Loading...
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@