HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-13; City Council; 16060; Shopping Center Policies. a
2
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# ]b,Obo TITLE:
MTG. a-i+t-d SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
GPA 00-04
DEPT. PLN dL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution do01 - 4 b , APPROVING a Negative Declaration and
GPA 00-04, based upon the findings contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This action is a proposed amendment to the General Plan’s Land Use Element. It would replace the
existing “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial land use designations with a new “Local
Shopping Center” designation, together with amended goals, guidelines, and policies, including
criteria that can be used to identify new locations for future local shopping centers. Through these
changes the amendment would establish a new policy framework for local shopping centers.
This amendment would be the first of three related actions to come before the City Council on this
subject. Later actions will include a) an amendment to the Zone Code to create a new zone to
implement the new ‘Local Shopping Center” land use designation, and b) a land use analysis to
indicate locations for future local shopping centers, based upon the location criteria contained in the
new policy framework. From the land use analysis, staff will make recommendations for site-specific
changes to general plan and zoning designations on individual properties. Only the new policy
framework is the subject of this Agenda Bill.
At its public hearing on December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission voted (7-O) to recommend
approval of staffs general plan amendment, with changes in two areas.
1) Existing Objective B.l of the general plan (page 30 of Exhibit W) calls for limiting the number of
new shopping center designations so as to provide only basic service. Staffs original amendment
was intended to clarify how this limitation would be achieved. The amended language called for
limiting ” . . .the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which provides for basic
commercial service to all areas of the City without creating undue overlaps in trade areas”. . . One of
the possible effects of this approach would have been to limit the degree of competition between
shopping centers. The Planning Commission unanimously felt that the proposed language was too
constraining. Rather, it felt that a degree of diversity in types of, and competition between, shopping
centers would be desirable. Therefore, the Commission modified the staff language by adding the
phrase: ‘I.. . while providing desirable diversity without over-commercialization.. .” to the proposed
language. Under this language residential areas may be within the trade areas of more than one
shopping center. Subsequent to the Commission’s action on this recommendation, staff determined
that Implementing Policy C.2.4 needed to be amended to be consistent with the Commission’s
recommendation for Objective B.l (see Policy C.2.4, page 32 of Exhibit “W” for the modified
wording).
2) Among other policies that address where to locate shopping centers, the original staff
recommendation contained a policy that would have prohibited new sites for local shopping centers
from being located along El Camino Real. The Planning Commission felt that this prohibition would
overly limit possible locations for new shopping centers and would work against the “diversity” clause
of Objective B.l as the Commission had re-drafted it (see above). Therefore, it unanimously
decided to delete this location policy and replace it with the following: “New sites for local shopping
centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed to preserve the scenic quality of this
designated scenic corridor.” (Policy C.2.6, page 32 of Exhibit “W”.)
c
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ! I+ j fib0
A copy of the proposed general plan amendment (as modified by Planning Commission)
accompanies Exhibit 2, the Council Resolution, and is designated as Exhibit “W”.
A number of letters and other correspondence were received on the proposed amendment. These
communications accompany the attached staff report to the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Director has found that this proposed amendment will not have a significant impact to
the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under the proposed general plan amendment fewer new local shopping centers might be built than
under the existing policy framework. In addition, the new framework would reduce (or even
eliminate) community commercial centers, the tenants of which (value department stores, volume
specialty stores, chain apparel stores) often sell high volumes of retail goods subject to sales taxes.
Instead, it calls for centers focusing on neighborhood convenience goods and services, including
grocery stores and other tenants that may offer a significant number of services and goods not
subject to sales tax. Therefore, the proposed policy framework could result in the City receiving less
sales tax revenue than it might under the current policy framework.
However, the change may not be significant. Although the current policy allows for development of
community commercial centers (with high sales tax potential), the City has not historically permitted
the development of these types of centers, and, instead, has built neighborhood shopping centers on
these sites. Therefore, the potential sales tax stream from community commercial might not be
realized even if the current policies were retained.
The Finance Department has undertaken an informal evaluation and believes that the general plan
amendment will not significantly affect the City’s ability to meet future expenditure needs. The future
fiscal health of the city is dependent on a variety of factors in addition to land use decisions. Those
factors include the economic make-up and diversity of its tax base and the stability of the allocation
of its revenues. Various threats to city revenues have arisen over the years, usually based on
redistributions of taxes or tax cuts (i.e., the property tax reallocations in the early 90’s, the threat to
change sales taxes to a per capita basis and the recent reductions in the vehicle license fees). To
the extent that there are no wholesale changes in the allocation formulas or tax rates for these
revenues, the City should remain in a fiscally sound position. However, should the State choose to
change the allocation formulas or tax rates on any of our key revenue sources, the long-term fiscal
health of the city could be threatened.
Protection of the existing revenue streams is critical to the City’s long-term fiscal health. However,
since this land use decision is not expected to significantly affect future revenue streams; the
decision can be made on the merits of the land use effects of the policy alternatives without also
factoring in fiscal effects.
a
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16 I 0 bo
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Resolution No. &O 1 c 46
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4879 and 4880
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 6, 2000
3a. Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study (7996) (distributed
previously)
3b. Handouts from Workshop 2 (public notice, typical tenants list, survey report, graphics)
3c. “Commercial Policies - Staff Proposal”, from Workshop 3
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 6, 2000
Correspondence from Interested Parties.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. zool-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE
“NEIGHBORHOOD” AND “COMMUNITY” COMMERCIAL LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS AND CREATE A “LOCAL SHOPPING
CENTER” LAND USE DESIGNATION, TOGETHER WITH
REVISED GOALS, GUIDELINES, AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES.
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
CASE NO.: GPA 00-04
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on December 6, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider a General Plan Amendment, and unanimously recommended its approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the
day of , 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said General
Plan Amendment and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments
of all persons interested in or opposed to GPA 00-04;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council adopts Resolution No. zool-46 amending
the Land Use Element of the General Plan as reflected in Exhibit “w” attached, to eliminate the
“Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use designations and to
establish the “Local Shopping Center” land use designation, and directing the Planning Director
to process the appropriate amendments to those affected policies and action plans or otherwise
as necessary to implement this General Plan Amendment, and further directing him to process
the necessary changes to the General plan and zoning maps and to return them through the
Planning Commission to the City Council for approval, and incorporating the findings of the
Planning Commission, as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4879 and 4880 on
file with the City Clerk, and made a part hereof by reference, as the findings of the City Council.
. . . . 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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- 5”
EXHIBIT “W”
Land Use Element
estimate. The City determined the
maximum number of future dwelling units
which could be constructed in the four
quadrants along El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road. The maximum
number of future dwelling units which
may be constructed or approved in each
quadrant after November 4, 1986 is as
follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844;
Northeast Quadrant 6,166; Southwest
Quadrant 10,667; Southwest Quadrant
10,801. (Map 1: Maximum Future
Dwelling Units by Quadrant).
When the Growth Management Program
was ratified by Carlsbad citizens through
an initiative, the voters mandated that the
City not approve any General Plan
amendment, zone change, tentative
subdivision map or other discretionary
approval which could result in future
residential development above the limit in
any quadrant. This mandate will remain
in effect unless changed by a majority
vote of the Carlsbad electorate.
C. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The land use classifications described
herein and shown graphically on the
Land Use Map (Map 2: General Plan
Land Use Map) represent existing and
expected land uses in the City at some
future period of time, at total build out of
the City. The purpose of the Land Use
Map is to serve as a diagram to
graphically display the type, arrangement
and relation of land uses planned in the
City. It is not intended to be used to
legally define or measure parcels of land.
Table 1: Quantitative Breakdown of Land
Use Map is a quantitative breakdown of
the Land Use Map in approximate gross
acres. Charts 1 and 2 provide a more
visual representation of the number of
acres designated for each land use
category. The following are the land use
classifications represented on the Land
Use Map:
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (RL) (O-l .5 dwelling units
per acre)
Low-Medium Density (RLM) (O-4
dwelling units per acre)
Medium Density (RM) (4-8 dwelling
units per acre)
Medium-High Density (RMH) (8-l 5
dwelling units per acre)
High Density (RH) (1523 dwelling
units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
Local Shopping Center (L)
Regional Commercial (R)
Tourist/Recreation Commercial (TR)
The Village (V)
Office and Related Commercial (0)
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI)
GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES (G)
PUBLIC UTILITIES (U)
SCHOOLS
Elementary
Junior High I,. ‘I
High School
Continuation
Private
OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY
PARKS (OS)
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (TC)
UNPLANNED AREAS (UA)
COMBINATION DISTRICT
Page 7 Dr@ 11/6/00 Lb
Land Use Element
ability to achieve residential densities
higher than allowed by the underlying
land use designation. Therefore, it is
necessary to consider development of
housing projects containing lower-income
affordable housing units at densities that
may exceed the ranges and growth
management control points indicated
above. The density which may be
approved for those projects which include
affordable housing shall be determined
on an individual project proposal basis,
and may be independent of the
residential land use designation of the
site, subject to the criteria listed under
Residential, Implementing Policies and
Programs, C.3.
2. COMMERCIAL
Commercial development within Carlsbad
can be defined
by six five
principal “A City which
categories-- provides for the
development of
compatible,
conveniently
located commercial center, regional ten ters., . ” commercial,
travel/recreation
Village, and office and related
LommercialL
In general, retail development in
Carlsbad should occur in discrete
shopping cenfers, as opposed to more
generalized retail districts or linear
strip commercial patterns along
streets. This genera/ plan uses the
following definition of a shopping
center;
Definition - “Shopping
Center” (after Urban Land
Institute, 1947, as
amended):
,a, a group of architecturally
unified commercial establish-
ments, numbering at least three,
built on a site that is planned,
developed, owned, and managed
as an operating unit related to its
location, size, and type of shops
to the trade area that it serves.
The unit provides onsite parking
in definite relationship to the
types and total size of the stores
An exception to the genera/ rule that
retail development should occur in
discrete shopping cenfers is the
Village area of the City. As is
described in more detail below, this
area reflects the “downtown” heart of
o/d Carlsbad, much of which is today
contained within” a formal
redevelopment district. Retail
development within the Village should
continue the historical pattern of
individual establishments within a
commercial district.
In prior versions of this General Plan,
the City recognized two types of local
shopping centers: neighborhood and
community. In 2000, however, these
two categories were merged info a
single category called “local shopping
center’: The typical characteristics of
local and regional shopping centers
are shown in the following Table 3:
Guidelines for Shopping Cen ters.
Both types are described in more
detail in fhe following sections.
Page 11 Draft 11/6/00 7
Land Use Element
Table 3: GUIDELINES FOR TYPICAL SHOPPING CENTERS
Typical
Shopping Center
Characteristics
Trade Area Focus
Anchor Tenants
(examples)
Secondary Tenants
(examples)
Local Shopping Regional Shopping
Center Center
Required of All Local Possible Option, Depending on
Shopping Centers Site and Special Approvals
Local daily goods and Local, plus goods and services Regional
services provided by community-serving
tenants
Community-serving tenants, Full-line department stores (2
Supemlarket, drug store such as value department or more), factory outlet
store, chain apparel store, center, “power center” of
volume specialty store, home several high-volume specialty
improvement center, multiplex stores.
cinema
Restaurant, bank, real
estate, personal Apparel, specialty retail, Full range of specialty retail,
grooming, small retail, restaurant, specialty restaurants, entertainment
fast food, gas station, automotive, sporting goods
cleaners, video rental
Site Size (acres)
Gross Lease Area
Primary Trade Area
Drive Time, at Build-out
Primary Trade Area
Radius
Primary Trade Area
Population
8-20 To 30
60,000 - 150,000 (sq. ft.) up to 400,000 (sq. ft.)
5 - 10 minutes IO - 20 minutes
1.5 miles. 3 - 5 miles
10,000 - 40,000 people 40,000 - 150,000 people
30- 100
300,000 to 1.5 million (sq. ft.)
20 - 30 minutes
8 - 12 miles
150,000 + people
Draft 11/6/00
Land Use Element
tie t&c z:- Tenant
composition and ‘the type ‘of anchor
tenant are the main identifiers of a
shopping center type. An anchor tenant
may be an individual tenant or a group of
like uses that function as an anchor
tenant. For example, a combination of
gourmet food shop, delicatessen meat
market, and green grocery might function
in lieu of a supermarket. A food service
cluster, several restaurants, and a
cinema complex may function as other
anchor tenants. Tenant composition and
the characteristics of the leading tenant/s
define a commercial center type.
Although building area, site size, trade
area size, etc. are influential, they are not
the primary factors in determining a
center type.
Notwithstanding the last statement,
the concept of a shopping center’s
frade area is important for other
reasons such as the economic
viability of the center, the amount of
competition if will experience, and,
consequently, determining the optimal
spatial distribution of shopping
centers within a community. The trade
area is the geographic area that
provides the majority of steady
customers necessary to support a
shopping center. The boundaries of a
trade area are determined by a
number of variables, including the
type of center, the size of the anchor
tenant, the site’s accessibility,
geographic barriers, the location of
competing facilities and, very importantly, driving time and distance
(See Tab/e 3, Guidelines for Typical
Shopping Cen fers). Conseguen t/y,
trade areas can vary widely in shape,
size, and configuration. In general,
the closer potential customers are to a
site the more likely they are to
pa tronize it. The number of persons
residing within the trade area (and
their related purchasing power) must
be of a sufficient size for the center to
be economically viable. When the
trade areas of centers overlap then
competition may exist between the
centers and the purchasing power of
the residents will be shared between
the centers. The desired number and
location of shopping cenfers,
especially local shopping cenfers,
depends upon a number of factors
(detailed later) that relate to “fitting”
together the trade areas of potenfial
sites and making policy decisions
about the amount of gaps and
overlaps that should exist befween the
trade areas.
Page 13 Draft 1 l/6/00
Land Use Element
a. Local Shopping Center (L): The
local shopping ten ter designation
allows shopping centers that include
elements of the traditional neighbor-
hood cenfer and, under some
circumstances, elements of the
traditional community shopping
cenfer.
Each local shopping center must
contain the anchor tenants and
secondary tenants ihat service the
daily needs and convenience of local
neighborhoods. These tenants include
retail businesses, small offices, and a
variety of services. The most
common anchor tenant is a super-
market, although a large drugstore or
combination of supermarket and
drugstore may also serve. Secondary
tenants can include small offices (for
banks, insurance, real estate and
ofher services); personal grooming
providers (like beauty parlors,
barbershops, and nail salons),
Laundromats, cleaners, small retail
s fores, sit-down and fast food
restaurants, and gas stations, among
others. Typical characteristics of
sites for these centers are given in
Page 14 Draft 11/6/00
Land Use Element
Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping
Cen ters.
While all sites with the designation
Local Shopping Cenfer must provide
neighborhood goods and services,
they may be authorized also to have
anchor tenants that are more
traditionally described as community-
serving in nature. These community
commercial tenants typically offer
either a larger range of goods and
services and/or a higher degree of
specialization of goods and services.
Often the floor area is greater than is
that of stores that offer neighborhood
goods and services and their trade
area is larger in size and includes a
larger population. These tenants may
include value department stores (ex:
Target, K-mart), warehouse/club
stores (ex: Home Depot, Costco),
chain apparel stores (ex: Ross,
Marshall’s), a variety of large-volume
specialty-goods stores (ex; Staples,
Comp USA, Good Guys) and multiplex
cinemas. When these types of anchor
tenants are included in the shopping
cenfer, additional types of secondary
tenants may also be included, such as
restaurants and specialty retail goods.
Some local shopping centers may
also include quasi-public or public
facilities, such as a city library or U.S.
post office
Local
shopping cenfer uses are generally
located within a convenient walking
and/or bicycling distance from intended
customers and should be linked with
surrounding neighborhoods by pedestrian and/or bicycle access.
Landscaped buffers should be provided
around the project site between
neighborhood commercial uses and other
uses to ensure compatibility. All
buildings should be low-rise and should
include architectural/design features to
be compatible with the neighborhood.
Permitted uses and building intensities
should be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
eb. Regional Commercial (R):
Regional commercial centers provide
shopping goods, general merchandise,
automobile sales, apparel, furniture, and
home furnishing in full depth and variety.
Two or more department stores are
typically the major anchors of a regional
shopping center, while other stores
supplement and complement the various
department store lines. New forms of
regional centers may include such
developments as outlet centers with an
aggregation of factory outlet stores where
there are no specific anchor tenants
although such centers are regional and
enjoy a strong tourist trade. Regional
centers draw customers from outside the
City and generate interregional traffic.
For this reason, such centers are
customarily located on a site that is easily
visible as well as accessible from
interchange points between highways
and freeways7 0: n u Local
shopping centers ese-&im may be
adjunct to regional centers to also serve
the daily convenience needs of
customers utilizing the larger shopping
center. A group of convenience stores,
service facilities, business and
professional offices are also often
associated with a regional center. Some
of these may be incorporated in the
center itself, or arranged at the periphery
in the immediate area.
Draft 11/6/00
Land Use Element
4.c Travel/Recreation Commercial
(TR): This category addresses
commercial uses that provide for visitor
attractions and commercial uses that
serve the travel and recreational needs of
tourists, residents, as well as employees
of business and industrial centers. Often
such sites are located near major
transportation corridors or recreational
and resort areas such as spas, hotels,
beaches or lagoons. Typically these
areas are developed along major
roadways and are accessible to
interregional traffic. Tourist-oriented
uses such as motels and hotels should
be coordinated with compatible
accessory uses, should protect the
surrounding properties, should ensure
safe traffic circulation and should
promote economically viable tourist-
oriented areas of the City.
e;d. Village (V): The Village addresses
land uses located in the heart of “old”
Carlsbad in the area commonly referred
to as the “downtown”. Permitted land
uses may include retail stores, offices,
financial institutions, restaurants and
tourist-serving facilities. Residential
uses can be intermixed throughout the
area. The Village is designated as a
redevelopment area and is regulated by
the Carls bad Village Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Village
Design Guidelines Manual.
i;e. Office and Related Commercial
(0): This classification designates areas
that are compatible with and
environmentally suited for office and
professional uses, as well as related
commercial uses. This designation is
especially appropriate for medical office
use. Office and related commercial land
use can be used as buffers between
retail commercial areas and residential
uses.
3. PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI)
Planned Industrial land uses include
those areas currently used for, proposed
as, or adjacent to industrial development,
including manufacturing, warehousing,
storage, research and development, and
utility use. Agricultural and outdoor
recreation uses on lots of one acre or
more are considered to be a proper
interim use for industrially designated
areas.
4. GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES
w This classification of land use designates
areas currently being used for major
governmental facilities by agencies such
as the city, county, state, or federal
government. Facilities within this
category may include uses such as civic
buildings, libraries, maintenance yards,
police and fire stations and airports
(McClellan-Palomar Airport). Smaller
facilities, such as branch libraries, may
be found in other land use designations,
such as commercial, and are not shown
on the land use map.
The largest facility within this
classification is the McClellan-Palomar
Airport located at the center of the City.
The airport, owned and operated by San
Diego County, serves as a major general
aviation facility for northern San Diego
County. More detailed discussions
related to the airport may be found under
Special Planning Considerations, as well
as in the Noise, Circulation, and Public
Safety Elements.
5. PUBLIC UTILITIES (U) _
Page 16 Draft 11/6/00 12
Land Use Element
transportation corridors and the proposed
Carlsbad Trail System.
c.12 Require new master planned
developments and residential specific
plans of over 100 acres to provide usable
acres to be designated for community
facilities such as daycare, worship, youth
and senior citizen activities. The exact
amount of land will be determined by a
future amendment to the Planned
Community Zone.
C.13 Introduce programs to revitalize all
residential areas which are deteriorating
or have a high potential of becoming
deteriorated.
C.14 Ensure that all hillside development
is designed to preserve the visual quality
of the preexisting topography.
C.15 Consider residential development,
which houses employees of businesses
located in the PM zone, when it can be
designed to be a compatible use as an
integral part of an industrial park.
COMMERCIAL
A. GOALS
A.1 A City that achieves a healthy and
diverse economic base by creating a
climate for economic growth and stability
to attract quality commercial
development to serve the employment,
shopping, recreation, and service needs
of Carlsbad residents.
A.2 A City that provides for the
development of compatible, conveniently
located ~w@N&w& local shopping
centers.
A.3 A City that promotes economic
development strategies, for commercial,
industrial, office and tourist-oriented land
uses.
A.4 A City that promotes. recreational and
tourist-oriented land uses which serve
visitors, employees of the industrial and
business centers, as well as residents of
the city.
B. OBJECTIVES
B.l To limit the amount of new
commercial land use designations to that
which provides for basic commercial
service to all areas of the City without
creating undue overlaps in trade
areas, while providing desirable
diversity without over-commerciali-
zation, D k w eF “I
the CIF, and to Uh afe
consisten; with the prime concept and
image of the community as a desirable
residential, open space community.
B.2 To ensure that all residential areas
are adequately served by commercial
areas in terms of daily shopping needs
which include convenience goods, food,
and personal services. “Adequately
served” means no residential area is
outside the primary trade area of the
nearest local shopping cenfer
B.3 To establish and maintain
commercial development standards to
address landscaping, parking, signs, and
site and building design, to ensure that all
existing and future commercial
developments are compatible with
surrounding land uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
AND ACTION PROGRAMS
Page 30 Draft 11/6/00 13
Land Use Element
c.1 Applications for the re-
designation of land to shopping
center uses shall be accompanied by
a conceptual development plan of the
site and a market study that
demonstrates the economic viability
of using the land in the way being
requested. Such studies shall give
due consideration to existing and
future sites that may compete within
shared trade areas
C.42 Utilize the following guidelines in ‘#Jfq,+ a,* I “’ lF&,&&.p” Fof
s To
. . . A -mmrrm;nl
determine the
appropriate spatial distribution of new
sites for local shopping cenfers and to
assign associated zoning. In some
instances it may not be possible to
implement all of these guidelines fully
and, therefore, some degree of
flexibility in their application may be
required.
27. f?eqAe+ New master plans and
residential specific plans and other
large development proposals shall
evaluate whether there is a need to
include a local shopping center
within the development, consistent
with these guidelines. e
an q3tms! d:~cc from otk?f
42. Locat
local shopping
cenfers so that, wherever possible, it
is they are centrally located within i-k
setGee their primary trade areas.
3. As a convention, the primary
trade areas of existing and
proposed local shopping cenfers
may be defined in terms of the time
patrons typically experience
traveling to fhe center. The range
of travel times for local shopping
centers is given in Table 3:
Page 31 Draft 11/6/00 rt”
Land Use Element
Guidelines for Typical Shopping
Cenfers. Any city-wide analysis
used to establish the spatial
distribution of ten ters should
consider a typical travel time, the
current or built-out condition of the
City and whether the travel being
modeled occurs ‘on peak” or “off-
peak” travel hours, together with
other factors that may be
appropriate.
4. Looking towards build-out, local
shopping centers should be located
such that gaps will not occur
between adjoining trade areas, thus
providing for a basic /eve/ of local
service fo a// areas of the City (See
Objective B.2.). In addition, trade
areas of centers may overlap so as
to provide both a degree of
competition between, and diversify
in, shopping opportunities, but only
to the degree that such overlaps do
not result in over-commercializa tion
of the City (See Objective B.1)). The
term “over-commercia/iza tion” is not
intended to be a quantified term, but
may be qualitatively determined from
time to time.
5. Genera//y, local shopping enters
should not be located direct/y within
the residential neighborhoods they
serve, but, rather, on the peripheries
of fhe neighborhoods, along or near
major streets or future extensions of
major s free ts.
6. New sites for local shopping
centers located along El Camino
Real shall be designed so as to
preserve the scenic quality of this
designated scenic corridor.
7. The population within the trade
area at build-out should be of a size
that the center would be
economically viable, considering
other existing and future cenfers.
8. Consider intersection spacing and
other circulation criteria to assure
safe, and functional access to the
center. Good locations will be
readily accessed from principal
travel routes and have several
entrances. (Sites located along
primary arterials may have difficulty
meeting this guideline.)
c.23 &&e Build, and operate A local
shopping centers in such a way as to
complement but not conflict with
adjoining residential areas. This shall be
accomplished by:
3 1. Controlling lights, signage, and
hours of operation to avoid adversely
impacting surrounding uses.
4 2. Requiring adequate landscaped
buffers between commercial and
residential uses.
4: 3. Providing bicycle and pedestrian
links between proposed rAgW&e&
local commercial centers and
surrounding residential uses.
Page 32 Draft 11/6/00 M-
Land Use Element
c.34 Comprehensively design all
commercial centers to address common
ingress and egress, adequate off-street
parking and loading facilities. Each
center should be easily accessible by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles
to nearby residential development.
C.45 Ensure that commercial architecture
emphasizes establishing community
identity while presenting tasteful,
dignified and visually appealing designs
compatible with their surroundings.
C.6 When “community” tenants (see
Table 3, earlier) are included in a local
shopping center, they must be fully
integrated into the overall function
and design of the center, including the
architecture, internal circulation and
landscaping. The inclusion of such
tenants should complement, not
supplant the principal function of the
center, which is to provide local
goods and services.
I. No community “anchor” tenant
may be built as a stand-alone building.
It must share (or appear to share)
walls and its building facade with
other tenants in the center.
2. Neither community “anchor”
tenants nor secondary tenants may
feature corporate architecture or
logos (excluding signs).
C.6.7 Ensure that all commercial
development provides a variety of
courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle
trails, landscaped parking lots, and the
use of harmonious architecture in the
construction of buildings.
C.6.8 Permit the phasing of commercial
projects to allow initial development and
expansion in response to demographic
and economic changes. Site designs
should illustrate the ultimate development
of the property and/or demonstrate their
ability to coordinate and integrate with
surrounding development.
C.9. Outdoor storage of goods and
products in shopping centers is not
allowed. Temporary exceptions may
be allowed for display and sale of
traditional, seasonal items such as
Christmas trees, pumpkins, and
similar merchandise. In these
exceptions, both adegua te parking
and safe in ternal circulation (vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle) is to be
maintained.
C.Z. 70. Encourage commercial
recreation or tourist destination facilities,
as long as they protect the residential
character of the community and the
opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in
a safe, attractive and convenient manner)
the continued use of the beach, local
transportation, and parking facilities.
C.&l 1. Orient travel/recreation
commercial areas along the l-5 corridor,
in the Village, or near resort/recreation
areas.
C.972. Revise Section 21.29.030 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Tourist
Zone, Permitted Uses and Structures) to
more accurately reflect the intent of the
Travel/Recreation Commercial general
plan designation to serve the traveling
public, visitors to the city, as well as
employees of business and industrial
centers.
C.+3-13. Review parking requirements
for commercial areas on a periodic basis
Page 33 Draft 11/6/00
Land Use Element
to ensure adequate parking and to
address identified parking problems.
c.11 CE mlmn crb-bcl e-4 . . r’-” U”U a-
C.G374. Strip commercial development
(defined as retail development outside
of a shopping center) shall be
discouraged in a// areas of the City
other than the Village. m scm
C.75. Amend Municipal Code Tit/e 21
(zoning regulations) to create a new
zoning district appropriate for the
Local Shopping Center land use class.
The new zone should establish
a//owed land uses, development
standards, together with design
guidelines to assure that shopping
centers meet the objectives and
policies set out herein. Create a new
“planned shopping center” permit that
will apply to all new shopping centers
and major remodels of existing
shopping ten ters, with the City
Council as the decision maker.
VILLAGE
A. GOALS
A.1 A City which preserves, enhances,
and maintains the Village as a place for
living, working, shopping, recreation, civic
and cultural functions while retaining the
village atmosphere and pedestrian scale.
A.2 A City which creates a distinct
identity for the Village by encouraging
activities that traditionally locate in a
pedestrian-oriented downtown area,
including offices, restaurants, and
specialty retail shops.
Page 34 Draft 11/6/00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4879
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN TO ESTABLISH A NEW POLICY
FRAMEWORK FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS,
TO APPLY CITYWIDE.
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
CASE NO.: GPA 00-04
WHEREAS, The Planning Director, has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property owned Citywide); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared
project; and
in conjunction with said
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of December, 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, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated August 23, 2000, and “PII” dated August 15,
2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration SHOPPING
CENTER POLICIES (GPA 00-04), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; 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
B.
C.
D.
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpkon
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
4
PC RBSO NO. 4879 -2- /9
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Location: The project is applicable citywide.
Project Description: An amendment to the Local Coastal Program and the General Plan
Land Use Element that would modify policies guiding retail
development in the City. The proposed changes include:
. Requiring retail development to generally occur in discrete
shopping centers instead of as strip commercial;
n Eliminating the Neighborhood and Community Commercial
land use designations and adding a new designation, “Local
Shopping Center,” and;
. Revising the guidelines that describe the typical characteristics
of shopping centers
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4609.
DATED: AUGUST 23,200O
CASE NO: GPA OO-04KCPA 00-06
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 23,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 a9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
Case No: GPAOO-04, LCPA 00-06
Date: August 15,200O
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Case Name: Shopping Center Policies
Applicant: Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, for City of Carlsbad
Address & Phone Number of Applicant: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 (760) 602.4609
Date EIA Form Part I Submitted: N/A - City Project
Project Description: An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text and the
Local Coastal Program that would establish a new policy framework for the location and
development of local shopping centers. Among other things, retail development
generally would be required to occur in discrete shopping centers instead of in
generalized retail districts or linear strip commercial patterns. The project proposes no
development. Additional, separate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal
Program, and the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary to fully implement the project.
Please see the “Discussion of Environmental Evaluation” section for additional
information.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [7 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy / Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 21
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
q
0
0
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n)
environmental impact report or negative declaration is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a sig&ficant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact
report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier document, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
-u&L a-LUu,
Planner’s Signature Date
Date k
Rev. 03/28/96 22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City.
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
Note: See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section for explanations of the ‘No Impact ”
answers checked herein.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 23
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures, if any, appears at the
end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. If applicable,
particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be
determined significant.
Rev. 03128J96 a+!
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
t?)
h)
i)
expose people to potential impacts i;lvOlving:
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless lmpacr Mitigation Incorporated
cl El
0 0
0
El
cl
Cl
0 q 0 cl 0 0
El q 0
El
cl
cl
cl
0
cl cl lxl cl . . 0 IXI
cl 0 lxl
El cl Ix]
0 cl Ix]
cl cl lxl
q 0 cl 0 El III
0 III cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
IXI lxl El lzl El (XI
E3l IXI El
IXI
IXI
Is]
ISI
Ix1
5 Rev. 03128196 aj--
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
f)
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c>
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? Create objectionable odors?
VI. TR4NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f-l
iit)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
4
b)
c)
4
e>
VIII.
a>
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0
cl
El
0
0
III
Cl
0
0
0
0
Ll
cl
0
0
cl
0
q
cl cl
cl 0
cl
cl q 0
q
q q
cl
cl cl
cl cl 0 q
0
cl
III cl
cl q
q
0
q
cl
0 El q
0
cl 0
cl
0 0
0 El q 0
El
cl
0 0
El 0
cl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
[XI
lzl
Is1
lxl
lz.l
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
(XI
IXI
Ix]
Ix]
Ix1
1xI
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
6 Rev. 03128196
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Si_gnificant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
cl
Ll
Less Than
S@ficant
Impact
SO
lmpacr
26
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
Less Than
Significrlnt
Impact
0
q
cl
0
0
cl
0 I7
NO Impact
lxl
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
l.xl
Ix1
IE3
El
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
171 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a>
b)
c>
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?
Exposure of people to
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in
grass, or trees?
existing sources of potential
areas with flammable brush,
cl
0
0
III
El
cl
I7
cl
cl
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 El 0 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
cl 0 q 0 cl
0 Cl q 0 0
0 cl q cl 0
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
El 0 cl
El cl 0 cl
III 0 q
cl cl cl
cl cl cl cl
El El cl
q El cl lxl 0 Ix]
4
b)
cl
4
3
f)
I?>
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
4 Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
cl Create light or glare?
0’ lxl cl lxl cl (XI cl Ix1
0 lxl 0 Ix1 cl Ix1
7 Rev. 03/28/96 ‘-. 27
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
c)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, anti the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
cl cl 0 0
El
lzl
0
cl
q
El
El cl El III
III
0
Cl
q
cl
q
0 III 0 El
cl
0
0
q
cl
El
El
El
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Description
An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element text only and Local Coastal Program that
would establish a new policy framework for the location and development of local shopping
centers. Briefly, the amendment would:
l Require retail development outside of the downtown Village area to occur generally in
discrete, well-planned shopping centers instead of generalized retail districts or linear
strip commercial patterns;
l Eliminate Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial as types of General
Plan land use designations and replace them with a new type of land use designation,
Local Shopping Center. The primary purpose of the new designation is to allow
8 Rev. 03/28/96 a8
shopping centers that provide neighborhood and, under special circumstances,
community-wide goods and services;
l Revise and update the General Plan guidelines that provide the typical characteristics of
different types of shopping center development in the City. In general, the revised
guidelines distinguish local centers from regional centers, noting their usual differences
in building and site size, types of tenants, and area and population served;
l Establish a policy that all areas of the City will have “coverage” by a local shopping
center and at the same time reduce the propensity for overcommercialization.
l Modify the Land Use Element’s goals, objectives, policies, and action programs for
commercial development to carry out the new policies.
The new policy framework will affect properties in the City’s coastal zones. However, no
changes are proposed to the Local Coastal Program text. Furthermore, the project proposes no
amendments to the land use maps of either the General Plan or Local Coastal Program.
Discussion Of Impacts To Environmental Factors
Staff has determined the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment
and has therefore prepared a negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required. To
summarize, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the
following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The amendment proposes broad, policy level changes only; it is not associated with any
specific development project and does not propose any development;
The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts;
The amendment does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, policies, or programs
of the General Plan or the Local Coastal Program, and;
The amendment does not conflict with or adversely affect any of the 14 environmental
factors (i.e., Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this
Environmental Impact Assessment Form and expanded on below.
The proposed revisions to the shopping center guidelines generally enlarge the characteristics of
shopping centers; for example, the current guidelines describe a typical neighborhood shopping
center site as 3-10 acres in size, with 30-l 00,000 square feet of building area, and service
population of up to 10,000. The proposed characteristics for the new Local Shopping Center
include an S-20 acre site size, 60,000-150,000 square feet of building area, and a service
population of lO,OOO-40,000. Under the proposed amendment, new shopping centers may be
larger than if built under current General Plan policies. While this may increase environmental
impacts, particularly in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, and noise, the amendment
may also reduce impacts by causing, in comparison with current policies, commercial
development to be more concentrated and better planned. The potential for enhancement or
impact to the environment is largely variable and cannot be analyzed until specific sites are
considered, various studies are conducted, and, in some cases, actual development is proposed.
This review will commence when the proposed project is implemented through amendments to
the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use maps. For further information, see the
section below on the evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment.
A listing and discussion of the 14 environmental factors and the relationship of the project to
each follows.
Rev. 03128196 29
Land Use and Planning - The project is an amendment to the General Plan text to revise land
use designations, guidelines, and policies affecting retail commercial development. To ensure
consistency, other separate changes to the Local Coastal Program Land Use and Zoning Maps
and text and map changes to the Zoning Ordinance (which implements the Local Coastal
Program) will be needed. These actions are outside the scope of the current project. As the
amendment proposes no development and is not site specific, questions regarding the
amendment’s impact to existing land uses, agricultural resources or operations, and the physical
arrangement of an established community are inapplicable. The project does not affect any
environmental policies or plans, including those of the Local Coastal Program.
Population and Housing - Since it does not propose any development or affect residential land
uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce substantial
growth, or displace any existing housing.
Geologic Problems - The project changes regulations that affect development on a citywide
basis. It does not relate to any particular development project or site or geologic condition.
There are no geologic problems associated with this amendment; such would be analyzed as part
of the environmental review of a proposed development project.
Water - The amendment affects citywide policies regarding shopping center development. As
no potential impacts or changes to standards or policies regarding water-related issues are
proposed, the proposal will not impact this category.
Air Quality - The proposal, in and of itself, will generate no development or land uses, nor does
it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to air quality. Accordingly, it will not
impact this concern.
Transportation/Circulation - The proposed amendment, in and of itself, will generate no
development or land uses, nor does it impact adopted city standards and policies relating to
transportation and circulation. It does include a guideline requiring the consideration of sound
transportation planning for shopping centers.
Biological Resources - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies
affecting plant and animal resources are proposed, there will be no impacts to biological
resources.
Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or
policies relating to these resources are proposed, energy and mineral resources will not be
impacted.
Hazards - No site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating to natural and
man-made hazards or emergency plans are proposed. Therefore, the amendment will not impact
this subject.
Noise - The amendment, in and of itself, will not generate development or land uses, and it will
not impact adopted city standards and policies relating to noise; accordingly, it will not impact
this concern.
Public Services - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding
public services are proposed, there will be no impacts in this category.
10 Rev. 03/28/96 30
Utilities and Service Systems - Since no site-specific project or changes to City standards or
policies affecting utilities and service systems are proposed, there will be no impacts to such
systems.
Aesthetics - As no site-specific project or changes to existing City standards or policies relating
to views, aesthetics, or light and glare is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no
impacts in this category. The amendment does propose new policies prohibiting the outdoor
storage of goods and products in shopping centers and requiring quality design.
Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies relating
to these assets is proposed as part of the amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural
resources.
Recreational - As no site-specific project or changes to City standards or policies regarding
recreational facilities or demand for the same are proposed, there will be no impact to
recreational uses, existing or proposed.
Evaluation of activities related to this General Plan Amendment
Once the city adopts the new policy framework proposed by this project, it intends to commence
on two principal actions to implement it. Neither of these actions is part of the subject project.
l Create a new zoning district to implement the new Local Shopping Center land use
classification. The new zone would establish allowed uses, development regulations, and
the processes that will apply to the development of sites subject to it. Creating this new
zone will be subject to a separate environmental review.
l Conduct detailed studies to determine where the new general plan designation and zone
should be applied. City staff anticipates that both will be applied to existing
neighborhood and community commercial shopping centers. In addition, this study may find that some vacant sites currently designated for neighborhood or community
commercial may no longer be needed in the future, while other sites may need to be
added. A separate environmental review will be conducted for any needed changes to the
city’s zoning map or general plan map.
Additionally, amendments to the land use and zoning maps of the Local Coastal Program will be
necessary to ensure consistency with the City’s general plan map and zoning map. The new
policy framework does not affect any Local Coastal Program policies or other text.
The environmental impacts of these subsequent activities will be subject to separate
environmental review because they cannot be analyzed at this time. To determine the impacts,
the subject General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments must first be approved so the
policy framework by which the activities will be implemented is established. Furthermore,
evaluating impacts also will require knowing that properties will be affected by the project, and
this in turn requires studies to be prepared. While the City intends the amendment to primarily
apply to sites either developed with existing shopping centers or designated for such
development, it may apply to other properties, too. As was stated earlier, how and which
properties will be affected is dependent upon preparation of detailed and specific analyses of
individual properties, including trade area, traffic, and population studies to help determine
appropriate shopping center locations as described by the proposed amendment. All of the
properties potentially affected by this project and the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed changing of a property’s land use or zoning designation cannot be known until the
11 Rev. 03/28/96 31
analyses are complete. In addition, some or many impacts may not be fully known until
development is proposed.
The related activities might produce impacts to the following environmental factors as found in
the checklist of this document: land use planning, geologic, biological resources, traffic, air
quality, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources, public services, and utility and service systems.
The City expects in many instances that negative declarations will be the appropriate
environmental documents since many of the properties involved will already be developed with
or designated for commercial uses. This determination will be made as appropriate.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the preparation of this environmental impact assessment
form. They are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600.
1. Citv of Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6, 1994, City Council Resolution No.
94-246.
2. Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program approved by City Council on July 16, 1996
(Ordinances NS 364 and 365), and certified by the Coastal Commission on October 9,
1996.
12 Rev. 03128196 32
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4880
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, DELETING THE
“NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” AND “COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL” LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ADDING
A NEW “LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER” DESIGNATION,
INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, GUIDELINES, GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING
PROGRAMS.
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
CASE NO: GPA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property described as citywide
(“The Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “W “ dated December 6, 2000, attached and on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - GPA 00-04, as provided in
Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of December, 2000,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - GPA
00-04, based on the following findings: 33
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
Findinps:
1. That the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan are
consistent with the vision, other elements, and parts of elements of the General Plan,
in that the general plan sets out goals for: self-contained neighborhoods with a mix
of land uses, adequate opportunities for retail shopping consistent with the needs of
a diverse population, and functional and safe traffic circulation, and the proposed
amendments articulate a policy framework for meeting those goals.
2. That the proposed amendments fulfil1 a need identified by the City Council with the
adoption of the General Plan in 1994, that need being to determine whether or not
the city needs additional numbers and kinds of retail commercial sites in the City, in
that these amendments provide a policy framework for making that determination.
3. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Local Coastal Program, in
that implementation of the amendments will not negatively impact coastal resources
(slopes or vegetation) and will not impact public views or public access and will not
conflict with any existing Coastal Zone policies.
4. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the City’s Growth Management
Plan, in that any new sites that may be designated for shopping centers that accrue
as a result of the new policy framework contained within the amendments will be
required to comply with all applicable growth management requirements to provide
facilities and services concurrent with development and in proportion to the
demand for such facilities and services caused by the development.
PC RESO NO. 4880 -2- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of December 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
&?&&&+/!A$&&
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperdon
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RBSO NO. 4880 -3- 3 5-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 3
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 5 0
Application complete date: Not applicable
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 6,200O Project Planner: Dennis Turner
Project Engineer: none
SUBJECT: GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES - Request for approval of an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting
“Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” land use
designations and creating, in their place, a “Local Shopping Center” designation,
together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies, and implementing
programs, for possible application Citywide.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4879
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4880 RECOMMENDING APROVAL of GPA 00-04 based upon
the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposal is the first of three related proposals that, taken together, will form a new vision
and policy framework for retail shopping centers throughout the city. Each proposal will require
public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The three proposals will
include:
a. General Plan amendments, which would replace the existing “Neighborhood” and
“Community” commercial land use designations with a new “Local Shopping Center”
designation, together with revised goals, guidelines, and policies, including criteria that can
be used in identifying new locations for shopping centers (the subject of this report);
b. A Zone Code Amendment, which would create a new zone and discretionary permit to
implement the new Local Shopping Center land use designation. This Municipal Code
language is still in preparation, but will be brought forward soon.
c. A land use analysis, which would recommend new sites for shopping centers, to be based
upon the warrants contained in the above general plan amendment. This work is underway
(and assumes the warrants contained in the proposed general plan amendment). On its
completion the analysis may make recommendations for property-specific changes to
existing land use designations. Therefore, it may come forward with one or more additional
general plan amendments, as well as amendments to specific plans and master plans.
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Pane 2
The action before the Planning Commission at this time is only part “a.” Staff recommends
approval of the proposed general plan amendment. It is the outgrowth of several years of research and public discussion, a summarized history of which follows.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Background and History
A comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General Plan was adopted by the City Council in the
fall of 1994. Among many other amendments, the Council approved a number of changes to the
definitions and policies of the Land Use Element having to do with commercial land uses.
Several commercial land use designations were deleted or consolidated and several policies and
objectives were amended. At that time the Planning Department staff advised the City Council
that some additional work probably needed to be done in this area of the General Plan. In
particular, staff suggested that the number of neighborhood shopping centers was probably
insufficient to meet the ultimate needs of the City, based upon the criteria in the new plan. Staff
was unprepared at that time, however, to say how many and where additional sites might be
needed. This subject should be taken up at a later time.
As the City came out of the last recession it began to receive inquiries about possible new
shopping centers and expansions of existing centers. In response to these inquiries, and recalling
the situation from the 1994 General Plan update, the City Council asked staff in 1996 to evaluate
if the City had enough land designated for shopping centers. In response, the Planning
Department prepared a “Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study” (A copy
of this study accompanies this report as Attachment 4. Readers may find it helpful to refer to
this document for additional detail on the following points.) This study made several findings
about the status of commercial development in the city and raised certain new issues. Among
these findings/issues were:
a. Neighborhood and Community Commercial shopping centers are to be distinguished by a
number of factors, including the size of their sites, the size of the populations they serve, and,
particularly, by the commercial tenants (stores) they contain, and, correspondingly, the goods
and services they provide. Neighborhood shopping centers provide goods and services to
meet local daily and convenience shopping needs. Their principal tenants are typically
supermarkets and drug stores and they include a range of smaller shops for personal
grooming, restaurants, small offices, and other types of convenience goods and services. In
contrast, community shopping centers focus on a broader range of goods and services
intermediate to those provided by neighborhood centers and regional malls. Principal tenants
are often value department stores (ex: Ross, Target), volume specialty stores (ex: Comp
USA, Book Star, Toys-R-Us), and home furnishing and improvement stores (ex: Home
Depot, Jerome’s Furniture), among others. In recent years a popular incarnation of this type
of center is the “big box” or “power” shopping complex. (Please see the 1996 study for
greater detail on distinctions between the types of shopping centers.)
b. Although the City’s General Plan has made this distinction between the two types of
shopping centers for many years, and has designated sites for both types, development
approvals on both types of land have been for neighborhood centers only. We have not
approved any community commercial centers in Carlsbad (with the Costco site on Palomar 37
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 3
Airport Road being a technical exception - it’s designated for regional commercial). Instead,
we have built neighborhood shopping centers on land designated for community commercial centers. Examples include the Ralph’s center at I-5 and Poinsettia Lane and the Vons center
at Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real. - ..~
c. As a consequence, Carlsbad residents who wish to shop at the types of stores typically found
in community shopping centers today must leave the city to do so, taking their sales tax
dollars with them.
d. The study then looked at the build-out condition of the city for community shopping centers.
Assuming a 3-mile radius for trade areas (industry norm), it found that if we built centers on
all remaining vacant sites that are currently designated for community commercial uses, then
most (but not all) areas of Carlsbad would be generally within the trade area of at least one
center. It was noted however, that many of these centers would continue to be located outside
the City’s boundaries.
e. An important policy question then, is: Should Carlsbad continue to make the distinction
between the two types of centers and then build both, OR should we continue to follow
historical practice and build neighborhood shopping centers on sites designated for
community shopping centers? What is our vision of the future?
f. A build-out analysis of neighborhood shopping centers was also prepared, based upon a 1.5-
mile radius trade area (industry norm). Looking at existing neighborhood centers (both in
Carlsbad and in neighboring cities), plus future vacant sites (both in Carlsbad and in
neighboring cities), large areas of central and eastern Carlsbad would not be within the
typical trade area of any neighborhood shopping center. People within these areas would
have to travel extra distances to do local grocery and convenience shopping. These areas
could be considered to be “unserved.” The analysis was repeated using a much more highly
refined methodology. This time computers were used to model a 5-minute “travel time”
(rather than a simple radius) to define shopping center trade areas. The results were
essentially similar: large areas of the city would be “un-served” at build-out.
g. The second important policy question becomes: Should Carlsbad designate additional
neighborhood shopping sites in these “un-served” areas? Related questions are: If so, where
and how many? Should vacant community commercial sites be used? The study noted that
this second set of questions could not be answered until a decision was made on the first
policy question, because the remaining vacant community commercial sites might need to be factored into the answer.
Realizing that answering these questions would require an examination of some of the city’s
fundamental values about its vision for itself, the City Council asked staff to return at a later date
and to take up the matter in a workshop format, so that an extended and public discussion could
be held.
The City Council took up this issue again in 1999, holding the first of three public workshops.
The stated purpose of these workshops was “. . . to discuss and consider possible changes to the
City’s current ‘vision’ and policy framework for future shopping center development” [from the
initial public notice]. 3ti’
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 4
The first workshop (June 28, 1999) reprised the findings of the 1996 study and laid out the
issues. Following public input and discussion, the Council asked staff to return with some
suggestions on policy alternatives.
To assist with this request the City hired a specialized consulting firm, Rea and Parker, who
worked with staff in developing seven alternative policy scenarios (or “outcome scenarios”).
Then the consultant conducted a sophisticated telephone sample survey of residents to test a
range of values held by respondents about their shopping needs, behaviors, and preferences, now
and in the future. The results of these value tests were used by the consultant to suggest which of
the seven alternative scenarios the City’s residents preferred.
The results of the survey were presented to the City Council and the public at the second
workshop, held on the nights of August 2 and 9, 1999. Following public input and much
discussion the Council indicated interest in outcome scenarios 1, 6, and 7 (see attachment 5).
Outcome Scenario 1: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will
continue to rely upon community commercial centers in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas. The
remaining vacant community commercial sites in Carlsbad will be developed as neighborhood commercial
centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in Carlsbad. No neighborhood commercial
is to be built of any significant magnitude within the neighborhoods themselves.
Outcome Scenario 6: Utilize certain Planned Industrial property in the airport area for community
commercial to serve primarily the daytime worker population. Use existing vacant commercial sites for
neighborhood commercial as currently developed. No significant neighborhood commercial in the
neighborhoods, relying, once again, on neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community
commercial needs.
Outcome Scenario 7: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will
continue to rely upon community commercial sites in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and Encinitas.
Remaining community commercial sites on El Camino Real will not be developed. Neighborhood
commercial is to be built along planned street extensions, such as Cannon, College, or Poinsettia, instead.
There was also considerable discussion about several vacant community commercial sites and how
they could be worked into these alternatives. These sites included the proposed Sunny Creek Plaza
site, the Green Valley Specific Plan site, and MAG properties, as well as the extreme north end of
the City in general.
Other important concepts that emerged fi-om the discussion:
a) The idea of “gans and overlans” between center trade areas. There should be neither gaps nor
overlaps, if possible. It is better to err on the side of less competition (fewer overlaps) in order
not to over-commercialize the city. Nevertheless, it is desirable for all areas of the city to be
within the trade area of at least one shopping center (minimize gaps).
b) There is a preference for larger neighborhood shopping centers, incorporating superior design.
“Larger” refers both to the physical size of the site, as well as the numbers of tenants in the
center. The Vons center at El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway was identified as being a good
model. Outcome scenarios 1 and 7 also imply “fewer sites.”
39
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Pape 5
c) An outcome scenario based upon the idea of fewer and larger shopping centers suggests that the
trade areas of such centers would be larger in extent than the trade areas of centers in a scenario
based on smaller and fewer centers. Where the 1996 study had modeled trade areas using a 5-
minute travel time, something larger than this might be more appropriate under the emerging
outcome scenario.
d) Both local residents and developers and owners of commercial property agreed that there would
be benefit to all if a comprehensive land use analysis could be conducted to establish, once and
for all, where future shopping centers would be located.
In the end, the Council asked staff to articulate and return with an eighth policy outcome that would
blend outcome scenarios 1, 6, and 7, plus the discussion about possibly retaining some type of
community commercial development in some instances, plus points a) - d).
[Copies of the handouts used at the second workshop accompany this report as Attachment 5.
These include the executive summary of the consultant report and both a listing of all seven
outcome scenarios (including graphics that illustrate each) and a summary of the consultant’s key
findings from the survey. /
The third workshop was held on March 23,200O. Staff presented a proposal for an eighth outcome
scenario, as directed. Attachment 6 is a copy of the one page summary of staffs proposal to
Council. Following public input and discussion the Council directed staff to prepare implementing
documents and studies in keeping with the staff proposal, to be accomplished through three tasks:
Task 1. Draft an amendment to the general plan to incorporate policy changes in keeping with
staffs synthesized outcome scenario;
Task 2. Create a new zone to implement the new general plan land use designation called for in the
general plan amendment; and
Task 3. Work on a land use analysis to show what additional shopping center sites might be needed
under the new policy framework and based upon the criteria suggested by staff at the
workshop. A principal component in this work would be preparing an updated traffic
model to be used in calculating travel-times from all areas of the City to existing and a
range of future shopping center sites. Then staff should return with site-specific
recommendations for changes in land use designations.
Since the third workshop staff members have been working on all three tasks. The subject of this
report and Planning Commission hearing is to consider staffs response to task 1, the General Plan
policy fmrnework.
Summary of Project Description
In summary, the proposed General Plan amendment deletes the existing “Neighborhood” and
“Community” commercial land use classes and replaces them with a new hybrid “Local
Shopping Center” land use class. This new land use designation is for use with all retail
shopping centers that are not “Regional” shopping centers or “Travel-Recreation” commercial
centers. It requires that local shopping centers shall emphasize the types of stores that provide +Q
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 6
for neighborhood shopping needs and services. However, it also allows centers to include the
types of tenants that traditionally may be found in community commercial centers, but only
under certain design circumstances. The amendment also changes a number of implementing
policies including the criteria that describe where and how new shopping center sites should be
designated.
If the amendment is approved by the City Council, staff proposes that the new land use
designation would be applied to all existing neighborhood shopping centers (on sites designated
both for neighborhood and community commercial uses). On completion of the vacant sites
analysis, the designation would then be applied to whatever additional vacant lands are identified
as being needed for local shopping centers. Any remaining vacant sites with neighborhood or
community commercial designations would be redesignated to another use.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment adds, deletes and modifies text to the Land Use Element in several
places. Following is a point-by-point discussion of these changes. Page numbers refer to Exhibit
‘w”, attached to Resolution 4880.
Descriptions and Definitions
a. Page 7. At the beginning of the Land Use element is a list of all the land use categories
used in the General Plan. The amendment & the new “Local Shopping Center” land use
and deletes the old “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial designations.
b. Page 11. Adds language stipulating that retail development should occur only in discrete
shopping centers; provides a definition of shopping centers (from the Urban Land
Institute); discusses the exception to this rule for the Village area; explains that the general
plan no longer distinguishes between traditional “neighborhood” and “community”
commercial classes; and introduces Table 3 (see next point). Language is deleted that
assumes a continuing distinction between neighborhood and community commercial.
c. Page 12. Deletes the table entitled “Guidelines for Commercial Centers” and replaces it
with a new and functionally equivalent “Table 3: Guidelines for Typical Shopping
Centers.” The principal change has to do with the elimination of “Neighborhood” and
“Community” commercial land use classes and the introduction of the new “Local
Shopping Center” class and how the new class includes important characteristics of both
earlier classes.
The word “guidelines” here is important. This table does not establish zoning regulations
or absolute rules for shopping centers, but, rather a list of characteristics that are typical,
and, therefore, descriptive of different types of shopping centers. The table includes
characteristics such as: anchor and secondary tenants, site size, gross lease area, typical
drive time ranges, and trade area radii and populations. Importantly, the table distinguishes
between regional shopping centers and the new local shopping center designation. It
further distinguishes between the “local-serving” and “community-serving” functions that
are allowed under the new designation. Because the retail industry is in a constant state of
evolution, it is likely that, from time to time, proposals may come before the City that may
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 7
vary from these typical characteristics. Then the City will need to exercise its discretionary
authority to decide how much variance is appropriate to approve. By clarifying that these
characteristics are “guidelines” only, the exercise of that discretionary authority.dis
supported.
d. Page 14. Adds a discussion about the concept of trade areas and some of the factors that
affect the physical dimensions of the primary trade area for a given shopping center. This
discussion is important because the concept of trade areas is central to the warrants (see
Policy C.2, following) for use in locating shopping centers throughout the community.
e. Pages 14-15. Deletes “Neighborhood” and “Community” from the list of commercial land
use classes, together with the text that describes and defines them.
f. Page 15-16. Adds “Local Shopping Center” to the list of commercial land use types and
describes the typical characteristics of such centers, including references back to Table 3.
Establishes that local shopping centers must provide local-serving goods and services and
may, in addition, provide community-serving goods and services.
Goals and Implementing Policies and Programs
g. Page 31. Modifies Commercial Objective B.l. The current objective states the City’s
intent is to limit new commercial land use designations so that only basic levels of services
are offered. The modification does not change this basic objective, but introduces the idea
of gaps and overlaps between trade areas as the means of achieving the objective. The new
language says that basic commercial service should be supplied “. . .without creating undue
overlaps in trade areas.”
h. Page 31. Objective B.2. This existing objective is to ensure that all residential areas are
“adequately served” by local shopping centers. The added language clarifies what is meant
by “adequately served”: “ . ..no residential area is outside the primary trade area of the
nearest local shopping center.”
i. Pages 31-32, New Policy C.l. This added language replaces old C.1.5 (being deleted).
Both deal with what must be submitted to the City when new commercial sites are
proposed. The old language calls for a “statistical analysis.. .at the time of application for
zoning.” The new language calls for submitting a conceptual development plan and a
market study at the time that a general plan change is proposed. The new language
correctly asserts that it is the general plan designation that is key to a change in land use
classification. The new language also elevates this requirement to it’s own separate policy
and places it more prominently in the list of policies.
j. Pages 32 -33. Renumbers, modifies and expands Policy C.2. (Old C.l). This policy sets
out eight guidelines to be used “to determine the appropriate spatial distribution of new
sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated zoning. Six of the guidelines are
new. It is through this section, in particular, that the principles and “outcome scenarios”
from the second workshop are implemented. The amendment:
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Pane 8
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7.
8.
9.
Deletes old guideline 1 that says that there should be one acre of neighborhood
shopping center land for each 1,000 persons in the City. This guideline would be
inconsistent with the new guidelines, so it is deleted.
Deletes old guideline 3 that calls for locating neighborhood shopping centers
approximately one mile apart. This guideline would be inconsistent with the new
policy framework and guidelines (gaps and overlaps), so it is deleted.
Deletes old guideline 5. This was discussed previously under point “i.”
Deletes old guideline 6. This guideline calls for regularly reviewing and evaluating
“excessive, undeveloped commercial zoning.” The new guidelines provide a means to
accomplish this. The hope is to determine with some certainty what sites will be
needed through build-out of the general plan. Also, see point “n”, following.
Modifies guideline 1 (old 2). Requires new master plans and specific plans to evaluate
the need for including a local shopping center. The deleted language required these
plans to include neighborhood shopping centers at intersections of major roads. The
new language means that some master plans and specific plans may not need to provide
shopping centers, but, if sites are included, they will have been included as part of a
Citywide needs determination.
Modifies guideline 2 (old 4) by substituting “local shopping centers” for “neighborhood
commercial development.” Also changes “service area” to “trade area.”
Adds new guideline 3. Introduces travel time as a conventional means of defining the
physical dimensions of a center’s trade area and suggests how travel times and other
factors can be utilized in any citywide analysis of the spatial distribution of centers.
This guideline implements certain principles that came out of the second and third
workshops and that were used in the 1996 study.
Adds new guideline 4. This guideline brings into the general plan the principle from
the workshops that there should be minimal gaps and overlaps of center trade areas. It
establishes an important concept by which Objective B.l (minimizing commercial) and
Objective B.2 (adequate service) are implemented.
Adds new guideline 5. This guideline stipulates that local shopping centers should not
be located directly within the neighborhoods, but, rather, on the peripheries, along major streets or their future extensions. This guideline comes directly from outcome
scenarios 1 and 7.
10. Adds new guideline 6. This guideline stipulates that new sites for local shopping
centers should not be located along El Camino Real. This guideline comes directly
from outcome scenario 7 and is the principal distinction between outcome scenario 1
and outcome scenario 7.
11. Adds new guideline 7. This guideline calls for evaluating whether the population
within a trade area boundary is adequate to support a proposed center. It comes from , 43
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 9
the staff recommendations from workshop 3, and is intended to assure that any analysis
of trade areas also includes this basic economic principle.
12. Adds new guideline 8. This guideline calls for a consideration of intersectionspacing
and other circulation criteria to be included in any siting decisions. It comes from the
staff recommendations from workshop 3, and is intended to assure that potential
shopping center sites can meet the city’s adopted standards for safe and functional
intersections and general circulation.
k. Page 33. Modifies Policy C.3. Deletes two references to “neighborhood commercial”
center and replaces them with “local shopping center”. Also deletes two guidelines
having to do with spacing of shopping centers, which policies would be inconsistent with
the new guidelines being established in new Policy C.2.
1. Page 33-34. Adds Policy C.6, which describes how a local shopping center can
incorporate tenants traditionally found in community shopping centers. Calls for
integrating such tenants into the design (architecture, parking, landscaping, etc) of the
center; requires that such tenants shall not supplant the principle function of the center to
provide local-serving goods and services; precludes featuring corporate logos and
architecture in design.
m. Page 34. Deletes old Policy C.11, which called for the submittal of a site development
plan and “statistical study” for new shopping centers. The functional equivalent of these
requirements are now embodied in new policy C. 1 and revised policy C.2.
n. Pages 34-35. Deletes old Policy C.12. This policy calls for a review of all vacant sites
designated for regional, community, or neighborhood commercial two years after
approval of the 1994 General Plan update and, thereafter, every 5 years, “to determine
whether the designation remains appropriate”. If not found to be appropriate, the policy
calls for the land to be formally designated “Unplanned Area”. It would then require
another general plan amendment to change it to another class. Master plans and specific
plans would be exempt from this requirement.
Staff recommends deleting this policy. In 1994 and earlier, sites were designated for
shopping centers as part of individual project proposals. The City had not done a
comprehensive needs analysis, as is currently being undertaken. When these individual
proposals were approved, sometimes they were not built and the land would remain
vacant. The city was concerned that: 1) lacking a comprehensive approach, a vacant site
would serve to “chill” interest by other parties in another nearby site, due to concerns
about competition from the first site, and 2) too many sites might lead to over
commercialization of the City. The situation was complicated by fact that, although the
City recognized both neighborhood and community shopping centers, we were building
neighborhood centers on sites designated by community shopping centers. By requiring
a review every few years, the policy was intended to remove designations that were not
going forward.
Staff believes this concern will not be warranted now. The current effort would eliminate
the confusion about neighborhood and community shopping centers, and provide a 4w
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 10
sophisticated and comprehensive evaluation of our needs for local shopping centers
through build-out of the City, using tools not used previously. Once the site analysis is
completed and an inventory of sites is agreed upon there should not be a need for a
mandatory review every few years. By fixing, once and for all, where future shopping
centers will be located, both residents and developers will not have to be concerned that
the land use decisions they make will be impacted by subsequent general plan
amendments.
o. Page 35. Modifies Policy C.14 by clarifying the City’s position with regard to strip
commercial. Provides a definition of what is meant by strip commercial (retail
development not in a discrete center) and states that strip commercial should not occur
anywhere in the City, with the exception of the Village.
p. Page 35. Adds new Policy C.15, calling for amending the Municipal Code to create a
new zoning district for use with the new “Local Shopping Center” land use designation.
The new zone should include both guidelines for development of local shopping centers
and a new “planned shopping center” permit that would apply to new shopping centers
and major remodels of existing shopping centers. Until the new zone is created, the
policy calls for all new shopping centers and major remodels of existing shopping centers
to be referred to the City Council for approval.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-04) to amend
the City’s General Plan Land Use Element will not have a significant impact on the environment
and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 23, 2000. The environmental
analysis (EIA Part II) concluded that this general plan amendment will not result in any physical,
biological, or human environmental impacts and that the amended General Plan text and policies
are no different from the existing text and policies with regard to environmental protection.
Therefore, no significant environmental effects are anticipated to occur.
Six letters, two facsimiles, and one postcard were received during the public review period for
the Negative Declaration, from the following parties (listed in order of receiving their
communication):
Thomas P. Flanagan (for Calavera Hills Homeowners)
James M. Hicks
Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC)
Bonnie Hill
James and Marilyn Hope
Warren and Doris Jenks
Richard Reck
Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC) (supplement to earlier letter)
James M. Hicks (second letter)
Several of the letters expressed general concerns about potential noise and traffic impacts
associated with building shopping centers as well as development generally. However, none of
4 5-
GPA 00-04 - SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
December 6,200O
Page 11
the communications objected to the preparation of the Negative Declaration. Several letters from
Calavera Hills residents referenced the letter from Mr. Tom Flanagan and said his detailed
comments reflected their own. Mr. Flanagan specifically stated that he sees no need for an
Environmental Impact Report. All of the communications spoke to the policy changes contained
in the proposed general plan amendment. Therefore, staff believes that these letters should be
read as letters of comment on the policy proposal, rather than comments on the adequacy of the
Negative Declaration. The communications accompany this report as Attachment 3.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4879 (Neg Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4880 (GPA with Exhibit “W”)
Communications (9) Received During Public Review of Draft Negative Declaration
Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study (1996) (draft) (Distributed
previously)
5. Handouts from Workshop 2 (Public Notice, Tenants, Survey Report, graphics)
6. “Commercial Policies - Staff Proposal,” from Workshop 3
DT:cs:mh
Attachment 3. b
HANDOUTS FROM WORKSHOP 2
l Agenda for meeting August 9,200O
l Typical Characteristics of Shopping Centers
l Table 2: Major/Anchor Tenants
l Commercial Development Survey Report (Executive Summary) wl graphics
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SHOPPING CENTER POLICY SCENARIOS
SESSION 2 OF 2: 6:00 P.M., Monday, August 9,1999
City Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT: A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can
address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes each. A PINK FORM should be filed with the City Clerk. When you
are called, please come forward and state your name and address. In keeping with the
Brown Act, no Council action can occur on items presented during Public Comment.
WORKSHOP ON SHOPPING CENTER POLICY SCENARIOS
1. Welcome and Introd- - Mayor Lewis
2. Introduction and Restatement of the Alternative Vision Scenarios - Wayne
(Facilitator)
3. Public Comment (all participants to state affiliation and representation)
4. City Council Discussion
. . 5. City Council Selects/Formulates a Vrsron
6. City Council Gives Direction to Staff
7. Closing and Than& - Mayor Lewis
H:\Commercial\Workshop Agenda - Final
Typical Characteristics of Shopping Centers
Center Type Acres Typical Anchor
Tenants
Population Needed to
support
(1,000 people)
Gross Lease Area
(1,000 Sq. Ft.)
Regional lo-60 Dept. store 150-300 300 - 1 million
Community 10-30 Discount dept store; big 40 - 150 loo- 300
box; specialty
Neighborhood 8- 12 Supermarket; drugstore 6 -12 30 - 100
[no man’s land] [3 - 7] [May be too small for new supermarket center]
Convenience l-2 7111; Circle K; AM/PM 3-5 10-30
ExamDIes of Site Sizes of Centers in the Carl&ad Area
Name/Location Acres G.P. Desic
fbuilt)
Vons (Tamarack at Adams) 4.8 Neighborhood
Plaza Paseo Real (Vons) (El Camino Real at Aviara Parkway) 15.8 Community
Poinsettia Plaza (Ralph’s) 18.5 Community
La Costa Plaza (in transition) 8.5
Plaza de la Costa Real (Vans)
Community
16.3 (incl. slopes) Community
Carlsbad Plaza (Vans, Good Guys)
Carlsbad Plaza South (general commercial)
15.5 Community
11.7 Community
fvacanr, planned, proposed)
Poinsettia Lane at Paseo de1 None 5.1
Ranch0 Santa Fe at Camino de 10s Caches 7.6
University Commons (San Marcos, Questhaven at Rcho Sta Fe) 10.0 (approx)
Ranch0 San Elijo (San Marcos, on Questhaven) 13.0 Calavera Hills (Village E- 1, on Carl&ad Village Dr.) 9.0
Sunny Creek (El Camino Real at College) 18.6
Robertson Ranch (Tamarack at El Camino Real) 15 .O (approx) MAG Properties (Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. at La Costa Ave.)
Green Valley (Carlsbad) 54.0 (net)
18.3 Green Valley (Fncinitas) 56.0
(+12.2 mixed use)
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Community
Community
Res. Medium
Community
Community
Regional
49
Shopping Center Major/Anchor Tenants
(Examples found in the San Diego Area)
Traditional Less Traditional 4 l
Revional ShODDiDP CeDterS
Department Stores
J.C. Penney
Macy ‘s
Montgomery/Pocus
Nieman-Marcus
Nordstrom
Robinson/May
Sears
Communitv ShODDiDg Centers
D&out&Off-PrictVvari@ BuiidZng/GardettLFurniture Specialty/Big Box
Clothes Time Home Base Bookstar
Fedco Home Depot Circuit City
K-Mart Nursery Land Computer City
Marshall’s Jeromes’ Furniture Warehouse Good Guys
Price-Costco Levitz Warehouse offke Depot
Ross Oshman’s SportMart
Super Thrifty Pacific Theater multi-plex
Target Petco
Wal-Mart Pier 1 Imports
Staples
Nekhborhood ShoDDine Center
Supermarket Specialty Market Convenience Market
Albertsons Boney’s Marketplace 7/l 1
Lucky Smart & Final AM/PM (Arco)
Ralph’s Trader Joe’s Circle K
Vons “mom and pop” local
Keils
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
SURVEY REPORT
Prepwed for
Carlshad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Prepared by
Rea & Parker Research
P.O. Box 421079
tin Diqo, CA 92142
July 1999
3-I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION - .
In the Spring of 1996, the Carlsbad City Council asked City staff to investigate the need for future
shopping center development in the City. In particular, the task was to look at the needs for additional
“neighborhood” and “community” shopping centers. A “neighborhood” shopping center typically has.
as its lead tenant, a grocery store, plus local support services (banks, restaurants. etc.). A “commumn~”
shopping center is larger, and typically has a discount department store (Target. Marshall’s. Wal-Man)
or “big box” specialty store (Toys R Us, Good Guys) as the anchor tenant. It may also have a groceq’
store. The staff report was issued in October, 1996 (Neighborhood and Community Commercial Laud
Use S&y) and, among other things, found:
1. The current combined neighborhood and community commercial service is satisfactory when
both Carlsbad ti surrounding communities are taken into account. Some nelghborhoods.
however, will need additional neighborhood shopping centers in the future, as the CIQ
continues to grow. Where, how big, and how many are issues to resolve.
2. Carlsbad residents often travel outside the City to shop, especially for discount department
store and specialty shopping items provided in most community shopping centers. This results
in longer trips (miles and time) for such shopping.
3. Although the City has set aside land for community shopping centers in its general plan,
historically, most of these sites have been developed with neighborhood shopping centers. For
the future, a policy issue becomes, “Should community commercial sites be built in Carlsbad or
are such sites better located in adjoining cities?”
The City of Carlsbad is currently faced with several shopping center proposals and is expected to decide
whether or not these proposals are acceptable under the General Plan and the City’s current vision of
shopping center development. The City believes that the issues raised in the 1996 report should now be
refined and resolved in order to decide upon these commercial proposals in the manner most beneficial
to the residents of Carlsbad and consistent with their values and preferred lifestyles. In effect, Carlsbad
now needs to review its vision for shopping center development and decide if changes are needed for
the future.
To this end, Rea & Parker Research was retained by the City of Carlsbad. Working with City staff,
several alternative shopping center “visions” were developed, together with the values and
characteristics which define them. Rea and Parker Research was then asked to prepare and implement a
600 person (minimum) scientific sample survey of City of Carlsbad residents to find out which values
and characteristics were preferred. The alternative visions were articulated as seven Commercial
Outcome Scenarios. These are described in the following text and attached schematic diagrams.
Outcome Scenario 1: Community commercial development should.not occur in Carlsbad. Residents
will continue to rely upon community commercial centers in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, and
Encinitas. The remaining vacant community commercial sites in Carlsbad will be developed as
neighborhood commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in
Carlsbad. No neighborhood commercial is to be built of any significant magnitude within the
neighborhoods themselves.
Outcome Scenario 2: Build community commercial shopping centers on the rematmng vacant snes (demand permitting) and create new neighborhood shopping sites within ne\l. neighborhood developments in Carlsbad, off the main streets. Sites would be centrally located withrn the new developments and reachable mostly by automobile from within the developments themselves. which will continue to be low-medium density and single-family in nature.
Outcome Scenario 3: Build community commercial shopping centers on the remaining vacant sites (demand permitting) and create new neighborhood shopping sites within new netghborhood developments in Carlsbad, off the main streets, as with Scenario 2. In addition, utilize aspects of the “Ahwanee Principles” to alter the form of new developments so that “all things needed to meet dail! needs of residents are located witbin walking [bicycling] distance of one another.” This implies more dense residential development patterns, in contrast to Scenario 2.
Outcome Scenario 4: This is a mixed approach utilizing some vacant commercial sites (for instance. those along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) for community commercial and some for neighborhood commercial, as currently developed. Within new neighborhood developments, provide the remaining necessary neighborhood commercial centers, still,relying upon neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community commercial needs.
Outcome Scenario 5: Build community commercial on existing vacant sites, but no new neighborhood commercial in the new developments of any magnitude (in contrast to Outcome Scenario 2). Rely on community commercial and B neighborhood commercial to fulfil1 neighborhood retail needs.
Outcome Scenario 6: Utilize certain Planned Industrial property in the airport area for community commercial to serve primarily the daytime worker population. Use existing vacant commercial sites for neighborhood commercial as currently developed. No significant neighborhood commercial in the neighborhoods, relying, once again, on neighboring cities to meet a significant proportion of community commercial needs.
Outcome Scenario 7: Community commercial development should not occur in Carlsbad. Residents will continue to rely upon community commercial sites in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista. and Encinitas. Remaining community commercial sites on El Camino Real. will not be developed. Neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street extensions, such as Cannon, College. or Poinsettia. instead.
METHODOLOGY:
A scientific sample survey of 605 residents of Carlsbad, California, was conducted during the period of May 29, 1999 through June 4, 1999. For purposes of this analysis, Carlsbad was divided into 4 Quadrants as follows: NORTHEAST: it: NORTHWEST: North of Palomar Airport Road and East of El Camino Real North of Palomar Airport Road and West of El Camino Real
C. SOUTHWEST: South of Palomar Airport Road and West of El Camino Real d. SOUTHEAST: South of Palomar Airport Road and East of El Camino Real
Each quadrant was sampled in sufficient size to generate margins of error as follows:
Northeast 125 k8.6%
2
5-3
Each quadrant was sampled in sufficient size to generate margins of enor as follows:
Northeast 125 58.6% - i
Northwest 225 +6.5%
Southwest 125 t8.5%
Southeast m +8.7%
Citywide 605 k3.9%
CURRENT SHOPPING PATTERNS
Carlsbad residents buy their groceries and gasoline largely within the City (80.8% and 77.8%.
respectively). Large discount store and large specialty store purchases are made in relatively equal
proportions among Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Oceanside. Encinitas is the primary destination for home
improvement and computers/electronics purchases (48.9% and 43.7%, respectively).
Residents fmd their shopping needs well met, with 91.7% of respondents rating grocery shopping
opportunities adequate--92.2% rating large discount stores adequate--9 1.4% home improvement
adequate--87.6% computers/ electronics adequate-and 87.1% large specialty stores adequate. Gasoline
was rated the lowest at 77.7% adequate, being strongly influenced by the Southeast Quadrant which
rated gasoline purchasing only 52.0% adequate.
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT VALUES
A series of questions was designed to ascertain values among Carlsbad residents which might underlie
their preferences for particular types of retail and commercial development in the City.
Residents indicated that their dominant value associated with curtailed retail development is that traffic
congestion should be reduced (40.1%). Next in order was the preservation of open space along El
Camino Real (29.6%). Regarding values which can be associated with a heightened level of retail
development in the City, the frrst choice was the provision of more neighborhood commercial options
(27.5%), followed by the reduction of energy consumption due to shorter trips (20.2%). Last in priority
is the provision of more community commercial options (14.2%).
Values favoring increased levels of commercial development were then paired against values favoring
decreased commercial development. When matched in these trade-offs, the values underlying a less
intensive development policy were selected by Carlsbad residents to a much greater degree than were
‘. those which would lead to more development. The reduction of traffic congestion prevailed in 87.5%
of these matched pair trade-offs. The preservation of open space along ,El Camino Real prevailed
79.5% of the time, and the minimization of visual and noise pollution prevailed at a 79.3% rate.
3
Conversely, energy reduction resulting f?om closer retail options was the number one pro-developmen;
value, prevailing in matched pairs against development reducing values only 23.5% of the time.
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCES
There is a strong preference for continuing the existing policy of locating neighborhood commercial
development on the main boulevards as opposed to locating it within the neighborhoods themselves.
Further, 85.1% of the City residents prefer to continue to develop residential communities at low-
medium densities.
Over 50% of Carlsbad residents understand that population growth is likely to cause them to have to
wait in longer checkout lines and park farther from their store entrances. On the other hand, fewer
residents of Carlsbad (slightly more than l/3) are willing to endure longer drive times in the face of
projected population growth. There is also a notable desire to be able to walk to shopping and to use
transit.
Residents expressed a willingness to provide retail services to the City’s industrial area. would prefer
more large supermarkets over more small gourmet-type grocery suppliers, and would prefer that
gasoline stations revert to service bays instead of mini-markets.
The open-ended question asking respondents to indicate anything else they would like to see, in the way
of retail development in Carlsbad provided 3 noteworthy findings: 1) 48.2% of all respondents said that
there is nothing else needed; 2) community commercial type stores (home improvement, large discount
stores) received negligible support-3.9% and 3.7%, respectively; and 3) no single use received as much
as 10% support, with groceries strongest at 9.8%.
CONCLUSIONS
The survey was designed to help identify those Outcome Scenarios for Carlsbad which are consistent
with the underlying values and important issues to residents of the City. It is very clear that any
Outcome Scenario which involves community commercial development within Carlsbad is not
acceptable to the City’s residents. Therefore, Outcome Scenarios 2, 3, 4, and 5 lack sufficient support
for furthei consideration in terms of development policy. There is some indication that residents like
the idea of walking and using transit on occasion, which is a part of Outcome Scenario 3; however,
these desires are clearly rendered unrealistic by the expressed desire for a’continuation of low/medium
density housing development in CarMad.
Outcome Scenario 6 also has a community commercial component, but City residents seem to be
willing to entertain this possibility in the current industrially zoned portion of Carlsbad.
Outcome Scenarios 1 and 7 have the strongest support from the residents. The values associated with
these Scenarios are strongly expressed throughout the study. There are relatively few differences between these two Scenarios, with both discouraging community commercial and supporting continued
neighborhood commercial development necessary to maintain the current satisfactory level of retail services as the City grows. The difference between them lies solely in where these neighborhood
4
commercial sites should be located. Outcome Scenario 1 would have some of them along El Cammo
Real, while Outcome Scenario 7 would have none of them located there. Outcome Scenano 7 15
supported by the strongly expressed interest in preserving open space along El Camino Real. On the
other hand, Outcome Scenario 1 has substantial endorsement in that the City’s residents want a
continuation of the placement of these developments along main boulevards, which would include El
Camino Real.
The resolution between Outcome Scenario 1 and Outcome Scenario 7 lies in the issues of traffic
congestion and drive time. Traffic congestion is the primary value or issue which concerns Carlsbad
residents in terms of their retail opportunities (87.5%) and 63.0% of the population has no interest m
increasing their drive times, as the City grows. Whichever Scenario better meets the objectives of
reducing traffic congestion and not increasing drive times is likely to be the Scenario that receives the
most widespread support.
One additional possibility merits consideration--the possibility of enacting none of the Scenarios and
stopping all further commercial development in Carlsbad entirely. The survey results lend some
credibility to this possibility. Almost 50% of the respondents indicate that nothing further in the way
of commercial/retail development is required in the City. However, in the end, it is still Scenario 1
and Scenario 7 which prevail, with the option for the Scenario 6 alternative in the industrial area.
Scenarios 1 and 7 prevail because over 50% of the population wants more shopping options,
especially groceries. They prevail because residents do not want to drive longer times or to endure
more congestion. They prevail because the enormous satisfaction demonstrated regarding the
current retail situation can only be maintained in the face of projected growth by providing a similar
level of service to new residents. In the final analysis, Scenario 1 and Scenario 7 meet the stated
values, objectives, desires, and needs of Carlsbad residents better than any other Scenario
5
5-6
7 Commercial Outcome Scenarios General principles are illustrated - not a map of Carisbad
Outcome Scenario 1
-------------------------------------
Outcome Scenario 2 , , /
q C Existing Community Commercial cl N Existing Neighborhood Commercial
0 C New Community Commercial 0 tl New Neighborhood Commercial
5-7
Outcome Scenario 3
I I /
J \ -INI\ w \ / \ \ \ 1
Outcome Scenario 4
w \ / q \ \ \ u n
AtffORT
cl C
El C Existing Community Commercial El N Existing Neighborhood Commercial
0 C New Community Commercial 0 tl New Neighborhood Commercial
3-8
Outcome Scenario 5 . I /
cl C
m------m----------
Outcome
--------------c-w--
Scenario 6
cl C Existing Community Commercial cl N Existing Neighborhood Commercial
0 C New Community Commercial 0 II New Neighborhood Commercial
Outcome Scenario 7
r‘---- K&c
cl C Existing Community Commercial
0 C New Community Commercial
cl N Existing Neighborhood Commercial
0 n New Neighborhood Commercial
bo
Attachment 3.c
COMMERCIAL POLICIES - STAFF PROPOSAL
A. General Plan. Create a new general plan “Shopping Center” (SC)
designation and delete “Neighborhood” and “Community” commercial
designations. Characteristics of the new designation:
1. uses Must include local services. Mav include Community
Commercial tenants, if design guidelines are met .
2. Design Fully integrated center design theme - no stand-alone “big
boxes”.
3. Site General lot: Council policy framework scenarios 1, 6,&7
Travel time: 7 minutes max. (up from 5 min.)
Site size: 8-15 ac. (up from 3-10 ac.)
Gr. lease area: 30K -1 OOK sq.ft. (no prev. standard)
Location: at/near major intersections (no change)
Overlaps: minimal overlaps; no coverage gaps, if poss.
Intersection Prime 2,600 ft
spacing: Major 1,200 ft
Secondary 600 ft
Collector 300 ft.
Population: 5-10 K (up from 3-10 K) but yield
to site-specific market
studies
B. Zoning
1. Create new “Commercial - Shopping Center” zone for use with “SC”
GP designation
a. Synthesize uses from old C-l and C-2 zones
b. Require a “Planned Commercial Development” permit [NEW] for all
new shopping centers. City Council could be decision maker.
c. Develop PCD regulations and design guidelines.
2. Retain old C-l and C-2 zones for use with existing general commercial
and older shopping centers that don’t meet new site/design guidelines.
C. Vacant Lands- Trade Area Analysis Council to direct staff to prepare an
analysis of all remaining vacant lands for suitability as shopping center
sites, using above criteria
- Policy scenarios 1, 6, &7 from Workshop 2 (August 1999)
- (7 min travel, 8 acres, build-out population within 7-min travel area)
- Intersection spacing constraints.
D. Reserve option to re-designate some “Community Commercial” sites to
“Regional Commercial” [ex: Green Valley].
EXHIBIT 5
CORRESPONDENCE
By Date of Receipt
Partv Date Received
William Neece 12/6/00
Tom and Joan Flanagan
AttachmentstoFlanaganletter
Draft letter Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners)
Tom and Joan Flanagan
Tom and Joan Flanagan
Tom Flanagan
Tom Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners)
Tom Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners)
Warren and Doris Jenks
Richard Reck
12/3/00
James and Marilyn Hope
Bernice Hill
Joan Arcelle
Jeff Dierck (Alberstons’)
9/l o/o0
5/12/00
2/14/00
l/31/00
7/21/99
6127199
undated
12/03/00
120/3/00
12/02/00
12/01/00
11/28/00
James M. Hicks
Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC)
Jeff Dierck (Al bertsons’)
James M. Hicks
Tom and Joan Flanagan (as Calavera Hills Homeowners)
Richard Reck
Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC)
Bernice Hill
Warren and Doris Jenks
James and Marilyn Hope
James M. Hicks
Larry Tucker (Grant Tucker Properties, LLC)
Jay E. Levine
11/28/00
11/28/00
11/28/00
10/04/00
9/25/00
g/22/00
912 1 /oo
9/21/00
9/20/00
9/l 9/00
9/13/00
9/13/00
5/22/00
1436 Willowgreen Court
Encinitas. CA 92024
Mr. Dennis Turner
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: GPA 00-04 SHOPPING CENTER POLICIES
Dear Dennis:
The proposed warrant of not allowing new shopping centers within a seven minute
driving time of an existing center would cause several long term, extremely negative
effects for Carlsbad.
The population of Carlsbad is expected to nearly double over the next 20 years with the
addition of 20,000 new dwelling units. The City must plan ahead now to meet the
shopping needs of its residents.
The elimination of shopping center sites will create monopolies for the existing centers
with the resulting lack of competition, higher prices, and lack of variety. Free enterprise
would be thwarted and only a few shopping choices remain for consumers.
The City does not have a complete or adequate supply of grocery stores to choose from
currently. For example Carlsbad does not have a single Henry’s Marketplace or Longs
Drug Store. This policy would cause an even greater problem. Additionally someone
living next to Ralphs but preferring Vons would have a three mile drive half way across
the city. This policy would therefore cause an increase in traffjc on surface streets.
Furthermore, an older, substandard supermarket would not have the motivation or
opportunity to relocate to a modern, full-size store. Without competition it would have a
captive market and therefore no reason to maintain or upgrade the store, merchandise, or
service. Without competition prices are higher.
If the proposed warrant is approved, shopping alternatives will no longer be possible,
convenient or sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. The people of Carlsbad will
not be adequately served by neighborhood shopping centers now or in the mture.
The proposed warrant would also be counter to the Goals of the City’s General Plan. It
would stop rather than provide for the development of compatible, conveniently located
shopping centers. It will cause the shopping needs of residents not to be adequately
serviced.
Mr. Dennis Turner
December 6,200O
Page 2
The warrant is also opposed to the policy alternatives favored by the citizens who were
surveyed last summer by Rea and Parker. Outcome * Scenarios 1 and 7 received
overwhelming support. Scenario 1 called for the development of neighborhood
commercial centers similar to the type of neighborhood commercial currently in
Carlsbad. Scenario 7 stated neighborhood commercial is to be built along planned street
extensions such as Cannon, College, and Poinsettia. Nowhere have residents stated that
only one shopping center should be allowed within a seven minute driving time of an
existing center.
Such a policy would be terrible planning and a major disservice to the existing and future
Carlsbad’s residents. Convenient shopping, competitive prices, and variety of shopping
choices will not be provided under this policy.
Please distribute copies of this letter to the members of the Planning Commission with
the request that the warrant described above be deleted from the proposed GPA.
Very truly yours,
William A. Neece i
73
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
AND
JOAN R. FLANAGAN CITY Z~~~R~~D
PMNMNG DEPT.
The Cape at Caltivera Hills
Fax: (760) 729-7474
2988 Ridgefield Avenue
Carl&ad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 729-3874
December 3,200O ,
Julie Backer William Compas
Courtney Heineman
Ann L’Heureux
Robert Nielsen Jeff Segall Seena Trigas Planning Commissioners City of Carlsbad
,
Via Hand Deliverv From Dennis Turner
Re: Renort To The Planning Commission Repardiw “Shonuiw Center Policies” (December 2000)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We believe that the City Planning Department, and in particular, Mr. Dennis Turner, have done an excellent job in putting together a solid proposal upon which to start the formal discussion of any proposed revisions to the General Plan to better define and address the future shopping centers in Carlsbad.
As you are aware, one of the driving forces in the preparation of the Report was the City Council being heavily in favor of having:
(1) Fewer But Larger Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad
(2) No Strip Malls in Carlsbad
(3) Reasonable Driving Times To Get To Local Shopping Centers
(4) The Serious Possibility That The “No Further Shopping Center Along El Camino Real” Provision Will Create Shopping Problems In The North East Quadrant
Because of the importance of these two strong desires by the City Council,, we believe the Report requires a more thorough analysis in these areas to see if in fact the proposed General Plan Amendments achieve those two purposes.
The four areas we would like to address are:
(1) The Primary Trade Area Radius;
(2) The Driving Time Recommendations
(3) The Shape Of A Local Shopping Center That Will Not Produce A Strip Mall
(4) The Serious Problems That The “No Further Local Shopping Center Along El Camino” Real” Restriction May Create
.
A. PRIMARY TRADE AREA RADIUS ’
The Primary Trade Area Radius proposed by the Planning Department is 1.5 miles. This will
result in too many Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad and is totally contradictory to the City Council’s desire of large and fewer Local Shopping Centers.
We believe that the Planning Commission and the City Council should be looking at a GenerajdPlan Amendment that would use a 2.0 mile to 2.5 mile primary trade area radius for Local Shopping Centers over 10 acres in size and only utilize the 1.5 miles Primary Trade Area for Local Shopping Centers between 8 and 10 acres.
Under this scheme, the Primary Trade Area Radius would be more realistic and recognize that
Larger Local Shopping Centers truly have larger Primary Trade Areas. This scheme is recognized and further discussed in the Albertson’s letters to the City Planning Department.
We think that a more realistic plan for Primary Trade Areas would be as follows:
- 8 To 10 Acres 1.5 Mile Primary Trade Area
- 10 To 14 Acres 2.0 Mile Primary Trade Area
- 14 To 20 Acres 2.5 Mile Primary Trade Area
We believe that by following the above scheme, the City of Carlsbad will have Primary Trade Areas that will result in fewer but larger Local Shopping Centers and Local Shopping Centers that are much more scaled to the size of the Local Shopping Center.
The Primary Trade Area Radius proposed by the Planning Department is 1.5 miles; regardless of whether or not the Local Shopping Center is 8 acres large or 20 acres large. We do not think that
this is realistic
We caution the Planning Commission to move very cautiously in this area before a final decision is made. If caution and thorough discussion is not taken, we believe that Carlsbad will be overrun but numerous smaller shopping Centers, when actually all of us (Citizens, The Planning Commission,
and The City Council) desire fewer but larger Local Shopping Centers.
2 73-
B. DRIVING TIME RECOMMENDATIONS
The Driving Time Recommendations contained in the Report of 7.5 minutes appear to be realistic. This is based on the following analysis:
- At An Average Driving Sneed Of 30 Miles Per Hour = l/2 Mile Per Minute
- 1.5 Miles = 3 Minutes
- 2.0Miles = r. 4 Minutes
- 2.5 Miles = 5 Minutes
- At An Average Driving: Speed Of 25 Miles Per Hour = 4/10 Mile Per Minute
I
- 1.5Miles =, 4 Minutes
- 2.0 Miles = 5 Minutes
- 2.5 Miles = - 6 Minutes
- At An Average Driving Sneed Of 20 Miles Per Hour = l/3 Mile Per Minute
- 1.5 Miles = 5 Minutes
- 2.0 Miles = - 7 Minutes
- 2.5 Miles = - 8 Minutes
All of the above driving times should make the Planning Commission and the City Council more comfortable that driving speeds of 20 to 30 miles per hour will result in arriving in an adequate driving time span, even if the Local Shopping Center in the city are more generously spaced 2.0 miles to 2.5 miles apart.
What the above analysis demonstrates is that you can have larger and fewer Local Shopping Centers (2,0 to 2,5 miles apart) and still be able to get to these Local Shopping Centers in a 4 to 8 minute time period-~
Based upon the above analysis, we would support the Planning Department’s Recommendation of utilizing an average driving time of 7.5 minutes (7.0 to 8.0 minutes).
This is also consistent with the citizens of Carlsbad and City Council expressions at the three Shopping Center Workshops that the Citizens of Carlsbad do not mind driving a little further to do their local shopping so long as the Local Shopping Center is within a reasonable time distance away.
In fact, the general consensus form the Local Shopping Center Workshops was that many residents do their local shopping on the way home from something else and therefore, an extra minute or two of driving time really did really not matter to them.
3
C. THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER THAT WILL NOT PRODUCE A STRIP MALL
The Report does not address what the shape or size of a Local Shopping Center that will not produce a Strip Mall.
We hope to add some suggestions in this area and hope that these suggestions also get added to the General Plan Revisions so that we can guarantee that Strip Malls will not occur in Carlsbad.
Acre 1
As you can see by the attached charts (See Chart ‘1), a one acre parcel is approximately 208 feet deep and 208 feet wide (See Chart 1).
6 Acre Site
If a Local Shopping Center were 6 acres in size (See Chart l), the property would be 416 feet deep and 624 feet wide. Such a small shopping site would be too small for a Local Shopping Center. Such a site would also have serious entrance and egress problems.
9 Acre Site
If a Local Shopping Center were 9 acres in size (See Chart 2). The 9 acre property would be 624 feet deep and 624 feet wide. Such a small shopping site would be marginal to unacceptable for.a Local Shopping Center. c~
A 9 acre shopping site would also have serious site depth problems and would make it difficult to disburse trtic trying to enter the small 9 acre site.
Also, if the 9 acre shopping site is not deep enough, the traffic having difficulty entering the 9 acre site would back up its entering traffic onto the Primary Road adjacent to the Local Shopping Center site and create undesirable traffic flow problems on the main arterial roads in Carlsbad.
This is a situation the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad should try to avoid.
16 Acre Site
If a Local Shopping Center were 16 acres in size (See Chart 3), the property would be 832 feet deep and 832 feet wide.
Such a 16 acre shopping site would be approaching ideal for a Local Shopping Center.
Such a 16 acre shopping site would also be an adequate site depth to disburse traffic entering the Local Shopping Center site.
A 16 acre would avoid the have serious entrance and egress problems of sites around 9 acres or so in size.
4 77
20 Acre Site
If a Local Shopping Center were 20 acres in size (See Chart 4), the property would be 832 feet deep and 1040 feet wide.
Such a 20 acre shopping site would be ideal for a Local Shopping Center.
Such a 20 acre shopping site would also adequate site depth to disburse traffic entering the Local Shopping Center site.
A 20 acre would avoid the have serious entrance and egress problems of sites around 9 acres or so in size. .,
Additionally, the entrances to the Local Shopping Center could be well spaced back form the intersecting are which such Local Shopping Centers are typically located.
Recommendations Repardinp Local Shout& Center Site Size And Shaue
As indicated by the Citizens of Carlsbad and the City council at the three Public Workshops on Local Shopping Centers, fewer and larger Local Shopping Centers are preferred.
Based on the above analysis, the following recommendations regarding the size and shape of a local shopping center are submitted for your serious consideration:
1. Local Shopping Center Sites Between 14 Acres and 20 acres are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 8 and 14 Acres;
2. Local Shopping Center Sites 850 feet deep are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 700 and 850 feet deep;
3. Local Shopping Center Sites 1200 feet wide are preferred over Local Shopping Centers between 1000 feet and 1200 feet wide;
4. Local Shopping Center Sites less than 700 feet deep are not permitted;
5. Local Shopping Center Sites less than 1000 feet wide are preferred over Local
By following the above recommendations, the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad will be able to avoid all Strip Malls in the future.
The above recommendations will also encourage fewer and larger Local Shopping Centers in Carlsbad.
78
D. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT NO FURTHER SHOPPING CENTER BE PERMITTED ALONG EL CAMINO REAL MAY CREATE PUTURB PROBLEMS
As the City of Carlsbad, the City Planning Department, and the Carlsbad Planning Commission are aware, the Village E-l site in Calavera Hills is not viable as a commercial or Local Shopping Center site.* In fact, the McMillan company petitioned the City Planning Department earlier this year to have Village E-l rezoned as a residential site because it has serous problems as a Local Shopping Center site (not enough roof tops to support it because it abuts a large habitat area) and because the Village E-l site has serious ingress and egress problems if it were a Local Shopping Center
Additional letters from Albertson’s indicate that Village E- 1 in Calavera Hills is not a desirable Local shopping Center site to Albertson’s.**
The City and the City Planning Department are also aware the Sunny Creek Local Shopping Center site may or may not be developed as a Local Shopping Center. In fact, it is quite possible that the Sunny Creek Local Shopping Center site may end up being something else (such as being submitted for rezoning to either residential or off&e use).
If the Sunny Creek site were not developed as a Local Shopping Center, then serious Local Shopping Center problems might be created for the Carisbad residents located in the North East Quadrant.
We believe that the addition of the El Camino Restriction should be contingent on the development of Sunny Creek as a local Shopping Center. If Sunny Creek does not develop as a shopping center site, then the General Plan Revisions should permit a a substitute Local shopping Center site along El Camino Real (such as the Local Shopping Center site recently proposed across from the Country Store).
We hope that the Planning Commission will recognize the need for this El Camino Real alternate site possibility to cover the potential likelihood that the Sunny Creek site will not be developed as a Local shopping Center site.
* Studies by the McMillan company and previously submitted to the City Planning Department this year will be provided to the Planning Commission at the December 6,200O Hearing.
** The Letter from Albertson’s regarding the non viability of Village E-l in Calavera Hills as Local Shopping Center site is attached to this letter.
6
E. RECOGNlTION THAT VILLAGE E-l IN CALAVERA HILLS IS NOT A VIABLE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITE.
As the City of Carlsbad, the City Planning Department, and the Carlsbad Planning Commission are aware, the Village E-l site in Calavera Hills is not viable as a commercial or Local Shopping Center site. .
To assist the Planning Commission and City Council to recognize the various reasons that this site is not commercially viable as a Local Shopping Center, we are including our attached previous letters to the City Council and the City Planning Department on this issue. ., . .
The previous letters sent to the City Council or the City Planning Department are as follows: ..>’
- June 27,1999 Letter
- February 14,20OOLeGer
- January 31,200O Letter
- May 12,200O Letter
I
F. PRIOR COMMENTS TO THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED “LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER” AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN. ‘f d
To assist the Planning Commission and’city Council in having our prior comments to the City Planning Department regarding the proposed “Local Shopping Center” Amendments to the General Plan, we are including our attached previous letter to the City Planning Department on this issue.
The previous letter sent to the the City Planning Department is as follows:
- September lo,2000 Letter
G. CONCLUSION
Once again, we compliment the City Planning Department, especially the hard work put in by Dennis Turner, in developing the Proposed General Plan amendments.
We also look for-w&d to fully discussing the above issues with the Planning Comrnission at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, December 6,200O.
Sincerely,
729-3 874 729-3874
7
cc: Mr,Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fti: 602-8559 Mr. Dennis Turner - Senior City Planner : Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 ; 2
, i
cc: Mr. Brian Milich - McMillan & Company (6 19) 366-3596 1
Ql 19 9
9 h’ RECEWD
\; DEC 0 4 2000
3 WY OF CARLSEND r PLANNING DEPT.
r -
.
I
\ i ‘b b \ I
G- \o
\
-4
i
i
83
F-\ I .\ I a \ t ‘i
-t- I--
1
7
cALAvE3A HILLS
EOUWOtonerr .,
Dcnais Tu& '*' suli?wa
zi!gs!e . 1635 Faraday Avenue9 caris~cA92008 5’
86
- . ti;
The major points you proposd in the &ncrai Plan Ar~~&~~~ts.iii b&w of smmgiy endorstdbyusandwcbciicvtttratthcyshouidbeadapccdinthtProposcdGc~man ~~illclu&tbe~columcR~(~wehdicvewcrcdiscrrssedatme
woiksho@ atId some Specific comments (that were f&Rssal in the workshop) but arc not in the Roposec~ Gumal Plan Amendment : - I.
1: GENERAL coMmNTs
A. Foe Gene+ Plan should be amended to nplace the curreq Nei#borh~ood and mmcrual Shopping Ccntcr dcs@tions with a new dcsrgpatlo~l cnt&d ‘LcxaI ShoppiagCenter”. . .
i *-
i.‘Lwd Shopping Centers should not pemit or encow Strip Malls.
. : c.Lucals~ccntcrsshoRldk~~yvitblc - J
D-LLss~S~ggCtntus~thaDmarr~Sh~gCcntenartdesirablc withthccoRc%ptthatsomcwbatlarg%rm reduce the ned wnditioxts for additional Lmal (12 to 14 acres) could
/_ * ., . . .
- < ” -- ,.., - flwubility isdb! ::“;. ,y : :fy-;,, 7
-..
Tlli8typeofnqairuIleon wmcUsedbycie~toforcern~Local shoppingcen~iRtocarisbadtbaaitnetds*
:
.- .I
Th%GenaalPlaa~~~to~dntbntiftheLocalshoppiRg CenterisonaMediumSizedbxal Site (12 to 14 -) thenthcptimary~aT%anecdstob% alarger primary ‘. primaryoadearta(SUChat2.5 minutedrivingtime!)
F. ~~g~~-~~~~yie~~Pul~~~so
3 Mallsandtheuatbendant~~dcptbs(ususlly7wfeeroriesstndtptb arc avoi )andLacalShoppingCcntcrsof~depth(1000f#tormorc)an:
CSlCOWlgCti.
strip 9 outh East C- of college and W-i@.
.
A’ G. Local Shopping Centcrs shodd in&de i a minimum a Super Maker and a Drug Srore & the Anchor Tenants with ncccssq Suxmdq Tcn8nts imiwkd
Note: How&r, we do not agree that some of those Seem&y Tcnanrs should inch& the Big Box Stores listed cm page 15 of the Roped GxmaI Plan Amendment (mrch as Tarpet, K-Man, Hme Dcpat, Staples, Camp USA, Good Guys. Etc.). - 4.
Thcgcncraldisnusionbythccitycanacilandthe-of~sbad indicated a strong desk not to have Big Box Scam iu Carl&ad, but rak that it ws acceptable to drive zo adjacent cisics to shop at such Big Box ‘. stores.
Hhcal Shopping ccntcrs should not have any scxious cntmmx andegrcss problems.
2. SPEclFTC coh+MENTs REGARDING SRE ELECTION OFTHE LOCAL SHOPPING
Hadditionto~~C~~abovc.rPebelicvcthattbcf~~Specific~~ regarding site selection of the I&Cal s FYoposed Local shoppiq center e kr ;z CeZetiho~d se&sly be consJdeied for the
A. Site S&&m fm tk Local Shopping ccntcr should in&~& impacts to the following arwadjacmttothcLocaISbopphgcenter:
- schools
- FrrrStations
-4K-s
- CityHabitatAms(Plann~andFuturc),i&udingHabitatLinks
- CityParks
:‘churchs
- Policestations
-8 8
=.35
. .
B . Site Sckion for the Local Shopping Cemer should incbdc traffic impacts (additional Am to the following areas adjacent to the Locai shopping ccncn. . .I
- schools
- Fut Stations
- “Lag&g I :,: ,:; - city Habitat Areas (PlamiapdFuaae)
- CityRttks
- RcsiddaI Neigihhods”
- churches
- PoliccStarkms : :.
C . Sitt Sektion for the Local Shopping Ccatcr should cluck:
- Traffic Impacts and Safety Hazards co School chiidns
D.Site&ktionforrheLacal C&bad Sho@ng Cexw to outside the sty limits ofkisbad.
Notc:~y*thc~35aatcammadalsitermMMlcedbyMcMiltan -atthesouthcosst~locationatths(soarhwestcamer
of College Boulevard and the 78 Fmeway) and cmxendy in the Oceanside
Applhtionpcess will open in 2OtK AM4 a++ Thislarge~ide Q”“““$*F * - ‘Gill - oppomdiestotkcarisbadresl ntsin x=&i
C&lVCXZi
Similarly, the Gnxa Acrcs Shopping Gums in Encinitas willptovidt adequate sfiopp~g apporamities for Cadsbad’s La Costa ksidmts.
89
i
E.nK:AoposadtiSho~mesbwid - thcscvcxesicc acass and egress locariol3s when consWing small sized (8 to 10 acres). .I
,I ‘*.
F.Thehoposed~S~gccnter- ShCddtrreouregtModirrmSized LncaisfLappirrgcerr~(12014~)insizeovezsmall~stroppingcentns .-. @to iOrcreJ)befauscthcC”Jty~andthe~ofCBisbadexpresseda~ng dcsireatthcwcnitJhopsforIcss(notmorr)Lncalshappin%cwotr~~~n~ecity. . . *.,
N~:~MediomLocal~g~(12tD14Patsitn)woufdhave .:Z .... bettuassusaudegressandcanscrvealittlelarguprimarytradcatuL
~o~:TheseMsdium~~g~(~to14ecrrsites)w~looklers klse~~S~Mallr,wouIdhtve~~siradepthtoo~abe~affic flowandwcmldofkrabcttqsjopingexpmm
N~:~MsdilrmLocllSl;opping~(i2o14rrcsitcr)primarytrndc amisbouldbe2Jmik
Tiloma!zP.managaa JoanRFlamgau
cc: MayorBudLcwis C-woman Julie Nygaard
ziizzE=w councitnaaM;ittHall cadsbad*m 1200cadsbadvinagcDlivc cai-lshadTcA 92008
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
AND
JOAN R. FLANAGAN
The Cape at. Calavera Hills
Fax: (760) 729-7474
2988 Ridgefield Avenue
Carl&ad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 729-3874
May 12,200O
Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON 1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92
Via Fax
l-2358
Fax: ( 619 ) 308-9334
Re: Calavera Hills Villape E-l Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. Sherwood:
1. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMUNITY SERVICES USE
After attending the Final Scoping Meeting on the Calavera Hills Project, and after hearing about the new potential uses of the Village E-l Property as a Community Services Site (Churches, Day Care Centers, and the like), we still strongly recommend that Village E-l be re-zoned as a Residential Site.
We believe that with the Calavera Hills Park and the day care uses in the public schools nearby and the use of the Calavera Hills community Center as a church / place of worship on the weekends and the number of fixed churches in downtown Carlsbad,, there is not a need for additional community services in the Calavera Hills area.
We therefore believe that the residential use of Village E- 1 is highly favored by many residents in
F-- the Calavera Hills area.
- 2. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMERCIAL USE
We would also like to restate our reasons why we believe that the Village E- 1 Site should be designated as a Residential Site and not as a Commercial Site,
We strongly support the rezoning of Village E-l from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows:
A. Village E-1 in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020.
B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E- 1 are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village E-l site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site. .
Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002.
This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E-l as a commercial site.
C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location.
D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT).
E. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest comer of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT).
E. If the Village E-l site remains commercial, the 12,000 average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills.
F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park.
2
G. The citizens of Carlsbad do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,fKKI ADT) while trying to enter the Calavera Hills Recreational Park.
H. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E-l site would set a poor precedent.
I. The choice of Village E-l as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other.
J. The designation of Village E-l as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills.
K. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E- 1) will make it impossible for Village E- 1 to ever succeed as a commercial site.
L. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l property is not commercially viable, that there would be a large number of vacant stores in Village E-l because they could not stay in business.
Empty stores in Village E- 1 would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park.
3. PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL JRMiH) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS
We again renew our request that the Calavera Hills Homeowners made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2,1999. In that petition letter, it was requested that the Carlsbad Planning Department and the Carlsbad City Council consider:
(1) Changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
The reasons stated in the July 1999 request were considerable and included the following:
The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E-l (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
93
The location of Village .E-1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate.
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities.
At the current time, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future fuehouse
property *
Leaving the Village E-l property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park. ,
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate.
The location of Village E- 1 directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills. Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
With the Entrance to the Village E-l site from Glassgow on the west side of Village E-l, there will be a serious Future Firehouse and Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to Village E-l.
The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-8 school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
Retaining Village E-l as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills.
We believe that it would be best for-the traffic flow along Future College . Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traffic drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real.
Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills.
-
When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away.
In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property.
In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage ’ and the 78 Freeway.
Because’a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a commercial site. a
We believe that residential housing (RMH) would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village ‘K) of the Village E-l property.
As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony).
We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request).
We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E-l property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
5 9 s-
When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away.
In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property.
In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway.
Because-a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E- 1 property is economically viable as a commercial site. ,
We believe that residential housing (RMH) wotild be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property.
As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony).
We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request).
We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E-l property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
5
4. SPECIFIC VILLAGE E-l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) COMMENTS
Listed below are our specific comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that your office is going to prepare for the Village E- 1 portion of Calavera Hills Phase II Project:
A. There needs to be a tall wall along the southern edge of Village E-l and the northern edge of the Cape Subdivision.
This tall wall will keep the sound of the new College Boulevard and the southbound College Boulevard headlights out of the Cape Homeowners upstairs bedroom windows. This could be accomplished by utilizing an attractive 3 foot berm along the north south property line between Village E-l and the Cape. with up to a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm. ,
The desired effect would be to have the residential units located along the southern edge of Village E- 1 in such a way that the second ‘story windows on the residential units on the Village E-l property will not be able to see into the downstairs window of the residential units along the northern border of the Cape.
This horizontal separation can be achieved by placing the Village E-l residential units and the wall / berm arrangement between E-l and the Cape such that the top of the wall will block out the sight line from the second story of the Village E- 1 units into the downstairs windows of the adjacent Cape residential units.
Perhaps guest parking on the south edge of Village E- 1 or not having the Village E- 1 residential units backing up against the residential units at the Cape could be an appropriate solutions.
Note: The actual property line between the Cape and Village E-l is 5 feet north of the current wooden fence at the north side of the Cape. Thus, there is adequate room to build such a 3 foot berm.
Note: Such a 3 foot berm with an up to 6 foot wall on top of the berm would give a Nice visual separation between the rear yards of the residential units in the Cape and Village E- 1.
B. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E- 1 southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm drain could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E-l site and the Cape.
C. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E- 1. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm.
D. The Sound Walls should be attractive and fit in with the natural surroundings of the area.
6 97
E. The City of Carlsbad should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive..
We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway.
F. The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east comer of the Cape. _.
This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape. .
The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective. .
As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape.
Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights.
Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems.
G. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the street north of Glasgow that is used to get to the new Cliffs Subdivision and the east side of Tamarack north of Carlsbad Village Drive. This area was originally going to be apartments and houses.
Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area.
H. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current ovefflow parking from the Calavera Hills Regional Park. This ovefflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E- 1.
Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E-l because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Hills Regional Park parking lot.
I. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the Village E-l pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood.
7
J. The elevation and drainage of the Village E- 1 site should match the present adjacent land use and not be built any higher than it is right now.
If the elevation of Village E-l was raised along the southern edge of Village E-l, it would permit two story units on Village E-l to look directly down and into the backyards and lower stories of the Cape Homeowners residential units directly adjacent to this Village E-l boundary.
K. The Village E-l residential units and the Cape residential units should have at least a 100 foot separation between the units and be separated by a tall wall/ berm arrangement so as to retain privacy of both the Cape and Village E-l residential units.
This lateral separation between the residential units along the village E- 11 Cape boundary could be assisted by the proper height and location of the tall wall / berm system between the adjacent Village E-l and Cape residential properties. ,
We thank RECON, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874 729-3874
cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 6024559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559
Mr. Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company (619) 366-3112
99
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
AND
JOAN R. FLANAGAN
The Cape at Calavera Hills
Fax: (760) 729-7474
2988 Ridgefield Avenue
Carl&ad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 729-3874
February 14,200O
Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON 1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358
Via Fax
Fax: ( 619 ) 308-9334
Re: Calavera Hills Villaqe E-l Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. Sherwood:
1. RESIDENTIAL USE OF VILLAGE E-l IS HIGHLY FAVORED OVER COMMERCIAL USE
We strongly support the rezoning of Village E-l from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows:
A. Village E-l in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020.
B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E-l are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village E-l site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site.
Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002.
I
This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l ; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E-l as a commercial site.
C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location.
D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT).
E. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest comer of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,ooO ADT).
E. If the Village E- 1 site remains commercial, the 12,ooO average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills.
F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park.
G. The citizens of Carlsbad do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,ooO ADT) while trying to enter the Calavera Hills Recreational Park.
H. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E-l site would set a poor precedent.
I. The choice of Village E- 1 as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other.
J. The designation of Village E- 1 as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills.
K. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E- 1) will make it impossible for Village E-l to ever succeed as a commercial site.
2
:-
L. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l property is not commercially viable, that there would be a large number of vacant stores in Village E-l because they could not stay in business.
Empty stores in Village E- 1 would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park.
2; PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL JRMH) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS
We again renew our request that the Calavera Hills Homeowners made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2,1999. In that petition letter, it was requested that the Carlsbad Planning Department and the Carlsbad City Council consider: ,
(1) Changing the land use designation foi the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
The reasons stated in the July 1999 request were considerable and included the following:
The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E- 1 (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
The location of Village .E-1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities.
At the current tune, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future firehouse . property.
Leaving the Village E-l property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park.
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate.
3
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
With the Entrance to the Village E-l site from Glassgow on the west side of Village E-l, there will be a serious Future Firehouse and Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to Village E- 1.
The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-S school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate.
Retaining Village E-r as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills.
We believe that it would be best for the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traffic drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real.
Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills.
When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away.
In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property.
In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway.
Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E- 1 property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a cornrnercial site.
We believe that residential housing (RMH) would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property.
As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of 7 Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony).
4
B. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E- 1 southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm drain could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E- 1 site and the Cape.
C. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E-l. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm.
D. The Sound Walls should be attractive and fit in with the natural surroundings of the area.
E. The City of Carlsbad should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive..
We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway.
F. The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east comer of the Cape.
This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape.
The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective.
As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape.
Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights.
Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems.
G. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the street north of Glasgow that is used to get to the new Cliffs Subdivision and the east side of Tamarack north of Carlsbad Village Drive, This area was originally going to be apartments and houses.
Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area.
6
*
H. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current overflow parking from the Calavera Hills Regional Park. This overflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E- 1.
Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E-l because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Hills Regional Park parking lot.
I. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the Village E-l pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood.
J. The elevation and drainage of the Village E-l site should match the present adjacent land use and not be built any higher than it is right now.
If the elevation of Village E-l was raised along the southern edge of Village E-l, it would permit two story units on Village E-l to look directly down and into the backyards and lower stories of the Cape Homeowners residential units directly adjacent to this Village E-l boundary.
:-
K. The Village E-l residential units and the Cape residential units should have at least a 100 foot separation between the units and be separated by a tall wall/ berm arrangement so as to retain privacy of both the Cape and Village E-l residential units.
This lateral separation between the residential units along the village E- 11 Cape boundary could be assisted by the proper height and location of the tall wall /berm system between the adjacent Village E-l and Cape residential properties.
We thank RECON, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874 729-3874
7
cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Mr. Ray Patchette - City Manager Fax: 720-9461
Mayor and City Council Members (5) Fax: 720-946 1
Mr. Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company (619) 366-3112
i. ,
.-
THE CAPE AT CALAVERA HILLS
Homeowners
The C&e at Calavera Hills
i-jomeowners
Clark&ad, California 92008
January 31,2OKJ
Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON ,
1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92 101-2358
Via Fax
Fax: ( 619 ) 308-9334
Re: Calavera Hills E-l Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. Sherwood:
1. RESIDENTIAL V. COMMERCIAL USE OF VILLAFGE E-l COMMENTS
The Cape at Calavera Hills Homeowners strongly support the rezoning of Village E- 1 from a commercial designation to a residential designation. The major reasons that we support this rezoning are as follows:
A. Village E- 1 in not a viable site for a successful commercial center because it does not have the number of housing units to support it, either now or at city build out in 2020.
B. Other commercial centers in close proximity to Village E-l are coming onstream within the next two years which will be superior to the Village site and will obviate the specific need for the Village E-l site.
Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( southwest comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and currently in the Oceanside Application process will open in 2002.
This large Oceanside commercial site will: (1) provide adequate shopping opportunities to the Calavera Hills residents; (2) will serve as a more than adequate replacement site for Village E-l; and (3) will obviate the need for the Village E-l as a commercial site.
1
C. The Village E-l site has severe access limitations that will render it virtually unusable as a commercial location.
D. Entry to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe safety hazards to the children and families utilizing the Calavera Hills Regional Recreational Park if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT).
E. Ent$to the Village E-l site from Glasgow (the west side of Village E-l) will present severe traffic congestion and safety problems to the planned Carlsbad City fire Station at the southwest comer of Glasgow and Carlsbad Village Drive if the site remains commercial and has and average daily traffic of 12,000 units per day (12,000 ADT).
E. If the Village E-l site remains commercial, the 12,000 average vehicles per day (12,000 ADT) will destroy the recreational and residential family neighborhood of Calavera Hills.
F. The Homeowners of Calavera Hills do not want or need such heavy traffic congestion (12,000 ADT) while trying to enter our subdivisions and the Calavera Hills Recreational Park.
,-
G. No other Regional Park in the city is directly adjacent to a commercial shopping center. To make such a choice at the Village E-l site would set a poor precedent.
H. The choice of Village E- 1 as a commercial site next to a Major Regional City Park would also be an example of poor planning because such adjacent sites (recreational and commercial) because such site selections do not compliment one another. Rather, they detract from each other.
I. The designation of Village E-l as a residential site is a much more appropriate choice and is consistent with the family neighborhood and park environment in Calavera Hills.
J. We truly believe that the large 35 acre commercial property that will be built on the current South Coast Asphalt Plant in Oceanside (just one mile from Village E-l) will make it impossible for Village E-l to ever succeed as a commercial site.
K. We also have strong fears that since the Village E-l property is not commercially viable, that there would be a large number of vacant stores in Village E-l because they could not stay in business.
Empty stores in Village E-l would quickly drag down a very attractive residential area of the city and present problems for the adjacent City Regional Park.
2
2. PETITION TO REZONE VILLAGF E-l FROM COMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL /RMH) IS RENEWED BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CALAVERA HILLS
The Homeowners in Calavera Hills do hereby renew the request that they made to the Carlsbad City Council and the City of Carlsbad Planning Department on July 2, 1999 that they City Council consider:
(1) Changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
The reasons stated in the prior request were considerable and included the following: 4
The location of the Village E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of Village E- 1 (Village K) makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
The location of Village .E- 1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will further compound the lack of available parking for the Calavera Hills Park facilities.
At the current time, the overflow parking from the park that occurs almost every night and even more so on the weekends ends up along Glassgow Road adjacent to the Village E-l property and on the future firehouse
property *
Leaving the Village E-l property as a commercial site will only further compound the difficult parking situation at Calavera Hills Park.
The location of Village E- 1 directly adjacent to the recreational ballfields, child play areas, outside basketball courts, and athletic center at the Calavera Hills Park will create serious child safety and traffic concerns with the park. This makes the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 next to Calavera Hills Park inappropriate.
The location of Village E-l directly adjacent to the Future Firehouse at Calavera Hills Park will create firehouse entrance and egress concerns and firehouse response time safety concerns and may make the current commercial zoning for Village E- 1 inappropriate.
With the Entrance to the E- 1 site from Glassgow on the west side of E- 1, There will be a serious Future firehouse, Regional City Park traffic conflict with the anticipated 12,000 commercial cars per day (12,000 ADT) using the Glasgow entrance to E- 1.
3
P-
The location of Village E-l near Hope School and near the New K-8 school facility to be built next year in Village S may make the current commercial zoning for Village E-l inappropriate.
Retaining Village E-l as a commercial site will encourage an interruption of the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard as it passes through Calavera Hills.
We believe that it would be best for the traffic flow along Future College Boulevard to remain on College Boulevard as the traffic drives along Future College Boulevard from Oceanside to El Camino Real.
Encouraging drivers to get off of Future College Boulevard and enter a highly quiet residential area / high family use city park / natural habitat area / fire station area will be detrimental to those four planned uses this section of Calavera Hills.
When the Future College Boulevard is completed from Oceanside to El Camino Real, the residents of Calavera Hills believe that adequate shopping for groceries, medicine, and gas can be found less than a mile and a half away.
In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property.
In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
In Oceanside at the current Lucky’s / Savon / Rite Aid near collage and the 78 Freeway.
Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the Village E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the Village E-l property is economically viable as a commercial site.
We believe that residential housing (RMH) would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property.
As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware, the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about two years ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony).
We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request).
/-- We thank the city and the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E- 1 property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential (RMH).
4
3. SPECIFIC VILLAGE E-l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - COMMENTS
Listed below are the Cape Homeowners comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that your office is going to prepare for the Village E-l portion of Calavera Hills Phase g Project:
1. There needs to be a tall wall along the southern edge of Village E-l and the northern edge of the Cape Subdivision. This will keep the sound of the new College Boulevard and the southbound College Boulevard headlights out of the Cape Homeowners upstairs bedroom windows. This could be accomplished by utilizing an attractive 3 foot berm along the north south property line between Village E-l and the Cape. with up to a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm.
The desired effect would be to have the residential units located along the southern edge of Village E- 1 in such a way that the second story windows on the residential units on the Village E-l property will not be able to see into the downstairs window of the residential units along the northern border of the Cape.
This horizontal separation can be achieved by placing the Village e-l residential units and the wall /berm arrangement between E-l and the Cape such that the top of the wall will. block out the sight line from the second story of the Village E-l units into the downstairs windows of the adjacent Cape residential units.
,- Perhaps guest parking on the south edge of Village E-l or not having the Village E-l residential units backing up against the residential units at the Cape could be an appropriate solutions.
Note: The actual property line between the Cape and Village E-l is 5 feet north of the current wooden fence at the north side of the Cape. Thus, there is adequate room to build such a 3 foot berm.
Note: Such a 3 foot berm with an up to 6 foot wall on top of the berm would give a Nice visual separation between the rear yards of the residential units in the Cape and Village E- 1.
2. The open storm drain along the north side of the Cape needs to be removed and replaced with and underground storm drain on the Village E-l southern edge of the Village E- 1 site to handle the downhill sheet flow from Village E-l to the Cape. Such an under- ground storm drain could be located just north of the 3 foot berm and the up to 6 foot wall separating the Village E-l site and the Cape.
3. There needs to be a 6 foot to 9 foot Sound Wall along the new College Boulevard and along the Carlsbad Village Drive side of Village E- 1. This could also be accomplished by an attractive 3 foot berm with a 6 foot solid wall at the top of the berm.
f- 4. The Sound Walls should be attractive and fit in with the natural surroundings of the area.
5
5. The city should consider breaking up the Sound Wall along the new College and the exhisting Carlsbad Village Drive so that the Sound Wall does not run continuously parallel to either College Boulevard of Carlsbad Village Drive..
We don’t want the wall to look like the one the developer put along Palomar Airport Road next to the new Cabrillio Ranch Development. the Sound Walls along the roadways need to have an “S” shaped flow to them or the Sound Walls should move laterally in and out to make the Sound Walls more attractive as they run along the roadway.
6.. The city strongly needs to consider lowering the vertical height of College Boulevard as it runs along Village E-l and adjacent to the north east comer of the Cape. ,
This will help suppress the traffic noise and block the car lights from shining into the second story windows of the residential units in the Cape.
The slightly lowered roadway at this point will make the 6 foot or 8 foot sound wall more effective.
As it stands now, the new College Boulevard runs too close to the north east comer of the Cape. Y
Something drastic needs to be done to mitigate the traffic noise and traffic lights.
Surpressing the new College Boulevard down 2 to 4 feet more that presently planned in this area will substantially help with the noise and headlight problems.
7. There needs to be sidewalks added along both sides of Glasgow and the east side of Tamarack north of Carlsbad Village Drive. This area was originally going to be apartments and houses.
Now that this is going to be a major habitat link in Calavera Hills does not obviate the need for sidewalk for children and adults as Glasgow and Tamarack run through the habitat area.
8. There needs to be parking considerations made along Glasgow to handle the current overflow parking from the Calavera Hills Regional Park. This overflow is currently going onto the proposed Fire Station site and all along Glasgow and onto Village E- 1.
Large Events and weekend ballgames at the park end up with about 120 extra cars parking on Glasgow and on Village E- 1 because they can not fit into the 90 plus parking spaces in the Calavera Bills Regional Park parking lot.
6
9. The residential developer for Village E-l should work with the Cape homeowners to properly locate any recreational buildings and facilities (such as a pool and a clubhouse at an appropriate distance from the Cape property line. Locating such a recreational facilities 400 to 500 feet from the north property line of the Cape would be desirable so that the pool and recreational noise does not carry into the quite Cape neighborhood.
We thank the city, the city planning department, and the residential developer ahead of time for considering these requests to and we look forward to working with you on the Environmental Impact Report when it is published.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3874
cc: Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Fax: 602-8559 Eric Munoz - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559 Ray Patchette - City Manager Fax: 438-0894
Mayor and City Council Members (5)
Jim Ondler - McMillan & Company
CALAVERA HILLS
Homeowners
Homeowners at Calavera Hills Carlsbad, California 92008
July 2 1, 1999
VISION FOR N.E. OUADRANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SITES
A. LOCAL STORE‘SHOPPING VS. BIG BOX STORE SHOPPING
- NO NEED FOR ANY MORE BIG BOX STORES IN CARLSBAD
- THERE ARE PLENTY OF BIG BOX STORES ALONG THE 78 AND l-5 FREEWAYS (HOME DEPOT, 2 PRICE CLUB / COSTCO STORES, PLAZA CAMINO REAL MALL, CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES, HOME BASE, BED BATH & BEYOND, COMP USA, BARNES AND NOBLE, CIRCUIT CITY, GOOD GUYS, OCEANSIDE TARGET; TARGET GREAT LAND, STAPLES, ALL SPORTS, ETC.)
- THERE ARE PLENTY OF BIG BOX STORES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL IN ENCINlTAS - SOUTH OF CARLSBAD (TOWN SQUARE SHOPPING MALL, HOME DEPOT, TARGET GREAT LAND, COMP USA, OFFICE DEPO, BED BATH & BEYOND, ~CIRCUlT CITY, BARNES AND NOBLE, ETC.)
B. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LOCAL STORE SHOPPING CENTER
- EVENTUALLY, THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR ONE MORE GROCERY STORE / DRUG STORE TYPE SHOPPING CENTER IN THE N.E. QUADRANT
C. NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITES NEEDED
- ONLY ONE MORE SUCH SITE NEEDED
- NO NEED FOR TWO SUCH SITES
-NO NEED FOR CONVENIENCE SHOPPING (WE ALREADY HAVE THE COUNTRY STORE)
- D. CRITERIA FOR THE ONE ADDITIONAL LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
- LOCATE lT ALONG A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMLNO REAL)
- LOCATE IT IN THE CENTER OF A TRADE AREA (RATHER THAN ON THE EDGE OF A TRADE AREA)
- TRAFFIC CRITERIA (SEE BELOW)
- DON’T LOCATE IT NEXT TO A CH’Y PARK OR RECREATIONAL
: BALLFIELDS OR CHILD PLAY AREAS
- DON’T LOCATE lT NEXT TO A NATURAL HABITAT AREA OR HABITAT LINK AREA _r
- DON’T LOCATE IT NEXT TG A FIRE STATION
- DON’T LOCATE IT NEAR A SCHOOL
- MAKE SURE THE SlTE IS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE (ARE THERE ENOUGH ROOFTOPS TO SUPPORT IT?)
- DON’T PUT IT AT A LESS THAN FULL INTERSECTION .>
- NO MORE THAN A THREE MILE DRIVE FOR MOST HOMES OWNERS
NOTE: A LOT OF OUR CURRENT GROCERY STORE SHOPPING IS BEING DONE AT THE FLOWER FIELDS COSTCO MANY MILES AWAY FROM CALAVERA HILLS
- A WELL LAID OUT SHOPPING SITE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SITE WHOSE TRAVEL DISTANCE THAT IS TWO TO THREE MILES AWAY
NOTE: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THE SHOPPING SITE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO NOT CREATE ANY MAJOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ISSUES
- THE SITE SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
. NOTE: THIS MAY RULE OUT SITES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL THATARENEXTTORIVERBEDSORTHATAREIN lOOYEAR FLOOD PLAINS)
- THE SITE SELECTED SHOULD BE EVALUATED BASED UPON POPULATION PATTERNS AT BUILD OUT
- THE SITE SELECTED SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES
2
E. TRAFFIC CRITERIA FOR THE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
- LOCATE IT ALONG A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMINO REAL)
- LOCATE IT ON A MAJOR ROAD (SUCH AS EL CAMINO REAL) SO
- THAT THE LARGEST NUMBER OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTS WILL BE SERVED
- DON’T CREATE ANY SCHOOL CHILDREN TRAFFIC HAZARDS
- DON’T CREATE ANY CITY PARK SITE /RECREATION SITE / PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS
- DON’T CREATE TRAFFIC VOLUME PROBLEMS
- DON’T PUT IT AT A LESS THAN FULL INTERSECTION (SUCH AS A “T” INTERSECTION WHICH DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT THROUGH TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION)
- KEEP TRAFFIC WHICH STARTS ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD
NOTE: WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE TRAFFIC FLOW ALONG FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO REMAIN ON COLLEGE BOULEVARD AS THE TRAFFIC DRIVES ALONG FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD FROM OCEANSIDE TO EL CAMINO REAL
- DON’T PUT IT ON A SITE WHICH WILL CREATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROBLEMS
- DON’T PUT IT ON A SITE WHICH WILL HAVE SITE ENTRANCE AND EGRESS PROBLEMS
F.. TIMING FOR THE NEW LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER SITE
- TAKE YOUR TIME
- THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE SHOPPING FOR THE NEXT 2-3 YEARS
- CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF EACH SITE BEFORE MAKING A SELECTION
NOTE: WE THINK EACH SITE SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY EVALUATED AND JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS SO THAT ONLY THE BEST SITE IS SELECTED
- CONSIDER ALL THE ALTERNATIVES (SUCH AS ADJACENT SITES ALONG THE 78 FREEWAY [STONE QUARRY, ETC.] WHEN COLLEGE BOULEVARD IS OPENED TO THE 78 FREEWAY)
- MAKE A GOOD DECISION
3
G. SUMMARY
.-
- WHEN THE FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD IS COMPLETED FROM OCEANSIDE TO EL CAMINO REAL, THE RESIDENTS OF CALAVERA HILLS WILL HAVE ADEQUATE SHOPPING FOR GROCERIES, MEDICINE, AND GAS LESS THAT A MILE AND ONE HALF AWAY:
- In Carlsbad at the Sunny Creek commercial site at Future College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
- In C$sbad at other commercial sites along El Camino Real
- In Carlsbad at the major commercial developments planned for the South Coast Asphalt Plant / Stone Quarry property.
- In Oceanside at commercial sites along the 78 Freeway
- AS THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE AWARE, THE AREA SURROUNDING CALAVERAS PARK IS 100% RESIDENTIAL OR NATURAL HABITAT AREA.
- AT THE SKATE BOARD PARK HEARINGS ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, THE CITIZENS IN THE CALAVERA PARK AREA INDICATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEIR DESIRE THAT THIS AREA RETAIN ITS QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT.
- WE HOPE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KEEP THIS DESIRE IN MIND WHEN DECIDING WHICH NEW COMMERCIAL SITE IS BEST FOR THE N.E. QUADRANT.
- WE HOPE YOU MAKE A GOOD REASONED DECISION!
CALAVERA HILLS
Homeowners
Homebvners at Calavera Hills Carl&ad, California 92008
June 27, 1999
Mayor Bud Lewis Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilwoman Ramona Fin&la Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Matt Hall Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Via U.S. Mail
rc‘ Re: E-l ProDerty in Calavera Hills
Dear Mayor and City Council:
After very careful consideration, we the undersigned homeowners in Calavera Hills do hereby request that the Carlsbad City Council, along with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, consider:
(1) Adding the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process as a Residential Use Property.
or
(2) Changing the land use designation for the Village E-l Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential.
The reasons for this request are considerable and include the following:
The location of the E-l property directly adjacent to a major habitat link in the City’s Planned Habitat Area to the north of E-l (Village K) may make the current commercial zoning for E- 1 inappropriate.
--
Because a major portion of the customer drawing area for the E-l property includes the City of Carlsbad Open Space near Lake Calavera and around Calavera Mountain, we also do not believe that the E-l-property is economically viable as a commercial site.
In the consideration of adding the E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment, we would hope that the following uses be considered for the E-l site:
Residential Housing (RMH)
Senior Citizen Assisted Living
Some Other Appropriate Residential Use
We also believe that either residential housing (RMH) or some form of senior citizen assisted living would be highly compatible with the uses of Calavera Park and the City Habitat Open Space Zones to the north (Village K) of the Village E-l property.
As the Mayor and City Council Members are aware the area surrounding Calavera Park is nearly 100% residential. At the Skate Board Park Hearings about 18 months ago, the citizens in the area of Calavera Park indicated to the Council that they preferred that this area retain its quiet, peaceful, neighborhood and family environment. This would include residents from the five residential areas near Calavera Park (The Crest, The Villas, The Trails, The Cape, and The Colony).
We believe that the City Council has the direct authority to add the Village E-l property to the Calavera Hills Master Plan amendment because the City may initiate master plan amendments according to Sections 21.38.120 (b) and 21.38.130 (b) of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (a copy of which is attached to this request).
We thank the council ahead of time for considering this request to include the Village E-l property as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Process or to consider changing the land use designation for the Village E- 1 Property in Calavera Hills from Commercial to Residential.
Sincerely, .
Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan 2988 Ridgefield Avenue 2988 Ridgefield Avenue Bemice Hill 2984 Ridgefield Avenue
r-- Caroline Prescott Pam Paterson Gordon French 4669 Woodstock Street The Colony 29 13 Lancaster Road
//9
Ray McNay 2905 Lancaster Road
Sally Hannon The Crest
Marline Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle
Mary McNay 2905 Lancaster Road
Joan Arcelle 4337 Hartfield Place
Sandi Ray 2959 Cape Cod Circle
Robert Seamans 2921 Lancaster Road
Jim Hope 4558 Cape Cod Circle Hugh McGrane 4560 Cape Cod Circle
Jay Tank 4656 Woodstock Street Terry McGrane 4560 Cape Cod Circle
Sandy Stamper 2962 Lancaster Road Julie Richter 2958 Lancaster Road
Patricia Harper 2992 Brandon Circle
Richard A. Reck 4534 Hartford Place
Linda Tank 4656 Woodstock Street Richard L. Harper 2992 Brandon Circle Billie Jo Kelly 2984 Woodbury Court
Debra Nelson Eulana Bastone 2986 Woodbury Court 3002 Brandon Circle Thomas Connors 2979 Woodbury Court
Judith Dianne Westfall 2987 Woodbury Court Robertson Curtice 2989 Woodbury Court Laurie Curtice 2989 Woodbury Court
Beverly Seamans 2921 Lancaster Court Vera M. Theiss Susan Stillwell
2974 Ridgefield Avenue 2976 Ridgefield Avenue
Joan Warner 2960 Lexington Circle Thomas Nash 2978 Ridgefield Avenue
Jill Nash
2978 Ridgefield Avenue
Janet Gosselin
4554 Cape Cod Circle
Doreen Bergeron 4556 Cape Cod Circle
Randy Bergeron
4556 Cape Cod Circle
Michelle Regan
2957 Cape Cod Circle
cc: Ray Patchette - City Manager Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Calavera Hills Development, L. P. (Current E- 1 Property Owner) Calavera Hills II, LLC (A Subsidiary of McMillan Properties)
Calavera Hills Homeowner
Warren & Doris Jenks
4548 Cape Cod Circle
Carlsbad CA 92008-6549
760-729-2 113
To: City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Re: Local Shopping Center Designation Qualifications
We strongly agree with Tom Flanagan’s letter bf September 10,200O. We feel that 2.5
miles to a local shopping center is realistic. In a previous home we were 3 miles from two different shopping centers & it was very convenient.
We like larger shopping centers of approximately 14 to 20 acres where we can drive in
from the main road, park & choose which commercial part of the center we need that day.
The property should be large enough to have a green landscape on the street side. 9
Site selection should consider the land use adjacent to the shopping center. It should not
create ingress & egress problems.
We would like a large shopping center on El Camino Real within the 2.5 - 3 mile range of
the Cape of Calavera Hills. We also suggest counting the McMillan Stone Quarry
Shopping Center as an area to serve Calavera Hills.
We do prefer that no day care center be placed in the E-2 area north of the Cape of
Calavera Hills. We definitely prefer residential use only.
Thank you for your consideration.
Warren B . Jenks & Doris R. Jenks
n
- \ r W -1. -I - . I / f‘
e bd
/uZem6ersI .- l
J
.
James & Marilyn Hope
4558 Cape Cod Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549
. December 03, 2000
City of Carlsbad *
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue Attn: Dennis Turner - Senior Planner i
RE: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan .
Dear Mr. Turner:
We feel the amendment regarding local shopping centers is a good a place as
any to start with. With the excellent work you have done with the City Council, ..~
the Planning staff and the Citizens of Carlsbad workshops held on this subject,
we have high regards for you and know you would like to keep Carlsbad a great
place to live.
As many citizens have asked that w keep Carlsbad from becoming like nearby
cities and as Council member Matt Hall has stated that he would try to keep the
strip malls out of Carlsbad. If we could have larger local shopping centers,
(ideal depth is 1,000 feet or more) rather than more little ones - it would benefit
everyone. We shop on our way home from work, or during the lunch hour - like
most working families do. Smaller local shopping centers would only deter great
anchor tenants with needed secondary tenants. Driving 3-5 miles on the
weekends to the supermarkets is not a problem for anyone that I have talked to.
The driving time would be, at the most 10 minutes.
But we strongly feel that allowing big box stores as secondary tenants should
not be included as listed on page 15 of the Proposed General Plan Amendment
(such as K-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Staples, Office Depot, Wal-Mart, Comp
USA, Good Guys, Toy R Us, Big Five and etc.) During one of the workshops, the
Citizens of Carlsbad and the City of Carl&ad had discussed that there was a strong desire to keep the big box stores out of Catlsbad.
The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage medium
sized local shopping centers with 12 to 14 acres sites rather small local shopping centers with 8 to 10 acres site as was expressed in the workshops. Medium
local shopping centers would serve a little larger primary trade area and would
look less like strip malls and the traffic flow would be better.
James & Marilyn Hope
4558 Cape Cod Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549
We also think the City of Carlsbad has to look into a community park with pool
. facilities. We do not have an adequate community park to hold Company Picnics, Family Reunions and other events with pool facilities. This is a great
need for us and will serve all of Carlsbad.
We need to do something with the parking on Glasgow at Calavera Hills Park
before someone gets hurt or even killed. There is absolutely no adequate
parking for any large event. The overflow of parking is coming into our
community streets and God forbid if we need an ambulance or fire truck - they
could not reach us. .
We would like to thank the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and the City
Council ahead of time for considering our suggestions to the General Plan and
we look forward working with you on the Proposed Local Shopping Plan.
Sincerely,
.’ . . -, ,. ., :
_ RECE;dED : : : ,’ I ., .
e @bi .
Secretarial Services
(30yn.Exec.SccrctarialExperience) . . . : December 2,200O :’ : . ‘. ..’ > / -; . . ,. .’ - . .
TO: ALL PLANNING DEPA&MENT CGMMISSIONEBS ,. -.,
. : I- V. .;;: . ’ -:-, ,.I ,,. ,,.a ,.‘.. ;- ,. . . RE: NEW C.OMMERCIAL POLICIES/hNIi USE DESIGNATIOtiS ’ ::.. .: _I. Case File: GPA 00-04 ’ ‘. ., ! _, 1 -‘~ -. .. ’ ., :
. : . I .,. .: ‘.i .’ .: “, ; ., ., ., -_, ‘. - _- _’ ., (.‘._ ., ;
Dear Co~issioners: -. A -,.“. .- . . ._ ., : 1 ., , , -,I ; ; : j- . I-. _ - . . ., ; _ _, /- y,_ ; >_ ;; ?,; -,.:.,,- ,_’ .‘.‘,I .. ~,:
I would like to reiterate’, .t.hat I fully &end&se and support all the specific “a& ‘general y:-‘: I‘.. : :.-
comments as written in Tom .&. Joan Flanagan’s letter to’ Dennis” Turner .dat&l 9(10/o@ :..’ ‘. .. ‘..
relative to the General Plan Amendment 2 Land Use Element redefining‘ Shopping- Centers. - ‘. .’ I. ._ _ ._. * ,’ . . : _. , ,:... I,.I,.. r‘ i . . . ~. . ; ,. ‘, ,~ >.f , ._ ._‘_._, .- .._) -’ :
1 st,mngly feei the prop&& ‘1.5 &e p&G’ &de wea & &&& & r&&&. ” Ai &&& ’ .-.,: ;.:.<fe.: -“I
center every 1.5 miles divides and cuts into our quiet neighborhood‘ areas disruptin and Ii%..” : :-
destroying our peaceful ambiance. f Many of us commute full distance to our jobs Al ..*ving ’ . . . ..,__ ,:* on ‘the busy freeways ‘evety day & look forward to returning home ’ into our peaceful , .,I-- ‘- ‘:-
neighborhoods at the end of a stressful .day. -: A driving time of 7 -.‘lb minutes’ to ‘a’service 1’: ‘,.‘.).-,:.. * -
trade area within a 2.5 miles -radius would still be adequate, jl ‘while ~maimaining ~. a ’ :’ “1:;; : _ ”
neighborhood balance at --the .~-same time.‘ .: When the Stone Quarry site .- completes .;.$ :.i r: “‘, : development of their Shopping C&ter, -Calavera Hills residents v&l1 have less’ *than -‘a ‘mile -) ::a- j .;I’ -. to drive for all kinds of services, groceries & sundry items which tiould elimii&e any ‘need ‘. I 1’ j for a shopping qenter iq “s area. 1 ,) ‘, ..I, ,.‘. ‘., ,: . , _ _ 3_ .; :.- :, . ; : ’ .I ~ :: - -., .’ , ,.. -,-_ , ,,; :+‘ I::_i: :,. -, :I :., ,_ -,;:. ;,l. ,: ,._ : ..., -_
.’ As mentioned in the ‘Flanagan’s letter, ~a.new shopping center site should.co&ler the safe& ‘, J -,. -2 ‘,,, ‘.‘..’ hazard of children walking to and from school areas; emergency response time “of the Fire j’/ -: :!,
Station located next to the Calavera ~Community Park; protection of om City Habitat areas; . : : f ., ._ and, limited parking facilities at the Calavera Community Park continues to become a major ’ ,: ‘T problem as development expands. .” . ‘-: : . ,.-,‘. : _.’ . . .- .1. _-. i- _, .:- -, *. ~’ * /. - .;: ;I
Department-
.’ ,: : __ .’ ~~,..~,,~~ !, ,’ :A; T,‘; -1 :<f :.:‘,.;.. -;-;,,: :. ~. -cl:? :, ,,:,
., .<.
I *ant to thank the Planning ~-’ ” ;’
Staff for holding these. public hearings’ and ‘g&g’ .. ‘. me the opportunity to express. my feelings and comments concerning this subject. t Your .-I”, dedication. and efforts in keeping Carlsbad, .a friendly and quiet village that we all enjoy ‘. .’ ”
is genuinely appreciated, :.. ‘. ._ .., _., .- .’ ~.;’ ‘. ; : ,.-. _~ -. 1 -,.. _-,,
Sincerely, - : : : . .-, ., ‘. -‘,;r’:,:. ..,,:. .‘.., ‘- %; ::.,.-:.-:...::‘.,.~;~l.:,,: :-., .;.I
1 . :
2984 Ridgefield Avenue : ., :; -. . ,.., .. -‘. .., . - .. . Carlsbad, CA 92008 .,l ..’ ‘,:. : . . :-:.. :. “, .,- ‘I ‘. ,- -’ !. : ,. \:, -.: : I ,. <’ ._ , :.-, . ..’ :’
Zh ‘t Deb+. &ad %Ve %ukq/ (619) ?ZO-OM6 - .’ j 2 7 .; ‘.
Joan P. Arcelle
4537 Hartford Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
December I,2000
This letter is in regard to the proposed local centers.
I am a resident of The Cape at Calavera Hills and have great concern for the proposed
shopping center being planned for the property on Carlsbad Wage Drive and Glasgow,
which is in the middle ofour neighborhood. TrafIic and parking is already a problem
because of the Calaveras Park on Glasgow, and the shopping center would just add to
that.
I understand the access and egress will be a problem, because of the configuration of the
streets. Glasgow is a narrow street that allows only enough room for traEc in each
direction. Because of the increased trafhc that the shopping center will attract, a turning
lane would be necessary and there is not enough room -5 .‘.
I also fear it will become a hangout for children and young adults as the park already
attracts youths from all areas.
Lastly but certainly an all-important one is the safety of our children walking to and fkom school, With the increase in trafiic the children will be at a greater risk of injury or
worse.
Thank you for considering my opinion, a very concerned citizen.
Sincerely,
B
-B cz-,d
oan P. Arcelle
UJ -r”Y ILBERTSOSS ._ -. -_ 5002
6565 Knon Avenue
Buena Park CA 9-20-l 158
Phone: (714) 739-7852
Fax: (714) 739-7409
Albenson’s Real Emte Dcpanmm
Jeff Dierck - Sr. Rcai &tare Manag:
Southern Califomtr Rcgon
November 28,200O
i
.
The Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
FAX: 760-602-8559
(w/Original to Follow)
Re: Commercial Land Use Amendment
To Whom This May Concern:
As you may know, Albertson’s has been attempting to secure a site in North Carisbad
along El Camino Real for over ten years, without success. We are not interested in the
commercial sites in Calavera Hills nor in Sunny Creek, since each of these sites is
poorly located in relationship to the population.
Our business is a convenience business where we need to be near our customers.
This is especially true with dual income and single parent famiiies where time is at a
premium. While we had hoped for a site at the southeast comer of Tamarack and El
Camino Real, community concern about that site has led us to the conciusion that we
should consider an alternate location. However, we do need to be located on El
Camino Real in the center of the population we serve, so that our customers, most of
whom are OA El Camino Real at some point in time during each day, can convenientiy
shop at our store. Wii all the housing in Calavera Hills, both existing and planned, the
housing planned for the Robertson Ranch, the Kelly Ranch, and other planned
developments in the northeast quadrant, not to mention all the existing surrounding
housing, we believe it is very important for us to be located somewhere between
Cannon Road and Tamarack Avenue, on El Camino Real.
We have identified a potential alternative site mid-way between Cannon and Tamarack
at the corner of El Camino Real and the main entry street planned for the Robertson
Ranch. We expect this entry street to ultimately have access to Glasgow in Calavera
-- -.I ..A -* “J -rvy >iijE&TSo>s- __---- --- __---- --_----
Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad
November 28,200O
Page Two
Hills,” which could remove the need for many customers who live in Calavera Hills to
continue on El Camino Real into the very busy Tamarack intersection. We believe this
.alternative location addresses the concerns of the local community about our proposed
Tamarack project.
We also want to provide the Planning Commission with assurances that our sales
studies show an ovennrhelming demand for a supermarket in Carlsbad in the general
vicinity of the Robertson Ranch. We are also working on a site in Oceanside at College
and Marron (as a relocation for our existing Oceanside store). We believe that the
Robertson Ranch and the new Oceanside sites will both be excellent locations for us.
They are not mutually exclusive; we b&eve that we need both sites in order to.
adequately serve the trade areas which we are trying to service. While some citizens
may believe that both sites are not “needed” our sales studies show the opposite. We
have no incentive to incur the considerable expense to process and build two locations,
if only one is actually necessary. We believe the people of northeast Carlsbad deserve
to have the convenient service of a modem supermarket available to them without
having to drive the extra distance on city streets to our other proposed store in
Oceanside, or to the Vons at Marron and El Camino Real, which is already highly
congested.
Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the City Planning Commission
delete from its recommendation to the City Council a prohibition of a new neighborhood
shopping center site on El Camino Real. While some residents might feel that such
deletion is appropriate, we hope the planning professionals at the City will be mindful of
the long term interests of those who have yet to move into the City.
JD:pI?l/PlanningCommissionCadsbad.doc
eNov-28-00 04:SlP . P-01
JAMES M, HICKS
LAND SALES
TO: Mr. Dennis Turner
DATE: November 28,200O
FAX # (760) 602-8559
PHONE #
PAGES WITH COVER SHEEP 5
Dear Dennis:
The attached material is being sent to your attention on behalf of
the Robertson family. As you know, they have been actively involved
over the past 17 years in attempting to locate a neighborhood
shopping center on their El Camino Real frontage.
We thought we would provide the Commissioners with some history
on commercial interest in the area as well as some back-up
information on what is planned and what has been developed along
El Camfno Real throughout the entire city limits.
I am not familiar wlth the procedure, but I was hoping a copy of this
fetter could be provided to the Commissioners prior to the meeting
of December 6, 2000 which I will be attending and where I plan to
speak before the Commissioners.
A copy has been provlded to Gary Wayne.
Your cooperation in thls matter would be greatly appreciated.
Jim Hicks
Sl50 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 438-2017 (760) 438-4048 FAX
100 WEST LIBERTY ST. SUITE 820 RENO, NV 89501 (775) 3294000 (775) 3298526 FAX
jhlcks@nalweb.com
.Nov-28-00 04:62P b
P-02
Mr. Bill Compas Whair
CU~YO~;CAKLS~AD
Planning (Iommission
1200 Carlsbad Village IIrive
Carlshad. CA 92008
Rc: Cast File GPA 00-04
Dear Mr. Compas: November 28, X00
Early in 1983 I was approached by Mr. Jim Gaubc who at the time, was the head of the
Real Estate IXvision of Safcway Stores, According to Jim, they felt they nccdcd to
relocate to the east alon Tamarack Avenue because the existing location would not
allow them to expand. At the time they felt the SEC ol’E1 C:amino Real and Tamarack
Avenue would be an excellenl localion fi)r their new store.
On June 27, 1984 the I~ebcrtson family submitted a rcqucst for a prc-anncxational zone
change and gcncnl plan amendment before the (:arlsbad Planning Commission to change
the zoning and the gcncral plan to accommodale a commercial use. The planning staff
supported the applicant. ‘I’he Planning Commission unanimously approved the request.
Unfortunately, the planning commission approval was ovcrturncd by the CYity CYounciI on
August 21, 1984 and the proposed new Safcway store was ncvcr builr.
At a public heating on March 3, 1987 the Carlsbad City Council approved the “C&bad
county Islands Annexalion”. The Lily zoning that was placed on the Robertson property
at the time was IX. which was described as a “holding xonc”.
In 19W the Robertson family entered into an ageement to lease a portion of the their
land at the SItC of El Clamino Real and Tamarack Avcnuc (approx. I9 acres) to a
commercial developer. A de plan was prepared which included a major market (Ralphs)
and a drug store (Payless), The approval of the site plan would also require a zone change
and gcricral plan amendment.
During the application process, a pcrition was prcparcd, acknowlcdgod by several
residents of the City ofCarlsbad and presented to the City Clerk asking rhc City “to reject
the abavc proposal, and any similar commercial development proposed in the future for
the above property”. ..(SE(.Y El CYamino Real c1 Tatnarack Avenue). . -and that the City
01’ Carlsbad retdin the current zoning of 1.X Limited Clontrol Zone.. . . . ..I’ I’he concerns
cxprcsscd by some of the residents as well as the market conditions at t.he time required
Ihe developer to withdraw its application in 199 I,
In November of 1995, the Robertson family entered into an agreement with GrantTuckcr
Yropcrties 10 lease approximately X acres of their property at the SEC: of El Gmino Kcal
and Tamarack Avcnrrc with Albertsons Market as the major tenant, Hccause of the
previous conwrns expressed by some ol’ the neiyhbors, the size oi’ the c-enter was #redly
reduced. Howcvcr, anticipating that a reduction of the proposed center from I9 acres LO 8
.Nov-28-00 04:SZP
*. a P-03
acres was insufficient to placate the ncighbors regarding the land USC, an altcmatc site for
the ncighborhood shopping center has now been localed al Ihe SEC of El Catnino Real,
across from the existing cotnmercia.l zoning where the Country Store is located.
As you know, all existing ncighborhood shopping center sites in the City of Carlsbad arc
located cithcr on Interstate 5 or t-I Camino Real. There is a simple reason fi)r this. These
roads arc dcsigncd to handle large volumes of trdt’tic.
The completion of Keach II of Cannon Road will relieve pressure from several major
interseclians along 1-S and Et Camino Kcal. It will also provide Carlsbad residents, and
others, with an opportunity to cxit Cannon Road and I-S and make a direct conncc;ion
with 111 Camino Keal. Most of this trafIic will continue alorlg Cannon Road cast through
the Rober~n Ranch 10 College Avenue or continue north on LI Camino Real along lhe
Robertson Ranch frontage up to Tamarack Avcnuc and Chestnut Drive. A ncighborhood
shopping cenler localion on I3 Camino Real in the Kobertson Ranch would fit in very
nicely with thcsc traffic patterns.
Under the Tmplementing Policies and Action Programs, Section C2. Paragraph 5 states
that “Xew sites for local shonniny caters shqwot be located alone LI Cw ,, 1 .
Heal, so YS to minimize the commerciali;talion of this scenic road~w”.
All of the exposure the Robtison f&My has had over the last t 7 years with commercial
developers and Ore major markels has shown a prcfcrcncc to locate on HI Camino Keal.
11 is the moat imponant nonh-south. major arterial in the City ol’C:arlsbad designed to
carry large volumes OC lraiiic. To climinatc the possibility of locatiny a nei$borhood
shopping center on I4 Camino Real would not. be. in our estimation, a wise decision for
the Planning Commission to make at this time.
Approximately one year ago. I provided the City Council and the planning staff with a
summa.ry of land ~JSCS along l-4 Camins Real throughout the e&e city lirrrils. A copy 01
that letter is attached. As you can see, thin heavily travclcd road has only about 10% of its
land use dedicated Lo commercial prqjects, over 60% of this commercial ironing on El
Camino Real is located either at Marron Road or La Costa Avenue and, 00% of these
projects have already been developed. I don’t believe these ligures indicate B trend
toward the commercialisation of El Camino Real.
‘t’his Planning Commission and all future Planniny Commissions should have the
discretion of approving neighborhood shopping centers on El Camino Real based upon
the merits thf’the site and the benelits they will provide lo the citizenry. I believe it is best
LO rovicw lhc project lirst, then make your decision.
~Cornmission Members
-Nov-28-00 04:SZP
: .
October 4 1999 ?
P-04
Mr. Dennis Turner
Advance Principal Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 32008
ke: Commercial Land Study
Dear Dennis:
Over this last weekend I calculated the road liintage along both sides of El Cilmino Real within the
city limits of the City of Carlsbad. While I am sure my ligurcs are not entirely accurate, it did puint
out some interesting facts regarding commercial zoning along El Camino Real.
From what 1 was able to deterrninc, there arc approximately 102,000 Iinear feet of fiontagc on both
sides of’ El Camino Real. Of this amount, only 9500 feet (9.31% of the total) is zoned for retail
commercial USC and 92.6% of that total has already been developed. The only cxccption is the
Sunny Creek site.
It is interesting to note that over CiO% ol’ the retail commercially zoned property in the Cily of
C&bad on El Camixlo Real is localed at the intersections ol’E1 Camino Real with La Costa Avenue
and A4vlarron Road. Further, 60% of the land zoned for retail commercial use on El C’umino Real
f&es retail commercial frantage on lhe other side of the street so, rhc visual impact is sigtlifcantly
less.
As to olhcr land uses that tiont El Casino Real in the City of &&bad, there are1 750 l&t of office
allocation a\ Ihe north end of lnwn which consists of only 1.71% of the total frontage. Interestingly,
there is almost as much industrially-zoned land that fronts El Camino Rtal as commercial. When
the l,JA (Unplanned Areas) ofThc Brcssi Ranch and the Fox Property are developed, the industrial
fruntagc on Ef Carnino Real ti exceed that of commercial.
In summary about 3Q!& of the land that fronts El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad is zoned for
open space, rcsidcntial or governmental uses (Palomar Airpori, a small percentage of the total).
From what I have been able to determine, the Tamarack site and the Alternate site on the Robertson
Ranch are the only two possible locations for retail commercial zoning consideration on El Camino
Real. If either of these sites were approved for neighborhood commercial, it would only increase the
retail commercial zoning E&rage on El Camino Rtal by one percentage point increasing the amount
from 93 1% of the rota1 ro 10.29% which would still be less than the potential industrial uses.
,Nov-28-00 04:53P
+, c P-05
It shoutd also be pointed out that the Alternate site would be located across from existing
cornrnercial zoniny along El Casino Red (The Country Stow).
1 believe these to be intcrcsting figuics that should be provided to the council members when
addressing the subject olrctai1 commercial zoning along EI Camino Real. In park&r, the location
of the Alternate site, which would visually not necessatiIy increase commercial zoning along El
Camino Real, but compIement tistiag zoning (The Country Store).
In summary, from a planning point of view, if there is a need for additional retail commcroial zoning
in the northeast quadrant of the City and, if the planning staff feels the Tamarack site or the Altomate
site are best suited to meet that need, then the impact on El Camino Real frontage is quite negligible.
This is a small price to pay for the right location.
Please call if you have my questions.
Regards,
c--~
/35-
0 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
November 28,200O
L.7 ,.
‘,,. .A *, .- .1_
“:< ,. ; ,/‘.,,;;y
-L---
The Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
c/o Gary Wayne
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: GPA OO-04/LCPA 00-06
Shopping Center Policies
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Grant Tucker Properties (“GTP’) is a developer of neighborhood shopping centers,
including the soon to be redeveloped La Costa Plaza in Carlsbad, California. GTP has
also proposed developing a neighborhood shopping center in the northeast quadrant of
Carlsbad on the Robertson Ranch. Accordingly, we have been carefully following the
proposed modification to shopping center policies which is being considered by the City
at this point. By way of letter to Dennis Turner of September 13,2000, we set forth
several comments on the text of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. According to Dennis, most of the changes which we proposed were found
to be appropriate and acceptable, however, the staff declined our request for the deletion
of Paragraph C5.
Paragraph CS, which appears under the heading “Implementing Policies and Action
Programs” states (at page 32 of our draft), “New sites for local shopping centers should
not be located along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this
scenic roadway.” Implementing Policy C4 suggests that local shopping centers should
not be located directly within residential neighborhoods. Implementing Policies C4 and
C5 effectively mean that there will be no new neighborhood shopping center on the
Robertson Ranch. This policy direction, when coupled with the proposed deletion of the
commercial site in Calavera Hills, and the fact that there is probably a marketplace reason
why the Sunny Creek site has been long delayed, could result in no new neighborhood
shopping centers in the northeast quadrant of the City, despite a very significant increase
in residential housing proposed for that area.
One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com
The Planning Commission
November 28,200O
Page 2
We hope the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council against a prohibition
of new supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping centers along El Camino Real, for
the following reasons:
1. The purpose of a supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping center is to
conveniently service the needs of those nearby for basic necessities. Accordingly,
they should be optimally located on streets where significant average daily trips
already exist. This allows the public to combine vehicle trips, and visit shopping
locations on their way to and from other locations. El Camino Real is the main
north-south road through the center of the City.
2. Please note in the proposed changes to the Land Use Element (which includes the
new policies referred to above), the deletion of an existing policy which states, “3.
Locate neighborhood commercial sites generally one mile apart and an optimal
distance fi-om other commercial centers.” The existing General Plan, and the Master
Environmental Impact Report which supported the update of General Plan in 1994,
contemplates the strategic location of neighborhood commercial sites in order to cut
down drive times (and congestion).
3. GTP initially proposed a site on the Robertson Ranch at the southeast comer of
Tamarack and El Camino Real. Due to community concerns, we have reconsidered
this proposal. Instead, an alternative site has been proposed on the Robertson Ranch
along El Camino Real which is across from the southern end of the commercially
zoned Country Store area.
4. The effort to keep El Camino Real as scenic as possible is already reflected in the
sizeable setback (60’) which is required before development can occur on the
Robertson Ranch along El Camino Real, south of the Country Store. Due to many
requests by the City for a significant wildlife corridor, road rights-of-way (most
notably Cannon and College), a park, a school and a detention basin, the 1,000 plus
housing units allowed on the Robertson Ranch under the existing General Plan will
cover most of the remainder of the Ranch. We submit that the back of even well-
designed housing is not necessarily more scenic than a well-designed, screened
shopping center.
5. We agree that unnecessary “commercialization” of El Camino Real would be a
mistake. There is no ne+ for of&e/industrial uses nor strip commercial in this
The Planning Commission
November 28,200O
Page 3
area; it can locate elsewhere without inconvenience to the neighbors. However, a
supermarket-anchored modestly sized neighborhood shopping center, with the
City’s stringent Site Development Plan standards, would serve a true need in the
northeast quadrant and shouldn’t be precluded. The SDP standards and the need for
a shopping center permit, which appear to us to be far more restrictive than the
standards for new housing in the City, could actually promote a more “scenic” El
Camino Real than tract housing.
6. McMillan Development is in the final stages of the original build out of Calavera
Hills (f 480 homes) and now is seeking a Master Plan Amendment in the northeast
quadrant for an additional 700 plus homes. The Kelly Ranch has nearly as many
housing units as are proposed for the Master Plan Amendment being sought by
McMillan. The Robertson Ranch and other housing planned for the northeast
quadrant will add another f 2,000 units. Where will all of these future residents
shop? In an area where peak hour drive times are already an increasing concern, a
restriction which prohibits a new supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping
center on El Camino Real near to residents should be seriously scrutinized.
Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the policy which precludes a new
supermarket-anchored neighborhood shopping center along El Camino Real be deleted
(revised) from the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element. If the proposed
prohibition of new commercial along El Camino excludes supermarket-anchored
neighborhood shopping centers, we would have no objection.
Very truly yours,
Grant Tucker Properties
By: 3 77
Larry Tucker
LT/bem
cc: Dennis Turner
Virginia Robertson
Jim Hicks
138
11/28/00 15:58 FAX 714 739 7499 - .__.- -- ALBERTSOPS --. ,--_ -- -L.-- L -. - ___, _.,_ ._ --. ..- .-- -. Ml002
A
6565 Knot& Avenue
Buena Park, CA 90620-I 158
phone: (714) 739-7852
Fax: (714) 739-7409
Al~rtson’s Real Estate DcpzdQncnt
Jeff Died - St. Red @state Man~gcr
Southern California Redon
November 28,200O
FAX: 760-602-8559
(w/Original to Follow)
The Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Commercial Land Use Amendment
To Morn This May Concern:
As you may know, Albertson’s has been attempting to secure a site in North Carlsbad
along El Camino Real for over ten years, without success. We are not interested in the
commercial sites in Calavera Hills nor in Sunny Creek, since each of these sites is
poorly located in relationship to the population.
Our business is a convenience business where we need to be near our customers.
This is especially true with dual income and single parent families where time is at a
premium. While we had hoped for a site at the southeast comer of Tamarack and El
Camino Real, community concern about that site has led us to the conclusion that we
should consider an alternate location. However, we do need to be located on El
Camino Real in the center of the population we serve, so that our customers, most of
. whom are on El Camino Real at some point in time during each day, can conveniently
shop at our store. With all the housing in Calavera Hills, both existing and planned, the
housing planned for the Robertson Ranch, the Kelly Ranch, and other planned
developments in the northeast quadrant, not to mention all the existing surrounding
housing, we believe it is very important for us to be located somewhere between
Cannon Road and Tamarack Avenue, on El Camino Real.
We have identified a potential alternative site mid-way between Cannon and Tamarack
at the corner of El Camino Real and the main entry street planned for the Robertson
Ranch. We expect this entry street to ultimately have access to Glasgow in Calavera
139
11/28/00 15:58 FAX 714 739 7409 ALBERTSONS .--*-----.--'- ----.- ___ _----.--.- la003
Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad
November 28,200O
Page Two
Hills, which could remove the need for many customers who live in Calavera l-tills to
continue on El Camino Real into the very busy Tamarack intersection. We believe this
alternative location addresses the concerns of the local community about our proposed
Tamarack project.
We also want to provide the Planning Commission with assurances that our sales
studies show an overwhelming demand for a supermarket in Carlsbad in the general
vicinity of the Robertson Ranch. We are also working on a site in Oceanside at College
and Marron (as a relocation for our existing Oceanside store). We believe that the
Robertson Ranch and the new Oceanside sites will both be excellent locations for us.
They are not mutually exclusive; we believe that we need both sites in order to
adequately serve the trade areas which we are trying to service. While some citizens
may believe that both sites are not “needed” our sales studies show the opposite. We
have no incentive to incur the considerable expense to process and build two locations,
if only one is actually necessary. We believe the people of northeast Carlsbad deserve
to have the convenient service of a modern supermarket available to them without
having to drive the extra distance on city streets to our other proposed store in
Oceanside, or to the Vons at Marron and El Camino Real, which is already highly
congested.
Based upon the above, we respectfully request that the City Planning Commission
delete from its recommendation to the City Council a prohibition of a new neighborhood
shopping center site on El Camino Real. While some residents might feel that such
deletion is appropriate, we hope the planning professionals at the City will be mindful of
the long term interests of those who have yet to move into the City.
. JAM6M. HICKS
LANDSALES
October 4,1999
Mr. Dennis Turner
Advance Principal Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 El Camino Real
Carlshad, CA 92008
Re: Commercial Land Study
Dear Dennis:
Over this last weekend I calculated the road frontage along both sides ofE1 Camino Real within the
city limits of the City of Carlsbad. While I am sure my figures are not entirely accurate, it did point
out some interesting facts regarding commercial zoning along El Camino Real.
From what I was able to determine, there are approximately 102,000 linear feet of frontage on both
sides of El Camino Real. Uf this amount, only 9500 feet (9.31% of the total) is zoned for retail
commercial use and 92.6% ofthat total has already been developed. The only exception is the Sunny
Creek site.
It is interesting to note that over 60% of the retail commercially zoned property in the City of
Carlsbad on El Camino Real is located at the intersections of El Camino Real with La Costa Avenue
and Marron Road. Further, 60% of the land zoned for retail commercial use on El Camino Real faces
retail commercial frontage on the other side of the street so, the visual impact is significantly less.
As to other land uses that front El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad, there are1 750 feet of office
allocation at the north end of town which consists of only 1.71% of the total frontage. Interestingly,
there is almost as much industrially-zoned land that fronts El Camino Real as commercial. When the
UA (Unplanned Areas) of The Bressi Ranch and the Fox Property are developed, the industrial
f?ontage on El Camino Real wil] exceed that of commercial.
In summary about 80% of the land that fronts El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad is zoned for
open space, residential or governmental uses (Palomar Airport, a small percentage of the total).
From what I have been able to determine, the Tamarack site and the Alternate site on the.Robertson
Ranch are the only two possible locations for retail commercial zoning consideration on El Camino
Real. If either of these sites were approved for neighborhood commercial, it would only increase the
retail commercial zoning frontage on El Camino Real by one percentage point increasing the amount
from 9.3 1% of the total to 10.29% which would still be less than the potential industrial uses.
5150AVENlDAENClNAS.CANSDAD,CA92008. (7&X438-2017. (760)4384048FAX
lOOWESTLlDERlYSTNl3~SUITE 82O.NNQ NV89501 . (775)3294000.(775)329-8526 FM Ml
It should also be pointed out that the Alternate site would be located across from existing commercial
zoning along El Camino Real (The Country Store).
I believe these to be interesting figures that should be provided to the council members when
addressing the subject of retail commercial zoning along El Camino Real. In particular, the location
of the Alternate site, which would visually not necessarily increase .commercial zoning along El
Camino Real, but complement existing zoning (The Country Store).
In summaxy, from a planning point ofview, ifthere is a need for additional retail commercial zoning
in the northeast quadrant of theCity and, ifthe planning staff feels the Tamarack site or the Alternate
site are best suited to meet that need, then the impact on El Camino Real frontage is quite negligible.
This is a small price to pay for the right location.
Please call if you have any questions.
3cr-d3-dww 1u: 34 P.81
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
Product Liability Consultant
2988 Ridgefield Avenue BUS (760) 729-2574 Carlsbad, California 92008 FAX (760) 729-7474
DATE:
To:
FIRM:
FAX NO.:
VOICE NO.:
FROM:
BE:
FM COVER SHEET
September 25,2OOO
OENNIS TURNER - SENIOR PLANNER
CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(760) 602-6559
(760) 6024609
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO COVER LOCAL SHOPPING CENTERS
TOTAL NUMBEROFPAGESFOR'~'HK~TRANSMTSSTON(TNCLUDINGCOVER SHEET): 6
IF THERE IS ANY DIFFlClJLTY WITH THIS TRANSMISSION OR ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, PlJlASE CALL (760) 729-2574.
‘I’IIE PAClZ!3 COMPFUSIlriG THIS FAW hl Ii .I E 1XAiWMISSION CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIW FROM THE OFFICES OF WIOMAS P. FLANAGAN. THlS INFORMATION IS INTFNIXI) SWtkY POOR l!SE BY THE ~YDIV~I~IJAL ENTITY kr’AMED AS THE RECI.PIEYT HEHWF. IF YOIJ ARE NOT THE INTENDED HWYIKNT. BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCIfiSLtW. I)Wl.I<:ATION. DI!XRLBUTION. OR USE OF THE CWiTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECW’EI) ‘I’llIS ‘I’WANSMISSION IN ERROR. I’IXASC: NOTIFY IJS BY TELEPHONE IMMEI)IA’I’EI .Y SO WE MAY ARRANGE TO RETRIEVE THIS TRAYSMISSION AT NO COST TO YOU.
COMMENTS:
.-
DENNIS - I SEE NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FORTHE PROPOSEDCHANGESTOTHEGENERALPLANTOCOVER LOCAL SHOPPING CENTERS. 1 THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE NEGATlVE DECLARATION FILE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THESE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES. MY OVERALL COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING STAFF ARE THE SAME AS THOSE I SENT TO YOU A WEEK OR SO AGO IN MY DRAFT SEPTEMBER 1OTH LETTER (SEE ATTACHED. I LOOK FORWARD TO COMMENTING ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE P a OPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES ~~~‘~Hll PROPOSED PLAN REVISIONS ARE SENT OUT FOR PU;EIli *
/43
3cr --La-LWWW lWi3L)
P.02
Y CALAW~, ?hAS
HomeownereatcakvoraHule carisbad,Wrrmin 82DD8
9
DRAR
I)cnaisTunler seniorPl%Mer
Eiiyiz!~~ 1635 Faraday Avuuc carIsbsdcA92008
P.03 acr-a--Law 1ld: J5
L. w i .
The major points you Proposed in the General Plan Amendments lkti below art strongly endorsed by us and WC bclicvc that they should bc adopted in the Ruposcd Qcncrai Plan Atnendmenc, These include the General Comments (that we believe were discus& at the worlrshops) and some Specific Comments (that WCK discussed in the workshop) but arc not in the Proposed General Plan Amendment :
1. GENE&IL COMMENTS
A. The General Plan should be amended to replace the current Neighborhood and CommcAid Shopping Cc&r designations with a new designation cntitkd ‘Local Shopping Center”.
B. Local Shopping titers should not permit or encourage Strip Malls.
C. Local Shopping Caters should be hamially viable.
D. Teas Local Shopping Ccntcrs rather than rnorr Local Shopping Caters ax dcsicabie with tbc concept that somewhat larger Local Sh 7? iag Centers (12 to 14 acres) could reduce the need conditions for additional Local S opping Centers.
E, Local Shopping Centets should be within a 7 to 10 minute driving time fiom most citizens homes and provide for basic comme&alscn&toaUanzasofthcCilywithsomc gaps in the driving time zones pcsmittcd if conditions so justify the gaps (namely ifit would bc impractical or would result in too rrrrmy Lot piUgCCtltCIStOfillitlthC small trading gaps).
Local Shopping Canter” is much Gene-ml Plan Amendment in
This type of requirement will be used by developers to force more Local Shopping Centers into Carl&ad than it needs.
The General Plan Amndmcnt needs to consider that if the Local Shopping Ccntcr is on a Medium Sized Local Shopping Center Site (12 to 14 axes) tbentbeprimaryIradcarean&stobe T ded to include a larger primary primary trade area (such at 2.5 miles and OI a 7 to 10 minute driving time!)
F. Local sho~iflg ckntcrs uade areas can vary widely in shape, size, and configuI?tim so long as Sm de! Malls and their attendant shallow depths (usually 700 feet or less m depth arc avoi )andLocalShoppingCmtersofanCq~tEddepfh(1000factormore)arP: encouraged.
Note; As Council Member Matt Hall said we are not going to have Strip Malls like some of the recent additions in Oceanside (such as the new low depth
Strip M East corner of College and Mission).
za--L~-Zwwu 1IL1; 33 P.04
G. Local Shop 6s the Ant ft ing Centvs should include rE a minimum a Super Market and a Drug Store or Tenants with necessary Secondary Tenants included.
Note: However, we do not agree that some of those Secondq Tenants should include the Big Box Stores listed on page IS of the Reposed General Plan Amendment (such as Terget, K-Mart, Home Depot, Staples, Comp USA, Good Guys. Etc.).
The general discussion by the City Council and the Citizens of Carl&ad indicated a strong desire not to have Big Box Stores in CarWad. but rather Thomas acceptable to drive to adjacent cities to shop at such Big Box .
H. Local Shopping Centers should not have any scxious cntrancc and egress problems.
2. SPECIFK! COMMENTS REGARDING SITE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL SHOPPING
Inaddition totheGeaeraIC omments mgfmiing site selection of the Local above, we believe that the following Specific Comments S 3T Pqmed Local shopping Center Gene ~II Czznfd seriously be considerad for the
A. Site Selection for the Local Shopping Center should include impacts to the following arcas adjacent to the Local Shopping Cenkx
- Schools
- FmStaritms
- Lagoons
- City Habitat Areas (Planned and Future), including Habitat IJnks
- CityParks
- Churches
- PoliceStations
ocr-LJ-cwm 1a:J3 P.05
B . Site Scktion for the Local Shopping Center should include trafk impacts (additional ADTI to the following areas adjacent to tbc Local Shopping tinter:
- schools
- FircStations
- City Habitat Areas (Pknncd andFuture)
- CityParks
- Residential Neighborhoods
- Daycarecenters
- churches
- Policestatkms
C , Site Selection for the L.ocal Shopping Center should include:
- Traffic Impacts and Safety Hazards to School Cbildrcn
D . Site Selection for the Local Carl&ad Shopping Center tbc proximity of the Local
outside the clv limits of Centers adjacent to but
Note: Specifically, the large 35 acre commercial site announced by McMillan Commercial at the South Coast Asphalt location at the( soutbwe8t comer of College Boulevard and the 78 Freeway) and cumntly in the Oceanside
Similarly, the Green Acres Shopping Ceuters in Encinitas will provide adequate shopping opportunities for Carlsbad’s La Costa Residents.
atr-d3-dk300 10: 36 P.06
E . The Reposed L,ocal Shopping Center Amendments should mognize the severe site access and cgms locations when considexing small sized Local shopping Gntcrs (8 to 10 acres).
F . The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage Medium Sized Local shopping Ceders (12 to 14 acres) in size over Small Local Shopping Centers (8 to 10 acres) hecause the City Council and the Citizens of Carlsbad expressed a strong desire at the workslqs for less (not moIc) Local Shopping Center sires in the city.
Note: These Medium LocaI Shopping Centers (12 to 14 acre sites) would have beuerasstssandegrescandcanservealittlelargerprirnarytradtarea
Note: These Medium Local Shopping Caters (12 to 14 acre sites) would look less lib shaliow Strip Malls, would have the adaquate site depth to offer a be-t&k fIow and would offer a better shopping experience.
Note: These Medium Local Shopping Centers (12 to 14 acre sites) primary trade area should be 2.5 miles.
Wethankrhecityofcartsbadpl~ngDcp~tandtbeCitycouncilaheadoftimcfor considering our suggested amendments to The General Plan and we look forward to working with you on the Proposed LocaI Shopping C&tcr Plan Amendments.
Thomas P. Flanagan Joan R. Flanagan
cc: Mayor Bud Lewis
1200 Carl&ad Village Drive CarIsbad,CA 92008
Ray Patchette - City Manager
Michael HolzmiW - PIanning Dkector Eric Munoz - Senior Planner - Calavera Hills
TOTAL P.86
HE’
SEP-22-00 FRI 06.:23 AH WESTERN_SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 ,- /,k""':*
P, 01
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
To: l!Rmmm6? Fpx; 1-760-602-8559
From: RichardA Reck Ddw 09/22/00 -- ---.
‘Rei Prqmed GeneralPh Amcndmcxlt Pages: 4
CC: Mayor Bud Lewis, Council
Mmibcrs,Ray Patchtte, Michael
H&miller 8t Eric Munoz
O,l&Mt q FtURWkW ufJlmBeclnmwlt q -fwY uFlaaaeRecyd
SEP-22-00 FRI 08:23 AM WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P, 02
,s,ep-i b . TEA .+. .- ‘%f.. 2I.;-?oo.Q -..,- ._-.- J- ..- m-.- _ . . . _- -- ^ .-..... . -- .---. .- _ . 7
‘, .q ,$. .e.q .;.. .!$ - ..--&D .o... -. . . .)!I ..C&ELLLe_ .A? 0
22 .-...., ~:.y?Kp.-~-.---
.x _. L?LI.Gidi~~--.. .
~.;..:..&-Y* p.p .I “‘,q . /, Pt .I \‘s. e CL;5 ti. +e .cs “me,‘e 4.J .~ ~
‘. ..,. ..~...~..:.~..~,.~~.~
.;Jyi pi
,” lJ ---. L-
I ,
-\ -- ,fi CLLe . __ -_ t ‘I a- P I s. ~-~~-.-~.-~~-~.-~.-~. : \
bGa~:ehx*. ..kKi . ..$A& -
3 i
” . I.. .; ( .- .J. ____. .__ --L_1 -. I -L.k [ 1 q 9 - ;/-Le.-p.. L..- .’
u : ., ‘...‘. . ;.......,...: . . . . . ..__.-.-. . .._..-_. . I .., .- - . - . ..- ._____--- 7 .-...- --- .-.. -.- .- - ,.---. - _ -. _. - kQ?.- .-..
SEP-22-00 FRI 08:23 Al WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P, 03
a
‘.:..,~,_,_._.,. _-* ,_,_,_ ‘; ‘“~-r ..,__, __.., _. .” -.-- . . . ..- ---j... . . . . . . F ..-. .
. ..“.. .j .l?e.. 0 liyf- .uh- e.- . _ f44” d 9 i. _ _ Ct
-
,-+” 1-L /b”I a
__ __. ti,. ~k4 . )e.r.
‘LCL VT A s .o.. .cJ .“... -L?T-r.2T.Q s&L.J.J,J.r-~ - -- -’ qi&.&L.a.~
..i. _.._ _...___..._ . .
L . ..---..... . ..*...-.
.” _,... lhc( ti q ,,... 5.. fi .o.k&J.. &o:i-” .: + (ZJL.
_ _. -. -. -. - . - . ,. . -6 - 6 .., of&G$ A! ..~.“.~-4,ul.~~
_ p yf.?@ .._- 4 . ..” - .--.
-““C-“, Lt.-e f 4) - .cL/..!s,Q2~
A9 - .,‘. L. n .L,\ LA--
.’ . . . ._.‘... II ..f.- .i. v ““‘- . ., . . . “. . _ “.“-‘“,-““-‘--” _.. .“.-.I.I_.“--_.“... -... _ A,% ..“. . . . ,,. ,, . ._... G, . __: ,..,. LN ., .“. _ .,.. , ‘: ..,...,. T&f-’ ..-... .q..c( “... eJj”f 0”. “““_“_ -: .,.., L...~..: .,..... ,..- ..c . ..-._.,.,. t g 4f.j ru.:~:? :Y:.TT+::r. I- _I .a.. ,,..,.. I. . ,” s.$’ “. I, e.ixl k h .-e/LI --- * ..-... :G .AJ _-,.; :. -..._....... _’ .A?--: 1’32 _.__ “!L _._“” &I ” . ..e. f.. 4 P. e ” ,.- r... -.L, a: ~~~~~~~~;~,.d~.~ ~ ,;“~~~~~~L;~~~~~,
,ffi __.. &LL.CL 1.'. ,. .I .Q,, .* _.,, ,, _,., X.C.~,~ -5.. AL, . ..kYa :_.__ ._._ "-1.2 . . . . . . ,,___._.,: . . . . _.: _
. -.... -., &L. =a ,-.I.. ." . . . . . . . . . "5, ,.Q.. .
,'c LA&~ .i... 6 ..-." . ..-
4%
- . .." .f '. -re 4,. . ,_, ,_ _.,._ :, .,'.,.. ",....., ,,, .
.M..
i---- ~~-qy~-~-~J!y// Ay-p *g+....*,
:(., IXM . .o .J... .r . 3% . : .cs. hhE..tL 2 + ,i*-ty.$ c; ; ,I: fy.2 . . . ...! ..". 7t"22 +p. 'p .;gc<, ,;c. 0.s t-61&. $!Q.. SL ..". . . . . . . . ..- . ..1.".." -IK- . '.- . .&... ..,.; . . . . . ..." .." &.
,&yi,[,<.: -&&kg&&& "&T \ %Jy woe:.J :,i,..:. ',
:. .,...".".. .'.
: / " , " _ . ,. . .-.c.- "., _.". .._ ."..". - .-... . . ..- -. " ,-.- c.. ,,,_, ,,, . . .I"., ."....i . . . . . . . -
‘, “.”
.‘J’,
. . “. .--.. . . . ...” -... . ” . .,. .“. .I_... .,.- . . . _... ..--...-. _ .----...... ..,.“._. /3-l . ..I.
SEP-22-00 FRI 08:24 AM WESTERN SUMMIT CONSTRUCT FAX NO, 760 730 7744 P, 04
.._._-"." . .
, z- -t- R,./&l: I”. -
c . .% .Yx4A g ..,, ,...,"
: L.".. . ..-- .bi&~J~~L&~ ""~..-.. . ,". .,., .:. . ,. ., . .,, .'
,..
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC
September 2 1,200O P
r ‘_ .I I
(,I ::, ,;:,y,:
Dennis Turner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Case #GPA-OO-04/LCPAOO-06
Shopping Center Policies
Dear Dennis:
This letter shall serve to supplement my letter to you of September 13,200O regarding the above-
referenced topic.
Section C. 13 appearing on Page 34 addresses the need for an amendment to the municipal code
to establish development standards, design guidelines and a planned shopping center permit
process. However, it is not entirely clear as to what would happen with an existing project which
has already been through the discretionary approval process, but which has not received a
building permit at the time of the adoption of the future amendment to the municipal code.
For instance, La Costa Plaza has all of its entitlements and a recorded parcel map. While we
expect Albertsons to pull a building permit before the end of the year, Grant Tucker Properties
probably will not pull a building permit until sometime in February, so that all the buildings are
finished about the same time. If the municipal code is amended prior to our pulling the building
permits on our shops parcels, we want to make sure that we are not subject to further review by
the City by virtue of any code amendment to implement the changes which the staff is proposing
to the land use element.
Best regards,
Grant Tucker Properties
,_--
--I By: _ ._.. -T--r’---
Larry Tucker
LT/bem
cc: Jeff Dierck
Steve Grant
One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com b-3
September 20,200O
Dennis Turner, Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
f
r_ .::
c ‘!. -2 . ‘s ‘, . /. yr .I;;,
‘C ‘qp
Dear Mr. Turner,
We appreciate your work on the Proposed General Plan Amendment & Local Costa1
Program Amendment regarding “local Shopping centers.”
As homeowners at The Cape of Calavera Hills we are concerned. We are in agreement
with Tom Flanagan and his letter to you of Sept. 10,200O.
Driving seven to eight minutes to shop is very realistic. Our habit has been to shop on our
route home or combine shopping with other trips. For economic reasons we find that we
shop at several different large centers-not limiting ourselves to the nearest center.
Therefore driving 1.5 miles to shop is irrelevant.
We need to make you aware of the lack of adequate parking at Calavera Park. Future
planning is needed to prevent additional traffic and parking in this area. When there is a
large event at Calavera Park participants park: in no parking areas on Glasgow, in our
subdivision on private streets ( there is hardly room enough for our residents & their
guests to park), and any where else they can find. Glasgow is not wide enough for cars to
pass the illegally parked cars within the double yellow lines. Carlsbad City & the
Carlsbad Police Department have chosen to not enforce the “‘NO PARKING” signs on the
west side of Glasgow. There have been times when someone placed black plastic bags
over the No Parking signs.
Thank you for considering these problems when planning shopping centers.
V&v-~ p. CY! Jcttks
4548 Cam Cod Cide
cortseaa, CA 9200843549
cc:Mayor Bud Lewis
Councilwoman Julie Nygaard
Councilwoman Ramona Finnila Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Matt Hall
City Manager Ray Pachette
Planning Director Michael Holzmiller
Senior Planner Calavera Hills Eric Munoz
’ JAMES M. HICKS
LAND SALES
September 13, 2000
Mr. Dennis Turner
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
163 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Proposed Amendment
Land Use Element\Carlsbad General Plan
Dear Dennis:
I have reviewed the draft report of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
the Carlsbad General Plan as it relates to commercial land uses.
As you would expect, the Robertson family has a concern regarding your policy
guidelines suggesting “new sites for local shopping centers should not be located along
El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway.”
With the exception of the downtown core, alJ commercial development in the City of
Carlsbad is located along freeways, prime arterials and major arterials. The simple
reason for this is that these roadways are designed to carry the vast majority of traffic
throughout the city. In our estimation to completely eliminate the central north-south
route through the city for future commercial development is poor planning.
It appears as if Item 5 is counter-productive to the other six guidelines under your
Implementing Policies and Action Programs. As an example, if you don’t allow
neighborhood shopping centers along El Camino Real you would be forcing these uses
into the residential neighborhoods. This is contrary to Item 4.
What is particularly perplexing to us is that our proposed Alternative Site for a local
shopping center is located across from the Country Store, an existing commercial
development. Therefore, this future intersection has already been ‘commercialized”.
We believe this to be a very important point.
With the exception of a small amount of constrained open space, the entire El Camino
Real frontage through the City of Carlsbad (approximately 9.66 miles) is either currently
developed or planned for some type of development. According to the El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards the most stringent setback requirements for both
residential and non-residential land uses exist along that portion of El Camino Real from
the Country Store to College Boulevard. The setback in this area is 6O’at grade for all
uses. It appears as if the City Council that adopted these standards in 1984 made
adequate provisions for the visual presemation of this area.
5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 . (760) 438-2017 l (760) 4384048 FAX
100 WEST LIBERIY STREET l SUITE 820 l RENO, NV 89501 l (775) 3294000 . (775) 329-8526 FAX / 5.3-
In a study we provided to the City approximately one year ago (copy attached), it was
shown that the addition of a neighborhood shopping center site on the Robertson Ranch
along El Camino Real would increase the amount of commercial zoning along the entire
length of El Camino Real from 9.3 1% to 10.29%. This is an increase of less than 1%. If
it makes good planning sense to locate a local shopping center on the El Camino Real
frontage of the Robertson Ranch, this seems like a very small impact.
The Draft of the Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study prepared
by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in October of 1996 identified the fact that
the provision of a neighborhood shopping center site on the Robertson Ranch will
provide enhanced neighborhood commercial service in this area.
To support the Alternate Site, it has been shown that locating a neighborhood shopping
center on the Robertson Ranch would fill a void in the community. Further, the El
Camino Real Corridor Development Standards has made more than adequate provision
for development setbacks from the Country Store to College Boulevard. And finally,
commercial land uses currently exist across El Camino Real from the Alternate Site.
To quote Section C.2 of the proposed amendment, “In some instances it may not be
possible to implement all of these guidelines fully and some degree of compromise may
be required’. The Albertson’s store planned for the Alternate Site meets six of the seven
guidelines suggested in the proposed land use amendment.
From a planning standpoint as well as one of community needs, it does not seem
advisable to preclude new sites for local shopping centers to be located along El Camino
Real, particularly at the Alternate Site.
The best site should be selected and the issues and concerns should be addressed. The
result of this will be a well-planned, well-designed local shopping center that will provide
the residents in the immediate area with a much-needed community amenity.
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment.
Regards,
.,abe*son
* 0 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
September 13,200O
Dennis Turner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4 4 %
9.
- L
L Y -.
Re: Case # GPA OO-04/LCPAOO-06
Shopping Center Policies
Dear Dennis:
I have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan
concerning retail commercial development in the City of Carlsbad which accompanied the
Negative Declaration dated August 23,200O. I have attached the changes which I believe are
appropriate. I would also like to set forth in letter form the rationale for some of the changes
which I have suggested. My thoughts are as follows:
1.
2.
At Page 13, the all important issue of “trade area” is addressed. A critical feature in a
marketplace such as Carlsbad, which has many older centers and few newer ones is the
size of the anchor tenant. The smaller the supermarket, the smaller the trade area. For
example, the small Von’s at Tamarack and I-5 has a smaller trade area than the larger
Von’s at Alga and El Camino Real. Smaller, outdated facilities have more of a
convenience characteristic, which should be reflected in your language concerning trade
areas. In other words, customers will drive further to the Von’s at Alga than they will to
the Von’s at Tamarack.
Also on page 13, you have recognized that drive time and distance are quite important in
determining trade area. You have not, however, defined the time of day during which
drive time should be defined. Further, while you have mentioned “geographic barriers”
in the determination of trade area, another barrier, which is just as important, is a large
number of cars on the same street on which a customer is attempting to travel. A
customer will view this the same as, say, a river without a convenient bridge.
Accordingly, we believe the appropriate drive time to consider is the peak hour, since
time in and around the peak hour is the time Albertson’s tells us that supermarkets
generally enjoy a clear majority of their weekday customers.
3. At page 3 1, we believe that Implementing Policy 4, which was deleted (locate
neighborhood commercial development so that wherever possible it is centrally located
within its service area) should be slightly reworded so that it refers to “local shopping
centers” and “trade area”, and remain a policy. It states an obvious preference which is
consistent with the City’s objectives of not having overlapping trade areas.
One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 251 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com 157
Dennis Turner
September 13,200O
Page 2
4. If travel times are not measured at the peak hour, then we believe that travel times to a
local shopping center should not exceed five minutes, since it will probably double at
peak hour. Further, it should be clear that drive times are measured at build out. Since
the policy of a general plan is long range in nature, the long range conditions of the City
should be what the policy attempts to address. (Paragraph 2 on page 3 1).
5. Paragraph 4 on page 32 should allow for shopping centers along “or near” major streets
or future extensions of major streets. It may not always be possible to place a shopping
center on a major street and indeed with the city’s full access requirements, especially
along arterials, it may be nearly impossible to actually access a shopping center off of
two major streets. Most “local shopping centers” will not have 1200 feet of frontage,
which is what we understand is the city requirement for full turning movements from
major intersections.
6. Paragraph 5 at Page 32 is really aimed at the Robertson Ranch, since there is not much
left on El Camino Real which is not already zoned for its ultimate use (including
proposed centers at Sunny Creek and La Costa Glen), or already developed. The
Robertson’s Ranch will not look like it does today ten years from now. Is a well
landscaped, bermed frontage shopping center set back from El Camino Real really less
desirable than small lot subdivision tract homes backed up to El Camino Real?
7. Paragraph 6 on page 32, again should address the concept of “at build out.”
8. Paragraph C5 on page 32, should define “community” tenants (or the definition should
be provided earlier, perhaps in the schedule on page 12).
9. While Grant Tucker Properties is not in the business of developing projects with
“community” anchored tenants, we would observe that quite often due to the sheer size
of those tenants, it is not possible to have those tenants “share walls” with other tenants
in a center and indeed those tenants are generally on their own parcel, where walls are
not “shared”, but rather each user has its own wall, which looks (through flashing and
design) to be shared.
10. Lastly, I am not sure I agree with the conclusions in the Negative Declaration. As the
introduction of the Land Use Elements logically asserts (page l), areas planned for
residential use should not be put to such use until the City can be assured that all
necessary public facilities to service such uses will be available concurrently. The
policies of Land Use Element presently in effect contemplate additional commercial
being available in the northeast quadrant to serve the intense residential development
allowed under the Land Use Element. If commercial is eliminated on El Camino Real
and will not be allowed in the neighborhoods, coupled with the proposed elimination of
the Calavera Hills commercial site, then the proposed change to the Land Use Element
mean less commercial choice and therefore more drive time (i.e. the Land Use Element
and Circulation Element would become out of balance). Presumably, the roads set forth
Dennis Turner
September 13,200O
Page 3
in the Circulation Element were sized based upon the policy of convenient commercial
to reduce drive time. In short, the environmental document does not address the
effective prohibition of further new commercial in the northeast quadrant, which in turn
would cause the Land Use Element to be out of balance with the Circulation Element.
If you have any questions concerning my comments do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Grant Tucker Properties
By: 7G
Larry Tucker
cc: Jim Hicks
Steve Grant
Gary Wayne
. .- . Land Use Element
composition and ‘the type of
Tenant
anchor
tenant are the main identifiers of a
shopping center type. An anchor tenant
may be an individual tenant or a group of
like uses that function as an anchor
tenant. For example, a combination of
gourmet food shop, delicatessen meat
market, and green grocery might function
in lieu of a supermarket. A food service
cluster, several restaurants, and a
cinema complex may function as other
anchor tenants. Tenant composition and
the characteristics of the leading tenant/s
define a commercial center type.
Although building area, site size, trade
area, etc. are influential, they are not the
primary factors in determining a center
Another important concept for a// ‘i
retail shopping centers is the idea of ’
trade areas. The trade area is the
geographic area that provides the
majority of steady customers
necessary to support a shopping
center. The boundaries of a the trade
’ ‘area are determined by a number of
variables, including the type of center,
its accessibility, geographic barriers,
areas of centefs overlap then
competition may exist between the
centers and the purchasing power of
the residents will be shared between
the ten ters. From the City’s
standpoint, the desired number and
location of shopping centefs,
especially local shopping ten ters,
depends upon a number of factors
(detailed rater) that relate to “fitting”
together the trade areas of potential
sites and making policy decisions
about the amount of gaps and
overlaps that should exist between the
trade areas.
k>. the location of competing facilities j 9 .
<p and, very importantly, driving time
distance (See Table 3, Guidelines for P
&L 9
t
Typical Shopping Centers). hc’f5 1 8 !’ Consequent/y, trade areas can vary
widely in shape, size, and
configuration. In general, the closer
potential customers are to a site the
more /ike/y they are to patronize it.
The number of persons residing
within the trade area (and their related
purchasing power) must be of a
sufficient size for the center to be
economically viable. When the trade
.
Land Use Element
a. Local Shopping Center (L): The
local shopping ten ter designation
allows shopping centers that include
elements of the traditional
neighborhood center and, under some
circumstances, elements of the
traditional community shopping
ten ter.
Each local shopping center must
contain the anchor tenants and
secondary tenants that sewice the
daily needs and convenience of local
neighborhoods. These tenants include
retail businesses, small offices, and a
variety of services. The most
common anchor tenant is a
supermarket, although a large
drugstore of combination of
supermarket and drugstore may also
serve, Secondary tenants can include
small oHices (for banks, insurance,
real estate and other services);
persona/ grooming providers (like
beauty parlors, barbershops, and nail
salons), Laundromats, cleaners, small
retail stores, sit-down and fast food
restaurants, and gas stations, among
others. Typical characteristics of
sites for these centers are given in
Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping
Cen ters.
While all sites with the designation
Local Shopping Center must provide
neighborhood goods and services,
Page14
J
6/21/00
lb/
’ “g” Land Use Element
Guidelines for Shopping Centers.
Both types are described in more
detail in the followina sections.
Table 3: GUIDELINES FOR TYPICAL SHOPPING CENTERS
Typical Local Shopping Regional Shopping
Shopping Center Cen ter Center
Characteristics Required of All Local Possible Option, Depending on Shopping Centers Site and Special Approvals
Trade Area Focus Local daily goods and Local, plus community-wide Regional services goods and services
Value department store, chain Full-line department stores (2
Anchor Tenants apparel store, volume speciatty or more), factory outlet
(examples) store, home improvement center, “power centef of -, -_. __ . - - ..-- _ ._ _. ___ center, multi-plex cinema several high-volume speciatty
stores.
Restaumnt, bank, real
Secondary Tenants estate, personal Apparel, specialty retail, Full range of speciafty retail,
(examples) grooming, small retail, restaurant, specialty restaurants, entertainment
fast food, gas station, automotive, sporting goods cleaners, video rental
Site Size (acres)
Gross Lease Area
Primary Trade Area
Drive lime
Primary Trade Area Radius
Primary Trade Area
Population
8-20 To 30
60,000 - 1 SO, 000 (sq. ft.) up to 400,000 (sq. ft.)
5 - 10 minutes 10 - 20 minutes
1.5 miles. 3 - 5 miles
10,000 - 40,000 people 40,000 - 150,000 people
30-100
300,000 to 1.5 million (sq. ft.)
20 - 30 minutes
8- 12miles
150,000 + people
Page12
I
.
I
/@4
6/21/00 I/ 0
Land Use Element
amount of land will be determined by a
future amendment to the Planned
Community Zone.
B. OBJECTIVES
C.13 Introduce programs to revitalize all
residential areas which are deteriorating
or have a high potential of becomin-
deteriorated.
B.l To limit the amount of new
commercial land use designations to that
which provides for basic commercial
f the City without
verlaps in trade
Cl4 Ensure that all hillside development
is designed to preserve the visual quality
of the preexisting topography.
C. 15 Consider residential development,
which houses employees of businesses
located in the PM zone, when it can be
designed to be a compatible use as an
integral part of an industrial park.
COMMERCIAL
A. GOALS
A.1 A City that achieves a healthy and
diverse economic base by creating a
climate for economic growth and stability
to attract quality commercial
development to serve the employment,
shopping, recreation, and service needs
of Carlsbad residents.
A.2 A City that provides for the
development of compatible, conveniently
located r&#&&e& Iocal shopping
centers.
A.3 A City that promotes economic
development strategies, for commercial,
.industrial, office and tourist-oriented land
uses.
A.4 A City that promotes recreational and
tourist-oriented land uses which sewe
visitors, employees of the industrial and
business centers, as well as residents of
the city.
image of the community as a desirable
residential, open space community.
B.2 To ensure that all residential areas
are adequately served by commercial
areas in terms of daily shopping needs
which include convenience goods, food,
and personal services. “Adequately
served” means no residential area is
outside the primary trade area of the
nearest local shopping center
8.3 To establish and maintain
commercial development standards to
address landscaping, parking, signs, and
site and building design, to ensure that all
existing and future commercial
developments are compatible with
surrounding land uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 7 Applications to convert land to
commercial land use designations
shall be accompanied by a conceptual
development plan of the site and a
market study that demonstrates the
economic viability of using the land in
the way being requested. Such
studies shall give due consideration
to existing and future sites that may
compete within shared trade areas
Page 30
I
6/21/00
lb3
,- . : Land Use Element
C.42 Utilize the following guidelines 4~
. . .
Q determine the
appropriate spatial distribution of new
sites for local shopping centers and to
assign associated zoning. In some
instances it may not be possible to
implement all of these guidelines fully
and some degree of compromise may
be required.
21. w New master plans and
residential specific plans and other
large development proposals shall
evaluate whether there is a need to
include a local shopping center
within the development, consis tent
with these guidelines. -#e+o~& t
trade areas of
centers should abut one
another as much as is
possible, so as to result in
minimal gaps and overlaps.
This assures that all parts of
.2. Although local shopping
ten ters may con fain
community-serving tenants,
for site location purposes,
the primary trade areas of
the centers should be based
upon the local-serving
tenants (see Table 3:
Guidelines for Shopping
Centers). In particular, a
trade area’s boundary may
be described in terms of the
Page 31 6/21/00 IN
. .- Land Use Element
the City will have “coverage”
by a center, while reducing
the propensity for over-
commercializa tion (See Goal
B. 1.)
complement but not conflict with
adjoining residential areas. This shall be
accomplished by:
;A
i”4.i Generally, local shopping c/
5.
6.
7.
I >.-
,
within the trade ashould
be of a size that the center
would be economically
viable, considering other
existing and future centers.
Consider intersection
spacing and other
circulation criteria to assure’
safe, and functional access
to the ten ter. Good
locations will provide ready
access from principal travel
routes and have several
entrances. (Sites located
along primary atterials may
have difficulty meeting this
guideline.)
enters should not be located
directly within the residential
neighborhoods they serve,
but, rather, on the 2. b
peripheries
neighborhoods, alon
streets or future
of major streets. H- 8 7. Controlling lights, signage, and
hours of operation to avoid
New site for lo ‘al shopping
Y
adversely impacting surrounding
ten ters ho d not be uses.
located a n El Camino
Real, so as minimize the 4, 2. Requiring adequate landscaped
commercia za ‘on of thlsL.,J-g 11 A buffers between commercial and
scenic roadwa /
c
&
kJl,,,;;d”3 ti&I;;$> residential uses.
w The ultimate population *fj “__ & 3. Providing bicycle and pedestrian
c.2 Lee&e Build, and operate A local
shopping centers in such a way as to
links between proposed
M&&be&-local commercial
centers and surrounding
residential uses.
c-3 Comprehensively design all
commercial centers to address common
ingress. and egress, adequate off-street
parking and loading facilities. Each
center should be easily accessible by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles
to nearby residential development.
C.4 Ensure that commercial architecture
emphasizes establishing community
identity while presenting tasteful;
dignified and visually appealing designs
compatible with their surroundings. ,
i i I they must be fully integrated into the
Page 32 6121100 hb--
t .- ‘. _ . Land Use Element
overall function and design of the
ten ter, including the architecture,
circulation and landscaping. The
inclusion of such tenants should
complemen 1, not supplant the
principal function of the center, which
is to provide local goods and
7. rhi community “ankhor” tenant
may be built as a’ stand-alone
building. It must share walls x
and its building facade with
other tenants in the ten ter.
2. Neither community “anchor”
tenants nor secondary tenants
*aY feature corporate
architecture or logos.
C5. Ensure that all commercial
development provides a variety of
courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle
trails, landscaped parking lots, and the
use of harmonious architecture in the
construction of buildings.
C.6 Permit the phasing of commercial
projects to allow initial development and
expansion in response to demographic
and economic changes. Site designs
should illustrate the ultimate development
of the property and/or demonstrate their
ability to coordinate and integrate with
surrounding development.
C.7. Outdoor storage of goods and
products in shopping centers is not
., allowed. Temporary exceptions may
be allowed for display and sale of
traditional, seasonal items such as
Christmas trees, pumpkins, and
similar merchandise. In these
exceptions, both adequate parking and safe in ternal circulation (vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle) is to be
maintained.
C.Z. 8. Encourage commercial
recreation or tourist destination facilities,
as long as they protect the residential
character of the community and the
opportunity of local residents to enjoy (in
a safe, attractive and convenient manner)
the continued use of the beach, local
transportation, and parking facilities.
C&9. Orient travel/recreation
commercial areas along the l-5 corridor,
in the Village, or near resort/recreation
areas.
C.8-70. Revise Section 21.29.030 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Commercial Tourist
Zone, Permitted Uses and Structures) to
more accurately reflect the intent of the
Travel/Recreation Commercial general
plan designation to serve the traveling
public, visitors to the city, as well as
employees of business and industrial
centers.
CA&77. Review parking requirements
for commercial areas on a periodic basis
to ensure adequate parking and to
address identified parking problems.
. C.?? EC
Page 33 6/21 /OO
&A
Gremmer:
foregoing detailing all my comments G I
& agree with Tom & Joan Flanagzs
9/10/00 to you and your Staff, Mayor Lewi&
Councilmembers. With the rapid growth we are currently experiencing,ze
Traffic Impact is an important issue concerning shopping centers. I feei a
medium-sized local shopping center (12-15 acres, excl. “big boxes”) would%
more feasible & provide a one-stop shopping service to everyone. Strip h!%ls
are inadequate, clutter our landscape, & fall by the wayside as they soon be-
come unoccupied, succumbing to the larger shopping center market. ,.‘P -.: I also consider protecting our City’s Habitat Area of prime importance as +l
as the Traffic Impact resulting from the Site Selection of any local shopd$g
center. .;. Having worked in the Planning Dept. in the past with Jim Barnes, Chief Plan#r
with San Clemente, I am well tuned-in to your workload assignments, eff&&,
workshops & dedication on our behalf & thank you for your continued sup&t
& leadership in our communities in keeping Carlsbad a place we’re proud to&l
“home.” Let’s keep Carlsbad the “Quiet Village’* that we all enjoy!
ShceW.,,g / 2984 Ridgefield Avenue ,( r? L.. ++&vgq~ &g,L
James & Marilyn Hope
4558 Cape Cod Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549
760-729-2591
September 19,200O
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Attn: Dennis Turner - Senior Planner
RE: Proposed General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Regarding Local Shopping Centers
Dear Mr. Turner:
After reviewing the Negative Declaration, the Proposed General Plan
Amendment and the Local Coastal Program Amendment, we feel the
amendment regarding local shopping centers is as good a place as any to start
with. With the excellent work you have done in the City Council, the Planning
Staff and the Citizens of Carlsbad workshops held in 1999 on this subject, we
have high regards for you and know you would like to keep Carlsbad a great
place to live.
If Carlsbad could have larger local shopping centers, (ideal depth is 1,000 feet
or more) rather than more little ones - it would benefit everyone. We shop on
our way home from work, or during the lunch hour - like most working families
do. We believe it was Council Member Matt Hall that said we are not going to
have Strip Malls like some near by Cities. Smaller local shopping centers would
only deter great anchor tenants with needed secondary tenants. Driving 3 - 5
miles on the weekends to the supermarkets is not a problem for anyone that I
have talked with. The driving time would be, at the most 10 minutes.
But we strongly feel that allowing big box stores as secondary tenants should
not be included as listed on page 15 of the Proposed General Plan Amendment
(such as K-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Staples, Office Depot, Wal-Mart, Comp
USA, Good Guys, Toy R Us, Big Five and etc.) During one of the workshops, the
Citizens of Carlsbad and the City Council had discussed that there was a strong
desire to keep the big box stores out of Carlsbad.
The Proposed Local Shopping Center Amendments should encourage medium
sized local shopping centers with 12 to 14 acres sites rather small local shopping
centers with 8 to 10 acres sites as was expressed in the workshops. Medium
/6X
James & Marilyn Hope
4558 Cape Cod Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6549
760-729-259 1
local shopping centers would serve a little larger primary trade area and would
look less like strip malls and the traffic flow would be better.
We also think the City of Carlsbad has to look into a community park with pool
facilities. We do not have an adequate community park to hold Company
Picnics, Family Reunions with pool facilities. This is a great need for us and will
serve all of Carlsbad.
But before anything should be done, we need to see what the environmental
impact is.
We would like to thank the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and the City
Council ahead of time for considering my suggestions to the General Plan and
we look forward working with you on the Proposed Local Shopping Plan
Amendments.
Sincerely,
cc: Mayor Bud Lewis
Councilwoman Julie Nygaard
Councilwoman Ramona Finnila
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Matt Hall
Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carisbad, CA 92008
Ray Patchette - City Manager
Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director Eroc Munoz - Senior Planner - Calavera Hills
TELEPHONE (760) 7207 I I7 I
TELEFAX (760) 720-I I 78
JAYE.LEVINE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
306 I MADISON 5T - SiE. 6
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
May 22,200O
Mayor Bud Lewis and
Members of the Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Neighborhood Shopping Center
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
My family has resided in north Carlsbad for fifteen years, for the past eight years near the
intersection of Kelly Drive and El Camino Real. During this time, we have been patiently
waiting for a new neighborhood shopping center in our part of the City. While Carlsbad
continues to approve the construction of many new homes each year, there have been no new
neighborhood shopping centers in north Carlsbad since the Vons center on El Camino Real was
developed some twenty years ago. Although it was nice to see that store expand into a modern
supermarket a few years ago, the drive there and back is almost unbearable during heavy
commute times. Also, there seem to be many more shoppers using that store than before,
resulting in longer checkout lines and a crowded parking lot. The Vons center on Tamarack is
not any more convenient for us, and in addition, is too small to provide the variety of foods,
goods and services that should be available to all residents of Carlsbad.
I was strongly in favor of the development of the proposed Tamarack Square shopping
center at the corner of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real. However, upon attending a public
meeting on the project approximately one and a half years ago, it was apparent that many
residents objected to that location, primarily out of concern for additional congestion at the
Tamarack intersection, the supposed negative effect on air quality from increased automobile use
in the area, and safety issues related to the presence of children who attend Kelly School. While
some who attended the meeting were of the opinion that we did not need another shopping center
in our part of the City, many individuals who felt that way appeared to be older or retired folks,
those who have the flexibility to shop whenever they choose to. In my family, both my wife and
I work, our children are in school all day, and they participate in athletics and other activities
after school and into the evening. We have neither the time nor the flexibility to shop during the
work day, and I believe that is true of the majority of residents in my neighborhood.
/ 70
Mayor Lewis and Council Members
May 22,200O
Page Two
I understand that an alternative shopping center site has been proposed on the Robertson
Ranch, on El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Cannon Road. That location, if approved,
would seem to address the concerns raised by opponents of the Tamarack Square shopping
center. The alternative location would also achieve all of the following: the quality of life for my
family and our neighbors would be improved by having access to a modem supermarket which
offers all of the special goods and services most new supermarkets provide; the presence of an
additional market chain would provide some competition for Vons; and most importantly, it
would be close and convenient to my neighborhood, thus saving all of the residents precious
time. The same is true for Calavera Hills and all of north Carlsbad. A neighborhood shopping
center located at the new proposed site would enable area residents to shop at a quality
supermarket without having to drive for miles at a snail’s pace in rush hour traffic.
I would also like to address an issue which has been previously raised: whether the City
should bar construction of additional shopping centers on El Camino Real north of Palomar
Airport Road, with the exception of the long delayed Sunny Creek project. Although this may
sound like a good long-term policy, what will really be achieved if the Robertson Ranch is
graded and developed solely with homes, as the general plan now provides? Simply a longer
drive to the supermarket for many more families.
The corridor along El Camino Real will not remain open space indefinitely. If other
projects in the City are any indication, new housing units will be clustered, very close to one
another, and perhaps backed up to El Camino Real. Rather than more, densely packed housing,
we would rather see a well landscaped neighborhood shopping center with the quality of
architecture and aesthetic standards the City of Carlsbad requires of developers. More housing
means more people, which means more traffic. A new neighborhood shopping center will serve
those residents who are already in the surrounding neighborhoods; it will not bring in more
people. Most Carlsbad residents travel on El Camino Real some time during the day. The
proposed Robertson Ranch site would be an excellent location for a center. Residents would not
have to drive out of their way to get there, and the completion of Cannon Road from I-5 to El
Camino Real would make the proposed site even more convenient, particularly for those
returning home from points south.
For the past couple of years, the Council has been wrestling with the issue of where to
locate neighborhood shopping centers, and has employed polling data to assist it in making its
decisions. However, I do not believe that the Council should rely too heavily on the results of a
poll in planning the long-term commercial requirements of the City. That is the responsibility of
the City Council, our elected representatives. I believe that historically, the Council has done an
excellent job planning the development in our city, and I would trust the Council’s independent
Mayor Lewis and Council Members
May 22,200O
Page Three
judgment in that regard. Polling data is merely a snapshot in time and is not a valid substitute
for years of experience. The Council’s decisions should be based on what is best in the long run
for Calsbad and the majority of its citizens.
In order to provide support to the Council, and to encourage it to make a choice in the
very near future which is based on sound long-range planning, I have decided to form a group of
residents to support the development of a new neighborhood shopping center in north Carlsbad,
one that will be easy to get to and is near the residential area to be served. While it is sometimes
easier to rally people against something, rather than for something, I believe there will be
substantial support for a new local shopping center in our part of town, whether it is built on the
Robertson Ranch site, or at another location which is comparably close and convenient.
JEL:lse
cc: Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Dermis Turner
Ha
Shopping Center Policies
GPA 00-04
City Council - 2/13/01
Overview of the Program
n Revised G.P. Policy framework (tonight)
l Proposes new land use class
+ Includes goals, policies, guidelines
+ Policy framework controls remaining parts
n Create new zone (coming)
n Site-specific changes(coming)
l Trade Area Study (travel time, population)
l Hearings on G.P./zoning changes
I
I
Definitions - Neighborhood
Commercial I n Local convenience goods/services
n Anchors: grocery/drug stores
n Secondary tenants: barber, video, cleaners,
I
restaurant, bank, gas station, small office, etc.
n Trade area =
l S-10 min. travel time, or ;
l 1 % mi. radius
I
m 6to 12acres
n 6K to 12K people P
6
1
Definitions - Community
Commercial I
n Intermediate to neighborhood and regional
n Anchors: value dept store, chain apparel, “big
box” specialty, home improvement
n Secondary tenants may include grocery/drug,
upscale restaurant, multiplex cinema, etc.
n Trade area =
l 10 to 20 mm. travel time, or
+ 3 to 5 mi. radius
n lOto30acres I
n 40K to 5Ok+ people
History - Overview
l 1994: New G.P. -Need more shopping centers
n 1996: Commercial SNdy
l Neighborhood/community commercial issue
+ Insufficient neighborhood shopping centers
+ Travel-time methodology for trade areas
n Three workshops (6/99,9/99,3/00)
l 7 alternative policy scenarios
+ Survey of residents’ shopping values
l Selected policy scenarios and principles
2
Concepts - Kinds of Shopping
l Community Commercial
l Scenarios 1, 7 say eliminate
l Scenario 6 says keep for airport/industrial
corridor
+ Discussion - north/south areas may need
community or regional commercial
1
Concepts - Trade Areas, Gaps
and Overlaps
a Trade areas: convenient access
W 5-10 minute travel time for local centers
n Overlapping trade areas = competition
n Gaps between trade areas = inconvenience/
monopoly --
just right! I GOAL: No gaps; no overlaps I
Local
Concepts - Size and Number of
Centers
H Outcome scenarios indicate preferences for:
4 Larger centers, with superior design
+ Fewer centers, on edge of neighborhoods
H Implies “larger” trade areas
+ 1996 travel time study: 5 minutes (off
peak)
+ 2000 travel time study: 7 minutes (off
peak)
3
Staff Proposal To Planning
I Proposal - New Land Use Class I I n Delete neighborhood and community commercial I e New “Local Shopping Center” (merge old “N”
and “C”)
. Must focus on local goods and services (neighborhood)
l & have community tenants - special design
+ Integrated center design
+ No corporate design/logos (no “big boxes”
+ No outdoor storage
n Apply to all existing and future local shopping
Proposal - Gaps and Overlaps
. (Planning Commission modified proposal)
4
Proposal - Location Criteria
H Delete old criteria (1 every mile, master plans)
9 Implement policy scenarios
. Place on edges of neighborhoods (main roads)
l No new sites along El Camino Real (Planning
Commission modified proposal)
n Use travel times to define trade area spacing
+ Study: 7 minutes, off peak
n Evaluate trade area population
n Evaluate intersection spacing constraints
P.C. Changes -Gaps/Overlaps
m Obj. B.l. “... provides for basic commercial
service to all areas of the City without
creating undue overlaps in trade areas,
while providing desirable diversity without
over-commercialization,. _
n Led to change to Location Policy C.2.4
allowing overlaps in trade areas to provide a
degree of competition and diversity.
P.C. Changes - El Camino Real
n Staff Rec. Policy C.2.6: ” New sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway”
n P.C. change: “New sites for local shopping
centers located along El Camino Real shall
be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of this designated scenic corridor.”
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Char@eg-, 1,200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Dece&er g 28QB,--to consider a request for approval of an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial”
and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local
Shopping Center” designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies,
and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited t,“. attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after N-0. If you
have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (766) 602-4609.
If you challenge the amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 00-04
CASE NAME: NEW COMMERCIAL POLICIES/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
PUBLISH:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us CB
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800.
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGC’ CA 92101
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
DENNIS TURNER ,: : ”
l/4/2001
Address Labels Laser 5160@
GARY & SYLVIA GRAHAM
4540 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STACY HENDERSON
4879 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WANDA HANNA
4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SUSAN GUTIERREZ
1864 PALISADES DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS FELDMANN
2703 TIBURON AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS M GOLAS
4720 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARRY & SHIRLEY GAST
4551 ESSEX CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
G FURROX
820 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM FRAMPTON
4220 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM KAMENJAR~N
4430 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(&ii SygqhJal asfl-. 2-, - _ . _ L _
JIM HICKS
5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LOUIS & WENDY HElT
1881 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAT & DON HADLEY
4628 TELESCOPE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LESTER & AGNES GUSNARD
4110 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBIN GREEN
3825 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANIEL GLASSEY
4630 IA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
.J & J GALANTE
4660 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
IRENE FUCHS
4635 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
B LITHGOW
4519 ST GEORGE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS W T LISENBY
4571 CHANCERY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FAhllLY t-iENKE\
4923 LOhlA CO;?-
CARLSBAD. CA ~2,“:
VERNON & EVELYN HANSEN
4587 ESSEX COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETE & KATHY HAAS
4415 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SARA GUIN
4675 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PATRICIA HOLMES
2657 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
K GAVIN
4505 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JUDY & DAN GAITAN
4135 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GORDON FRENCH
2913 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBYANN & MIM GUALTIERE
4360 EL CAPITAN CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HANS & SALLY LINDENSHOV
2688 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
@09X .JJ!x~~ Smoo$- Fppd >RO1:C-“’
JAY LEVINE
4927 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LYNDA KRAK
6609 CURLEW TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TOM KING
4781 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BERNICE HILL
2984 RIDGEFIELD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JERRY KALICK
4734 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CLIFF JOHNSON
2741 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROLYN HUlTENMAlER
2750 AUBURN AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARLINE & JIM HOPE
4558 CAPE CODE CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALDEN & MALYNDA KAY
4367 TUOLUMNE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924
WILLIAM BRADFORD
P. 0. BOX 863
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
--
s\aqe7, css133t; . xi-9 If iru2 ii ,
JOSEPH & LUCH LEVESQUE
4350 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KAZIM KONYAR
1757 TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HENRY & VESTA KIDD
4726 BIRCHWOOD CR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALDEN KAY
6300 YARROW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-l 597
MR & MRS W JOOLINGEN
3827 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WE&DRJENKS
4548 CAPE COD CR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRANK HUTCHINS
2590 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GARY & NANCE HOOD
1788 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROD &JUDY BENSON
4405 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ELIZABETH BOlTORF
4527 CARNABY COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
;.
ROBERT 6. TAt,lq?; ,E.Z5”
4499 SALISBUR” DR::, E
CARLSBAD. CA C2:3S
KIM & JILL KL-EREKOPER
4721 TELESCOPE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAT KELLY
2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DEREK & KENDALL HOLMES
4850 PARK DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3811
LYNDA JONES
2665 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
S INFERRERA
1828 HIGH RIDGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3759
JULIA HUFF
3930 HOLLY BRAE LANE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROSEMARY FALKENSTEIN
4108 LA PORTALADA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
REESE BROWN
2711 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CHRISTINE BORIS
4549 ESSEX CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
@09Z ‘=QpntcT,/ Smooth Feet -r ---d spqe-r ssa p pt AE3i/it
JOHN & SUE BLOSCH
4611 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PATRICIA BIXLER
4878 SEVlLLA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETER & MARSHA BERTINO
2709 SOUTHAMPTON
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TAFFY CANNON
4430 TRIESTE DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS DOUG BAKER
4213 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3647
EDWARD ALOE
2613 SUlTER ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DOUG & LAUREE ADAMS
4519 SALISBURY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STEPHENBERK
3520 CATALINA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ANGELA & JOHN ESCALLE
4862 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DOUG DU BOIS
3606 ASHBY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
@omJq.~XEti.wai w-l , -, ,
DANIEL & DENA BLISS
4949 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS ROBERT BEYNON
4415 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN FLENTZ
4541 LAMBETH COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID BEESON
1745 TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD ARMSTRONG
2621 BANBURY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRAN AGLIATA
4745 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
G RADLOW
7760 FAY AVENUE
LA JOLLA, CA 92027
AUDREY B CURLEY
P 0 BOX 863
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
DAVID & JEAN ELLIS
4732 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JEAN DORNON-REUS
4738 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
-: - --\ --
MR 8 MRS ROBER- 6,;s\\
3629 CHESHIRE AVE
CARLSBAD. CA 9203s
W R BEVERLY
4605 LA PORTRALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NANCI BENSON-GRUNING
4703 BIRCHWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STEVEN & SUSANA BAUM
4610 TRAFALGAR LANE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRIAN & SHEILA ANDERSON
4125 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GEORGE AFANSEV
4550 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LORI HOMSTED
3608 CHESHIRE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-
FRANK ESQUEDA
4640 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALEX EBEL
4467 GLADSTONE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TIMOTHY DONOVAN
4451 DORCHESTER PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
@0?‘15 Jasel -wlj=-;-! 5nog:r +OC :,.----
ROB DONATH
STE 2A
7720 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
JOHN DE LAURENTIS
4250 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LINDA CALDER
4645 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
ROBERT & GLORIA COOK
4575 CHELSEA CT
CARLABAD, CA 92008
LEN MARTYNS
7304 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-
JANET CLARK
2622 VALEWOOD AVE
CARLABAD, CA 92008-7925
RALPH KUBIAK
2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JACK & NORMA PAEPKE
4560 TRIEST DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN ORMEROD
4563 LAMBETH COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BEITY NIELSEN
2663 SU-ITER STREET ’
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Fogwo! awldw WI
MR & MRS E DES ROSIERS
4307 SIERRA MORENA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANA BROWNELL
2020 AURA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BOB & EDA CROSBY
4411 SALISBURY DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
ANN COLLINS
4762 GATESHEAD RD
CARLABAD, CA 92008
DEBRA CLARKE
4807 KELLY DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
MARY 8 JOE CICCARELLI
3412 SANTA CLARA WAY
CARLABAD, CA 92008
WM & VIRGINIA DAVIES
4345 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JANICE PACAYOS
3505 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LAURA & DON OGAN
4202 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETER & SYLVIA NIBLO
2629 VALEWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
qaae7 ssaiqpy
AL&GAIL DE \‘,,‘EEsE
3815 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD. CA C23~3:
MR & MRS RALPH DARTok
4230 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOS CORNWELL
4403 MAYFAIR CT
CARLABAD, CA 92008
BILL AND ILA CLAYTON
6569 CONEFLOWER DR
CARLABAD, CA 92009-25 12
VIOLET CLARK
4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
DR & MRS S CARMICHAEL
4566 HORIZON DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
ARTHUR WOOD
4770 BROOKWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN O’SHAUGHUESSY
4096 LOMA LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS SCO-IT
O’CONNELL
4325 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS ROBERT NELSON
4839 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
,,sways pa%l YlOOW
@09Jc; pse >rmKdb tee,: &e:_t-r:
THOMAS & JILL NASH
2978 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ZlEMER
4728 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FAMILY TORRES
4919 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD. Ck CXI,~:
RICHARD ‘& NANCY WOZNlAK
4545 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LAWRENCE PAULSEN
4817 NEBLINA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAUL WOLKIN
4107 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR&MRSA
WllTENDORFER
2721 GREENOCK CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BILL & SONYA WllT
4825 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LAURA WINEHOLT
6664 CURLEW TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JACK WILSON
2585 REGENT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JERRY & ARLENE
WEINTRAUB
4435 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RUTH LONG
4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS JOHN VAALER
2758 INVERNESS DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ELAINE TUTTERROW
4625 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TRACY TROUSSET
4919 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETER&SUSANTRENT
2706 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ZDEP
1978 HIGH RIDGE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD RECK
4534 HARTFORD PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FREDA & vANcE
SCHWEITZER
4650 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JERRY & SHARON SCHUCK
2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BARBARA 8 KARL
SCHAEFFER
4440 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
RICK & LISA SCARCIA
4245 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92111
JEFF & MAURINE
SAlTERWHITE
4366 TUOLUMNE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924
ANGEL SANTIAGO
2395 LAFAYElTE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GUY RONEY
3495 PONTIAC DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2 135
ANDREA RYAN
3502 DONN DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BARBARA RUSCllTl
4656 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
THOMAS PAPPAS
4410 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM ROEGER
4520 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RUMI RICE
4450 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
dmws pw wow
FT’- slaqe; ssa~ppv i At!3AY k$(,
SANDI RAY
2959 CAPE COD Cl?:,=
CARLSBAD. CA C203,’ -
CHRIST & JOAN POTZ 8,
HAYASHI
4798 NEBLINA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GARY & KAREN POLSTER
4385 TUOLUMNE PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARJORIE PETERSON
1841 VALENCIA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RESIDENT
STE D
2340 VIA FRANCISCA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RALPH & MYRTLE MOYER
4730 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRAD & DUREA THRALL
3608 ASHBY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DONALD & AMY MILLER
4610 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NICK MELILLO
3746 LONGVIEW DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS RALPH MORGON
4145 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
wlst~~ys PW WOW-
RESIDENT
STE 207
6417 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROLINE PRESCOTT
4669 WOODSTOCK ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DECK POPE
1977 EAST POINTE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARY & ROGER PHILLIPS
2765 VICTORIA AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARION PEIPMEYER
3018 GREENWICH ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DEBRA MC NAIRN
1794 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
i-i L MOYER
4724 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRED MOREY
2618 ABDUL ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
LACY METCALFE
4901 AVILA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LESLIE MURRELL
4718 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DON PATERSON
2768 DUNDEE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LESLIE & PAUL POZNANTER
4824 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JUDITH POOLE
4407 MAYFAIR COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT PETERSON
2766 DUNDEE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ED 81 GAIL WALKER
4381 SHASTA PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROLYN MUDGtrl
2541 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRANK MORRALL
4635 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VIRGINIA MOORE
4652 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RALPH MESSINA
4620 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RAY MC NAY
2905 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
@09x Jase7
Snoo:k Feed Srtee:-cTh'
sjaqey ssa;;p~y AU3tk -
MARY MC GRAW-GUERRERO
2970 LEXINGTON CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AGNES MC CAFFERTY
4545 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SHIRLEY hlAX\I’EL,
4891 SEVILLA \;‘A’
CARLSBAD. CA 92CZC
JOE MATUSINEC
P. 0. BOX 863
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
MARGARET & LEE MASSEY
4710 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MICHELE MARTINET
1865 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN MARTIN
2287 BRYANT DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KURT MADDEN
2705 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD & DORIS MACKEY
4721 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PEGGI LORENZ
3906 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JENNIE LUM
4530 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92102
BEVERLY & FRED
LORENTSEN
4866 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT MEED
2284 LINDSAY DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RANDY STEWART
4615 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LOUISE TESTERMAN
4951 AVILA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MOREEN SWEENEY
2645 SU’TTER STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM SUTCLIFFE
4583 PICADILLY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JAU TANK
4656 WOODSTOCK ST
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
WANDA STILES
4305 IA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HAROLD STIDOLPH
4814 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
EMMA SCOm
4728 EDINBURGH DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BONNIE SPOSATO
4563 CHANCERY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM STEELE
2001 EL CAMINO REAL
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
BARRY SPACHER
4914 PARK CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VIRGINIA SMITHE
4340 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROL SHIRK
4625 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ARTHUR SERRIN
4423 SALISBURY DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BONNIE & FRED SMELTZER
4823 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOYCE & CHARLES STIFFLER
4820 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVE SHAUGHNESSY
2642 FAIRFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
wlswqs paa4 ywow
Smooth Feed SheetsfM :I-_ l -. ->: ::mDi;X$ : ;’
GARY SMITH
2729 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARC DOYLE
BUSINESS REAL ESTATE
BROKERAGE CO. #150
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFF PINTAR
CB COMMERICAL REAL
ESTATE STE 900
4365 EXECUTIVE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
LARRY TUCKER
P 0 BOX 7974
NEWPORT BEACH CA
MIKE HOWES
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
SUITE 150
5900 PASTEUR COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LA JOLLA MARKETPLACE
PETER & C WALSH & SMITH
SUITE 4
7514 GIRARD AVE
LA JOLLA CA 92037
MAG PROPERTIES
WARD PHIL
5075 FEDERAL BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92102
PAUL KLUKAS
PLANNING SYSTEMS
SUITE 100
1530 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TOM FLANAGAN
THE CAPE HOA
2988 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN SLAWSON
SUITE C
2564 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92018
ANTHONY VILLESEUR
BUSINESS REAL ESTATE #200
4380 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
5620 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUSSELL GROSSE
GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO
SUITE A
5850 AVEINIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VIC GAUSEPOHL
ILLIF THORN REAL ESTATE
SUITE 100
2386 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB LADWIG
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC
SUITE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM NEECE
NEECE COMMERCIAL
SUITE 212
4241 JUTLAND DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92117
DAVID HUBBARD
PROCOPI, CORY, HARGREAVES
& SAVITCH STE 2100
530 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
BIZIEFF GORDON M & ASSOC
P 0 BOX 2143
CARLSBAD CA 92018
CALAVERA HILLS
DEVELOPMENT
1965 PRATT BLVD
ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007
JIM SARDO
COMMONWEALTH TITLE
SUITE 600
1455 FRAZEE ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
JIM HICKS
HALE DAY GALLAGHER
SUITE 820
W LIBERTY ST
RENO NV 89501
JOHN BURHAM & CO
RETAIL COMMERICAL
SUITE 1
1901 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEE & ASSOCIATES
IAN MAKSBURY
SUITE 102
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
PLANNING SYSTEMS
SUITE 100
1530 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFF ROGERS
ROGERS & UCKER
SUITE 1050
591 CAMINO DEL LE REINA
SAN DIEGO CA 92018
I!3 & AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 2000, to consider a request for approval of an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, deleting “Neighborhood Commercial”
and “Community Commercial” land use designations and creating, in their place, a “Local
Shopping Center” designation, together with definitions, guidelines, goals, objectives, policies,
and implementing programs, for possible application Citywide.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 30, 2000. If you
have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609.
If you challenge the amendment to the Land Use Element.of the General Plan in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 00-04
CASE NAME: NEW COMMERCIAL POLICIES/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 23,200O
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
smootp rerc: -“t--r- -.:
JIM HICKS FAMILY HENKEN
5150 AVENIDA ENClNAS 4923 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD. CA 9200E
GARY & SYLVIA GRAHAM
4540 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STACY HENDERSON
4879 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LOUIS & WENDY HEIT
1881 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VERNON & EVELYN HANSEN
4587 ESSEX COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAT & DON HADLEY
4628 TELESCOPE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETE & KATHY HAAS
4415 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WANDA HANNA
4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SUSAN GUTIERREZ
1864 PALISADES DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LESTER & AGNES GUSNARD
4110 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SARA GUIN
4675 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBIN GREEN
3825 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PATRICIA HOLMES
2657 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS FELDMANN
2703 TIBURON AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS M GOLAS
4720 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANIEL GLASSEY
4630 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD;, CA 92008
K GAVIN
4505 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARRY & SHIRLEY GAST
4551 ESSEX CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
J & J GALANTE
4660 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JUDY & DAN GAITAN
4135 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
IRENE FUCHS
4635 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GORDON FRENCH
2913 LANCASTER RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
G FURROX
820 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBYANN & MIM GUALTIERE
4360 EL CAPITAN CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM FRAMPTON
4220 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
B LITHGOW
4519 ST GEORGE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM KAMENJARIN
4430 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HANS & SALLY LINDENSHOV
2688 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR R MRS W T LISENBY
4571 CHANCERY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Laser 51600
,imoo:E reeL zJ,17=.2
JAY LEVINE JOSEPH & LUCH LEVESQUE
4927 LOMA COURT 4350 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT & TAhlARA LEl3ER
4499 SALISBURY DRI\‘E
CARLSBAD. CA 3200E
LYNDA KRAK
6609 CURLEW TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KAZIM KONYAR
1757 TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KIM & JILL KLEREKOPER
4721 TELESCOPE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TOM KING
4781 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HENRY & VESTA KIDD
4726 BIRCHWOOD CR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PAT KELLY
2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BERNICE HILL
2984 RIDGEFIELD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALDEN KAY
6300 YARROW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-l 597
DEREK & KENDALL HOLMES
4850 PARK DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3811
JERRY KALICK
4734 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS W JOOLINGEN
3827 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LYNDA JONES
2665 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CLIFF JOHNSON
2741 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WE&DRJENKS
4548 CAPE COD CR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
S INFERRERA
1828 HIGH RIDGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3759
FRANK HUTCHINS
2590 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD. CA.92008
CAROLYN HUT-TENMAIER
2750 AUBURN AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JULIA HUFF
3930 HOLLY BRAE LANE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARLINE & JIM HOPE
4558 CAPE CODE CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GARY & NANCE HOOD
1788 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROSEMARY FALKENSTEIN
4108 LA PORTALADA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALDEN & MALYNDA KAY
4367 TUOLUMNE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924
ROD &JUDY BENSON
4405 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
REESE BROWN
271 I ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM BRADFORD
P. 0. BOX 863
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ELIZABETH BO-I-TORF
4527 CARNABY COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CHRISTINE BORIS
4549 ESSEX CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
..-. : . ,. . b - . . I _. -I _;- &cfdpL; L+<tp Laser 5160@
3mootri rccu atlr-Ld __ ...-.;,r.;.. -
MR & MRS ROBERT BLASlNi
3629 CHESHIRE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN & SUE BLOSCH
4811 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANIEL & DENA BLISS
4949 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PATRICIA BIXLER
4878 SEVILLA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS ROBERT BEYNON
4415 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
W R BEVERLY
4605 LA PORTRALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETER 81 MARSHA BERTINO
2709 SOUTHAMPTON
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN FLENTZ
4541 LAMBETH COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NANCI BENSON-GRUNING
4703 BIRCHWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TAFFY CANNON
4430 TRIESTE DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
DAVID BEESON
1745 TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STEVEN & SUSANA BAUM
4610 TRAFALGAR LANE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS DOUG BAKER
4213 SUNNYHILL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3647
RICHARD ARMSTRONG
2621 BANBURY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRIAN & SHEILA ANDERSON
4125 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
EDWARD ALOE
2613 SUTTER ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRAN AGLIATA
4745 GATESHEAD RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GEORGE AFANSEV
4550 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DOUG & LAUREE ADAMS G RADLOW
7760 FAY AVENUE
LA JOLlA, CA 92027
LORI HOMSTED
3608 CHESHIRE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-
4519 SALISBURY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
STEPHENBERK
3520 CATALINA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AUDREY B CURLEY
P 0 BOX 863
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
FRANK ESQUEDA
4640 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ANGELA & JOHN ESCALLE
4862 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID & JEAN ELLIS
4732 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALEX EBEL
4467 GLADSTONE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DOUG DU BOIS
3606 ASHBY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JEAN DORNON-REUS
4738 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TIMOTHY DONOVAN
4451 DORCHESTER PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
y=T. C.i’Er?l’ /t$rf-7rncs Lal-tc’. -J. __ - ,.T Laser 5160@
;,.,gu,,. C-L ;::;->- ..I __
ROB DONATH MR & MRS E DES ROSIERS
4307 SIERRA MORENA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AL & GAIL DE WEESE
3815 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD. CA 92006
STE 2A
7720 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
JOHN DE LAURENTIS
4250 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DANA BROWNELL
2020 AURA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS RALPH DARTON
4230 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD; CA 92008
LINDA CALDER
4645 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
BOB & EDA CROSBY
4411 SALISBURY DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
JOS CORNWELL
4403 MAYFAIR CT
CARLABAD, CA 92008
ROBERT & GLORIA COOK
4575 CHELSEA CT
CARLABAD, CA 92008
ANN COLLINS
4762 GATESHEAD RD
CARLABAD, CA 92008
BILL AND ILA CLAYTON
6569 CONEFLOWER DR
CARLABAD, CA 92009-2512
LEN MARTYNS
7304 LANTANA TER
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-
DEBRA CLARKE
4807 KELLY DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
VIOLET CLARK
4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
JANET CLARK
2622 VALEWOOD AVE
CARLABAD, CA 92008-7925
MARY & JOE CICCARELLI
3412 SANTA CLARA WAY
CARLABAD, CA 92008
DR & MRS S CARMICHAEL
4566 HORIZON DR
CARLABAD, CA 92008
RALPH KUBIAK
2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WM & VIRGINIA DAVIES
4345 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ARTHUR WOOD
4770 BROOKWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JACK 8, NORMA PAEPKE
4560 TRIEST DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JANICE PACAYOS
3505 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN O’SHAUGHUESSY
4096 LOMA LAGUNA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN ORMEROD LAURA & DON OGAN MR & MRS SC0l-r
O’CONNELL
4325 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
4563 LAMBETH COURT 4202 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BETTY NIELSEN PETER 8, SYLVIA NIBLO
2663 SU-I-TER STREET 2629 VALEWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS ROBERT NELSON
4839 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
,-- : -., ‘ i-- ‘. ’ ,- .:: > r ^‘p’ecy- z&q’- .?..A’,: --.A ._ .- ._ Laser 5160”
>,,,““L,, , C;;L d’i -_._. :.-.
* THOMAS & JILL NASH . 2978 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD & NANCY WOZNIAK LAWRENCE PAULSEN
4545 lA PORTALADA DR 4817 NEBLINA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR&MRSA
Wll-l-ENDORFER
2721 GREENOCK CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JACK WILSON
2585 REGENT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MR & MRS JOHN VAALER
2758 INVERNESS DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PETER&SUSANTRENT
2706 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FREDA & VANCE
SCHWEITZER
4650 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICK & LISA SCARCIA
4245 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92111
ANDREd RYAN
3502 DONN DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM ROEGER
4520 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ZIEMER FAMILY TORRES
4728 AMBERWOOD COURT 4919 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD. CA 02006
PAUL WOLKIN
4107 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BILL & SONYA WIT LAURA WINEHOLT
4825 KELLY DR 6664 CURLEW TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JERRY 8 ARLENE RUTH LONG
WEINTRAUB 4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR
4435 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
ELAINE TUTTERROW TRACY TROUSSET
4625 TRIESTE DR 4919 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ZDEP
1978 HIGH RIDGE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD RECK
4534 HARTFORD PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JERRY & SHARON SCHUCK
2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JEFF & MAURINE
SAlTERWHITE
4366 TUOLUMNE PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7924
BARBARA RUSCllTl
4656 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RUMI RICE
4450 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BARBARA & KARL
SCHAEFFER
4440 IA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ANGEL SANTIAGO
2395 LAFAYETTE CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GUY RONEY
3495 PONTIAC DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2135
THOMAS PAPPAS
4410 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
y--T r ’ -z’i”-,, - -:-.-. t-. Laser 5160@
RESIDENT
STE 207
6417 TOBRIA TERRACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROLINE PRESCOTT
4669 WOODSTOCK ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DECK POPE
1977 EAST POINTE AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DON PA’TTERSON
2768 DUNDEE CT
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
LESLIE & PAUL POZNANTER
4824 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JUDITH POOLE
4407 MAYFAIR COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SANDI RAY
2959 CAPE COD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD. CA 9200s
CHRIST & JOAN POT2 &
HAYASHI
4798 NEBLINADRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GARY & KAREN POLSTER
4385 TUOLUMNE PLACE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARY & ROGER PHILLIPS ROBERT PETERSON MARJORIE PETERSON
2765 VICTORIA AVENUE 2766 DUNDEE CT 1841 VALENCIA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARION PEIPMEYER
3018 GREENWICH ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ED & GAIL WALKER
4381 SHASTA PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RESIDENT
STE D
2340 VIA FFiANClSCA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DEBRA MC NAIRN
1794 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROLYN MUDGETT
2541 REGENT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RALPH & MYRTLE MOYER
4730 AMBERWOOD CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
4 L MOYER
4724 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRED MOREY
2618 ABDUL ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
LACY METCALFE
4901 AVIIA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FRANK MORRALL
4635 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VIRGINIA MOORE
4652 CORALWOOD CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RALPH MESSINA
4620 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
BRAD & DUREA THRALL
3608 ASHBY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DONALD & AMY MILLER
4610 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
NICK MELILLO
3746 LONGVIEW DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LESLIE MURRELL RAY MC NAY MR 8, MRS RALPH MORGON
4718 AMBERWOOD CT 2905 LANCASTER RD 4145 IA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
7-y . : -7‘TT.F .:-. .- ;.yc;y.: TY-3:: - ._.. . ._ Laser 5160@
~I:I”“,,I I CCL 2llCCi3
‘MARY MC GRAW-GUERRERO AGNES MC CAFFERTY
4545 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SHIRLEY MAXWELL
4891 SEVILLA WA)’
CARLSBAD, CA 9200s
2970 LEXINGTON CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOE MATUSINEC
P. 0. BOX 863
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
MICHELE MARTINET
1865 EAST POINTE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARGARET & LEE MASSEY
4710 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
JOHN MARTIN
2287 BRYANT DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
KURT MADDEN
2705 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICHARD & DORIS MACKEY
4721 AMBERWOOD COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JENNIE LUM
4530 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92102
PEGGI LORENZ
3906 SIERRA MORENA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BEVERLY & FRED
LORENTSEN
4866 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT MEED
2284 LINDSAY DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RANDY STEWART
4615 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LOUISE TESTERMAN
4951 AVILA AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JAU TANK
4656 WOODSTOCK ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MOREEN SWEENEY
2645 SUlTER STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JIM SUTCLIFFE
4583 PICADILLY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WANDA STILES
4305 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HAROLD STIDOLPH
4814 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
EMMA SCOT
4728 EDINBURGH DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WILLIAM STEELE
2001 EL CAMINO REAL
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
BONNIE SPOSATO
4563 CHANCERY CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BARRY SPACHER
4914 PARK CT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
VIRGINIA SMITHE
4340 TRIESTE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CAROL SHIRK
4625 LA PORTALADA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ARTHUR SERRIN
4423 SALISBURY DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BONNIE & FRED SMELTZER
4823 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOYCE & CHARLES STIFFLER
4820 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVE SHAUGHNESSY
2842 FAIRFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
z F”JfEy: Adcircss Labe!~ Laser 5160@
-GARY SMITH
2729 GLASGOW DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BUSINESS REAL ESTATE
BROKERAGE CO.
MARC DOYLE
STE 150
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CB COMMERICAL REAL
ESTATE
JEFF PINTAR
STE 900
4365 EXECUTIVE DR
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5620 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
GRANT TUCKER GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO
PROPERTIES RUSSELL GROSSE
LARRY TUCKER STE A
P 0 BOX 7974 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS
NEWPORT BEACH, CA CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HOFMAN PLANNING
ASSOCIATES
MIKE HOWES
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
ILLIF THORN REAL ESTATE
VIC GAUSEPOHL
STE 100
2386 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LA JOLLA MARKETPLACE
PETER &C WALSH & SMITH
SUITE 4
7514 GIRARD AVE
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP INC
BOB LADWIG
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
MAG PROPERTIES
WARD PHIL
5075 FEDERAL BLVD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92102
PLANNING SYSTEMS
PAUL KLUKAS
STE 100
1530 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
THE CAPE HOA
TOM FLANAGAN
2988 RIDGEFIELD AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
JOHN SLAWSON
STE C
2564 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD. CA 92018
BUSINESS REAL ESTATE
BROKERS
ANTHONY VILLESEUR
200
4380 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR
NEECE COMMERCIAL
WILLIAM NEECE
STE 212 ’
4241 JUTLAND DR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
PROCOPI, CORY,
HARGREAVES & SAVITCH
DAVID HUBBARD
STE 2100
530 B STREET
SU L3iCaC c4 qz/,,
BIZIEFF, GORDON \I S
ASSOC
PO BOX 2143
CARLSBAD. CA 9201 E
CALAVERA HILLS
DEVELOPMENT
1965 PRATT BLVD
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, IL
60007
COMMONWEALTH TITLE
JIM SARDO
STE 600
1455 FRAZEE ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
HALE DAY GALLAGHER
JIM HICKS
STE 820
W LIBERTY ST
RENO, NV 89501
JOHN BURHAM & CO
RETAIL COMMERICAL
INTERES
STE 1
1901 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
LEE & ASSOCIATES
IAN MAKSBURY
STE 102
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
PLANNING SYSTEMS
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
STE 100
1530 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROGERS & UCKER
JEFF ROGERS
1050
591 CAMINO DE LE REINA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-
A notice has been mailed to
all property owners/occupants
listed hereif\. Date: / / I L -,/$c’
Address iabets Laser 5160@