HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-08; City Council; 15858; Carlsbad Municipal Golf CourseCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILLw
AB# /&se TITLE:
%-i-o0
APPEAL OF CONDITION NUMBER 24 OF PLANNING
MTG. COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4773 FOR THE
&nl To %-g-O0 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE -CUP 97-07
DEPT. PLN
au-
s
4 t
z
t-4 .l-l
%i
2 5.
8
0
ce
S$
. .
3 F
Y d 0 5
8
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. dOOa-~~ DENYING the appeal of condition
number 24 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed the development permits for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course at regularly scheduled meetings on April 1, 1998, and June 7, 2000. The appellant was
present at both meetings and requested that the Planning Commission include a requirement that
the City provide full access improvements from College Boulevard to the Hieatt parcel in the
applicant’s preferred alignment. That alignment was presented to the Planning Commission at the
June 7, 2000 meeting.
As stated in the April 1, 1998, public testimony, the applicant has assumed that access to his
property has been guaranteed by and would be constructed with the development of the Carlsbad
Airport Center (CAC) Phase 3. Through this appeal, the applicant is requesting that the City guarantee and construct access to the Hieatt property since CAC Phase 3 is being abandoned with
the approval of the golf course project.
Although CAC Phase 3 is a final map, the City is not legally responsible for the construction of the
requested access improvements if the final map is abandoned. The proposed easement sufficiently
provides the land to insure that the Hieatt parcel will not be “land locked.” An Engineering Standards
Variance is required for the City’s proposed location of the easement’s connection to College
Boulevard as well as the applicant’s preferred location.
Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the appeal and the inclusion of a requirement to construct the access improvements will
have a fiscal impact on the City equal to the cost of the improvements and loss of developable
acreage of the impacted industrial pad. The cost of access improvements is estimated at about
$235,000 and would be an expenditure of public funds. The loss in value of the industrial pad is
estimated to be approximately $1.5 million. The value of the pad is based in its size. Splitting the
pad will significantly reduce its value.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. gmo-asq
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773
3. Excerpts from Planning Commission meetings dated April 1, 1998 and June 7, 2000
4. Letter of appeal, dated April 10, 1998
5. Letter reaffirming appeal, dated June 12,200O.
LOUNSBERY FERGUSON
ALTONA&PEAK LLP
FM ws,?Jslr
53- Y-00
ATI-ORNEYS AThW
613 West Valley Parkway, Suite 345
Escondido, California 9202525 15
Telephone (760) 743-1201
Facsimile (760) 743-9926
Email lfap@lfap.com
OF C0UNSfiL GARTH 0. REID
SPBCIAL COUNSEL
JOHN W. WITT
Date: August 8,200O
To: M-r. John Cahill
City of Carlsbad
153 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
File Name:
File Number:
Subject:
Enclosures:
&3VlNP.sULLIVAN,hRTNER
DiretiQXal(760) 743-1226, ext. 111
Email: kps@lfap.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hieatt Property
Agreement for Reimbursement of Costs for Road Construction.
Enclosed is the original Agreement signed and notarized by our clients.
Once the Agreement is Illy-executed, please provide us with a copy.
Thank you.
Requested Action: For your handling. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
By:
Secretary to: Kevin P. Sullivan, Esq.
CAHlLLOE0800-T.DOCiOUOOCU)8/08/00 IO:04 AM
m/07/00 14:52 LFWP 002
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURQEMENT OF
COSTS FOR ROAD CCNST&lCTlON
This agreem,ent is made and entered into a$ of the 7*~ day of
bf- 2000, by and between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corpor&ion, acting as the Carlsbad Public Financing Authority, a municipal joint
powers authority, (hereafter referred to as the “Authority’) and James L. Hieatt
and Mildred E. Hieatt, each as Trustees of the Hteatt Family Living Trust dated
April 18, 1990, the owners of certain undevel,opsd real property
identified as APN 212-120-33 located in the City of Cartsbad, if
enerally
alifornia,
(hereafter referred to as the “Property Owner”).
The parties to this agreement do hereby agree as follows:
1. Authority shall provide, at no cost to the Property Owner, the Authority
owned real property t-@zessary to construct a publicly dedicated access street
easement (hereafter referred to as “Street A”) to mutually agreed upon, but not
exceed, city design standards from College Boulevard to the parcel owned by
the Property Owner within the alignment approved by the Carlsbad Planning
Commission on June 7, 2000. For the purposes of this agreement, said
alignment is generally depicted In attached Exhibit “A” incorporated by reference
and made a part of this agreement,
2. Said real property to be provided by the Authority shall include an easterly
transition to the Property Qwner’s parcel to j accommodate environmental
restrictions on said parcel. Property Owner shall submit an application for an
administrative variance to implement the aforementioned alignment and
connection to College Boulevard. Based upon its review of the Street A
alignment approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on June 7, 2000, said
application shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the City of
Carlsbad within the schedule for discretionary review and action on the
development application of Property Owner’s parcel.
3, In no event shall Authority construct Street A. However, Authority shall
rough grade Street A in conjunction with the development of Its adjacent City Golf
Course Project. In the event Authority does not; proceed with Its Golf Course
Project development prior to the time Property Owner proceeds with the
development of Its parcel, Property Owner shali rough grade Street A and shall
include associated costs in the reimbursement formula discussed below.
4. After completion and acceptance of construction and wlthln 30 days of
being presented with invoices for construction items for Street A by Property
Owner, Authorlty shall reimburse Property Owner for those invoices up to the
value of one-half of the costs of full-width construction of Street A the length of
the frontage of the Authority’s proposed industrlal parcel adjacent this street.
08/O-7/00 14: 53 LFQBP 003
Costs subject to Authority reimbursement shall be limited to actual construction
costs of rough and / or final grading, base material(s) paving, striping, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, streetlight(s), fife hydrant(s), an&drainage structures. One-half
reimbursement of costs for utility instailation, including but not limited to sewer,
water, electricity, cable television, telephone, fibe;f optic lines, reclaimed water,
and similar utility installations, shall be included. j
The Authority shall also reimburse Property Owner for one-half of the reasonable
and customary costs to survey, inspect, construction manage, and perform
necessary testing of soils, compaction, concrete,, and other construc$ion items
customarily included In this type of work in the manner described herein.
5. This agreement is a final and complete settlement of appellant’s appeal
and he shall withdraw his appeal of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the
Carlsbad Planning Commission on June 7, 2000 once the Authority has
approved this settlement proposal as mutually agreeable to it and the Property
Owner. Appellanl further agrees not to oppose or to solicit others to oppose any
future actions related to the approval and entitlement phase of the City Golf
Course Project.
6. This agreement is conditioned upon the ultimate approval of both the City
of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan and the Authority’s City Golf Course
ProJect. The reason for this condition is that if either or both of the these
initiatives are not approved, the Authority contends it would realize no benefit
from the construction of Street A justifying its financial participation.
If this settlement agreement is not Implemented, Property Owner shall
retain any fights and arguments he has regarding construction of Street A or
another road access alternative, as well as his contention to a refund of
assessments relating to College Boulevard.
7. Authority and Property Owner shall reasonably cooperate and coordinate
in the construction of Street A, including Property Owner’s access to the Street A
right-of-way to implement construction,
a. This agreement shall be recorded by the Authority with the Office of the
San Diwgo County Recorder. Property Owner agrees to recordation of this
agreement into the title of Property Owner’s parcel as described above which
shall run with the land and shall bind all subsequent ownef’s of said parcel. If
this settlement agreement is not implemented, the: parties agree to withdraw any
recorded agreement or to record addltlonal documentation providing notice that
this agreement has no force and effect.
9. Thls paragraph is intended to apply salely tc the Authority. By executing this agreement as the Carlsbad Public Financing Authority, the Carlsbad City
08./07/00 14: 54 LFWP 004
Council does hereby adopt 8 modification to Con&ton 24 of Carlsbad Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4773 to be read as follows:
“Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shalt file and receive
approval of a parcel map application to remove land adjust lot lines to correspond
with the approved project site plan. This parcel map shall include a dedlcatlon of
a mutually agreed upon public street eccess easement to the undeveloped parcel
(APN 212-120-33) which currently has planned access to Swift Place, herein
referred to BS the “Hieatt Parcel.” The : developer shalt enter into a reimbursement agreement with the owner of the Hieatt Parcel for one-half the
cost of improvetnents, specified in said agreement, for the uftlmate construction
of said public street access easement from college Boulevard to the Watt
Parcel.”
This agreement is mutually agreed to
Property Owner this 7 HL day of
PROPERTY OWNER: CARL G AUTHORITY;
J Qrt4eJ L t/lo,tf 7vWid(C
James L. Hieatt, Trustee ”
&& ATTEST :
n
s -. & #/k&j7 T
Mildred E. t-tie&t, Trustee 7 7xwyz!$
(Proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Property Owners must be attached.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL
LFQ&P
l
. \ .
I . .
I L .
I I .
3 I .
.
r
/
4 4
005
CALIFORNIA
ALL-PURPOSE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A
)
COUNTY OF as /ucz&~; )
- -
QJST $+h) CJ before me,
DATE
mkl; ow=‘T‘~ d
’ , “JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC”
personally appeared, i3zkws II. fj /‘Ei477-m
personally known to me @ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenceJo be the person(s)
whose name(s) is@subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/
mexecuted the same in his/her&&authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/he@8 1
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.’
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL)
ommission # 1154457 Notary Public - Califomk
OPTIONALINFORMATION
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE /w v /v L- -_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h
RESOLUTION NO. 2ooo-254
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
PERMIT TO DEVELOP AN 18-HOLE C ONSHIP GOLF
COURSE WITH CLUBHOUSE AND E FACILITIES ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATE H OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD EAST AND WEST OLLEGE BOULEVARD
IN LOCAL FACILITIES NES 5 AND 8.
CASE NAME: GOLF COURSE
WHEREAS, on April ?, and June 7, 2000, the Carlsbad Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Us CUP 97-07, for the City of Carlsbad Municipal
Golf Course which included a con t an easement would be provided to the
adjacent Hieatt parcel but improv ment would not be required; and
Clerk; and
City Council of the considered said appeal; and
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That said appeal is denied.
. ..a
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . c9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular mee * 7 g of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 8th day of Auqust
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Membe
NOES: None
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
2000, by the
Nygaard.
-2- 3
EXHIBIT 2
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4773
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP AN 18 HOLE
CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE WITH CLUBHOUSE AND
PRACTICE FACILITIES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD EAST
AND WEST OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 5 AND 8.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
CASE NO.: CUP 97-07
8
9
10
11
12
WHEREAS, The City of Carlsbad, “Developer” and “Owner”, has filed a
verified application regarding property described as
Approximately 397 acres north of Palomar Airport Road and
west of Palomar Airport including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
212-041~[12-371; 212-OSl-(2-211; 212-082-[l-lo]; 212-201-
[5,7,11,12,13]
13
II (“the Property”); and
14
15
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
16
Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “H” dated June 7,2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, CUP 97-07, as provided by
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Chapter 2 1.42 and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of April 1998, and on
the 7th day of June, 2000 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CUP; and
25 WHEREAS, on April 1, 1998, the Planning Commission approved CUP 97-07,
26
27
as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4252; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, elements of the project approved on April 1, 1998 have been
changed and or deleted and the final project design is shown on Exhibits “A” - “H” dated
June 7,200O.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Conditional Use Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, CUP 97-07, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the golf course will satisfy a mandate set by the
passage of Proposition M by the citizens of Carlsbad requiring the development of
recreation facilities projects including a municipal golf course; the golf course
satisfies the goals and objectives of the elements of the General Plan; and is a less
intense development than surrounding industrial and commercial land uses.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the site has been designed to accommodate all of the components necessary for a
championship golf course without the need for variances to setbacks or height
regulations.
3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the project is designed to be compatible with
surrounding uses through the placement of buildings in areas that are set away
from existing and future uses and that the predominance of the project is groomed
and natural landscape.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the site was previously approved for an
industrial subdivision and the proposal of a golf course substantially reduces the
PC RESO NO. 4773 -2- 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
average daily traffic which in turn lessens the burden on surrounding public
roadways.
5. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that the project is an acceptable use as
designated in the plan. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels of the
CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed
land use is compatible with the airport, in that as an open space use it will not be
adversely affected by the operations of the airport.
6. That the habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values,
in that there are sufficiently wide corridors provided within the design of the project.
7. That the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the City’s Habitat
Management Plan, in that the project has been designed in coordination with the
creation of the Draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan dated December
1997.
8. That the habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with the mitigation established by the NCCP Guidelines, in that
core and linkage areas will be enhanced through onsite re-vegetation.
9. That the habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of listed wildlife species in the wild, in that removed habitat will be replaced
at a ratio greater than 1 to 1.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. All of the Exhibits dated April 1,199s shall be superseded by project exhibits dated
June 7,200O.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4252 shall be superseded by this Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4773.
4. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
5. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
PC BESO NO. 4773 -3- 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director periodically to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a
substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If
the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the
Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the
permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public
hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land
uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been
met.
7. This Conditional Use Permit is granted. This permit may be revoked at any time after a
public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on
surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed
herein have not been met.
8. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice
of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Use Permit by Resolution No. 4773 on the
real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment
to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the Developer or successor in interest.
9. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
10. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR 97-01 that are found by this resolution to be feasible.
11. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
12. The Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project site with the
project as described in the Final EIR 97-01, except as modified by this resolution.
PC RESO NO. 4773 -4- ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. Paleontology:
a>
b)
C>
d)
e)
0
Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the
Planning Department).
14. No grading shall be permitted from March 15 - September 30 unless otherwise
authorized by California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Engineeriw:
15. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall apply for and obtain approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route.
Grading
16. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project appears to be required. The developer shall apply
for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
17. Upon completion of grading, the developer shall file an “as-graded” geologic plan with
PC RESO NO. 4773 -5- f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading
operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on
a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be
signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan shall be signed
by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24”
x 36” mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start
of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Dedications/Improvements
19.
20.
21.
22.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
Developer shall underground existing overhead utilities along the project boundary as
part of project construction.
Prior to issuance of grading permit, the developer shall submit an engineering
study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which evaluates the project hydrology
and a capacity analysis of the public storm facilities. The study shall be prepared by
a registered engineer. Improvements for onsite detention or other storm drainage
improvements, if required, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements
constructed to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water
Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include
but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b) Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
PC RESO NO. 4773
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
c> Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.’ In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install improvements shown on the site plan and the’ following
improvements:
4 Sidewalk, and median paving and landscape improvements along the project
frontage on Palomar Airport Road.
b) Cul-de-sac bulb improvements at the northern terminus of Palomar Oaks
Way.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file and receive approval
of a parcel map application to remove and adjust lot lines to correspond with the
approved project site plan. This parcel map shall include a reservation of a 72’ wide
access easement to the undeveloped parcel (APN 212-120-33) which currently takes
access from Swift Place, hereon referred to as the “Hieatt parcel”. Installation of
improvements to this easement is not a requirement of this project.
Developer shall incorporate the design of the structural section for the access aisles
within the clubhouse parking lot with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City
standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater
than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together
with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
Developer/Owner shall waive direct access rights along Palomar Airport Road by
separate document and provide proof of recordation to the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Developer shall incorporate into the grading/improvement plans the design for the project
drainage out-fall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe-outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radically designed rip-rap, or other means deemed
appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 4773 -7- lo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
Fire:
30.
31.
32.
33.
Developer shall install street lights along all public and private street frontages abutting
and/or within the project site in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets and
private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but
should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Developer shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Developer shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate the
methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation
growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the
fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
Water:
34. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
35. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
36. Sequentially, the developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs’from appropriate
parties.
W Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing approval.
4 Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. - GPM - EDU).
PC RESO NO. 4773 -8- 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at
the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be
available until time of occupancy.
The project landscape design shall include irrigation with reclaimed water in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Water District standards and City ordinances.
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of June, 2000 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiZMIL%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4773 -9-
A
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998
4. EIR 97-011CUP 97-07/CDP 97-25/HDP 97-08/SUP 98-02 - CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF
COURSE Request for recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and
recommendation of approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, CEQA findings; and conditionally approving a Conditional Use Permit,
Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit for the
development of an 18 hole championship golf course with clubhouse, practice facilities, and pads
for future industrial/golf related development on approximately 397 acres located north of Palomar
Airport Road, ease and west of College Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zones 5 and 8.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced the item and stated that Associate Planner, Christer
Westman, would make the presentation.
Project Planner, Christer Westman, presented the staff report and described this project as follows: This is
a municipal project consisting of an 18 hole championship golf course, a 22,000 square foot clubhouse,
222 stall parking lot, and a driving range with 80 tees. The clubhouse is designed to have two levels; the
upper level includes the entry, restaurant, outdoor patio seating, and a pro shop, and the lower level will
house the locker rooms and storage. The golf course holes will be located on both sides of College
Boulevard and will be connected by a bridge over College Boulevard that will be used only by golf course
users and maintenance vehicles. There will be free standing maintenance and restroom facilities,
relocation of a police shooting range, the creation of three pads for future development of planned
industrial/golf related uses, and a pad for a future city meeting facility. The proposed building will carry
over the same design cues used on the clubhouse. No designs, however, have been proposed for the
future development pads, at this time. Each future proposal will be subject to the approval of a Planned
Industrial Permit issued by the Planning Director. Depending on what is proposed, a Conditional Use
Permit may also be required and will then be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The
relocation of the shooting range is prompted by the proposed golf course design. By taking advantage of
it’s new location, the range will be new (and improved) through it’s design. Some of the improvements will
help mitigate noise emanating from the range. The shooting range is used by the Carlsbad Police
Department, as well as other Federal, State, and local public safety agencies. Typical use of the range is
Tuesday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. There is occasional use of the
range for low level light training.
Representatives of LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA have submitted a letter (a copy of which is on file in the
Planning Department) and have met with staff, regarding their concern that peak noise levels from
gunshots will be audible on the Carlsbad Ranch Resort site. The new shooting range will be located
approximately 1,000 feet from the resort site property and approximately 140 feet lower in elevation. The
EIR found that the noise level at the shooting range will be within City levels of acceptability. The report
also concluded that the estimated noise levels were within the County of San Diego’s one hour average
method, and also concluded that by using the maximum noise level guideline, the impact at the resort
property is five decibels over the guideline level of acceptability. In summary, the report estimates that the
project is within, or very closely within, three of four guideline levels of acceptability. Staff recognizes that
the noise study’s conclusions and recommendations to use the fourth guideline, the peak noise, are
conservative and that data was gathered at the existing facility from distances ranging from 60 to 140 feet
away from the shooters. It is pointed out that the resort property line is one thousand feet away from the
proposed new shooting range site and is 140 feet lower in elevation. Staff is confident that the EIR is
adequate in its analysis and its conclusion that there will not be significant noise impacts generated by the
project. However, in the interest of being good neighbors, staff has prepared a condition for the Planning
Commission to consider adding to Resolution No. 4252 (the Conditional Use Permit), as follows:
“Additional noise testing at the proposed shooting range location shall be conducted to establish peak
noise levels at the property line between the Carlsbad Ranch “resort” site and the project site.
Recommendations shall be made, in the noise report, that will reduce noise impacts to the greatest extent
feasible as determined by the Planning Director.”
Two letters have been received from the Ladwig Design Group (copies of which are on file in the Planning
Department), regarding the adequacy of the Environment Impact Report (EIR) with reference to an
adjacent property known as the Hieatt property. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., of San Diego and
Pasadena, prepared a response to the letter submitted to the Planning Commission for this meeting. The
Ladwig letter states, “. . by not considering the inclusion of an access road, as part of the golf course
MINUTES 13
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 7
project, the EIR is deficient.” Staff disagrees with Mr. Ladwig’s assertion as a 72 foot easement is
proposed to provide future access to the referenced Hieatt property. Construction of the roadway, within
the easement, is not a part of the golf course project. However, general disturbance of the easement has
been reviewed and quantified, and satisfies compliance with CEQA. The easement provides access to
the Hieatt property and completion of the roadway, within the easement, and the completion of mitigation
measures resulting from the disturbance of habitat in the easement, will be the responsibility of the Hieatt
property developer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game
had concerns with some of the proposed mitigation measures. City staff has met with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to discuss these agencys’ comments to
the EIR and also to discuss future agency permit processing. As a result of this meeting, the City and the
aforementioned agencies, will continue to meet over the next few weeks to resolve a mitigation strategy
which may include further preservation of resources (on-site), modified on-site restoration program, off-
site preservation, and also reduction in size of the planned industrial pad north of College Boulevard.
Reduction of the pad would be with the intent of providing a wider wildlife habitat corridor which moves
northerly from Palomar Airport Road, over College Boulevard, and then to Veterans Memorial park. The
intent of the meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game is to establish concurrence between the City and the agencies regarding appropriate mitigation
measures prior to certification of the EIR by the City Council and also to jump-start the process of gaining
permits from these different agencies which are required prior to the City being able to begin construction
of this project.
Staff is, therefore, asking the Commission to make a favorable recommendation to the City Council,
regarding the EIR and its certification, with the acknowledgment that through these discussions with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, there will be an
addendum made, prepared, and submitted to the City Council prior to the City Council hearing for its
consideration. It is staffs understanding that if the Commission votes to send the EIR to the City Council
under this condition, no specific changes will need to be made to the Resolutions. The acknowledgment
of the addendum can be made through discussion, which will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Generally, the EIR was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, by
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., who is under contract with the City. There are eleven sections of
discussion including biology, traffic circulation, compatibility, and air quality. Significant impacts were
identified under biological resources, air quality, hydrology, water quality, public services and utilities,
archaeological and paleontological resources, and land form alterational grading. Of those significant
impacts identified, each impact was considered to be mitigable through implementation of mitigations
described in each section of the EIR as well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Two
unavoidable significant impacts were identified as cumulative impacts and are air quality and traffic
circulation. Regarding air quality, short term impacts would be created because the project will generate
dust and require the operation of heavy equipment during construction. They can be mitigated by
watering the site and keeping the heavy equipment tuned. Air quality long term impacts will be caused by
vehicular traffic (to and from the site) and by the use of energy to operate the facility itself. These long
term project impacts can be sufficiently mitigated through a design that will reduce energy consumption,
such as energy efficient air-conditioning systems. However, cumulative air impacts (the contribution of all
projects) cannot be mitigated because there is no way, other than denial of the project, to mitigate the
cumulative air impacts. The project have cumulative traffic impacts because the City has no control over
the regional contribution, to it’s street system, and therefore the project cannot mitigate those cumulative
impacts. Statements of Overriding Consideration have been prepared which would allow the City to move
forward with the project, with the acknowledgment that the project has greater benefit to the community,
than denial of the project would have toward mitigating the region’s non-attainment basin status and
regional traffic impacts. Both cumulative air quality and traffic were addressed in the General Plan
updated EIR which is Master EIR #93-01, with a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
Staff distributed a memorandum with recommended additional conditions:
1) Resolution #4252 - Add “Prior to the issuance of a building permit on the Planned
Industrial pad north of College Boulevard, a follow-up General Plan Amendment and Zone Change shall
be completed, adjusting the boundaries of both the Open Space and Planned Industrial designations
relative to the pad.”
The addition of this condition is recommended by staff because the pad on the north side of College
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 8
Boulevard crosses over from the Planned Industrial Zone into an Open Space Zone. However there
would be a swath of open space and Planned Industrial resulting in greater Open Space Zoning
designation than currently exists on the Zoning Map. There will be a Zoning Map adjustment and it could
also be done in conjunction with adjustment plats that would be done for the project in order to make sure
that none of the buildings proposed on the project site would be crossing property lines. Both of those
would be follow-up items if this item is approved.
2) Resolution #/4252 -m “Additional noise testing at the proposed shooting range location
shall be conducted to establish peak noise levels at the property line between the Carlsbad Ranch “resort”
site and the project site. Recommendations shall be defined in the noise report which will reduce peak
noise impacts to the greatest extent feasible as determined by the Planning Director.”
3) Resolution No. 4253 (Replace Condition #6 with the following) - “Should it not be possible
to grade during the Coastal summer grading period, April 1st to October lst, because the “responsible”
wildlife agencies prohibit grading during the breeding season, or if restrictions are placed on summer
grading such that it is rendered impractical, grading will be allowed to begin following the breeding season
and continue through the winter to the start of the next breeding season (approximately February 15th). If
grading is allowed during the entire summer, then grading shall be prohibited from October 1st to March
31st. It shall be possible to extend summer grading under this circumstance to November 15th, subject to
the approval of the City Engineer and the installation of all erosion control devices by October 1st. The
intent is to contain sediments on-site.”
This condition is acknowledging that the current condition leaves only one month in which to do grading
and, in favor of protecting the breeding season during the summer, it may be necessary for the project to
be able to grade during the winter.
Regarding the shooting range, Commissioner Monroy asked how the noise testing was conducted and
pointed out that the wind usually blows out of the northwest which would carry the noise to the east and
away from the resort site which is to the west of the proposed range.
Mr. Westman replied that staff had conducted an informal noise analysis, specific to the site. However
those results were not readily available at this hearing. He explained that the test was actually performed
at the existing shooting range by placing noise receptors anywhere from 60 to 140 feet away from the
firing line and there was no mention of weather (or if a wind factor was taken into account) in the report.
Those figures were used to suggest the noise level at the actual proposed site, at the resort’s property
line.
Commissioner Monroy suggested that a noise analysis be done, at the site, citing that the prevailing wind
would have a considerable effect on the results of the test.
Mr. Westman stated that staff is hoping to acknowledge that weather factor, somewhere in the conditions,
by adding that a noise analysis be conducted on the site with the receptors at the property lines.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that the condition addressing additional noise testing, that is proposed to be
added to Resolution No. 4252, is somewhat vague and asked if this new condition is intended to bring the
proposed shooting range into compliance.
Mr. Westman stated that it is intended to bring the proposed shooting range into compliance with whatever
the identified standard is, in the noise analysis. Currently, staff feels that the EIR noise analysis and the
extrapolation that has been done, sufficiently shows that there will not be a significant impact at the
property line of the resort site. However, in an effort to be a good neighbor, the City would suggest that a
condition be imposed upon the City to do another noise study, assessing peak noise, and to mitigate
measures to the greatest extent feasible.
Commissioner Compas asked what the referenced mitigating measures are.
Mr. Westman replied that those measures could include some type of solid noise barrier, a barrier specific
to the location of the firing line, landscaping, possibly some re-contouring of the site, etc.
MINUTES
/5
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 9
With reference to the habitat sites, Commissioner Compas asked if it is correct that this project will not go
forward unless the Habitat Management Plan is approved.
Mr. Westman responded by stating that in the discussions with the agencies, it was determined that the
most expeditious way of permitting the golf course would be through the Habitat Management Plan. There
are options of using other methods but they would not be as expeditious and would, quite possibly, be
more cumbersome.
Commissioner Compas asked where the City stands with respect to getting approval for Habitat
Management.
Principal Planner, Don Rideout, stated that the City is in the middle of negotiations with the agencies that
are intended to get the approval for the City, as quickly as possible. It involves some additional
negotiations and there are some policy issues that the City needs to consider. The City is making every
effort to get the discussions and issues resolved so that this, and other projects, can be permitted and
move ahead as quickly as possible. Although no promises can be made, it is the City’s intention to begin
this project during the year 1998.
Commissioner Heineman asked how many individuals use the shooting range, at one time.
Lt. Metcalf, Range Officer, Carlsbad Police Department, replied that the range has a capacity of fifteen
shooting lanes and because it is not a full time range, the average use is about twenty hours per week.
He gave no specific numbers with regard to the number of individual shooters.
Commissioner Welshons, stated that the first proposed new condition in Resolution No. 4252 also seems
somewhat vague, and asked if it is attached to something else and gives explanation to why the
boundaries will be adjusted.
Mr. Westman replied that the intent of the condition is to address the pad on the north side of College
Boulevard which is within both Planned Industrial and Open Space Zones. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, a zone change will have to be done which would designate the planned industrial pad as
planned industrial and the areas outside of that as open space. The planned industrial pad, as proposed,
does not encompass all of the planned industrial zoning site, so, through this amendment to the maps,
what will happen is that the pad itself will be identified as being entirely industrial and the area outside the
pad, open space. In addition, some planned industrial zoning that exists today will then be converted to
open space. The net result would be that, on the north side of College Boulevard, the pad would be
identified as Planned Industrial and everything outside of that as open space.
Commissioner Welshons asked why it is necessary to wait until the issuance of the building permit to do
as has been stated above.
Mr. Westman explained that it is simply a time frame that allows the process.
Mr. Wayne stated that the General Plan contains a mechanism that allows for open space adjustments of
this type and the Planning Commission and City Council have the authority to allow such adjustments,
provided that the proper findings can be made.
Making reference to a proposal to dedicate an easement to the Hieatt property, Commissioner Welshons
asked what the distance is from the intersection of Aston Avenue to the easement and also the standard
for intersection spacing.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the distance to the intersection of Aston Avenue is approximately 900 feet and the
standard for intersections spacing is 1200 feet. He added that this intersection would be a right-in, right-
out.
Commissioner Welshons then asked Mr. Wojcik to state the justification for dropping below the
intersection spacing standard.
Mr. Wojcik replied that it is for the benefit of the Hieatt property, if it does develop.
MINUTES
/b
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 10
Commissioner Welshons asked if any alternative accesses have been considered, such as via Aston
Avenue and through an adjacent property to the northeast.
Mr. Wojcik responded by stating that both of those alternatives have been looked at and all of the
properties are privately owned and not available. The lot immediately north of the Hieatt property is
currently being developed and when asked if he would provide an easement, the developer was not
interested because it would change his design.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the City offered to pay the adjacent developer for an easement and Mr.
Wojcik replied that the City did not make such an offer.
Commissioner Welshons asked what legal recourse any property owner has if he purchased a property
under the assumption that there is proposed access to that property.
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, stated that essentially the property owner has no legal recourse and
it is the property owner’s responsibility to figure out how he is going to get access. It is the City’s
responsibility, during the approval process, that the City does not landlock the property. The property
owner cannot rely on potential future paper access that might never occur.
Commissioner Welshons asked what will happen to the money that Mr. Hieatt has paid into the
assessment district for the street improvements to College Boulevard and access to his property. Also,
why was Mr. Hieatt asked to participate in the district?
Mr. Rudolf replied that everyone has to pay their fair share of the improvements and every property
served by a major roadway is assessed but they still have to find their own way to take access to that
roadway.
Mr. Wojcik, in response to the question regarding the money Mr. Hieatt has already paid, stated that the
Assessment District is for College Boulevard and the assessments are based on benefits received and
this property is still gaining access to College Boulevard. There are any number of pieces of property in
the Assessment District that do not take direct access off the Boulevard as in the case of the Hieatt
property. In this case, the City feels that Mr. Hieatt is (or will be) getting benefit from that District.
John Cahill, representing the City of Carlsbad, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he had no
formal presentation but rather was present to answer questions regarding this project. Mr. Cahill
encouraged the Commission to adopt the additional conditions proposed for this project, as well as the
EIR, CUP, CDP, HDP, and SUP, as presented.
Regarding the Habitat Management Plan, Chairperson Noble asked if that plan is required to be approved
before this item goes on to be heard by the City Council and Mr. Cahill replied that it does not have to be
approved before going before the City Council. However, the City wants to make all of the issues in the
mitigation measures, eventually approved by the City Council, the same.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Cahill to rate the proposed new golf course, compared to the new
course in Encinitas, and also asked if there will be a special rate for Carlsbad residents.
Mr. Cahill responded by stating that the Encinitas Ranch course is a terrific public golf course and the City
of Carlsbad is trying to do the same and there will be a special rate for Carlsbad residents.
Commissioner Savary asked if the Planned Industrial usage will be limited to golf related businesses.
Mr. Cahill stated that all three pads will remain as Planned Industrial and the City is not suggesting any
other use than Planned Industrial or golf related.
Commissioner Savary asked for more information regarding the bridge that is to be built over College
Boulevard, including the height and whether it will accommodate all types of traffic passing underneath.
Mr. Cahill replied that the bridge will be strictly for golf carts, maintenance, and public safety equipment. In
MINUTES
17
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 11
addition, the option of building a tunnel was explored, only to realize that it would cost at least double the
price of a bridge, not to mention the problem of drainage and other related issues. As for the height; it will
have a 19’6” clearance and being a Cal Trans designed bridge, it will accommodate all vehicles.
Chairperson Noble asked if the proposed eighteen hole golf course will eventually link up with a proposed
nine hole course at the Carlsbad Ranch Resort.
Mr. Cahill replied that if and when the course at the Carlsbad Ranch is built, the proposed municipal golf
course will link to it, for a total of 27 holes and possibly 36 holes.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the industrial pads will be leased or sold.
Mr. Cahill stated that the City will probably examine a number of alternatives and there is also the potential
that City facilities will go on one or all of them. It is not known, at this time, whether they will be leased or
sold but they will be created and try to make the best deal possible for the city.
Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, Inc., 703 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, representing Mr. & Mrs.
Jim Hieatt, stated that they fully support the proposed municipal golf course. Before beginning his
presentation, Mr. Ladwig requested that his letter and it’s exhibits addressed to Chairperson Noble and
dated March 27, 1998, (a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department) be entered into the record.
Mr. Ladwig gave a brief overhead slide presentation and stated that both he and his client have specific
objections to the approvals being requested at this meeting. Most specific is the approval of the
Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Ladwig quoted the provisions of Public Resource Code 21002.1 (a) and
stated that by failing to include any consideration of the access road to the Hieatt property, the EIR is
deficient in the following:
1. It does not identify the significant effects on the environment.
2. It fails to identify alternatives to the project.
3. It fails to indicate the manner in which the significant affects of the access road can be
mitigated or avoided.
Regarding an earlier statement that the City has made no promises to the Hieatts, Mr. Ladwig expressed
their strong disagreement with that statement and pointed out that after the adjacent subdivision was
approved in about 1982, the Hieatts agreed to join the College Assessment District and receive the
assessments for that in order to get the benefit they would receive by having streets from their property
down to College and provide full access to a major thoroughfare for development of their property. He
pointed out that the findings of the Assessment Engineer were such that because the Hieatt property
would benefit, they should receive some assessments. Mr. Hieatt agreed to the assessments and has
been making those payments ever since. In conclusion, Mr. Ladwig stated that they would agree that this
project should be approved, in concept, but not at Mr. Hieatt’s expense. They also agreed that it should
be developed in such a way as to provide full access and utilities to the Hieatt property. Mr. Ladwig
requested that the conditions for approval of the project should not only include the 72 feet of right-of-way
but should also include all of the improvements. Mr. Ladwig suggested that the application for this project
is incomplete citing that any other developer submitting a project to the City is required to go through an
Engineering Standards Variance because the distance between intersections is shorter than the standard
spacing on College Boulevard. Mr. Ladwig pointed out that the City is required to make certain findings to
grant a variance and his clients will not accept anything less than a full intersection onto College
Boulevard because a right-in and right-out is definitely not the full benefit they have now, based on the
existing approved plans. Mr. Ladwig further suggested that the Commission cannot act on this item, as
presented, because this project is not complete and staff has not presented the options and alternatives
that are required to be addressed as part of this overall project. In conclusion, Mr. Ladwig requested that
this project be continued to allow staff time to amend the project conditions, to include an Engineering
Standards Variance and the required findings for the proposed intersection on College Boulevard. In
addition, Mr. Ladwig asked that the project’s conditions be amended to include, as part of the golf course
requirements, full dedication and improvements of a standard industrial street from College Boulevard to
MINUTES /g
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 12
the Hieatt property.
Referring to the last paragraph of Mr. Ladwig’s letter to the Planning Commission, dated March 27, 1998,
Commissioner Compas asked if the Hieatts still maintain the position as stated by their attorney, Mr.
Charles Marvin.
Mr. Ladwig replied that, according to their attorney, that is still their position.
Chairperson Noble asked if the Hieatts are paying the same assessments as those who actually have
direct access to College Boulevard. Mr. Ladwig replied affirmatively.
Jens Flemming Jensen, 5600 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, representing Carlsbad Estate Holding, Inc., the
owner of lot 17, the resort site at Carlsbad Ranch. Mr. Jensen read a prepared statement (a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department), in which he addressed the subject of significant noise impacts
emanating from the proposed relocated police shooting range. He noted what he considers to be serious
inconsistencies in the EIR, and voiced strong objection to the proposed shooting range facility, while
endorsing the golf course portion of this project. Mr. Jensen stated that there has been serious interest for
the resort site from hotel groups, representing the kind of quality hotels the City wants in Carlsbad, one of
which has stated that if they will likely not consider the resort site if the shooting range becomes a reality.
In conclusion, Mr. Jensen urged the Commission not to approve certification of the EIR, based on the
reasons outlined in his letter.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Cahill to comment on why the shooting range has to be located as
proposed.
Mr. Cahill stated that what has been approved are two final maps for forty industrial pads with buildings,
asphalt, and drainage structures and what is proposed, in terms of compatible land use with what is going
on in the future in Macario Canyon Park, is a golf course. It is intended that only 50% of the 350 acres will
be developed and the rest preserved and enhanced, which is a significant environmental contribution.
As for the shooting range, Mr. Cahill stated that the current range was identified as temporary some fifteen
years ago and the City has always known that it would have to be moved. Many other sites have been
looked at but none with the proper topographic considerations. The Macario Canyon site has the proper
topographies and access necessary for the proper training of law enforcement officers. The range will be
140 feet below and 1000 feet horizontally separated from the other uses. The area is not appropriate for
golf and with the proper noise mitigation (including heavy landscaping), will be appropriate for the shooting
range. Mr. Cahill further stated that he has suggested further noise studies to address Mr. Jensen’s
concerns.
Chairperson Noble asked if the developed 50% of the 350 acres contained in the project includes uses
other than the golf course, and what about Veterans Memorial Park.
Mr. Cahill replied that the 50% encompasses the golf course, all of the building, the industrial pads, etc.
Mr. Cahill pointed out an area, on an exhibit, labeled as a riparian corridor and stated that Veterans
Memorial Park will be slightly north of that riparian corridor.
Commissioner Welshons asked how the industrial pad, on the north side of College Boulevard across
from the pad that will provide the easement to the Hieatt property, will attain access.
Mr. Cahill replied that both pads have direct access onto College Boulevard.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if those accesses will be signalized or will they be right-in and right-
out only.
Mr. Cahill stated that there is a median break there and Mr. Wojcik confirmed that it will allow for left turns.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Wojcik to give some idea of the reduction in Average Daily Trips
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 13
(ADT) along Palomar Airport Road as a result of the change in zoning for this property.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the estimated reduction will be from 21,000 to 4,400 ADT, a reduction of
approximately 500%.
John Bridges, Principal with Cotton/Beland/Associates, 6336 Greenwich Drive, #F, San Diego, preparer of
the EIR, stated that the EIR addresses the biological impacts which were the only significant impacts
identified. It was assumed that there would be a roadway in the location of the Hieatt property and some
of the biological resources that are there today, would be removed as a result of the roadway. Therefore
there would be some significant effect associated with putting a roadway to the Hieatt property, for
biology, but that can be mitigated. For all of the other impact areas that are described in Mr. Ladwig’s
letter, such as archeology, paleontology, and other things mentioned are looked at in the EIR but are not
environmentally significant. Mr. Bridges stated that the City believes that the EIR adequately addresses
the extension of the roadway to the Hieatt property, assumes that a roadway would be there in the future,
but does not assume who would be paying for that roadway or when it would occur.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that the road, indicated on the maps, is not the road being proposed
in this project and asked Mr. Bridges to clarify.
Mr. Bridges replied that the map is the existing final map and the EIR assumes that there will be
preservation of right-of-way, or road as shown, to serve the Hieatt property and assumes that there will be
some impact associated with putting that road in. The impact is limited to biology and can be mitigated.
Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Bridges who he assumed would mitigate the habitat.
Mr. Bridges stated that because the golf course is going in first, the City will probably be mitigating the
impacts that would be associated with this roadway, primarily because of the industrial pads. The
mitigation for biology is a single package and it will be tied in with the Habitat Management Plan and will
cover this as well as the other impacts.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Bridges to confirm Attorney Marvin’s statement regarding the legality of
the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR.
Mr. Bridges stated that he, nor the City, agrees with Mr. Marvin in his assessment of the EIR and that they
have definitely considered the impacts listed in Mr. Ladwig’s letter as part of this EIR. He further stated
that there are significant impacts, associated with biology, that can be mitigated. The facts described by
Mr. Ladwig are not significant impacts. However, there are two cumulative impacts for this project, air
quality and traffic, that will remain.
Regarding alternative proposals, Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Cahill to comment on the proposed land
swap between the City and the Hieatts.
Mr. Cahill replied that the Hieatts have offered their property in exchange for the industrial pad east and
south of College. However, Mr. Cahill continued, that is something the City is not interested in doing. The
industrial pad property is infinitely more valuable and will be much more easily developed than the Hieatt
parcel, even though the Hieatt property is much larger in terms of acreage. The properties are not of
equal value and therefore the City is not interested in such an exchange.
Regarding the mention of a Standards Variance, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik if there can
be a standards variance as suggested by Mr. Ladwig.
Mr. Wojcik replied that if and when a development goes on to the Hieatt property, then a variance will be
done.
Commissioner Welshons then asked Mr. Wojcik to comment on what will happen to the two industrial pads
across from each other, right at the easement and where the break in the median is.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the break in the median is much further away from the easement for the Hieatt
property and it does meet the City standards.
MINUTES -aA
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 14
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik if a signal will be placed at the intersection between the City’s
two industrial pads.
Mr. Wojcik replied that it would not be his first choice to put a signal at that intersection, since the uses
there are still unknown and that the City will have to wait until there is a development proposal in order to
know if they will actually signalize that intersection. He added that, in his opinion, there is a better than
50150 chance of not have a signal at that location.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there is any other possible way to get to the Hieatt other than the
proposed easement.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the property has always been landlocked and stated that the City has always
believed that the Hieatt property is also impacted with habitat as much or more than the City’s parcel and
that is the reason the City rejected Mr. Hieatt’s offer of a trade.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the variance could be turned down and why the variance was not
processed with this project in order to assure the Hieatt’s access to their property.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the variance for the intersection standards would be administratively done by the
City Engineer, and the variance was not processed with this project because there are serious doubts as
to whether or not the property will ever be developed.
Commissioner Compas, referring to the shooting range, asked what will happen if the range goes in and
all the mitigation is done, and there is still a problem and even if it meant that the facility would have to be
moved.
Mr. Cahill responded by stating that the City feels that the chances of such a situation are very slim and if
a problem does develop, the City will simply have to deal with it, even if it had to be moved.
Regarding the Hieatt property access, Mr. Cahill suggested that Mr. Rudolf be asked if the paper maps
that were created and final maps that were recorded, many years ago, confer any rights or benefits upon
the Hieatt parcel, for access. Secondly, now that the City will be extinguishing those maps as a result of
the development of this project, are there any rights or benefits of the public’s property that are borne to
the private property. Mr. Cahill stated that the City’s feels that the answer to both questions is “no”. He
pointed out that the City’s obligation is not to landlock that parcel, to provide access to that parcel and
preserve right-of-way (which has been done) of industrial size street widths across the public’s property to
serve the private parcel.
Chairperson Noble re-opened Public Testimony.
Larry Jett, 6119 La Granada, Ranch0 Santa Fe, owner of lot 65 in the Carlsbad Research Center, stated
that he has recently reached an agreement to purchase the Hieatt property and recently hired an
environmental expert to study the property. Mr. Jett further stated that the recent study results, as well as
past environmental studies, have not even begun to suggest that the Hieatt property cannot be developed
environmentally. Mr. Jett raised the question of why the City seems bound and determined to (in some
way) restrict the property, as being environmentally undevelopable. He went on to say that the facts that
he has found completely refute that idea and stated that if he owned all of the property, (with the existing
recorded subdivision map in place) and went to the City with plans for a golf course and with the intention
of landlocking the Hieatt property, the City would not allow him to build the golf course unless he made
sure that the Hieatt property had access to a public street, especially since the owner of that property has
been paying into the assessment district for many years. Mr. Jett pointed out that he is very much in favor
of the golf course development and added that if that 350 acres is mitigable, why isn’t the Hieatt property
mitigable as well. After all, he continued, the Hieatt property is identical to the 350 acres adjoining it.
Bob Ladwig, restated his client’s support for the golf course, and responded to staffs statement regarding
the supposition that the Hieatt property is undevelopable by stating that staffs statement was a statement
without any basis of fact. He suggested bias on the part of staff and stated that, in the past, the City has
been a champion of property rights but in his opinion, the City is not trying to protect Mr. Hieatt’s property
MINUTES
a
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 15
rights.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Ladwig if he and his client would be satisfied if an easement, and the
variance accompanying it, were included in this action.
Mr. Ladwig replied that they want full turning ability on College Boulevard.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Commissioner Monroy stated his concern regarding the right-in and right-out, for the Hieatt property, and
suggested that a continuance might be in order, to allow time for clarification of that issue as well as
others.
Chairperson Noble agreed with Commissioner Monroy and added that he is also concerned by the fact
that Mr. Hieatt has been paying into the assessment district for many years and now it appears that he will
get nothing for his money. He then asked if Mr. Hieatt will get his money back. Chairperson Noble went
on to suggest that the Commission does not have the answers with which to decide this issue, at this
time, and unless more information is presented he will not support this item as presented.
Commissioner Heineman also voiced his concern regarding the right-in and right-out to the Hieatt property
and stated that, in his opinion, that seriously devalues the property. He further stated that until there is a
more definitive solution for the Hieatt property, he cannot support this item.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he has serious trepidations about supporting this project without a
guaranteed access to the Hieatt property. He, too, stated that he cannot support this project without more
information and answers.
Commissioner Monroy, requesting legal counsel, asked if there is any grandfathering being done here and
also, can this Commission proceed with a guarantee (even if it is limited to right-in and right-out), since it
is not part of the agenda.
Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, replied that the Commissioners seem to believe that because there
was an approved final map that provided access, that somehow that gave rise to a vested right to the
continued existence of that potential future street, but it does not. He further stated that there is no way
that argument would hold up in a court of law. Regarding whether or not the Commission has a sufficient,
adequate project to approve or disapprove and take action, the answer is yes. He further advised that the
right-in and right-out easement is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and there is sufficient
information for the Commission to act. As for an intersection spacing variance, Mr. Rudolf stated that
although there is no written guarantee, it would be foolish for the City to deny such a variance.
Mr. Wojcik stated that if there ever is a project on the Hieatt property, the City would grant a variance for
the intersection spacing.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Wojcik, should the Hieatt property be developed, are there any
assurances that a variance will be a “sure thing” for that intersection. Mr. Wojcik replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Monroy asked if it would be possible to move the signalized intersection (to the south) a
few hundred feet to the north and make it convenient for the two industrial parcels and this right-of-way.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he is not aware that there will be a signal at the intersection indicated by
Commissioner Monroy. However, if there is ultimately going to be a signal there, then it would make
sense to move that intersection further north for the greater good.
Commissioner Welshons stated that the right-in and right-out access is not satisfactory and, in her
opinion, does not meet the letter of the law and it also appears that the City is not really being a good
neighbor.
Commissioner Monroy suggested a recess to allow staff to confer on many of the questions raised during
this meeting. He added that, in his opinion, the golf course and the industrial properties would greatly
MINUTES
2s
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 16
benefit from having a signalized intersection rather than what is currently being proposed.
RECESS:
Chairperson Noble called a recess at 8:55 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 9:05 p.m., with all
Commissioners present.
Mr. Rideout stated that it is not possible to move the southerly intersection further to the north because the
eastern end, northern industrial pad is in the Coastal Zone and it has dual criteria slopes. Dual criteria
slopes means that over 25% of the slopes have habitat on them and because of that the grading in the
area has to be done sensitively so as to reduce the impacts to dual criteria slopes. In addition to that
issue, the City’s Hillside Ordinance must be complied with, resulting in the inability to place an intersection
in the area suggested by Commissioner Monroy. Also, the northern parcel will be reduced, in size, as a
result of the grading restrictions.
Commissioner Heineman asked if this new information will have any effect on the granting of a variance,
should the Hieatt property be developed. Mr. Wojcik replied that it will not have any effect.
Mr. Wojcik explained his reason for previously stating that the Hieatt property is considered to be
undevelopable by pointing out that an aerial photograph of the site clearly shows the same vegetation that
is also on the City’s property, requiring the City to stay out of the area. Secondly, a recent seminar and
tour of sensitive habitat took the participants onto the Hieatt property where there are some very rare
plants, some that had never been seen by the environmental expert conducting the tour. After some
discussion with the other seminar participants, it was agreed that this property would probably never be
developed because of habitat.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik if a condition can be added to assure the owner of the Hieatt
property that a variance will be granted for a right-in and right-out access to their property.
Mr. Rudolf stated that he would not recommend that the Commission require the Engineer to grant the
variance. He agreed that the variance could be granted to avoid landlocking the Hieatt property but it
would not be advisable to require the Engineer to exercise his discretion. Mr. Rudolf went on to state that
the Engineer should be left to exercise his discretion, as required by law, as opposed to the Commission
taking his discretion away from him. He pointed out that this, in reality, is a hypothetical event that may
never occur and if the property is never developed it may never be necessary to apply for (and have
granted) an easement or ever use an easement.
Commissioner Compas stated that he could support this project if it is entered in the record that; 1) a
variance will be granted in the event that the Hieatt property is developed; and, 2) if there is ever a
problem(s) with the police firing range, the City will take appropriate action to fix the problem(s).
Commissioner Nielsen suggested that perhaps, because of the wording regarding the variance cannot be
added to the conditions, this project should be continued to allow time to gather more information.
If the Commissioner were to add the suggested condition, Commissioner Welshons asked where it would
90.
Mr. Rudolf replied that it would go into the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if the Commission would be the final body to review the condition,
versus the EIR that would be sent to the City Council.
Mr. Rudolf stated that another way would be to change the final content of the EIR and make a
recommendation to the City Council that they change the final EIR by adding the requirement for the
mitigation measure, with the discussion with regard to access to the adjacent property to include a
requirement that the Engineer grant the variance.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if it could be phrased to indicate that “pending development of the
Hieatt property, the Engineer will grant the variance.”
MINUTES
d3
PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 Page 17
Mr. Rudolf stated that all the Commission would be doing is adding an additional condition to require the
City Engineer to grant a variance, if requested, from the required intersection distance required to allow
the easement to be used.
Commissioner Heineman stated that on the basis of the assurance given by Mr. Wojcik that the variance
would be granted, and assuming that this can be put into the project in some way, he could support the
project.
Commissioner Monroy maintained his reluctance to act against the recommendation of legal counsel and
suggested that the project be continued to the next meeting. He cited; 1) the issue of whether or not the
Hieatt property is developable; 2) the issue of the right-in and right-out from the Hieatt property; and, 3)
where to put an additional condition if one is to be added.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that if the questions that have been raised are sufficient to warrant
additional definitive language, then perhaps the project should be continued to the next regular meeting.
Commissioner Compas disagreed with the suggestions to continue and Chairperson Noble concurred.
Mr. Rudolf stated that if the Commission wishes to address the variance, Condition No. 21, Resolution No.
4252, in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), is the place to put it. Another sentence could be added that
requires that the Engineer grant the variance when requested.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4251, recommending certification of Environmental
Impact Report EIR 97-01 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4252,
4253, 4254, and 4255, approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 97-07, Coastal
Development Permit CDP 97-25, Hillside Development Permit HDP 97-08 and
Special Use Permit SUP 98-02, with the inclusion of modifications to Resolutions
No. 4252 and 4253, as recommended by staff, and with the change in Condition
No. 21 in Resolution No. 4252 to conform with the language given by the
Assistant City Attorney, and based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he cannot support this project because to do so would be to ignore the
advice of legal counsel.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he can support the project even though he is not entirely comfortable
with some of the issues surrounding the shooting range.
Commissioner Compas stated his support for the project as presented and with the amendments stated in
the motion.
Commissioner Welshons voiced her support for the project including the amendments as stated in the
motion.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he thinks the project is wonderful, as a whole, but cannot support it at
this time because of the all the uncertainties and because a vote in support would be directly opposed to
the advice of legal counsel.
Commissioner Savary stated that she can support the project with the adjustments that have been made.
Commissioner Heineman stated his support of the project.
Chairperson Noble stated that he can support the project because it does meet all the standards and in
spite of some serious doubts about the promises that have been made but are not in written form.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
6-1
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
Monroy,
MINUTES
a4
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O mAFT Page 3
1. EIR 97-011CUP 97-07/CDP 97-25/HDP 974WSUP 98-02 - CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
GOLF COURSE - Request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
approval of CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit for
the development of an 18 hole championship golf course with clubhouse, practice
facilities, and pads for future industrial/golf related development on approximately 397
acres located north of Palomar Airport Road, east and west of College Boulevard in Local
Facilities Management Zones 5 and 8.
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne advised the Commission that their action on agenda item #I
would be final, unless appealed. He introduced Christer Westman, Project Planner and John Cahill,
Municipal Projects Manager who presented the project as follows:
Christer Westman, Associate Planner stated that the golf course is generally located at the corner of
College Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. The Planning Commissions’ actions will include the
certification of the project EIR and several development permits. The project permits and EIR were first
brought to the Planning Commission on April 1, 1998. The Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council certify the EIR and approve the development permits. Subsequently, the EIR was re-
circulated for public comment, because of the addition of information to the document, including the
potential presence of Burrowing Owls on the site. The Environmental Impact Report returned to the
Planning Commission and was recommended for certification to the City Council in December 1998.
Although, the Commissions’ previous actions made a recommendation to City Council, City ordinances
state that standard protocol is for the Planning Commission to be the final approving body for these
permits. In an effort to gain time, which may allow the project to move forward this calendar year, the
decision was made to follow standard protocol.
Project Summarv:
18 hole championship golf course
Par 72 - Greatest distance is 6,917 yards
22,000 square foot clubhouse
222 stall parking lot
Double-sided practice range
Grounds maintenance facilities
Learning facility
Comfort stations
Referring to an overhead slide, Mr. Westman referred to the blueprint of the golf course, indicating where
the above items would be located and gave a brief description of each item.
The single point of public access to the golf course parking lot, which will serve as parking for the public
trail, and clubhouse, is at the northern terminus of Hidden Valley Road. The clubhouse is proposed as a
split-level two-story structure. As seen from the main entrance, it is a single story building and as seen
from the south, it is two stories. The upper level houses the foyer, bar and dining facilities as well as
administrative offices and pro-shop, while the lower level houses the locker rooms and equipment and cart
storage. The building incorporates design elements of the Mission, Bungalow and Prairie styles. There is
an extensive use of rock and wood. The roof material is proposed as metal standing seam. These same
elements are carried throughout the project.
The project includes the grading of three industrial pads: A 5acre pad at the corner of Palomar Airport
Road and Hidden Valley Road, a pad on the north side of College Boulevard is proposed at 8.4 acres and
the pad south of the road is 5.9-acres. Development of each of these pads will require additional
subsequent discretionary review.
The Environment Impact Report analyzed the following areas of concern:
Land use compatibility
Biological resources
Traffic/circulation
Air quality
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 4
Hydrology/water quality
Water resources
Public services and utilities
Archaeological and paleontological resources
Landform alteration/grading
Hazards/EMF
Agricultural resources
Two areas of concern were determined to be impacted, yet un-mitigable, therefore requiring a Statement
of Overriding Consideration. As discussed in the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report, there is a
regional contribution to the San Diego air quality basin, which affects the assessment of cumulative air
quality impacts. The same theory is applied to cumulative impacts regarding circulation. Because of this
regional contribution there is no project measure, which can mitigate the impact. The statement of
overriding consideration adopts the position, that the project will have overriding benefits to the community
and therefore may be approved, even though there are un-mitigable impacts. The EIR discusses impacts
to several areas of concern, which are being sufficiently impacted, but can be mitigated to a level of less
than sufficient. Analysis of each of these areas of concern determined that there would not be sufficient
impacts if the project is approved and constructed.
Referring to an overhead slide, he stated that the project is divided between General Plan, Planned
Industrial and Open Space Designations, as well as Planned Industrial and Open Space Zoning
Designations. The project is also partially located within the Coastal Zone.
The project’s discretionary actions include:
Conditional Use Permit
The project is allowed within the Planned Industrial Zone as a conditional use. The main concern of
conditional uses is compatibility with surrounding built environment. Given the location of the project, no
compatibility issues were identified regarding the adjacent industrial and commercial uses.
Hillside Development Permit
The site’s topography qualified the need for Hillside Development Permit. Grading quantities are within
the Hillside Ordinance limits of acceptability and finished grading will conform to the ordinance standard of
variable slopes and angulations. Both of these will contribute to an overall naturalizing end result.
Special Use Permit: Floodplain
A loo-year floodplain exists at the lowest elevations of the project. An encroachment into the floodplain
requires an analysis to ascertain that the end product will not alter the floodplain or subject development to
hazard during flood. All of the project encroachments are flood friendly and will not create hazards during
flooding.
Coastal Development Permit
The project has been designed to the greatest extent possible to protect and preserve coastal resources.
The project has been conditioned to redesign, so that there are no impacts to freshwater marsh. There
are riparian impacts, however they are being mitigated with a preserve scheme at 3 to 1 off site, also
within the Coastal Zone. Impacts to the riparian area include bridges, which are the least environmentally
damaging alternative for crossing those areas. Buffers are being provided for the wetland areas, ranging
from ten-feet to two hundred feet. There are signs, fences and special native roughs. Native roughs were
developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game. Species were identified that were compatible with the wetland and create a transition to the golf
course itself. Significant slopes are being preserved on site. Unconstrained slopes, that are less than
25%, are being preserved. One acre of disturbed steep slopes will be re-vegetated on site.
Staff has provided evidence that the project provides the best balance of preservation enhancement
between the letter of the act and the goals of the act. A letter was submitted to the Planning Commission
from the Coastal Commission, stating, “they felt, if the project was approved as it stands they would need
to appeal the project.” Based on the information that Staff has provided to the Commission in the
ordinance and the staff presentation, Staff feels that the project is in conformance with the Mello II Local
Coastal Program Policies.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 5
The project is also subject to the Carlsbad Airport Center Specific Plan, the Carlsbad Business Parks
Specific Plan, and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Just as with the zoning
ordinance, Conditional Use Permits may permit a golf course within the two specific plan areas. Being
adjacent to the airport the project is subject to the Airport Land Use Plan. Primarily, the concern is
compatibility with the airport operations with the focus on noise and safety. The project will not suffer from
noise generated by the project and is a conditional allowed use within the Airport Master Plan. The project
also complies with the safety guidelines of the plan. The project open space dominates the hazard area
west of the runway. Because the project is a public project, it is not subject to the Growth Management
Ordinance.
Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the Coastal Commissions objections.
Mr. Westman outlined the issues, referring to the letter received from the Coastal Commission, stating that
there are issues associated with the proposed project as to conformity with the certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP):
Impacts to 3.25 acres of wetland and riparian resources
Impacts to 8.5 acres of dual criteria slopes with environmentally sensitive habitat
Referring to the same letter Commissioner Segall asked if staff agreed that revisions might be made to the
project to avoid the impacts.
Mr. Westman indicated that staff did not agree with the letter. He stated that some modifications may be
done to some degree to lessen some of the impacts, but for example a complete avoidance of slopes
greater than 25% is impossible on the site.
Commissioner Segall asked how the land would be used if the golf course were not built.
Mr. Westman advised the Commission that there are two industrial subdivisions, which are final maps on
the property. A fallback could be to return to the existing subdivisions for industrial projects.
Commissioner Segall asked if that would wipe out most of the habitat.
Mr. Westman stated that the habitat would be wiped out in areas that are predominately at the upper sides
of the project site.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne interjected, that realistically the industrial subdivisions would
have to be somewhat modified in order to build on them, because they do overlay protected habitat. Of
the 70 or 80 lots that are in the two subdivisions, half of them could be developed without impacting any of
the sensitive resources.
Chairperson Compas asked if it could be done without affecting the Habitat Management Plan.
Mr. Wayne responded no. Adding that, the Habitat Management Plan was based upon providing linkages
and corridors. Certain areas are being preserved, which may or may not have habitat on them because
they provide a good linkage system in lieu of allowing the taking of certain other areas where habitat exist,
but may not be as good. There is a conflict between the Habitat Management Plan and the actual rules
and regulations that sit in the Local Coastal Program. The Coastal Act does have a provision in it that
allows for a balancing, when a net benefit is the end result. The net benefit in this case is for the habitat
resources, we therefore believe that the authority exists in the Act to allow this project to go forward.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Coastal Commission had approved the industrial sites.
Mr. Wayne responded that part of it was not in the Coastal Zone and part is in the Coastal Zone. The part
that is in the Coastal Zone had received a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal
Commission. In reliance on the permit, the subdivision was finalized and the property was purchased.
The Coastal Development Permit allowed for three times more impact to dual criteria slopes than is being
proposed in the golf course project.
Referring to the California Coastal Commission letter, Commissioner Trigas asked for clarification
regarding the amendment mentioned in the second paragraph.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 6
Mr. Wayne said the Coastal Commission appeared to be requesting that staff do what the Coastal
Commission wanted. He advised the Commission that staff had requested a meeting with the Coastal
Commission staff to find out exactly what they want.
Commissioner Segall asked if a letter of this type, from another legislative body, was normal procedure.
Mr. Wayne responded that it was requested that the letter be delivered to the Planning Commission. He
felt the Coastal Commission was hoping that it would have an impact on the Planning Commission’s
decision. Typically, staff reports from other legislative bodies are received with recommendations, and are
received at the very last possible minute.
Commissioner Segall asked about the status of the Habitat Management Plan.
Mr. Wayne stated that the Habitat Management Plan has gone through the preliminary parts of the
approval process, locally. It is his understanding that it has been taken to the next level up in the wildlife
agency hierarchy for the approval process.
Commissioner Segall asked if the issues raised by the Coastal Commission were the same issues of
concern expressed by the of the wildlife agencies.
Mr. Wayne responded no. He noted that the golf course had been designed based upon the Habitat
Management Plan. Staff feels an agreement with the wildlife agencies exists through the Habitat
Management Plan with respect to the design of the project.
Commissioner Segall asked what happens to the Habitat Management Plan if indeed the Coastal
Commission appeals the project and the appeal is successful.
Mr. Wayne answered that it depends on what is wanted by the Coastal Commission. It may make the golf
course project infeasible.
Chairperson Compas asked if this project is approved and the Coastal Commission appeals it and the
appeal is upheld, could the appeal be appealed.
Mr. Wayne responded no.
Commissioner Segall noted that the building of the golf course would preserve the environment far more
than the alternative.
Mr. Wayne noted that Aviara was built in violation of the steep slope policy. The steep slope polices are
archaic and do not afford the same wildlife protections that are available through the Habitat Management
Planning process.
Chairperson Compas asked if the project is approved, what the forecast date for the starting of the project
would be.
Mr. Wayne stated that if the project were approved, the grading would start at the beginning of the grading
season, September 2000.
Commissioner Baker asked whom the Coastal Commission would appeal to.
Mr. Wayne responded that they appeal it to themselves. He stated that the Coastal Commission
delegates their authority to us, when permit authority is granted. There are areas where the Coastal
Commission has certain appeal rights. This project is one such area, because it is within 100 feet of a
wetland or a stream. The June 6, 2000 letter from the Coastal Commission indicates that they will
exercise the appeal right, because they believe we have brought up some issues and perhaps we will not
issue the permit properly. If two Coastal Commissioners believe this is so, they will have an effective
appeal. It then goes to the Commission and the entire Commission votes on the issue. It could lose at
that point. The Coastal Commission appealed the house on Buena Vista Lagoon with the huge palm
trees. It went to the full Commission and the Commission denied cause, and it was never heard.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 7
Commissioner Baker asked if the requested changes were made, would the project be subject to a fourth
environmental impact report.
Mr. Wayne stated that some sort of supplement or subsequent EIR would be necessary, because none of
the changes to fully comply with the steep slope dual criteria have been analyzed.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know the name of the architect for the golf course project and if the
architect had experience designing/building in sensitive habitat areas.
John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager, stated that the architect firm was Casper-Nash; the lead
designer is Greg Nash from Phoenix Arizona. The firm has designed/built several projects involving
sensitive habitat throughout the southwestern United States. The firm was hired because of their
experience designing golf courses with sensitive habitat.
Chairperson Compas asked where the Police shooting range would be relocated.
Mr. Cahill stated there is a site study currently underway. There are 16 alternative sites that the City
Council will consider in a future site report. Some sites eliminate themselves because of their close
proximity to residential areas, The site study is on hold until the project is approved.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there are any existing similar type projects in California.
Mr. Cahill responded that there are numerous golf courses, public and private, in the Coastal Zone in
California. These are not new issues to the Coastal Commission.
Chairperson Compas informed the Commission that a letter had been received from the Ladwig Design
Group, which included five letters with various dates regarding the project. Ladwig Design requested that
the letters be part of the public record (the letters were given to Mr. Wayne). He further stated that no
decision would be made based on the content of the letters.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi announced that the letters had already been received by other
departments in the City and were already public record, but would now be included in the Planning
Departments record on the project. She further stated that Mr. Ladwig was not requesting that the letters
be concerned during the decision making process.
Mr. Robert Ladwig, President, Ladwig Design Group, Inc. 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad,
California agreed with Ms. Mobaldi.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Lew Pritten, 330 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, has resided at this address since 1972. He felt that this would not
be a public golf course. The design of the golf course is a championship type course, a private type of
course. This golf course is much too elaborate. The green fees will be too high and will not allow citizens
on a fixed income to play the course. La Costa and Aviara are championship golf courses; another
championship golf course is not needed. Referring to the Tea Tax, the ousting of the British, and taxation
without representation, he stated that the building of the championship course would unduly tax the
residents of Carlsbad. He asserted that 50% to 60% of Carlsbad residents would not be able to use the
course, because of the extremely high greens fees that will undoubtedly be in place, i.e. $75 to $125+, in
order to make the golf course a revenue success. He suggested that the Commission not worry about the
vacant land. Noting that the vacant land was the most productive thing in Carlsbad, the second most
productive item being farmlands. Other things need to be done with the funds, e.g. railroad pedestrian
management along the railroad tracks in Carlsbad, the school district needs new school buildings, etc. He
reiterated that because of the cost factor, the proposed golf course was in no way a “public” golf course.
Mr. Robert Ladwig, President, Ladwig Design Group, Inc. 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad,
stated that he was representing Mr. Hieatt, the landowner of a parcel that is adjacent to the golf course.
He distributed exhibits to the Commissioners and referred to an overhead slide, stating that as part of the
grading plan and as part of the CUP for the golf course, the property owner was requesting access from
the Hieatt property out to College Boulevard and Ashton Road. He referred to the existing streets and lot
lines, on the overhead slide, noting they were approved as part of an original map that was recorded in
1985; a year before the College Assessment District was formed. Mr. Hieatt joined the College a9
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 8
Assessment District with the understanding that the adjacent streets would be built in the adjacent
subdivision, and that he would enjoy access and utilities from this adjacent subdivision for the
development of his property. It has been requested that the City give the Hieatt property an easement to
College Boulevard to provide access because of the golf course. In April of 1998 a presentation was
made to the Planning Commission, the decision was been appealed and it has yet to be heard by the City
Council. The appeal states that we support the golf course, it is great for the community and surrounding
area. Hopefully, it can be built at a cost that will provide all residents/citizens the ability to play the course,
but we do not want the course to be approved at the cost of Mr. Hieatt. Mr. Hieatt is requesting that the
improvements be included along with the easement and that a four-way intersection be installed. Mr.
Ladwig referred to the map, which indicated the alternative easement (shaded in blue) that meets the
intersection spacing requirements for a safe intersection. Having one common intersection will provide for
better circulation.
Commissioner Segall asked if Staff was privy to the alternative design concept.
Mr. Ladwig stated that staff had been issued the design plans 10 days ago.
Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on the alternative design.
Mr. Ladwig explained that it cuts into the business related golf course pad, and provides a one-acre parcel
on the other side of the road. The right-of-way would divide the pad, but it would end up with the same
usable pad area. The City’s proposal leaves a small portion of the pad that would be unusable.
Chairperson Compas asked if he had received input from the City Staff regarding their thoughts on his
proposal.
Mr. Ladwig responded that he had not received any response from Staff regarding the feasibility of their
proposal.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to respond to the various concerns expressed in public
testimony.
Mr. Cahill responded that the City Council has taken no formal action regarding a funding source, however
the Staff is recommending that the City issue tax exempt municipal bonds to help finance the construction
of the project, backed by a commitment from the City’s General Fund, as well as on-course revenues to
be produced by the production of the three industrial pads and other on-course profit centers that exist on
the project.
Commissioner Segall asked how much the green fees would be.
Mr. Cahill indicated that greens fees have not been established. There will be a substantial green fee
reduction for Carlsbad residents. The guidelines for this project are to provide a Championship length golf
course of high quality that is accessible and affordable to Carlsbad residents, and to provide a project that
is responsibly financed and is maintained and operated in an efficient way.
Mr. Cahill stated the Staffs position on the access options is the same as it has been for the prior two
considerations and approvals of this matter. The City’s obligation as a landowner is not to land lock an
adjacent parcel. He advised the Commission that Staff was scheduled to meet with Mr. Ladwig and his
representatives on Monday, June 12, 2000 in an attempt to further discuss opportunities to resolve the
access issue.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know the anticipated cost to build the golf course.
Mr. Cahill stated it is estimated between $22-$25 million.
Commissioner Nielsen asked how short the golf course could be and still qualify as a championship golf
course.
Mr. Cahill responded that 6,400 - 6,500 yards is considered to be the bottom end of the length for a
championship golf course.
30
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 9
Commissioner Nielsen asked why the appeal spoken of by Mr. Ladwig was two years old.
Mr. Cahill explained that the matter never went forward to the City Council, but noted that the appeal is still
valid, is still in place and will go forward after the Commission’s action tonight.
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney stated she was not aware of the particular circumstances of Mr.
Ladwig’s appeal, but noted it was her understanding that the appeal was pending and could be heard by
City Council after the Planning Commission’s action this evening.
Commissioner Trigas wanted to make sure they were not voting on how the road was going to be laid out.
Mr. Cahill stated that the road site plan depicts a 72-foot reservation.
Mr. Wayne stated that the movement of the road would also be an issue addressed by the City Council,
but noted that there was enough latitude to find it within substantial conformance. It is not within any of
the undeveloped areas, and it is all within the footprint of what is to be developed. The main issue is how
it lines up and impacts the full intersection.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it could be worked out after tonight without causing problems if it is decided
later that the road should be moved.
Mr. Wayne asked Mr. Cahill if there was an analysis in the EIR regarding moving the road.
Mr. Cahill stated that moving the road to the blue alignment, as Mr. Ladwig described, goes over a building
pad, but there are no other adverse impacts.
Mr. Wayne stated that yes it could be worked out later without causing problems.
Commissioner Segall asked if this were approved tonight, would it come back at a later date.
Mr. Wayne advised the Commission that it would not need to come back at a later date; because it is all
within the design parameters of this project.
Commissioner Segall stated he needed a better analysis from Staff as to whether the access roads would
line up and make a four-way intersection and what the impact would be of dividing the pad into two.
Mr. Wayne stated that redesigning of the project at the podium was not necessary. The project can be
approved, the applicant can appeal the approval and the City Council will deal with the road issue. Or you
have the option of voting for the project with the road designed as Mr. Ladwig has suggested.
Commissioner Baker asked how the road realignment affected the Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. Wayne stated that the road realignment did not affect the EIR. The road is being placed over an area
that is going to be disturbed; all of the analyses has taken place. Staff is recommending that the project
be approved as staff has proposed it. We are obligated to provide the Hieatt property access and staff
believes that sufficient access of an industrial nature is being provided. He stated further that the project
was within substantial conformance.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and called for a motion.
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4772 certifying
Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-01 and adopt Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4773, 4774, 4775, and 4776 approving Conditional Use Permit
CUP 97-07, Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-25, Hillside Development
Permit HDP 97-08 and Special Use Permit SUP 98-02 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
PLANNING COMMISSION June 7,200O Page 10
Commissioner Segall stated that he supported the project. After reviewing the entire EIR he believed that
Staff did a very comprehensive assessment of the issues related to sensitive habitat and mitigated to the
extent possible.
Commissioner L’Heureux expressed support for the project.
Chairperson Compas called for the vote.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES: ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Compaq Segall, L’Heureux, Baker, Trigas, Nielsen, Heineman
None
None
6-13-00; S:33AM;CarlSbad City clerk
::
. .
*
‘.
_- . . _’ . ‘.
-. . pA&g&Kqg. ‘,:j’.:*...e. : y ., , . .. . . . . .,*. :. .: * ’ ., . . ..m._.‘. . . . ._ . . .- ‘. .- _.,,_ ‘,.. : :
,~*)&@#&ff#@&&&&&~:.~-~ ;, ,: _ : - w . .+hecarlsbadciccitndl, i. ;.-...;:. ., ;: :.y.. _. :_ i .
.. ., :’ ‘.(_ ..- .-
. : * : -, :’ .’ . . .: .. : “,.. z .,.;,.’ ,’ .,
aie-suarch27,1998letterto~ -.
,’ _... ‘.
1200 caif8bad VilIeiQe Dfivm - CarIsbad, cwfomi~‘!32008-198s l & 434-2808 ; g! -4 _,
‘{
223
6-13-00; 9:33AM;carlSbad CltY Clet-K ;760 720 6917 # 21 3
EXHIBIT 5
ledwig Design Gmup, Inc.
June 12,200O
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Lmaine Wood/City Clerk
SUBJECT: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - EIR 97-OZKUP
97-07KDP 97-25/HDP 97-08KUP 98-02
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. - J/N L1025)
DearLorraine:
On April 1,1998, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved the above project. On April 20,
1998, we filed an appeal on behalf of an adjacent landowner, Mr- Jim Hieatt (copy of appeal form
attached).
On June 7,2000, the Planning Commission approved a third set of amendments to the original
application. In our earl& 1998 appeal, we appealed Condition 21 of Planning Commission
Resolution 4252. There are now new resolutions by the Planning Commission for the project. They
me Planning Commission Resolutions Numbers 4772,4773,4774,4775, and 4776.
The condition that we appealed in April of ‘98 is now known as Condition No, 24 of Planning
Commission Resolutions 4773.
This letter is to re-affirm our appeal. Please attach this letter to our pending appeal of the most
recent Planning Commission’s decision on the golf course. Also, please note that Mr. Hieatt has
already paid an appeal fee on this matter.
Sincerely,
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Robert C. Ladwig, President
RCLlkb.036
Eznclosure
CC: John Cahill, City of Carlsbad, wi enclosure
James Hieatt, w/enclosure
Kevin Sullivan, Esq., w/enclosLlre
703 Polomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, CaliFornia 92009
(760) 438-3182 FAX (760) 438-0173
ATENTION:
FAX#:
PHONE#: FROM: Robcrt C. Ladwip
TOTAL NO. OF SHEETS (TNCLUDMG THIS COVER SHEET): 6
cc:
LDCFAXOOI
703 Palomar Airport Rood, Suite 300, Carlsbad, Callbornlo 92009
(760) 438-3182 Fc~r (760) 438-0173
e. 4
1duc.g Design Group, Inc.
August 10,2000
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Lorraine WoocWCity Clerk
SUBJECT: HIEATT APPEAL
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. - J/N L-1025)
Dear Lorraine:
Mr. Hieatt has reached an agreement with the City and the appeal has been withdrawn. Please
return the un-used funds that were submitted along with our appeal back in April of 1998.
Sincerely,
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Robert C. Ladwig, President
RCL:lkb.036
cc: James Hieatt
703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-01 73
Sent By: WILSON ENGINEERING; - 76043801 73;
April 10,1998
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 213
SUBJECT Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on April 1, 1998 - for the Cdsbad
Municipal GolfCourse
@IR 97-O1/CUP 97-(n/CDP 97-25/HDP 97-08/SUP 98-02) (LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, MC. - J/N Ll025)
Please accept the attached as our appeal of the Planning Commission Decision on the above
applications.
We have attached the original signed appeal form, Mr. Hieatt's check #lo91 in the amount of
$600.00 and beck up letters and maps that support our request for appeal. I have also attached a total
of six copies of everything to support our appeal.
Sincerely,
Ladwig Design Group, lnc
Robert c. Ladwig
RCL:ad.O20
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Jim Hieatt, with enclosures
Mr. Charles Marvin, Attorney, with enclosures
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Corlsbod, California 92009
(760) 438-3 1 82 F AX (760) 438-0 1 73
Page 113 Sent By: WILSON ENGINEERING; - 76043801 73; Aug-9-Mii:iO;
Ladwig Resign Group, Inc.
Faxmittal
ATTENTION: -
Date: Y/f/Ou Time: ”
PROJECT: HI&- ..
PHONE#:
JOB#
FROM: R0bertC.g
TOTAL NO. OF SHEETS (INCLUDMG THIS COVER SHEET): 3
REMARKS:
cc:
703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 306. Corlsbad, CallFornia 92009
(760) 43831 ES ~m (760) 438-01 73
LDCFAXOM
LOUNSBERY FERGUSON
ALTONA & PEAK LLP ATIDRNEYS AT LAW
613 West Valley Parkway, Suire 345
Escondido. California 920252515
OPCOUNS~L Gmm 0. RED
Telephone (760) 743-1201
Facsimile (760) 743-9926
Email liap@lfap.com
Ms. Lorraine Wood, City Clerk
City of Caslsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Hieatt Property
Dear Ms. Wood:
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL.
\ ‘750) 720-691 7
In coordination with City Staff, we request a one-week continuance of Mr. Hieatt’s
appeal of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course CUP approval listed on tonight’s City of Carlsbad
City Council Agenda (an appeal of Condition No. 24 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 4773, approving a Conditional Use Permit for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
“Appeal”). Additional time is needed to work with City Staff to complete a mutually satisfactory
resolution of Mr. Hieatt’s dispute regarding the City Golf Course CUP and related issues of
access to the Hieatt property. Such a resolution would moot the present Appeal.
We understand from City Staff that this letter will serve adequately to continue the City
Council Agenda item. Accordingly, no appearance will be made tonight by Mr. Hieatt or his
representatives relating to the Appeal. If this understanding is incorrect, then please notify me or
Mr. Bob Ladwig (phone number: (760) 438-3182) immediately.
Thank you and Messrs. Orenyak and Cahill for your courtesy and cooperation on this
matter.
Copy: Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney (Via Facsimile)
Mr. Marty Orenyak (Via Facsimile)
Mr. John Cahill (Via Facsimile)
Mr. James Hieatt (Via Facsimile)
Mr. Robert C. Ladwig (Via Facsimile)
RSMClTYCLERK080100 Doc\OIvOIIOO 02.16 PM
LOUNSBERY FERGUSON
AL.TONA & PEAK LLP ATfOENNSATkW
Date:
Tu:
August 8,2000
Mr. John CW
City of Carlsbad
1535 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Fils Name: Hieatt Property
VIA HAND DELIVERY
File Number:
SubJect:
Enclosures:
Agreement for Reimbursement of Costs for Road Construction
Enclosed is the original Agreement signed and notarized by our clients.
Once the Agreement is rlly-executed, please provide us with a copy.
Thank you.
Requested Actlon: For your handting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
Call.
Sincerely.
LOUNSBERY FERGUSON ALTONA & PEAK LLP
By:
Secretary to: Kevin P. Sullivan, Esq.
OY/07/00 14: 52 LFW D02
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBUR
COSTS FOR ROAD CONS1
is made and entered into 6
by and between the Ci
the Cerlsbad Public Flnab
powers authority, (hereafter referred to 8s the ''I
and Mildred E. Hleatt, each a8 Trustees of the I-
April 18, 1990, the owner6 of certaln undew
identified as APN 212-120-33 located In the
(hereefter referrad as the "Property Owner").
The partles to this agreement do hereby agree as
I. Authority shall provide, at no cost to the
owned real property nscs~sary to wnstruct a PI
iEMENT OF
3UCTIbN
I of the 7% day of
y of Carisbad, a munldpal Ing Authority, a rnunlclpal joint
Ahorlty) and James L. Hieatt eatt Family Living Trust dated
oped real property enerally
City of Carlsbad, 8alifornla,
ollows:
'Wperty Owner, the Authority
blicly dedicated access street . .. u
easement (hereafter referred tb as "Street A") to hutually egmsd upon, but not
exceed, Clty design standam from College Boulevard to the parcel owned by
the Pruperty Ownw wlthln the alignment approvjed by the Carlsbad Planning
Commlsslon on June 7, 2000. For the purposes of thts agreement, Said
alignment is generally depicted In attached Exhlblf "A" Incorporated by reference
and made a part of thls agreement. I I
!
2. Said real property to be provi3ed by the Auihorlty shall include an easterly
transition to the PrPperty Owner'$ parcel to jecwrnmodate envlronrnental
restrictions on said parcel. Property Ownsr shalj submit an application for an
administrative variance to Implement the af6rerneritloned alignment and
connectlon to College Boulevard. Based upon its review of the Street A
alignment approved by the Carisbad Planning Cothnisslon on June 7, 2000, said
applicatim shall be revtewed and recommended for approve1 by the GIty of
Carlsbad within the schedule for discretlonari revlew and action 017 the
development application of Propetty Owner's parc&l.
3, In no event shall Alrtnority construct Street A, However, Authorlty shall
rough grade Street A in conjunctkn with the develdpment of its adjacent City Golf
Course Project. In the event Authorlty does noti proceed wlth Its Golf Course
Project development prlur to the tlme Propetty Owner proceeds with the
development of Its parcel, Property Owner shall rough grade Street A and shall
include associated costs In the reimbursenient formula discussed bQlOw.
4. After completion and acceptance of constbuotlon md wlthln 30 days of
belng presented wlth lnvolcsa for construction items for Street A by Property
Owner, Authorlty shall relmburse Property Ownei for those Invoices up to the value of one-half of the costs of full-width construction of Street A the length of
the frontage of the Authorlty's proposed Industrlal pareel adjacent thls street.
~ ~~
LFW I
i
Costs subject to Authorlty reimbursement shall b$ limited to ectual construction
costs of rough and I or final gradlng, base materlat(s) paving, strlplng, curb,
gutter, aldewalk, sWetlight{s), flm hydrant(e), andidrainage structures. One-half
reimbursement of coats for utility Instatlatlon, including but not limited to sewer,
water, electrbity, cable television, telephone, flbqr optic linea, reclaimed water,
and slrniler utility installations, shall be included.
The Authority shall also reimburse Property Owner far one-half of the reasonable
and cuetornary costs to survey, Inspect, construction manage, and perform
neoessafy testing of soils, compaction, concreto,: and other mnstnrqtion items
customarily included In thts type of work in the manner described herein.
5. This agreement is a flnal and complete settlement of appellant‘s appeat
and he shall withdraw his appeal of the Condltlahbl Use Permlt approved by the
Carlsbad Planning Commlssfon on June 7, 2000 Once the Authorlty has
approvsd thls settlement proposal as mutually agreeable to it and the Properly Owner. Appellant further agrees not to oppose O( to sollclt others to oppose any
future actions related to the approval and entitl&nent phase of the Clty Golf
Course Project.
e. This agreement is conditloned upon the ultimete epprovat OP both the city
of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plsln and the Authorltlfs City Golf Course ProJect. The reason for this condition is that if either or both of the these
initlatlvee are not approved, the Auttlorlty conterids it would realize no benefit
from the const~uction of Street A justlfylng its finanblal partidpation.
If this settlement agreement Is not Implehented, Property Owner shall
retaln any lights ahd arguments he has regarding construction of Street A or
another road acces8 alternative, as well as his contention to a refund of
assessments retating to College Boulevard. !
7. Authority and Property Owner shall reasan.$Dly cooperate and coordinate
in the construction of Street A, Including Property Owner‘s access tb the Street A
right-of-way to implement construction.
8. This agreement shall be recordeU by the Authority with \he Office of the
San Dlago County Recorder. Property Owner !agrees to recordation. of thls
agreement Into the tltle of Property Owner’s parcal as described above which shall run with the land and shall blnd all subsequent owners of $aid parcel. If
this settlement agreement is not implemented, theparlies agree to Wlthdtaw any
recorded agreement or to record addltlonal docurhentetion providing nOtlGe that
this agreement has no farco and effect.
9, Thls paragraph Is Intended to apply solely tb the Authority. By executing
this agreement as the Carlsbad Public FinancinQ Authorlty, the Carlsbad City
!
!
004
i
Councll does hereby adopt a modification to Co<lon 24 of CarlsbeU Pl@nning
Commission Resolutlon No. 4773 to be mad as follows:
"Prior to the issuance of 8 gradlng permft, the developer shall flle and receive
approval of o parcel map application to removeimd aUJu6t lot lines to mmspond
with the approved project sib plan. This parceimap shall Include a dedlwUon of
a mutually sgrebd upon public street @ccebs eebament to the undeveloped parcel
(APN 212-12039) which currenfly ha9 plann4d access to 9wllt Place, herein referred to as the "Hleatt PaMl." The j developer shall enter into a relmbunement agreement wlth the Omer ot the Hleatl Parcel for onbhall the
cost of ImplDvements, spcdflad In aald agresniwt, far the uftlmate ccpnstructlon
of said pubti6 streel access easement from College Boulevard to the Hleatt Parcel."
This agreement is mutually agreed to by the parties and IS executed by the
Property Owner Ihls 7 .uL day of R&G& 5 f , 2000.
PROPERTY OWNER: CARLSBAD PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY:
Claude A.! Lewis, Chairman i
(Proper notarial acknawledgrnent of executlon by Propetly Owners must be attached.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RONALD R. BALL
Counsel for Authority
By: Deputy Counsel
CALIFORNIA
ALL-PURPOSE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
persondM appeared, zGZ~B L. /;ENTW & LO RE^ E /%.GB
personally known to me @proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evideneJto be the person(s)
whose name(s) Is@sobscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshel
@executed the same in hisdhe-authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/he@
signature(s) on the instrument the person@), or the entity upon behalf of which the person($) acted,
executed the instrument.'
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
"TLE OR TYPE OF
SlGUER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
July 28, 2000
Robert C. Ladwig, President
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad. CA 92009
Re: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course - Ladwig Design Group, Inc. - JIN L-1025
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is a copy of the Carlsbad City Council Agenda for Tuesday, August 1,
2000, at which meeting Council will discuss the appeal you filed regarding the
Municipal Golf Course.
Also enclosed is a copy of the agenda bill and related documents regarding this item.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office
Sincerely,
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosures
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 989 - (760) 434-2808 @
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
July 22, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at sm. Maras , California
this 24th
July, 2000 day
of n If
d
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Notice of public Hearing
NOtl~CE OF PUBLIC. HEARtNO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad will hoida public hearing at the Council
Chambers, '1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, August 1,20oOto corisider an appeal
of Condition No. 24 of Planning Cornmisskin Resolution No.
4773. approvtn_e_a_
Municipal Golf Cou
City. guarantee and
College Boulevard
Cou&se site is located north of Palomar Airport Rod, east and
we& of College Boulevard 'in Local Facilities Management
&?es 5 and'8:
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
.invited tti attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill
will be available on and after:July 28, 2000. If you, have any
questions, please call Christer Westman in the Ptanning
Department at (760) 602-4614.
CASE FILE CUP 97-07
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNlGlPAL GOLF COURSE
CiTY OF CARLSBAD ., , ,.
Legal 67670. July 22,2000
,. ..
7~ -
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE : PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
APPEAL CUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of JULY 11, 2000
Thank you.
, 2”
Assistant City Man- - June 22, 2000
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, August 1, 2000 to consider an appeal of Condition
No. 24 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4773, approving a Conditional Use
Permit for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course. The appellant has requested that the
City guarantee and construct full access improvements from College Boulevard to the
Hieatt parcel. The Municipal Golf Course site is located north of Palomar Airport Road,
east and west of College Boulevard in Local Facilities Management Zones 5 and 8.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after July 28, 2000. If
you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4614.
CASE FILE: CUP 97-07
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
PUBLISH: JULY 22,2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Smcoth Feed SheetsTM -
KlRGlS 1996 M H P P INC STE 140 LADWIG DESIGN GROUP
4452 HOCKADAY DR 5414 OBERLIN DR SUITE 300
DALLAS TX 75229 SAN DIEGO CA 92121 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
READ FAMILY PARTNERS THDC LLC
P 0 BOX 250 1530 FARADAY AVE
DEL MAR CA 92014 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOT 15 CARLSBAD RANCH LLC
SUITE 102
619 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
BCS PROGRAM L -2 ATRIUM PROPERTIES LLC #180 . CARLSBAD RANCH MAlNT #IO0
1303 AVOCADO AVE 12780 HIGH BLUFF DR 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 CARLSBAD CA 92008
&3LL\/ULv\ Yhl..iLc'\c -\E
AIRPORT SELF STORAGE LLC CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE
P 0 BOX 15163
CARLSBAD ESTATE HOLDING EESJ
LAS VEGAS NV 891 14 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD
7@3 PALBIVIARAtRPORT.RD
-€A 92009 SUITE 310
TORRANCE CA 90503 ~CCr\rlr/ D'(Z.
>*k7 a .73c=c\
INTER-VIVOS KILLION BTINVLLC
281 1 LA MIRADA DR P 0 BOX 26309
VISTA CA 92083 SAN DIEGO CA 92196
T LAWRENCE JET 8 FAMILY HlEATT CRC
P 0 BOX 9672 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92068 475 W BRADLEY AVE
EL CAJON CA 92020
VIRGIL & PATRICIA ANGLIN
P 0 BOX 636
VISTA CA 92085
INDUSTRIAL DEV INTERNATIONAL
7879 EL CAJON BLVD
LA MESA CA 91941
SIM USA INC
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1400 FLAME TREE LANE
CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY
2285 RUTHERFORD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
A-hesbemndkdto- P~PW -pants
&7-.2z -0 D
listed her-
'-%:e
"Ire
PALOMAR CANNON PARTNERSHIP
5522 LOCKHAVEN DR
BUENA PARK CA 90621
LEGOLAND CALIF INC
1 LEG0 DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SPIEKER PROPERTIES L P #285
19600 FAIRCHILD
IRVINE CA 92612
OCEAN TERRANCE LLC
5760 FLEET ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
6, AVERYB Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM - L'se template to:
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S WLCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 200
CARLSBAD CA 92008 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE 50 STE B STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CHRISTER WESTMAN
PROJECT PLANNER
6/21/2000
aAMRY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM -
KIRGIS 1996
4452 HOCKADAY DR
DALLAS TX 15229
REED FAMILY PARTNERS
PO BOX 250
DEL MAR CA 92014
BCS PROGRAM L-2
1303 AVOCADO AVE
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
AIRPORT SELF STORAGE LLC
PO BOX 151 63
LAS VEGAS NV 891 14
INTER-VIVOS KILLION
281 1 LA MIRADA DR
VISTA CA 92083
CRC
475 W BRADLEY AVE
EL CAJON CA 92020
INDUSTRIAL DEV INTERNL
7879 EL CAJON BLVD
LAMESA CA 91941
SPIEKER PROPERTIES LP
#285
19600 FAIRCHILD
IRVINE CA 92612
aRW€RY@ Address Labels
MHPP INC
STE 140
5414 OBERLIN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
THDC LLC
1530 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ATRIUM PROPERTOES LLC
#180
12780 HIGH BLUFF DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE
STE 31 0
21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD
TORRANCE CA 90503
BTINV LLC
PO BOX 26309
SAN DIEGO CA 92196
VIRGIL & PATRICIA ANGLIN
PO BOX 636
VISTA CA 92085
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA INC
1 LEGO DR
CARSBAD CA 92008
CALLAWAY GOLF CO
2285 RUTHERFORD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOT 15 CLSBD RANCH LLC
STE 102
619 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CLSBD RANCH MAINTENANCE #I 00
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM HAVILUK JR
CLSBD ESTATE HOLDING
1 LEGO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
T LAWRENCE JET & FAMILY
HIEATT
PO BOX 9672
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92068
PALOMAR CANNON
PARTNERSHIP
5522 LOCKHAVEN DR
BUENAPARK CA 90621
SIM USA INC
1400 FLAME TREE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCEAN TERRACE LLC
5760 FLEET ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
Laser 5160@
cc: ~~~~ - -
lcrdwig Design Group, I
December 17, 1998
Ms. Lee Rautenkranz
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlshad Village Drive
Carlshad. CA 92008
REF: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON APRIL 1, 1998 AND
DECEMBER 16,1998 FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. JOB NO. L-1025)
Dear Lee:
Last night the Planning Commission considered a re-circulated EIR for the Municipal Golf Course.
As you recall, we did appeal the Planning Commission’s decision of April 1, 1998. Because of the
additional environmental work that was needed, the project has never gone forward to the City
Council. Now that the Planning Commission has approved the additional environmental work, I
expect that the appeal hearing before the City Council should be coming up in the next several
months.
Last night at Planning Commission, I presented the attached letter to the Commission. Even though
they were not considering the earlier project, I felt that it was important to provide them with the
information in the attached letter. In addition, as you and I discussed, please attach my December
1998.
15, 1998 letter to Chairman Bailey Noble to the appeal package that I submitted to you on April 10,
Thank you for your help and if you have any questions, please give me a call
Sincerely,
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. * Robert C. Ladwig, President - RCL:baw.030
Enclosure
Attachments
cc: Mr. Jim Hieatt (Without attachments)
Mr. Larry Jett (Without attachments)
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbod, CaliFornia 99009
(760) 438-31 82 FAX (760) 438-01 73
- “-.
Lodwig Resign Group, Inc.
December 15, 1998
Mr. Bailey Noble
Chairman
Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
REF: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5 - EIR 97-01 - Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. JOB NO. L-1025)
Dear Bailey and Commission Members:
There are several issues that I would like to bring to your attention that relate to my client’s property - Mr. Hieatt’s - near the westerly end of the Palomar Airport property:
1. When the Planning Commission approved the EIR on April 1,1998, included in the motion
was to change Condition No. 21 of Resolution 4252 to conform with the language given by
the Assistant City Attorney (see attached Planning Commission Minutes and Condition#2 1 ).
The Change to Condition #21 was never made. Also, at the last Planning Commission
meeting in April, several of the Commissioners indicated their concern that the value of the
Hieatt property would be lessened if the access to Hieatt at College Blvd. did not include a
median break with full turning movements. Based on the decision and comments of the
Planning Commission - and the April 1, 1998 minutes - I would suggest the following
language be added to Condition #21 of P.C. Resolution #4252:
“Reservation for access easement to include City Engineer approval
of an intersection spacing variance on College Blvd. with provisions
for a median break with full turning movements.”
2. Even though the City has agreed to grant an easement to service the Hieatt property from
College Blvd., we still feel strongly that improvements need to be provided. We discussed
this in great detail back in April. Mr. Hieatt agreed to join the College Blvd. assessment
district because the adjacent subdivision (now City property) was going to provide utilities
and an access to College Blvd. at a signalized intersection. The Hieatt parcel is the only
parcel in the College Blvd. district that does not front on a publicly maintained street and,
yet, he is being taxed the same as parcels that do have public access. We still feel the City
is responsible for providing street improvements from College to the Hieatt property and
request that the last sentence of Condition #21 as currently written be deleted.
703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-01 73
Mr. Bailey Noble
December 15, 1998
Page 2
I would also like to point out for your information that we have appealed the Planning
Commissions’s decision of April 1 to the City Council.
In summary, we still wholeheartedly support the construction of the municipal golf course and
appreciate the staff bringing to you this additional environmental information that has been obtained
since your April ‘98 meeting.
We request that you amend Planning Commission Resolution 4252, Condition 21 as discussed
above.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Sincerely,
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Robert C. Ladwig, President
RCLdb.029
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Jim Hieatt w/encl. (Apr. 1, ‘98 PC Minutes & Condition #21, PC Res. 4252)
Mr. Larry Jett w/encl. (Apr. 1, ‘98 PC Minutes & Condition #21, PC Res. 4252)
703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-01 73
.I
.,
.. .. . . jr
.i
>'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to the following:
a) All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products,
b) Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
c) Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
20. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install improvements shown on the site plan and the following
improvements:
a) Sidewalk, and median paving and landscape improvements along the project
frontage on Palomar Airport Road.
h) Cul-de-sac bulb improvements at the northern terminus of Palomar Oaks
Way. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file and receive approval
of a parcel map application to remove and adjust lot lines to correspond with the
approved project site plan. This parcel map shall include a reservation of a 72' wide
access easement to the undeveloped parcel (APN 212-120-33) which currently takes
access from Swift Place, hereon referred to as the "Hieatt parcel". Installation of
improvements to this easement is not a requirement of this project.
22. The structural section for the access aisles in the clubhouse parking lot must be
designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City standards due to truck access
through the parking area andlor aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural
pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil
PC RES0 NO. 4252 -6-
Received: 12f11198 3:22PM; - 4380894 -> WILSON ENWEERING; Page 2
* DEC-11-98 FRI 16:23 CIT; .,I' CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO. 4380~ . P. 02
PLANNING COMMlSSlON "' April 1,1998 L" Page I7
the Engineer should be left to exercise his discretion, as required by law, as opposed to the Commission
taking his discretion away from him. He pointed out that this, in reality, is a hypothetical event that may never occur and if the properly is never developed it may never be'necessaly to apply for (and have
granted) an easement or ever use an easement.
Commissioner Compas stated that he could support this projecl if it is entered in the record that; 1) a
variance will be granted in the event that the Hieatt property is developed; and, 2) if there is ever a
problem($) with the police firing range, the City will take appropriate action to fix the problem(s).
added to the conditions, this project should be continued to allow time to gather more information,
Commissioner Nielsen suggested that perhaps, because of the wording regarding the variance cannot be
If the Commissioner were to add the suggested condition, Commissioner Welshons asked where it would
90.
Mr. Rudolf replied that it would go Into the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if the Commission would be the final body to review the condition.
versus the EIR that would be sent to the City Council.
Mr. Rudolf stated that another way would be to change the final content of the EIR and make a
recommenclation to the City Council that they change the final EIR by adding the requirement for the
mitigation measure, with the discussion with regard to access to the adjacent. property to include a
requirement that the Engineer grant the variance.
Commissioner Welshons then asked If it could be phrased to indicate that "pending development of the
Hieatt property. the Engineer will grant the variance."
Mr. Rudolf stated that all the Commission would be doing is adding an additlonal condition to require the
the easement to be used.
City Engineer to grant a varianca. if requested, from the requlred intersection distance required to allow
Commissioner Heineman stated that on the basis of the assurance given by Mr. Wojcik that the variance
would be grantcd, and assuming that this can be put into the project in some way, he could support the
project.
Commissioner Monroy maintained his reluctance to act against the recommendation of legal counsel and
suggested that the project bo continued to the next meeting. I le cited; 1) the issue of whether 01 not the
where to put an additional condition if one is to be added.
Hieatt property is developable; 2) the issue of the right-in and right-aut from the Hlealt property; and, 3)
additional definitive language, then perhaps the project should be continued to the next regular meeting.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that if the questions that have been raised are sufficient to warrant
Commissioner Compas disagreed with the suggestions to continuo and Chairperson Noble concurred.
Mr. Rudolf stated that if the Commission wlshes to address the variance, Condition No. 21, Resolution No.
4252, in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), is the place to put it. Another sentence could be added that
requires that the Engineer grant the variance when requested.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1261, recommending ccrtification of Environmental
4253, 4254, and 4255, approving Conditional Use Permit CUP 97-07, Coastal
Impact Report EIR 97-01 and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4252,
Development Permit CDP 97-25. Hillside Development Permlt HDP 97-08 and
Special Use Permit SUP 98-02, with the inclusion of modifications to Resolutions L MINUTES
~ece*ved: 12/11/88 3:23PM; - 4380884 -5 WILSON ENC-EERING; Peg0 3
DEC-11-98 FRI 16:24 CIT: .: CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO. 4380- 8 P. 03
PLANNING COMMISSION " April 1,1998 \" Page 18
No. 4252 and 4253, as recommended by staff, and with the change in Condition
No. 21 in Resolution No. 4252 to conform with the language given by the
Assistant City Attorney, and based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he cannot support this project bewuse to do so would be IO ignore the
advice of legal counsel.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he can support the project even though he is not entirely comfortable
with some of the issues ourruunding the shooting range.
Commissioner Compas stated his support for the project as presented and with the amendments stated in
the motion.
Commissioner Welshons voiced her support for the project including the amendments as btatod in the
motion.
this time beceuss of the all the uncertaintles and because a vote in support would be direcUy opposed to Commissioner Monroy stated that he thinks the project is wonderful. as a whole, but cannot support it at
the advice of legal counsel.
Commissioner Savary stated that she can support the project with the adjustments thal have been made.
Commissioner Heineman stated his support of the project.
Chairperson Noble stated that he can support the project because it does meet ail the standards and in
spite of some serious doubts about the promises that have been made but are not in written form.
VOTE: 6-1
AYES: Noble, Heineman, Savary, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen
NOE9: Monroy.
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, gave each Commissioner a copy of the recently modified
Planning Department Organizational Structure and the City of Carlsbad Organization Chart and explained
how each will function.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS:
None
ADJOURNMENT!
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of April 1. 1998, was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Assistant Planning Director
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. I
MINUTES v
COPY
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 10,1998
Bobbie Hoder - Planner
Shenie Worrell - Clerk’s Officew
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course - EIR 97-011CUP 97-07/CDP 97-251
HDP 97-08/SUP 98-02
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda
bill is signed off by &I parties.)
Ple&e process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation
Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council meeting oE
Signature Date
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 (760) 434-2808
ladwig Design Group, Inc.
April 10, 1998
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on April 1, 1998 - for the Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course
(EIR 97-01KUP 97-07KDP 97-25kIDP 97-0WSUP 98-02)
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. - J/N L-1025)
Please accept the attached as our appeal of the Planning Commission Decision on the above
applications.
We have attached the original signed appeal form, Mr. Hieatt’s check #I091 in the amount of
$600.00 and back up letters and maps that support our request for appeal. I have also attached a total
of six copies of everything to support our appeal.
Sincerely,
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:ad.020
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Jim Hieatt, with enclosures
Mr. Charles Marvin, Attorney, with enclosures
703 Palomar Airport Road t Suite 300 t Carlsbad, California 99009
(760) 438-31 82 FAX (760) 438-01 73
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal’the decision of the plhg Commission
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing: April 1998
Subiect of Annea6 BE SPFCIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer‘s Decision, please say so. ‘If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration. Specfic Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
EIR 97-01, CUP 97-07, CDP 97-25, HDP 97-08 and SUP 98-02-Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course.
We are appealing condition #21 of Planning Commission Resolution #4252-The last sentence
“Installation of improvements to this easement is not a requirement of this project.’’-we think the
requirements for improvement need to be included-see below.
Reasonls) for Anneal: Please Note Failure to specify a muon may mult in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated horn when presenting your appeal. BE SPFCIFiC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
The attached letter and exhibits explain our request. The attachments are: March 27, 1998 letter to
Mr. Bailey Noble, Chairman ofthe Planning Commission, colored assessor map composite showing
City and Hieatt property, color photograph showing Hieatt property and +mounding area, letter
dated Dec. 12, 1997 to Mr. Christer Westman, the right side of the letter has a drafl response
prepared by the environmental consultant to the Dec. 12,1997 letter, Dec. 18,1997 letter to Mr. Joe
Frederico-Engineering Inspector-includes Hieatt property map. At the planning commission we
asked that the hearing be continued to allow time to prepare a standards variance and that full
improvements be included for the Hieatt access including a median break in College Avenue.
(760) 438-3 182
SIGNATURE ’ PHONE NO.
Robert C. Ladwig For Jim Hieatt, Owner 703 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300
ADDRESS: Street Name 8 Number
Carlsbad CA 92009
DATE City, state, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad. California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808 @
ladwig Design Group, Inc.
March 27,1998
Mr. Bailey Noble
Chairman
Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Carlsbad, Municipal Golf Course EIR 97-01, CUP 97-07, CDP 97-25, HDP 97-08,
SUP 98-02/ Hieatt Property
(AP# 212-120-33 - 13.92 AC)
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. - J/N L-1025)
Dear Bailey and Planning Commissioners:
On December 12,1997 and December 18, 1997, I addressed letters to City Staff (copies enclosed)
which referenced concerns that Mr. Hiean and I have relative to the proposed golf course. Please
consider the items covered by those letters as specific objections which we have to the Carlsbad
Planning Commission’s approval of the Environmental Impact Report, the Conditional Use Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit and Special Use Permit for the proposed
City golf course site.
In this correspondence, I will not repeat the concerns that were addressed in our previous letters. I
will limit my comments to a response that was generated by the City staff to my previous
correspondence which our office received on March 19,1998.
The Environmental Impact Report states on page 1-1 :
“Under the provisions of CEQA, the purpose of the Environmental Review Report
is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify
alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which significant effects can
be mitigated or avoided.’ (Public Resource Code 21002.1 (a))”
By failing to include any consideration of the access road, the Environmental Review Report is
deficient in the following respects:
703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, CaliFornia 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-01 73
Mr. Bailey Noble
3/27/98
Page 2
1. It doesn’t identify the significant effects of the project on the environment.
2. It fails to identify alternatives to the project.
3. It fails to indicate the manner in which the significant affects of the access road can be
mitigated or avoided.
City staff is overlooking a number of significant facts. The access road to Hieatt property will also
access another privately owned parcel to the west of the Hieatt property and the industrial site owned
by the City. Furthermore, the access road is not going to be situated on the Hieatt property. AS Page
3-10 of the Report states in its sole reference to the access road:
“The project will preserve up to a 72-foot wide right of way from
College Boulevard to the Jim Hieatt property.”
For the City staff to take the position that the construction of the access road does not have to be
considered as part of the Environmental Review Report, when this major roadway is going right
through the golf course site, appears to Mr. Hieatt and the undersigned to totally ignore CEQA’s
requirements.
The following is in specific response to the letter I received on March 19, 1998:
LDG-1, Paragraph 1- Maintaining access to the Hieatt, City industrial site and industrial site west
of the Hieatt property, we feel requires more than preserving up to a 72’ wide right of way.
LDG-2, Paragraph 2- As stated, no Hieatt site development plan has been submitted. The response
to comments further states that specific details of the future access roadway are not available.
We have two responses to the above. l-.The City is responsible for the access and should develop
the details the EIR response to comments says are not available. 2- We find it interesting that a full
subdivision was approved, EIR certified, map recorded and full access and utilities provided to the
Hieatt property on what is now City property- all without a site development plan on the Hieatt
property.
LDG-1, Paragraph 3- The response to comments addresses impact to coastal sage scrub and
disturbed land and refers to a later time when the property owner applies for a discretionary Permit.
What about future traffic impacts from the Hiean fourteen acres, the City industrial site and the
industrial piece to the west of the Hieatt property onto College at a new intersection that does not
meet City standards for intersection spacing? What about utility service and other public services
required?
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite, 300 + Carlsbad, CaliFornio 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-0173
Mr. Bailey Noble
3/27/98
Page 3
Many of the remaining response to comments address fees and assessments as not issues related to
the draft EIR. We agree that fees and assessments do not have a physical environmental impact, but
for us they are a result of a major impact on the Hieatt property. The impact we are referring to is
1 - Before the City acquired the adjacent property Mr. Hieatt was’ assured of complete access and
utilities to serve his property. (Final map- dedicated streets- City approved street and Utility plans
and bonds guaranteeing improvements) 2- The proposed golf course plan will eliminate the filly
guaranteed access and provide only the reservation for a road easement. Thus, this is a major impact
as defined further in my December 12, 1997 letter attached to the Staff report and these impacts,
from our standpoint, need to be mitigated.
We are only asking that the City restore the improvements and dedications that benefited the Hieatt
property prior to the City purchase to the land adjacent to the Hieatt property. Any commitment by
the City short of restoring all the guarantee of improvements referred to above would have a major
impact on Mr. Hieatt.
According to Mr. Hieatt’s attorney, if, for the reasons stated above and in our previous
correspondence, the City does not meet the provisions of CEQA and the specific purposes of the
Environmental Review Report by failing to deal with the impacts of the access road, the City’s action
on the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR will not be legally valid.
I look fonvard to further addressing aur concerns at the Planning Commission meeting next week.
Sincerely,
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:ad.018
Enclosures
cc: Planning Commissioners, with enclosures
Mr. Christer Westman, with enclosures
Mr. Jim Hieatt, with enclosures
Mr. Charles Marvin, Attorney, with enclosures
703 Palomor Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FAX (760) 438-01 73
..
4 4
d
9 3 0 E: e!
c v Ei
Y
December 18,1997 :,'
Mr. Joe Federico
Engineering Inspector
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR CARLSBAD AIRPORT BUSINESS .
CENTER - 3 (CT 81-46, DRAWGNO. 241-7) AM) THE HlEATT _.
PROPERTY (AP NO. 212-120-33 - 13.92 ACRES)
GADWIG DESIGN GROUP, LNC. - J/N L-1025)
. .-
I Dear Joe: f
My client, Mr. Hieatt owns about 14 acres at the northwesterly corner of Palomar Airport adjacent
to the Carlsbad Airport Business Center - Unit No. 3. The Ci has opened up a public review period
for the EJR for the proposed City Golf Course. As part of my research for our response to the Elq
I was informed by Nanci Plouffe in engineering, that the improvement bonds for Carlsbad Airport
Business Center - Unit No. 3 were released on July 7, 1997, this was done without our knowledge.
Seeing that the undeveloped streets within Unit 3 of the Carlsbad Airport Business Center is the only
legal access to the Hieatt property, I asked her who requested and authorized the release of the
bonds. She indicated that I needed to talk to you to get that information.
I called you and left that message on your recording. Earlier this week I saw you at the counter of
the Engineering Department and you indicated that you were still looking for the answer to my
question.
As I pointed out above, the only access to the Hieatt property is through the undeveloped portion of
the Carlsbad Airport Business Center - Unit No. 3 via the extension of Palomar Oaks Way and Swift
Place. The Him property has participated in the College Avenue Assessment District, CFD No. 1
and the fighting and Landscaping District. Over $250,000 has been paid to the City without protest
because of the existence of the record map for the Carlsbad Airport Business Center - Unit No. 3 and
703 Palomar nirport Road + Suite 300 @ Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-31 82 FRX (760) 438-01 73
Mr. Joe Federico
December 18,1997
Page 2
the bonds that we thought still existed for the guarantee of grading and improvements of that
undeveloped subdivision As pointed out earlier, we now find out $hat the bonds have been released
in early July, so there is no guarantee of the access now for the Hieatt property.
Based on the above information and the potential of legal implications, I request that the City respond
to us in writing before the end of the year indicating that the bonds for Carlsbad Airport Business
Center - Unit No. 3 will be reinstated by or before January 15, 1998. In addition, I would also
appreciate an answer to my original question as to who requested and authorized the release of the
improvement bond.
Again, if you have any questions, please give me a call and I look forward to a written response from
the City.
Sincerely, I .-
Ladwig Design Group, Inc
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:baw.OlS
cc: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, Ci of Carlsbad, Public Works Director/Ci Engineer Mr. Marty Orenyak, City of Carlsbad, Community Development Director Mr. John Cahill, City of Carlsbad, Community Development Mr. Jim Hieatt ~r.' ck~es ~arvin, ~aw mces'ofckles ~arvin
""
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, CallFornia 92009
(760)~43&3182 FRX (760) 438-01 73