 ~iq..e3ti J,-..ri do r.hlS IS not ..W!! ihou@x OLli.” . weping Carcinc P&m Air An es:inated 1.30 of every 1 miilion peopie in Los Jogeies. 0rar.g. Riverside and San Eernardino counrles could be cor,tracting cancer over the!r liferme from bresrhmg toxic air conrarninanrs from vehlc:es and ir;dustry. accoraing to the A$MD. Nearly ihree-;quar:ars of the xk is linked to diese! scat. 3 Avenge cancer risk attributed to air Foilutimis Benzze’ Diesel 6% ::: .: ” .,., parucles ,. I :: ,L,, *_ : ‘^ ,“: Ix I I.3+ ’ 3 ,. :‘z% ! “,“.’ ‘l 3utic:ene’ .‘. ‘. 109: ‘_: ,_, ‘, _)_ ‘, Other compounds 12% %3dy from a~bmoows :om. icu:h Ccasr :~r Qua:ih Manaqamwrt C.NIC(. paint an accurate picxre of i:12 problem.” Cancer risk numbers have b2en the subject of intense debate for years. Trucking and ensme comca- ties question the vaiidity of &e sc:ence and say the diese! risk is exaggerated. Uniike the situation vviirh ozone. the AOMD faces no federal or stat2 mandates to c!ean up to.xic air pollutants. The C.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a natior.al program that focuses on large in- dustries. Last year, the California Air Resources Board der!ared cd%- se1 soot a cancer-causing pollu:aix and is trying to figure out how to reduce the threat. “This would put the AO?ID atead of the curve,” said F&a Marcus. the EPA’s regionai ad,mx- isxator. “It is ver]7 encouraging.” Los Angws Times for “+a?:7 action” coming before the board in the midd!e of next vear. Kailerstein said. adding that it :vouid start small and then grow if juccxsfui. If adopted. the rule could be a power?J force promormg aiterna- tiT72 i-e! technoio~ies. But it is like!:7 to encounter strong opposi- tion from trxkinq companies and other Southland businesses that opera:2 rleers. Ii th2 AqXD plan includes a t-,ck 822: rule. .Y . “~2 would sue tixm. Ti:ie:7 don’t have :he author- it::. ” T~\~iiiiZIES of :ke truc!c;ng asso- ciation said. calIing it a violation of icrirsrar2 commerc2 .-Jies. Ur.cisr stxe !a:v. the d?YD can onI: r2Fliate fleers that “operate s;;bsrar.fiaily“ in the four-counrg Los Xr.q2i2s Basin. and truc!;inq com~azes here ja.1 the WV ruie . . XOUIC i::ve up c&u and make tt2.z ,ir.able to cornpere :vuh com- paLiE i:om outside :he regon. ‘ArpT-i~ :vould put the California i _..- c3r::tz out of brxrn22s.” Wiiliams saiti. She ir;ici the reqlUl3t:Gfl :VOUll! be En ,mnr?c.,lP.AI rb.... I. ..m,,l.l .a-..#4 II.. __.__ -~.- .-__._. -. _- ~. ~- _--.. .._.. --_, .._~ ..--- ----.--- _.~.~.__ ~. _ ~. /^ e PAGE 2 2ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format. Copyright 1998 Mealey Publications, Inc. Mealey’s Emerging Toxic Torts June 26, 1998 SECTION: Vol. 7; No. 6 LENGTH: 474 words HEADLINE: California, Environmental Groups Sue Grocery Chains For Diesel Fume Emissions DATELINE: LOS ANGELES BODY: The State of California and three environmentalorganizations have sued several supermarket chains for allegedlyexposing thousands of people living near grocery distributioncenters to diesel engine exhaust and other toxins. Two such actions were filed.April 28 in Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt by the State of California and the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil Inc., Coalition for Clean Air Inc. and Environmental LawFoundation (People of the State of California v. The Vons CompaniesInc., et al., No. BC-190079; Natural Resources Defense CouncilInc., et al. v. The Vons Companies Inc., et al., No. BC-190088,Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.). Defendants in both actions are the Vons Companies Inc., a Michigancorporation, and Safeway Inc., a Delaware corporation. Vons isdescribed as a subsidiary of Safeway. The actions allege that Vons operates a regional food distributioncenter $n Santa Fe Springs which serves multiple Vons, Safeway andPavillions supermarkets. The actions allege that the driving andidling of diesel-powered vehicles at and near the distributionfacility causes emission of diesel exhaust into the surroundingambient air. The airborne diesel exhaust is inhaled bydistribution center workers and area residents, according to thecomplaints. The complaints, which seek injunctive relief and civil penalties,allege the companies failed to warn individuals that they are beingexposed to airborne emissions of diesel engine exhaust, a chemicalconsidered by the state to be a carcinogen. Under Proposition 65,also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of1986, businesses must provide individuals with a "clear andreasonable warning" before exposing them to this substance,according to the complaints. Diesel engine exhaust was listed by the state as a chemical knownto cause cancer in October 1990, and Proposition 65's warningreguirement for diesel engine exhaust would have taken effect oneyear later, the complaints say. The complaints also seek relief pursuant to the Unfair CompetitionAct. PAGE 3 Mealey's Emerging Toxic Torts June 26, 1998 A source said that similar actions were filed in Los Angeles CountySuperior Court against the grocery chains Ralph's and LuckyStoKes/American Stores Co., and in San Bernardino County SuperiorCourt against Stater Brothers. The state's action was filed by Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren,Chief Assistant Attorney General Roderick Walston, AssistantAttorney General Theodora Berger and Deputy Attorneys General SusanL. Durbin, Craig C. Thompson and Edward G. Weil. The environmental organizations are represented by Gail RudermanFeuer of the Natural Resources Defense Council of Los Angeles,James R. Wheaton of the Environmental Law Foundation of Oakland,Calif., and Stephen P. Berzon, Albert H. Meyerhoff and Michael GKafOf Altschuler, BeKZOn, Nussbaum, BeKZOn d Rubin of San Francisco. Contact Mealey Publications Inc. at l-800-MEALEYS OK visit our website at: http://www.mealeys.com EDITOR-NOTE: [Editor's Note: The complaint filed by the environmentalorganizations is available 24 hours a day by fax from Mealey'sDocument Service. FedEx or mail requests processed the same day ifplaced by 4 p.m. Eastern time. Call (800) 925-4123 or (610) 768-7800. Document number 15-980626-001. 14 pages. Subscriber price:$ 1 per page plus $ 15.1 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD-DATE: July 6, 1998