Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-05; City Council; 16672; Shopping Center RedesignationsDEPT. PLN CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL m: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS GPA 01-06 b- RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. CITY MGR ZZP That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. :3mJ3 - 0 7 / , ADOPTING the Negative Declaration and APPROVING General Plan Amendment GPA 01-06. ITEM EXPLANATION: On March 21, 2001, the City Council adopted GPA 00-04, an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan that created a new policy framework affecting the classification, location, distribution, and development of retail land uses throughout the city. In particular the amendment made changes in two broad areas: a) the general plan’s old ”Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial“ land use designations were merged into a new, single ”Local Shopping Center” land use designation, and b) new policies and principles were adopted through which a subsequent site-specific commercial study was to be undertaken to establish the ultimate spatial distribution and number of local shopping centers throughout the city. Over the intervening months the site-specific study was completed. The current action follows from converting built and vacant sites with the old general plan designations to the new designation, and both the new policy framework and the results of the site-specific study and is concerned with a) b) adding certain sites to, and deleting other sites from, the general plan’s inventory of local shopping center sites. At a noticed public hearing on December 5, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend to City Council approval of GPA 01-06, changing the general plan land use designations on 17 properties. The changes would bring the sites’ designations into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision and implement the results of the site study. More specifically, the changes would assign the new “Local Shopping Center” designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Community Commercial” designations, convert one site from “Community Commercial” to “Residential - Medium High Density”, convert two sites from “Residential - Medium High density’’ to “Local Shopping Center”, and convert the “Community sites are located throughout the City. A map of the locations and a table that sets out the site-by-site Commercial” component of a combination designation on one site to “Regional Commercial“. These details are both provided in an exhibit to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5104. Exhibit 5 includes two letters of public comment on this proposal, Although this proposal would amend the general plan land use map, and six of the 17 properties are within the Coastal Zone, no amendment to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is necessary. The LCP makes use of but two classes of commercial land use: “Visitor Commercial” and “General Commercial” and all six sites have the LCP designation of ”General Commercial”. The General Plan designations of “Community Commercial” and “Local Shopping Center” are all considered to be subsets of the larger LCP class “General Commercial”. Therefore, changes from one general plan designation to the other are all done within the LCP class of General Commercial. No change in the LCP designation would occur on any of the properties with the proposed actions and, therefore, no LCP amendment is needed. On the other hand, staff is working on the creation of a new commercial zone, designed to implement the new Local Shopping Center general plan classification. (Staff is targeting hearings on I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 L.! b 7 d this new zone later in the year). Unlike the general plan changes just discussed, any amendment to the City’s zoning codes would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the new zone will be accompanied by such an amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL: On September 4, 2001, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The document was noticed in the newspaper and to a list of known interested parties and property owners for review. Letters of comment were received from the following two parties: 0 Freda and Vance Schweitzer 0 David Hubbard, Attorney for the Sea Cliffs Home Owners’ Association Copies of these letters are attached to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3) and responses are contained within the environmental section of the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: As part of the agenda bill for the earlier general plan amendment on the new shopping center policy framework (GPA 00-04), the Finance department provided the following observations which also pertain to the current action: “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 (Le., the property tax reallocations in the early go’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”. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. am a 4 7/ 2. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5104 and 5105 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 5, 2001 4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 5, 2001 5. Letters of Comment received following the preparation of the Planning Commission staff report: . Russ Kohl, President, Rancho Carlsbad Owners’ Association 0 Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Properties, LLC a 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. 2002-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 15 SITES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS CASE NO.: GPA 01-06 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on December 5, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, and unanimously recommended its approval: and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 5th day of March, 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration; 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 the Negative Declaration for GPA 01-06) as shown in by reference and that the findings of the Planning Commission are the findings of the City Planning Commission Resolution No. 5104, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: "This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption, except for the General Plan Amendment which shall be effective 30 days following its adoption." Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill ( , 1( 1: 1: 1: lf 1: 1t 1; 18 IS 2( 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 01 Carlsbad on the 5" day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall. NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST:, &byim RAI E M. WOOD, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 of Xesolution No. 2002-071 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5104 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN ON 17 PROPERTIES LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY, TO BRING THEM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN’S NEW POLICY VISION FOR THE LOCATION AND NLMBER OF SHOPPING CENTERS. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS CASE NO.: GPA 0 1-06 WHEREAS, The City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by various parties, described in Exhibit “GPA 01-06‘’ (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of December, 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: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated September 4, 2001, and “PII” dated August 29, 2001, 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: 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. B. C. D. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 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 upon the EIA Part I1 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 5th day of December 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAIN: JEFFlb’fV. SEGkdChaimerson CAR~SBAD PL&G COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H~LZM~~LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5 104 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Seventeen sites within the City of Carlsbad. Please see maps attached to Initial Study. Project Description: Changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping Center’’ designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping Center” and “Community Shopping Center’’ designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation including Community Commercial to a combination designation including Regional Commercial. Please see the attached “Table 1: Property Descriptions”. 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 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. DATED: September 4,2001 CASE NO: GPA 01-06 CASE NAME: Shopping Center Redesignations PUBLISH DATE: September 4,2001 MICHAEL J. H~Z~LER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIROY3fENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORA1 - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMEhT) CASE NO: GPA 0 1-06 DATE: Aueust 29,ZOOl BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Shouuing Center Redesimations 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad. CA 9200s. (760) 602-4609 4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: n.a. Citv of Carlsbad uroiect 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision for the Center” designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping Center” and “Community location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium Shopping Center” designations, converting one designated Community Commercial to Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional Commercial. Please see the attached location maps and “Table 1: Property Descriptions”. Also see the section entitled: “DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Air Quality 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 B DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Ix1 0 0 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 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 significant 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 document 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. 2 Rev. 03/28\96 9 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 follo\ving 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 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. “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 “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but 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 ID 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 revielv. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated“ may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An ElR 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 ER, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EM-Part I1 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 appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 // Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANVING. 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 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an land uses? established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Potentially Siyificant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections O indirectly (e& through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major i&astructure)? housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? r) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land h) Expansive soils? n o 0 0 0 O o conditions from excavation, grading, or fill 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features Potentially Significant Unless hlmgation Incorporated o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S~pificant Less Than lmpncl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI €23 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or propem to water related hazards c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water rate and amount of surface runoff? 0 o[XI such as flooding 0 0 nIxl surface water quality (e.g. temperature) 0 0 OIxl body 0 0 om movements? 0 0 om 5 Rev. 03/28/96 /a Issues (and Suppotting Information Sources), Potentially Slpificant Impact 0 Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through 0 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater o 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? existing or projected air quality violation c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? h) Hazards to safety fiom design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative g) Rail, waterhome or air traffic impacts? proposal result in: transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Significant Less Thm So Potenttall) M~n_eation Impact Unless Sl-mificmt Impm Incorporated I7 om I7 om 0 nm 0 om 0 om 0 0 0 om 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 om 0 0 om VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 0 om animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 '0 om 0 0 om forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?) 0 0 om VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 0 0 om 6 Rev. 03/28/96 /3 Potentially Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Impact 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? 0 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0 I7 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? O 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? h) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect c) Create light or glare? 0 0 0 Stgnificant Potentially Unless Mitieanon Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stpficant Impm LessThan So Impact OB om OB OB OB om OB om OB om OB om om om 7 Rev. 03/28/96 I4 Potentially Si-m~ficant Less Thw No Stpificant Unless S~g~tficanr Impact Potentially Imuact Mltlpatton lmoact Incorporated Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 0 0 om 0 0 om 0 0 om would affect unique ethruc cultural values? I7 om potential impact area? 0 0 om XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opponunities? parks or other recreational facilities 0 0 om 0 0 om XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 om habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehstory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, hut cumulatively considerable? 0 0 OIXI (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, incremental effects of a project are considerable when the effects of other current projects, and the effects of c) Does the project have environmental effects which will probable future projects)? cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 om XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by 8 Rev. 03/28/96 I 5 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, c) Mitigation measures. For effects that. are “Less than Significant with Mitisation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. For this project, no earlier analysis has been relied upon. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This “project” consists of changes to the land use designations for 17 sites shown on the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The proposed action is of a policy nature only and no construction is being proposed with this action. (Please see the attached Table 1 for a tabular description of the 17 sites and the changes proposed for each. Also see the attached site location maps. A name and number that corresponds to the name and number used in Table 1 is used to identify each mapped site.) These proposed changes come about as follow-through to a major change to the policy framework of the general plan, approved by the City Council (GPA 00-04, March 21, 2001, affecting the classification, location, and distribution of retail land uses throughout the city. The amendment brought about two major arenas of policy change: a) the general plan’s old “Neighborhood Commercial” designation and the “Community Commercial” land use designation were merged into a single, new “Local Shopping Center” designation”, and b) new policies and principles were adopted through which a subsequent “commercial study” was to be undertaken to establish the ultimate spatial distribution and number of local shopping centers throughout the city. Over the intervening months the commercial study has been completed. The current action follows from the study and is concerned with a) converting built and vacant sites with the old designations to the new .designation, and b) adding and deleting certain shopping center sites to the Land Use Map in keeping with the results of the commercial study and the new policy framework. A new zone for the Local Shopping Center land use designation is being prepared and will be applied later to those properties with the “L” designation. The new zone is not part of the subject project. With 13 of the 17 proposed general plan changes the current land use designation is for either a community shopping center or neighborhood shopping center and the new designation is for a local shopping center. As the old designations no longer exist, the proposed changes are primarily pro-forma in nature, necessary to bring the site-specific designations into conformance with the new land use nomenclature. From Table 1, these sites are: 1. Carlsbad Plaza North 8. Unnamed at Tamarack and Adams Street 2. Carlsbad Plaza South 9. The Country Store 3. Plaza Paseo Real 12. SUMY Creek Plaza 4. West Bluff Plaza 14. MAG properties 5. La Costa Plaza 15. Tienda de la Esquina, and 6. La Costa Town Center 16. Smith-Walsh property, 7. Poinsettia Plaza 9 Rev. 03/28/96 16 The land use changes on the remaining four sites come about as an outcome of the recently completed commercial study that evaluated the need for future shopping centers and their spatial distribution, based upon the new policy framework. The City is proposing that land use designations be changed from commercial to non-commercial. from non-commercial to commercial, or from one type of commercial to another. From Table 1. these sites are: 10. Calavera Hills Village E-1 (from commercial to residential) 11. Robertson Ranch (from residential to commercial), and 13. Bressi Ranch (from residential to commercial) 17. The Pavilions/Green Valley (from Community Commercial to Regional Commercial). Nine of the 17 sites are already built with existing shopping centers (see Table 1). There is no expansion or new construction proposed for any of these sites at this time and, therefore, there will be no possible environmental effects with this action. The remaining 8 sites are vacant. Some have undergone some form of environmental review previously. With others, project proposals are pending and appropriate environmental documents are being prepared. On still others, no development has been proposed, and, hence, no environmental review has been done. What follows is a description of each vacant site and its current status: 10. Calavera Hills. Village E-1. The subject proposal is to change the land use designation from “Community Commercial” (C) to “Residential, Medium High” density (RMH - 8-15 dwelling units per acre) on this nine-acre site. The site is part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, which is undergoing a major amendment designed principally to accommodate the preservation of additional acres of sensitive habitat within the plan. The landowners wish to delete the shopping center from the Master Plan site in favor of medium-high density residential uses. The commercial land use study indicated that this site is not needed to meet the new location criteria for shopping center spacing as shopping for this area could be provided via sites in Oceanside (Quarry Creek) and the Robertson Ranch and Sunny Creek Plaza sites in Carlsbad. EIR 98-02 finished public review on April 2, 2001. It was prepared for the Master Plan Amendment and speaks to all of the land use changes proposed for the Master Plan, including the change in uses for the subject site. The Master Plan amendment is not yet scheduled for public hearings. 11. Robertson Ranch. The proposal is for a “floating designation” for “Local Shopping Center” (L) within the Ranch. The entire ranch is currently designated for “Residential, Low-Medium” density (RLM 0 - 4 ddac.). The owners of the Ranch are just beginning to consider a master plan or specific plan for the long-range development of the ranch. Nothing has been submitted to the city for approval at this time, and no earlier environmental review has been conducted on this site. Although the shopping center is subject to the location policies and guidelines recently established in the General Plan, the exact location will not be settled until the master/specific plan is developed and approved by the city. An EIR will probably be required for the master/specific plan. Preliminary proposals for a IO-acre shopping center anchored by an Albertsons market have been discussed. The shopping center study indicates that this site, in conjunction with the Sunny Creek Plaza (site 12) and Quarry Creek site in Oceanside could provide the needed shopping services for the Calavera Hills and TamaracWEl Camino Real areas. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 I7 12. Sunnv Creek Plaza. The proposal is a simple conversion of the old “Community Commercial”(C) to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation on this IS-acre site. The City has been processing a proposal for a neighborhood shopping center on this site, called Sunny Creek Plaza. The application has remained incomplete for a long time and recently the city requested that the application be withdrawn due to inactivity. The site underwent environmental review in 1998, via EIR 98-01, as pan of the review for the Sunny Creek Terraces proposal for 250 residential units, located south of the Plaza site, across future College Boulevard. The EIR also considered the impacts of mass grading of the Plaza site (including import of fill from the Terraces site) and the site’s use for the storage of recreation vehicles for the residential development. Development of the Plaza site for a shopping center likely will require additional site-specific environmental review. The commercial study indicates that this site, together with the Robertson Ranch site, is desirable to provide shopping center coverage to the areas along the El Camino Real corridor north of Palomar Airport Road and South of Chestnut Street. The trade areas of the two sites would overlap somewhat. 13. Bressi Ranch. A Master Plan for the 600-acre ranch site is currently being prepared, together with a preliminary, draft EIR. The Master Plan tentatively calls for a mixed- use “town center” on approximately 20-25 acres of the site, to include a retail shopping component. This proposal is still being formulated and is subject to refinement and charige. Neither the draft Master Plan nor the draft EIR is completed at this time. The subject proposal is to assign a floating “Local Shopping Center” (L) general plan designation in the approximate location being discussed in the draft Master Plan for the mixed-use site. This site and the surrounding area are currently designated in the General Plan for “Residential, Low-Medium” density (RLM 0 - 4 d.u./ac.). The commercial study indicated that a shopping center would be desirable in this area to provide additional trade area “coverage” for the Bressi Ranch and Carrillo Ranch areas as well as the industrial corridor along the eastern reaches of El Camino Real. 14. MAG Prouerties. This vacant site consists of land designated for nearly 54 acres of “Conimunity Commercial” (C) and 23 acres of “Office and Related Commercial” (0). The subject proposal is to convert the old “Community Commercial” (C) designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L). The City has received and is beginning a formal review of an application for development of this site, pursuant to the proposed land use designation. The development proposal is for approximately 444,000 square feet of retail and office uses, plus approximately 131 dwelling units on other owned land that adjoins the commercial properties. The City is in the process of scoping and preparing an EIR for this project. The developer may request further amendments to the general plan to re-configure the retail, office, and residential land use designations. These land use changes are NOT part of the subject proposal and would be considered and processed with the development proposal and EIR. The commercial study indicated that a local shopping center at this location is necessary to provide basic retail services to southern and eastern parts of the La Costa community that would not otherwise be adequately served. 15. Tienda de la Esauina. The proposal is to convert the old ‘“Neighborhood Commercial” (N) designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation. The 7%-acre site is vacant. Approvals were granted several years ago to develop the 11 Rev. 03/28/96 /8 site with a drive-through drug store. The entitlements were not exercised and. subsequently, expired. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the earlier proposal in 1991. This site would also provide service to areas of southern and eastern La Costa that would not otherwise be adequately served. 16. Smith-Walsh Property. The subject proposal is simply to convert the old “Neighborhood Commercial” designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation. Recently the City prepared a preliminary review of the 5-acre, vacant site for the development of a 50,000 square-foot shopping center to be anchored by a Henrys market. A formal proposal has not been submitted to the City. The commercial study indicated that the trade area of the existing Poinsettia Village shopping center (located westerly, across 1-5) would overlap much of the trade area of a center on this site. However, a Henrys-based center would provide an alternative mix of goods and services and could, therefore, be supported under the new policy framework. If the owner makes a formal submittal, the City will prepare an appropriate environmental document for the development. 17. Pavilions/Green Valley. This area is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan with a combination designation of “Community CommerciaVOffce and Related CommerciaY Residential, Medium High Density” (CIOIRMH, 8-15 ddac.). The proposal is to convert the “Community Commercial” (C) portion of the designation to “Regional Commercial” (WO/RMH) on this 18-acre, vacant site. The site is part of the Green Valley Master Plan, for which EIR 93-02 was prepared in 1995. The Master Plan calls for up to 300,000 square feet of retail commercial on this site. The City has received and is reviewing a development proposal for The Pavilions, 261,000 square feet of general retail development. Because of the size and type of commercial development being proposed and, particularly, its location relative to the adjoining Encinitas Town Center complex, a regional center located to the south, across Calle Barcelona, the commercial study suggests that the site would not serve as a local shopping center and would be better classified as regional commercial. The site is not needed to provide trade area service to eastern and southern La Costa, provided that the MAG and/or Tienda de la Esquina site(s) are developed with a local shopping center(s). Visitor Servine Overlav Zone: three of the sites are within the City’s Visitor Serving Overlay Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.208). This overlay zone ‘was created in 1999 to supplement the underlying zoning for commercial and visitor-serving land uses by requiring a conditional use permit with the City Council as the decision-maker. The purpose is to prevent the over- proliferation of certain uses, to promote maximum public disclosure about new commerciaYvisitor serving proposals, to assure good design and design compatibility with existing uses, and to assure good vehicular circulation and the integration of alternative transportation alternatives into project design. The overlay zone exists along the central coastal corridor of the City and along the western reaches of El Camino Real. The three sites subject to this additional development review are (with reference to Table 1): 7. Poinsettia Plaza 8. Site at Tamarack Avenue and Adams Avenue 16. SmitWalsh site In conclusion, the proposed action (changes of general plan land use land use classifications on 17 sites) will not result in any construction and, therefore, will not result in any environmental 12 Rev. 03/28/96 /9 impacts. Development projects that rely on the proposed general plan changes either are preparing site-specific environmental documents, or will prepare them when and if development projects are proposed. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) None ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) None required APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. (Not applicable) Date Signature Attachments: 1. Table 1 : Property Descriptions 2. Site Location Maps 13 Rev. 03128196 20 I 2 -1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 z z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 r .. m G 4 4 00 W r - n C m - m m h 00 W I + + z 0 .- C m 0 s Y C c 3 J z z 0 7 In J z -2 m c al I 'D I z z 0 t 0 C I1 II I1 I1 I1 I1 PROPERTY #1 & #2 CARLSBAD PLAZA NORTH & SOUTH GPA 01 -06 PLAZA PASEO REAL & WEST BLUFF PLAZA GPA 01-06 PROPERTY #5 & #6 SITE LA COSTA PLAZA & LA COSTA TOWN CENTER GPA 01-06 PROPERTY #7 & #I6 POINSETTIA PLAZA & SMITH/WALSH PROPERTY GPA 01 -06 PROPERTY #8 VON’S AT TAMARACK AVE. GPA 01 -06 PROPERTY #9 & #11 THE COUNTRY STORE & ROBERTSON RANCH GPA 01 -06 a8 PROPERTY #10 CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-I GPA 01-06 PROPERTY #I2 SUNNY CREEK PLAZA GPA 01-06 PROPERTY #I3 BRESSI RANCH SITE GPA 01 -06 PROPERTY #14 & #I5 SITE MAG PROPERTIES, RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE & TIENDA DE LA ESQUINA GPA 01-06 32 PROPERTY #17 THE PAVILION GPA 01 -06 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5105 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN ON 17 PROPERTIES LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY TO BRING THEM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN’S NEW POLICY VISION FOR THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SHOPPING CENTERS. CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS CASE NO: GPA 01-06 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding seventeen properties owned by various parties, described in Exhibit “GPA 01-06”, (“the Properties”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-06” dated December 5,2001, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS - GPA 01-06, 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 5th day of December, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) 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 REDESIGNA- TIONS - GPA 01-06, based on the following findings: 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. ... ... ... ... ... That the proposed changes in land use designations are necessary to implement the new shopping center policy framework articulated by the Carlshad City Council on March 21, 2001, through GPA 00-04, affecting the classification, location, distribution, and development of shopping centers throughout the city. That the proposed changes will implement the new shopping center policy framework by providing replacement land use designations to those properties that previously were designated as “Neighborhood Commercial’’ and “Community Commercial”, which designations were eliminated from the General Plan with the adoption of GPA 00-04. That the proposed changes will implement the new shopping center policy framework by implementing goals and objectives contained within the Land Use Element, as established by GPA 00-04, in particular: Commercial Goal A.2 “A City that provides for the development of compatible, conveniently located local shopping centers;” Commercial Objective 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-commercialization, consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community;” and Commercial Objective 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.” That the proposed changes will implement and be consistent with the new commercial policies and programs set out in the Land Use Element, via GPA 00-04, in particular (hut not limited to) those policies that set out guidelines for the location and distribution of shopping centers (specifically, Policies C.2. 1-8) and those policies that establish ways to build and operate local shopping centers so as not to conflict with adjoining residential areas (specifically, Policies C.3.1-3). PC RES0 NO. 5105 -2- 35 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 21 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: 0 MICHAEL J. HOTZMIIYER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5105 -3- Shopping Center Redesignations EXHIBIT "GPA 01-06" December 5,2001 Property Locatlon/Address Carlsbad Plaza North NE corner of El Camina Real and Marmn Rd Carlsbad Plaza South SE Corner of El Camino Real and Marron Rd. Plaza Paseo Real NW corner of El Camina Real and Aviara Parkway West Bluff Plaza SE corner of El Camino Real and Dove Lane La Costa Plaza NE corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Ave. and Avenida Encinas Unnamed SW ComerofTamarack Avenue and Adams. The Country Store SW side of El Camino Real near Kelley Dr. Calavera Hills Vil1az.e E-l Carlsbad Village Dr:and College Blvd. Robertson Ranch NE of El Camina Real near Lisa Street. Sunny Creek Plaza NW corner of Calleze Blvd (future) and El Camim Real Bressi Ranch West of El Fuerte St., South of Palamar Airport Road MAG propertiedllancho La Costa Village (contiguous sites) La Costa Ave and Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Tienda de la Esquina Rancho Sam Fe Rd. and Camina De Las Coches. Smith / Walsh SW corner of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte The Pavilion Jaka: Lowder Lane). South ofCalle Barcellma, West of El Camino Real. AsSessOr'S Parcel Visitor Serving Corrtal Development Major G.P. Proposed Chances Numbers Overlay Zone? Zone? S1.t"S Anchors From TO 167-030-29 167-030-32 167-03048 167-030-74 and 5 167-030-50 Developed V0"S C L NO NO Good Guys 167-030-52 NO NO Developed Final C L Smart & 215-050-71 and 72 216-580-01 thru08 168-04-08 NO NO Vacant Vacant C RMH 208-010-32 NO NO Vacant Vacant RLM L 209-090-1 I Vacant; Project NO No application recently Major C withdrawn, property Market L in receivenhip Vacant; 213-030-17and 18 NO NO Master Plan in RLM L preparation, calls for mixed-use devt. Vacant I I I MAG site is vacant: I I I 223-060-28 and 29 NO No application received 223-060-32 and in process. Unknown C L Rancho La Costa wrtian in construct. I I I with Sav-OnDmg. I I I 255-031-20 NO NO project approvals Unknown N L Vacant; Prior 214-471-53 YCS Yes Preliminary review Unknown N L Vacant; done, no application 255-012-04 NO Vacant; Project Gcneral CiOiRMH WOi and in process RMH Yes application received commercial General Plan Desianationr: N = Neighbarhocd Commercial (class no longer exists) C = Community Commercial (class no longer exisu) L = Local Shopping Center (recently created land use class) 0 = Ofice and RelatedCommercial T-R = TravellRecreatian Commercial RLM = Residential, low medium (0 - 4 d.u./ac.) RMH = Residential, medium height (8 -15 d.u./ac.) R = Regional Commerieal Exhibit GPA 01-06 37 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 3 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: Not applicable P.C. AGENDA OF: December 5,2001 Project Planner: Dennis Tumer Project Engineer: None SUBJECT: GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS - Changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping Center” designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping Center” and “Community Shopping Center” designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional Commercial, in various areas of the City. I. - RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5104 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and No. 5105, RECOM- MENDING APPROVAL of Shopping Center Redesignations - GPA 01-06, based upon the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION This item proposes changes in the general plan land use designations for 17 properties. These changes are follow-throughs to the adoption by City Council, on March 21, 2001, of a general plan amendment affecting the City’s policy framework for shopping center development. These land use changes are necessary to implement that new policy framework. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On March 21,2001 the City Council adopted GPA 00-04, an amendment to the land use element of the Carlsbad General Plan that created a new policy framework affecting the classification, location, distribution, and development of retail land uses throughout the city. In particular the amendment made changes in two broad arenas: a) the general plan’s old “Neighborhood Commercial” designation and the “Community Commercial” land use designation were merged into a single, new “Local Shopping Center” designation,” and b) new policies and principles were adopted through which a subsequent site-specific commercial study was to be undertaken to establish the ultimate spatial distribution and number of local shopping centers throughout the city. Over the intervening months the site study has been completed. The current action follows from a 29 GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Pane 2 both the new policy framework and the site study and is concerned with a) converting built and vacant sites with the old general plan designations to the new designation, and b) adding certain sites to and deleting certain sites from the General Plan’s inventory of shopping center sites. In a separate outgrowth of the policy study, staff is working on a new zone to implement the Local Shopping Center general plan designation. Once it is approved, the new zone will be applied to those properties with the “L” General Plan designation. Neither the creation of that new zone nor its application to individual properties is part of the current action. A table describing in detail all 17 sites is part of Attachment 1: Resolution 5105, as Exhibit GPA 01-06. The numbering system of sites from that table is used in the following discussion. In addition, Attachment 2 consists of eleven Location Maps, showing the sites relative to surrounding neighborhoods. With 13 of the 17 proposed general plan changes the current land use designation of the site is for either a community shopping center or neighborhood shopping center and the new designation is for a local shopping center. As the old designations no longer exist in the general plan (due to GPA 00-04), the proposed changes are primarily pro-forma in nature, necessary to bring the site-specific designations into conformance with the new land use nomenclature. Of these 13, nine sites are already built (or in construction) with existing shopping centers and there is no proposal for redevelopment or expansion. From Exhibit GPA 01-06 these 13 sites are identified as: 1. Carlsbad Plaza North 8. Unnamed at Tamarack and Adams Street 2. Carlsbad Plaza South 9. The Country Store 3. Plaza Paseo Real 12. *Sunny Creek Plaza 4. West Bluff Plaza 14. *MAG properties 5. La Costa Plaza** 15. *Tienda de la Esquina, and 7. Poinsettia Plaza * = Undeveloped site 6. La Costa Town Center 16. *Smith-Walsh property, ** = In redevelopment construction The land use changes on the remaining four sites (all undeveloped) come about as an outcome of the recently completed commercial site study that evaluated the need for future shopping centers and their spatial distribution, based upon the new policy framework. Staff is proposing that land use designations be changed from commercial to non-commercial, from non-commercial to commercial, or from one type of commercial to another. Following Exhibit GPA 01-06, these sites are: 10. Calavera Hills Village E-1 (from commercial to residential) 11. Robertson Ranch (from residential to commercial), 13. Bressi Ranch (from residential to commercial), and 17. The PaviliodGreen Valley (from Community Commercial to Regional Commercial). 39 GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 3 As has been stated, eight sites are vacant. Formal development applications have been received and are being processed by the city on two of the sites (MAG properties and The Pavilion). For two others, the sites are part of ongoing master planning processes for much larger properties (Bressi Ranch and Robertson Ranch). More detailed information about each of the vacant sites is contained in the next section of this report. IV. ANALYSIS A. Commercial Site Study Studv Concepts. With the adoption of GPA 00-04 in March 2001, the City Council established goals, policies, and concepts that should be used to determine where and how new Local Shopping Centers should be developed in Carlsbad. Among the most important of these are the following ideas: . The idea that future retail services should be contained in discrete Local Shopping Centers, focusing primarily on the provision of local goods and’ services and that strip commercial and general commercial districts should be avoided. . The concept of trade areas for shopping centers and their definition in terms of travel times from home to shopping (five- minutes travel times were favored). . The idea that there should not be gaps between trade areas (underserved), and that a degree of overlap in trade areas was authorized (promoting some degree of competition and diversity of goods and services), so long as over-commercialization did not occur. . The idea that, in order to be viable, trade areas need to contain a critical minimum population, and that more than the minimum population might be required when trade areas overlap. . The idea that shopping centers should not be developed in the middle of the residential neighborhoods they serve, but on the major roads adjoining the neighborhoods, and that shopping centers developed along El Camino Real must be designed so as to preserve the scenic quality of this comdor. . The observation that the city’s adopted criteria for intersection spacing would affect the classes of streets on which shopping centers could be located and the types of ingress and egress points that would be viable. The Approach. The site study focused on analyzing future shopping center trade areas, using the travel time methodology that was presented to City Council in March 2001 (with GPA 00-04). From that earlier work it was known that certain areas of the City would be underserved at build-out, when using a five-minute travel time. These areas included some of the eastern and central residential parts of the city, much of the industrial core along Palomar Airport Road, and some residential areas in southern La Costa. The objective of the site study was to identify what additional sites would be desirable to add to the inventory of existing sites so as to provide at least basic shopping center coverage to these underserved areas of the City. “Basic coverage” meant that all areas of the City would be within a five- minute travel-time of at least one center. Based upon the policies adopted by City Council on March 21, 2001 it would be acceptable, even desirable, for some degree of overlap in trade areas to occur, as long as over-commercialization does not occur. GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 4 In addition to the City Council’s adopted policies, staffs recommendation for additional sites also includes these principles: . In general, add to the inventory those sites that were already designated in the General Plan for shopping center use (the old Neighborhood and Community Commercial designations). . Delete such existing designated sites only if a) landowners and neighborhoods both indicate an interest in such a deletion (for example: Calavera Hills, Village E-1), AND b) such sites are not necessary to provide basic service to nearby neighborhoods. . Add to the inventory those sites for which a) private developers and land owners have indicated interests in building shopping centers, AND b) those sites also assist in the objective of providing basic service to nearby neighborhoods (for example: Bressi Ranch and Robertson Ranch). The Results. From these policies and principles staff has recommended a list of six additional vacant sites to the inventory of built Local Shopping Centers as being desirable to implement the General Plan’s new shopping center policy framework: 1 1. Robertson Ranch 12. Sunny Creek Plaza 13. Bressi Ranch 14. MAG Properties 15. Tienda de la Esquina, and 16 Smith-Walsh Property Additionally, staff is recommending the deletion of two sites currently designated for “Community Commercial” as not being needed for Local Shopping Centers: 10. Calavera Hills, Village E-1 (from “Community Commercial” to “Residential, 17. The PaviliodGreen Valley (from “Community Commercial” to “Regional medium high density”. Commercial”). B. Individual Sites Following is an analysis of the each of the sites that is being recommended for a substantive change in its land use designation. Site 10. Calavera Hills. Village E-I The subject proposal is to change the land use designation from “Community Commercial” (C) to “Residential, Medium High” density (RMH - 8-15 dwelling units per acre) on this nine-acre site. The site is part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, which is undergoing a major amendment designed principally to accommodate the preservation of additional acres of sensitive habitat within the plan. In addition, the landowners wish to delete the shopping center from the Master Plan site in favor of medium-high density residential uses. During earlier phases of the commercial study, many residents of the existing neighborhoods GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 5 testified that they did not want a shopping center at this site and would prefer it to be re- designated for residential uses. The site has somewhat awkward access (curb cut warrants, vertical radius of curvature for adjoining road) and, at nine acres, is undersized for a Community Commercial development. Although it has had a commercial designation for many years, no developer has approached the City with a shopping center development proposal. The site study indicates that this site is not needed as shopping for this area could be provided via sites in Oceanside (Quarry Creek) and the Robertson Ranch and/or Sunny Creek Plaza sites in Carlsbad. EIR 98-02 finished public review on April 2, 2001. It was prepared for the Master Plan Amendment and speaks to all of the land use changes proposed for the Master Plan, including the change in uses for the subject site. Consequently, staff supports the Master Plan amendment, which is now being scheduled for hearings before the Planning Commission. Site 11, Robertson Ranch. The proposal is for a “floating designation” for “Local Shopping Center” (L) within the Ranch. The entire ranch is currently designated for “Residential, Low-Medium’’ density (RLM 0 - 4 ddac.). The owners of the Ranch are just beginning discussions with the City to consider a master plan or specific plan for the long-range development of the ranch. Although the shopping center is subject to the location policies and guidelines recently established in the General Plan, the exact location will not be settled until the masterkpecific plan is developed and approved by the city. An EIR will probably be required for the masterhpecific plan. Preliminary proposals for a 10-acre shopping center anchored by an Albertsons market have been discussed. There has been considerable history and controversy about a shopping center in Robertson Ranch. At least two earlier formal proposals to rezone the comer of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real for a shopping center have been opposed by neighbors in the existing residential areas to the north of the ranch, and were not supported by City Council. The current discussion on the ranch attempts to respond to the opposition by moving the shopping center away from the existing neighborhoods to a more southerly portion of the ranch. Another concern has to do with the compatibility of a shopping center along El Camino Real, given the designation of this road as a scenic corridor. Special design guidelines apply to this corridor and any shopping center would have to comply with them. When both the Planning Commission and the City Council discussed GPA 00-04, one point of discussion focused on the issue of development of shopping along the El Camino Real Corridor. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council adopted the following policy in lieu of banning commercial development on El Camino Real.: “Policy C.2.6 - New sites for local shopping centers located along El Camino Real shall be designed so as to presewe the scenic quality of the designated scenic corridor. ” The site study indicates that the Robertson Ranch itself will have basic coverage if the proposed Quarry Creek site in Oceanside is developed and possibly the Sunny Creek site. Other areas between Robertson Ranch and Sunny Creek, however, and the industrial corridor north of Palomar Airport Road would not have basic coverage unless shopping centers are GPA 01 -06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 6 developed at either Robertson Ranch and/or Sunny Creek. Without the Village E-1 site, a shopping center at either Robertson Ranch or Sunny Creek is necessary. The two centers would share trade areas, but, with complementary goods and services, both could perhaps he viable. Staff has interpreted all of the applicable policies in aggregate to mean that a shopping center on the Robertson Ranch could be approved provided that a) it is designed to preserve the scenic quality of the El Camino Real comdor, and b) it is needed to provide shopping center coverage for this part of the City. One letter of comment was received regarding this site, from Frieda Schweitzer. It is included in Attachment 4. Site 12, Sunny Creek Plaza. The proposal is a simple conversion of the old “Community Commercial”(C) to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation on this 18-acre site. Although the site has had a shopping center designation for many years, only in the last couple of years has the owner pursued a proposal for development. The formal application for the 168,500 square-foot Sunny Creek Plaza remained incomplete for a long time and recently the city requested that the application be withdrawn due to inactivity. Staff understands that the site is now in receivership and is being offered for sale. In the interim, staff has received several inquiries from other parties about the site, several of which explored the possibility of using the site for non-residential uses or some sort of mixed commercial and multi-family usage. The site study indicates that either this site or the Robertson Ranch site, is desirable to provide shopping center coverage to the areas along the northern El Camino Real industrial comdor as well as the residential areas along El Camino Real between Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road. As has already been stated, the trade areas of the two sites would overlap, however. Questions have been raised as to whether the population of the Sunny Creek trade area could support two similarly-styled shopping centers, given that the northern and eastern portions of this area will likely be developed with low density homes and considerable habitat and open space uses. Despite these issues, staff has retained the site in its recommendation due to its long-standing commercial designation and the recent application for development. The site underwent environmental review in 1998, via EIR 98-01, as part of the review for the Sunny Creek Terraces proposal for 250 residential units, located south of the Plaza site, across future College Boulevard. (This residential project is currently in construction.) Site 13. Bressi Ranch A Master Plan for the 600-acre ranch site is currently being prepared, together with a preliminary, draft EIR. The Master Plan tentatively calls for a mixed-use “town center” on approximately 20-25 acres of the site, to include a retail shopping component. This proposal is still being formulated and is subject to refinement and change. Neither the draft Master Plan nor the draft EIR is completed at this time. The subject proposal is to assign a floating “Local Shopping Center” (L) general plan designation in the approximate location being GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 discussed in the draft Master Plan for the mixed-use site. This general area is currently designated in the General Plan for “Residential, Low-Medium” density (RLM 0 - 4 d.u./ac.). The commercial study indicated that a shopping center somewhere on the ranch would be highly desirable to provide trade area “coverage” for the Bressi Ranch and Carrillo Ranch areas as well as the industrial corridor along the eastem reaches of Palomar Airport Road. Currently these areas are either “underserved” (not within a five minutes travel-time)’or on the outer edges of the Plaza Paseo Real (Vons at El Camino Real, at Dove Lane) and the Gateway Center in San Marcos (San Marcos Blvd, at Rancho Santa Fe Rd.). Site 14, MAG PropertiesRancho La Costa Village This site consists of two contiguous properties under separate ownerships, located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue The MAG site consists of land currently designated for nearly 54 acres of “Community Commercial” (C) and 23 acres of “Office and Related Commercial’’ (0). The subject proposal is to convert the old “Community Commercial’’ (C) designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L). The City is conducting a formal review of an application for development of this site, pursuant to the proposed land use designation. The proposed development is for approximately 444,000 square feet of retail and office uses, plus approximately 131 dwelling units on other owned land that adjoins the commercial properties. The City is in the process of preparing an EIR for this project. The developer may request further amendments to the general plan to re-configure the retail, office, and residential land use designations. These land use changes are NOT part of the subject proposal and would be considered and processed with the development proposal. The other part of this site is the five-acre Rancho La Costa Village site on the opposite (southeast) comer of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. This small site was recently approved for a Sav-On drug store and some additional retail commercial and is in construction. According to the “typical characteristics” for local shopping centers, adopted into the General Plan as part of GPA 00-04, the site doesn’t have room to provide the typical range of goods and services needed for a full shopping center. For this reason the site was “lumped” with its much-larger neighbor for purposes of the commercial study. The staff proposal is to change its current “Neighborhood Commercial” (N) designation to the new ”Local Shopping Center” (L) designation. On one level the staff recommendation is simply a pro forma outcome of the conversion of the two old commercial designations to the new “Local Shopping Center” designation. On another level, however, the site study indicates that a local shopping center at this location is necessary to provide basic retail services to the areas northeast and southeast of the site, parts of the La Costa community that would not otherwise have basic shopping services. Site 15, Tienda de la Esauina The proposal is to convert the old ‘Weighborhood Commercial” (N) designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation. The 7%-acre site is vacant. Approvals were granted several years ago to develop the site with a drive-through drug store. The GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 8 entitlements were not exercised and, subsequently, expired. There is currently no development activity on the site. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the earlier proposal in 1991. This site could also provide retail services to areas of southern and eastern La Costa that would not otherwise be adequately served. This smaller site would significantly share trade areas with the nearby MAG propertieskmcho La Costa Village sites, and, therefore, may need to exercise care to complement the goods and services offered on the competing sites in order to remain economically viable. (See the related discussion under Site 16, Smith-Walsh property.) Site 16, Smith -Walsh property The subject proposal is to convert the existing “Neighborhood Commercial” designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation on this 5.1-acre, vacant site. On one level the proposal is similar to the other pro forma changes that make up part of the staff recommendation, to retain the existing local shopping center designation using the new nomenclature. The proposal on this site differs on another level, however. This site has been the subject of land use controversy over a number of years. At various times the owner has made inquiries about developing the site with shopping center uses in keeping with the site’s zoning and general plan designation. The Sea Cliff condominium development is contiguous, both east and south, with the site. Some residents of this community have long objected to the neighborhood shopping center designation and all proposals for its commercial development, preferring, instead, some type of non-commercial use. A proposal in 1989 for a 44,000 square-foot retail development resulted in opposition from Sea Cliff residents, with the results that the owner withdrew the project. The land use issue arose again in 1997 during the City’s consideration of the Visitor Serving Overlay Zone. The property was eventually included in the overlay zone in 1999. Also in 1999, the owner and a developer, PDP, requested City staff to conduct a preliminary review (PRE 99-43, Sea Pointe View) for a 50,000 square-foot retail center, to be anchored by a Henry’s Market. On October 26, 1999 as part of the deliberations on the Visitor Serving Overlay Zone and at the request of Sea Cliff residents, City Council directed staff to return at a later time with a Resolution of Intent to rezone the property from C-1-Q (neighborhood commercial) to either residential or office uses. Part of the Council’s discussion on this direction was whether or not to wait for the results of the then-pending commercial policy study. On May 16, 2000 the Council opted not to adopt a Resolution of Intent (R 2000-164) that would have directed staff to pursue a rezoning, general plan change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land uses from commercial to either residential or office uses, pending the outcome of the commercial policy study and site specific recommendations. On March 21, 2001 the City Council approved the new shopping center policy framework, including goals and policies affecting the location of shopping centers. At both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings there was considerable discussion about “gaps and 45 GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Pane 9 overlaps” of shopping center trade areas and the various types of shopping centers. In particular the Council discussed the distinctions between goods and services offered by traditional major markets and specialty markets (with Henry’s being specifically mentioned) as had the Planning Commission at its earlier hearings. The final policy language adopted by City Council included an Objective and a Policy recommended by the Planning Commission, addressing this discussion, which language may be of particular relevance to the Smith- Walsh site, as well as Site 15, Tienda de la Esquina: Commercial Objective B.I. “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-commercialization, consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential, open-space community.” (Emphasized section added by Planning Commission and approved by Council). Policy C.2.4. “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 level of local service to all 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 diversily in, shopping opportunities, but only to the degree that such overlaps do not result in over- commercialization (See Objective B.1). The term ‘over-commercialization ’ is not intended to be a quantified term, but may be qualitatively determined from time to time. ” (Emphasized section added by Planning Commission and approved by City Council). The commercial sites study indicates that the trade area of the existing, mainstream Poinsettia Village shopping center (located westerly, across 1-5) would overlap much of the trade area of any small shopping center on the Smith-Walsh site. However, in keeping with the above Objective and Policy, staffs recommendation is that such a shopping center could provide an alternative mix of goods and services and, therefore, could be supported under the new policy framework. During the review period for the Negative Declaration, a letter was received from David Hubbard, an attorney representing the Sea Cliff Home Owners Association. It is included in Attachment 4. Site 17. The PaviliodGreen Valley This area is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan with a combination designation of “Community Commercial/Offce and Related CommercialResidential, Medium High Density” (C/OiRMH, 8-15 d.u./ac.). The proposal is to convert the “Community Commercial” (C) portion of the designation to “Regional Commercial” (WO/RMH) on this 18-acre, vacant site. The site is part of the Green Valley Master Plan (92-Ol), for which EIR 93-02 was prepared in 1995. The Master Plan calls for up to 300,000 square feet of retail commercial to be developed on this site. The City has received and is reviewing a development proposal for The Pavilions, 265,357 square feet of general retail development. 46 GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CeNTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 10 Because of its size, the amount of proposed floor area, the type of commercial tenants, and its location relative to the adjoining Encinitas Town Center complex (a regional center located southerly, across Calk Barcelona), staff observes that The Pavilion would not serve as a local shopping center, but, instead, would function as an adjunct to the Town Center. Therefore, staff recommends that the development would be more appropriately classified as regional commercial. The commercial site study indicates that this site is not needed to provide local trade area service to eastern and southern La Costa, provided that the MAG and/or Tienda de la Esquina site(s) are developed with a local shopping center(s). C. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Six of the 17 sites are within the California Coastal Zone. The sites and their LCP land use designations are shown in the following table: The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program has but two types of commercial land uses: “Visitor Commercial” and “General Commercial”. The text of the LCP focuses on providing for and protecting commercial uses that meet the particular needs of tourists and visitors (ex: hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc.) through the application of the “Visitor Commercial’’ land use designation. Under the Carlsbad general plan these same sites are given the designation “TraveliRecreational” (TR). The LCP text and maps contain certain policies directed at visitor-serving land uses and calls for certain sites to be developed with these uses. All other sites that are designated in the General Plan for one type of commercial or another are captured in the LCP under the single land use category “General Commercial”. Because of this lumping of most commercial land uses into a single category, changes in the general plan land use designations on sites from one type of commercial to another (excluding sites designated “TraveliRecreational”) do not require amendments to the Local Coastal Program. As can be seen from the above table, five of the coastal sites fit into this situation. In each case the general plan change is from either “Neighborhood Commercial” or “Community Commercial” to “Local Shopping Center” A slightly different situation exists with regard to The Pavilion site. The land use is controlled though the Green Valley Master Plan, the adoption of which was accompanied by a formal amendment to the East Batiquitos LagoodHunt Local Coastal Plan Segment. The master plan and LCP amendment call for the development of up to 300,000 square feet of GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CeNTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Page 11 general commercial uses at this site. Again, the change in the general plan designation from C/O/RMH to L/O/RMH requires no additional amendment to the Local Coastal Program. D. Visitor Serving Overlay Zone. Three of the 17 sites are located within the City’s Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone. These are: ’ Site 7, Poinsettia Village, an existing shopping center - Site 8, the un-named Vons site, an existing shopping center, and 1 Site 16, Smith-Walsh, an undeveloped site. Any development, expansion, or re-development of these sites would require a conditional use permit approved by the City Council, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 21.208. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On September 4, 2001, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The document was noticed in the newspaper and to a list of known interested parties and property owners for review. Two letters of comment were received from the following parties: . Freda and Vance Schweitzer. . David Hubbard, attorney for the Sea Cliff Home Owners’ Association (HOA). Copies of these letters are included as Attachment 4. 1. The Schweitzers state their opposition to any commercial development on El Camino Real, but do not raise any issues with the Negative Declaration. 2. Mr. Hubbard’s letter sets out the opposition of the Sea Cliff HOA Board to retaining the commercial designation on the Smith-Walsh site (the proposed change from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Local Shopping Center”) and calls for the preparation of an EIR on the basis of two assertions: a) the general plan change on the Smith-Walsh site will have significant adverse environmental effects, and b) the environmental effects associated with staffs 1999 preliminary review (PRE 99-43, Sea Point View) were not set out in an EIR and should now be so handled. As this report and the Negative Declaration both note, the general plan changes on most of the sites, including the Smith-Walsh site, are nominal, resulting only from the use of a new term for local shopping centers (the class “Neighborhood Commercial” is re-named “Local Shopping Center”). Therefore, no environmental changes result and no impacts are possible. In addition, with many of the 17 sites, including Smith-Walsh, the proposed general plan changes are not accompanied by any development proposals. For these sites, when and if a specific development is proposed, the fill environmental review process demanded by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be followed. In the few instances where specific proposals have been made or are being developed (Calavera Hills Master Plan, Y8 GPA 01-06 - SHOPPING CeNTER REDESIGNATIONS December 5,2001 Pane 12 Bressi Ranch, and MAG properties), full EIRs are being prepared. In addition, the EIR prepared for the Green Valley Master Plan is being re-used for the Pavilion proposal. With regard to Mr. Hubbard’s request to now prepare an EIR on the 1999 Seapoint View Project, it is perhaps sufficient to note that concepts submitted to the City for “preliminary review” do not constitute formal development applications, and, therefore, are not “projects” to which the CEQA process pertains. As with the other sites, when and if a development is formally proposed on the Smith-Walsh site, the City will conduct the appropriate environmental review. For these reasons, staff believes that the Negative Declaration for the subject project is appropriate and sufficient. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5104 (Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5105 (GPA) 3. Shopping Center Sites Location Map 4. Letters of Comment Received during Public Review of Draft Negative Declaration. DTmh 1 ,,TTACHMENT 3 SHOPPING CENTER SITES GPA 01 -06 r\ rTACHMENT 4 GPA 01-06 SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS Letters of Comment on Negative Declaration 1. Frieda and Vance Schweitzer 2. Don Hubbard, attorney for Sea Cliffs HOA Procopio Telephone 619/238-1900 Facsimile 619/235-0398 . www.procopio.com 530 B Street 9 Suite 2100. San Diego. California 92101-446’3 LLP Fouded1946 David P. Hubbard Oial:(h19)515-3211 dph@prmoplo.com September 21,2001 VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDEX Dennis Turner, Principal Phmer City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlshad, CA 92008 Re: Comment Letter on Negative Declaration for GPA 01-06 (Shopping Center Redesignations) Dear Mr. Turner: This firm represents the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association (“Sea Cliff’ or “HOP), located at Lowder Lane (Paseo del Norte) and Poinsettia Lane, just east of Interstate 5 in Carlsbad. Immediately adjacent to Sea Cliff lies a 5.1-acre vacant parcel, known as the Smith- Walsh property, whose current land use designation is “Neighborhood Shopping Center.” The City of Carlsbad Planning Department, through the proposed General Plan Amendment (“GPA”), now intends to change this designation to “Local Shopping Center.” Numerous other commercial properties would likewise receive the new “Local Shopping Center” designation. Sea Cliff objects to the proposed redesignation of the Smith-Walsh property, as it perpetuates the existing oversaturation of commercial uses in this part of Carlsbad, and essentially guarantees that this small parcel -with its poor visibility and serious vehicle access problems - will become nothing more than an ugly strip mall, the kind of blight-prone shopping center the City of Carlsbad has worked long and hard to avoid. Sea Cliff believes the Smith- Walsh property should be redesignated for non-commercial uses that are more compatible with the adjacent residential property. Indeed, the City Council directed staff to investigate this very possibility in November 1999; however, staff has consistently failed to follow through with this assignment. Sea Cliffs position in this regard is easily explained. Any shopping center installed at the Smith-Walsh property will have significant impacts on Sea Cliff and the people who live there. These impacts - which include traffic, light and glare, noise, air pollution, crime, and visual blight - were described exhaustively in the HOA’s letter, dated October 19, 1999, to Mayor Lewis and the City Council. This letter, including its exhibits, is attached for your review and is incorporated by this reference. On Sea Cliffs behalf, we have examined the Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendment and shopping center redesignations. It lacks any meaningful LAW OFFICES OF PROCOPIO. CORY, HARGREAVES U SAVITCH LLP Dennis Turner, Principal Planner September 21,2001 Page 2 environmental analysis; fails to address the impacts identified in Sea Cliffs letter of October 19. 1999; does not disclose the long-standing controversy over the best use of the Smith-Walsh property; fails to mention the City Council’s ROI for possible redesignation of the Smith-Walsh property to a non-commercial use; and makes no reference to the City’s “Commercial Development Study,” which showed substantial “commercial overlap” along the Poinsettia Lane comdor. In short, the Negative Declaration apparently assumes that because the GPA does not propose specific development projects, it will have no impact on the existing environment. However, it is clear that the GPA’s proposed redesignations will continue the City’s recent practice of saturating certain neighborhoods with commercial uses and their attendant impacts. Unfortunately, the Negative Declaration fails to assess those impacts. Sea Cliffs letter of October 19, 1999 accurately sets forth the key environmental issues that must be examined during the City’s CEQA process for the GPA or any subsequent project on the affected parcels. However, since October 19, 1999, an additional environmental issue has arisen: In February 2001, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted an new NPDES Storm Water Permit (the “Storm Water Permit”), which covers the City and all other municipalities in San Diego County. This Storm Water Permit imposes on the City (and all other co-permittees) significant duties and restrictions with respect to storm water and urban run-off impacts on water quality. Indeed, the Storm Water Permit demands that the City alter the method by which General Plan Amendments are adopted so that urban run-off issues can be adequately addressed at the planning stage. However, the proposed Negative Declaration fails to discuss the Storm Water Permit or demonstrate the City’s compliance with it. The Negative Declaration also does not disclose whether the project is consistent with the California Coastal Act or will otherwise require (a) an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program or (b) a Coastal Development Permit. For these reason alone, the Negative Declaration is inadequate. In closing, Sea Cliff has presented substantial evidence that the proposed GPA could result in significant impacts on the environment. This triggers the need for a full environmental impact report (“EIR”); a Negative Declaration will not suffice. Therefore, Sea Cliff formally requests that the City not approve the proposed GPA until City staff has prepared an EIR that analyzes all issues raised in this letter and in Sea Cliffs letter of October 19, 1999, which is attached hereto. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Very truly yours, David P. Hubbard Enclosure cc: Linda Roegge, President, Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council do: CURTIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. San Diego, California 921 21. 10455 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 102, October 19, 1999 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 (858) 587-9844 (760) 436-4560 Hand Delivered Re: Concerns of Sea Clgff Homeowners Association Regarding the Proposed “Sea View Pointe ” Commercial Development on 5. I Acre Parcel at Corner of Lowder Lane (Paseo Del Norte) and Poinsettia Lane - Prelim 99-43 Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council: INTRODUCTION This letter contains the official comments of the Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Board of Directors (“Sea Cliff) with regard to the Sea View Pointe commercial center proposed for construction on the 5.1 acre vacant lot at the comer of Lowder Lane (Paseo del Norte) and Poinsettia Avenue (“Sea View Pointe” or the “project”). On behalf of the residents of the 300 homes at Sea Cliff, we welcome this opportunity to comment on the project and trust that the City will find our remarks helpful in its deliberations: We recognize that this letter is long, and for that we apologre; it is not our intent to burden the City with more paperwork. However, the length (and complexity) of this comment letter simply reflects the seriousness of our concerns regarding the project under review. As the City well-knows, the south end of the subject property abuts Sea Cliff and is immediately adjacent to existing homes. In addition, the only access to the proposed commercial center is along Lowder Lane, which provides the sole means of ingress and egress for Sea Cliff and its residents. This local street terminates at the Sea Cliiproperty line, just 1 10 feet from the entrance to the proposed project. Thus, any decision regarding the Sea View Pointe proposal will also affect Sea Cliff and its residents. 888888 88888811815(15 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 2 While we recognize that the project is only at the Preliminary Review stage, we feel it necessary to identify for the City the kinds of adverse impacts Sea Cliff will experience should the Sea View Pointe proposal be approved.’ Further, it is our opinion - developed after much study and discussion - that southwest Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and that placing a “neighborhood retail center on the parcel in question serves no land planning purpose. As an alternative, we would propose that the project site be rezoned for residential uses, which would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his investment, and would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with existing adjacent properties. The comments which follow below are organized in four parts. Part I sets forth the history of Sea Cliffs involvement in the planning process for the subject property, and seeks to correct numerous misrepresentations made by the project applicant, Pacific Development Partners, LLC (“PDP’)), regarding Sea Cliffs alleged support for Sea View Pointe. Part I1 analyzes the proposed project and identifies its potentially adverse environmental impacts. Part 111 discusses the need to include the subject property in the City’s ongoing study of the demand (or lack of demand) for new neighborhood commercial uses in Carlsbad. Finally, Part IV explains why rezoning the 5.1 acre parcel for residential uses makes sense from a community-based (as opposed to a developer-driven) land planning perspective. 1. HISTORY OF SEA CLIFF’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A. The 1989 Project: “Poinsettia Country Plaza” It is our understanding that the 5.1 acre parcel in question is owned by Carolyn Smith, who purchased the property in the early 1980s as part of a much larger transaction involving land on the west side of 1-5. In hs transaction, Mrs. Smith and her husband, Cecil Smith, gained title to the 5.1 acre parcel plus the 40 acres on which the Poinsettia Village shopping center is now situated. Mr. and Mrs. Smith developed Poinsettia Village in 1986, but left vacant the 5.1 acre parcel now under review. Although orphaned from Poinsettia Village and geographically detached from any other commercial center, the 5.1 acre parcel was nevertheless designated “neighborhood commercial” with a Qualified Ov’erlay Zone attached, ie., C-1-Q. It held this designation from 1982 to 1989. In June 1989, Ms. Smith and her son, Peter Walsh, submitted a proposal to develop a “neighborhood commercial” project at the site, to be named Poinsettia Country Plaza (CT 89-21 and SDP 89-08). The proposal called for 44,100 square feet of commercial space: 3 1,350 square feet for ’We understand that the developer of the proposed project has not yet submitted a complete ”Formal Application.” 888888 8888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 3 retail; 5,750 square feet for a bank; and 7,000 square feet for two restaurants. Sea Cliff objected to the proposed project and collected more than 500 signatures on a petition requesting that the property be redesignated 60m C-I-Q to Office. The petition and the signature were submitted to the City, but the request to rezone the property was denied. On August 10, 1989, a meeting was held between the developers of Poinsettia Country Plaza and Sea Cliff at the Sea Cliff clubhouse. A multitude of issues was discussed concerning the project but nothing of substance was decided. However, on October 2, 1989, Mr. Walsh and his associates sent a letter to the City withdrawing the project from further processing and consideration. B. Development of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone From 1989 to 1997, the 5.1 acre lot remained vacant, and there was little or no planning activity with regard to it. However, in early 1997, the City became concerned that the Legoland theme-park would encourage landowners to quickly develop visitor-serving commercial uses without adequate land use and aesthetic controls. To prevent this from happening, the City, on September 2, 1997, adopted an “urgency” ordinance, pursuant to which all proposals for commercial development within the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Planning Area (“Carlsbad Ranch’) had to receive final approval from the City Council itself City staff was then directed to prepare a new zoning overlay which would impose strict new development regulations on new visitor-serving uses in Carlsbad Ranch. The 5.1 acre lot just south of Poinsettia Avenue was to be included in the new visitor-serving overlay zone. C. The Sea View Pointe Proposal While the urgency ordinance was in place and while the new visitor-serving overlay was being drafted, Mr. Walsh and his family reinitiated their efforts to develop the subject property. They began to shop the property; and in June 1998, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Smith opened up escrow with PDP for purposes of building a commercial center (Sea View Pointe) on the 5.1 acre site. Things began to move quickly after that. In November 1998, PDP succeeded in persuading the California Coastal Commission to re-issue Coastal Development Permit No. 6-82-537 for the project. Then, on December I, 1998, Mr. Walsh and Mark Burger of PDP met with Sea Cliffs Board of Directors to discuss PDP’s plans for Sea View Pointe. The board members received the information provided by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Burger, but took no action either in support of, or opposition to, the project. No subsequent meeting was scheduled. Then, on Januaty 9, 1999, Mr. Walsh sent a letter to Ray Patchett, Carlsbad’s City Manager, requesting that the 5.1 acre property he and PDP hoped .to develop be removed from the Carlsbad 57 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 4 Ranch Overlay Zone.’ This would exempt the property from the stricter development controls imposed by the proposed “visitor-serving” overlay. Martin Orenyak, Director of Community Development, responded to Mr. Walsh by letter dated January 27, 1999, stating that “at the December 9, 1998 workshop, Council gave clear direction to staff to include the subject property into the overlay because of its freeway frontage, commercial land use designations, and the recognition that theme park intluences go fiuther than the immediately adjacent freeway off ramp^."^ Mr. Orenyak then recommended that Mr. Walsh and PDP “process a Preliminary Review application with Planning staff to assess the scope of potential impacts of the overlay zone ordinance.”‘ However, Mr. Walsh and PDP did not immediately follow the advice of Mr. Orenyak. Instead, they requested that the City Council formally consider their request to remove the subject property from the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone.’ Mr. Walsh then asked the President of the Sea Cliff HOA, Howard Hefier, to write a letter expressing support for the Sea View Pointe that Mr. Walsh could then present to “various City officials.”6 However, Mr. Hefier prepared no such letter. At its March 9, 1999 public hearing, the City -Council formally considered Mr. Walsh’s request to remove the 5.1 acre parcel from the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. Mer receiving comments from Mr. Walsh and from members ofthe public, including residents of Sea Cliff, the City Council denied Mr. Walsh’s request to have his property removed or exempted from the proposed overlay zone. Sea Cliff supported then, and supports now, the City Council’s decision in this regard.’ *See, Exhibit 1, attached hereto See, Exhibit 2, attached hereto. 3 kxhibit 2. 5 See, Exhibit 3, attached hereto ‘See, Exhibit 1, attached hereto. prior meeting with the Sea ClBBoard of Directors, the board -voted in support (with one abstention) to support This point cannot be over-stressed. PDP, in a letter to Mayor Lewis dated July 9, 1999, stated that in a the removal of the 5.1 acres from the Overlay Zone.” (See, Exhibit 5, attached hereto.) This is cafegoricullyfulse. The Sea Cliff Board of Directors never held a formal, noticed meeting to consider supporting Mr. Walsh request that his property be removed from the overlay zone. Nor did the Board of Directors ever vote on such an item. 7 888888 8888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 5 On March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the draft overlay zone prepared by staff. At that hearing, PDP repeated its request that the 5.1 acre parcel in question be exempted From the overlay zone’s requirements, particularly as they relate to setbacks and tree planting.* As to the first issue, PDP claimed that under the new zoning rules, 27% of the entire site would be consumed with setbacks, which PDP considered exces~ive.~ As to the second issue, PDP argued that under existing zoning, it would only have to plant six trees, whereas under the overlay zone’s rules, it would have to plant approximately 300 trees.” Further, PDP claimed that it had made an agreement with the Sea Cliff homeowners to keep tree plantings to a minimum so as not to obstruct existing views.” However, this is false. There was (and is) no agreement between PDP and the Sea Cliff HOA regarding tree plantings and view preservation. Few, if any, Sea Cliff homes are so situated as to have their views blocked by trees installed at the proposed commercial site. We therefore strongly encourage the City to require that PDP comply fully with the tree planting requirements of the overlay zone. D. Adoption of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone and PDP’s “Pre-Filing Submittal” On May 18, 1999, the City Council formally adopted the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone, imposing new, more restrictive development requirements on commercial properties within the zone, Mr. Walsh’s property included. In June 1999, Mr. Walsh and PDP prepared a “pre-filing submittal” as required by the overlay zone and presented this to the City’s Planning Department. After reviewing the pre-filing submittal, staffwrote a letter to John Edwins of PDP, dated August 12, 1999, identlfylng 26 issues that would have to be addressed in order for the project to conform with the new requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone.I2 It is surprising to note, however, that the Planning Department’s preliminary review of Sea View Pointe, as set forth in its August 12 letter to Mr. Edwins, fails to mention that the project will have to undergo environmental review pursuant to the Caliiomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before it can be considered formally by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. For the Funher. Sea Cliffs psition has always been that the property should remain in the overlay zone ‘See, Minutes from the March 17, 1999 hearing of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit 6, at p. 14. 9 Exhibit 6, at p. 14 ’%hibit 6, at p. 14 ”Exhibit 6. at p. 14. ‘*See, Exhibit 7, attached hereto 888888 88888Lv181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 6 reasons discussed in Part I1 of this letter, it is Sea Cliffs position that the City’s CEQA review of the proposed project should begin immediately upon the completion of PDP’s application. 11. THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE SEA VZEW POINTE PROJECT According to the Site Plan prepared by PDP, the proposed Sea View Pointe project will consist of 50,194 square feet of retail space and a lighted parking lot capable of storing 265 cars. The primary tenant will be a grocery store of approximately 22,000 square feet. It will be located at the southwest comer of the 5.1 acre parcel and joined to smaller retail shops (including a restaurant) in a linear or “strip” fashion facing Lowder Lane (Paseo del None). Lowder Lane provides the sole means of access to both Sea Cliff and the proposed commercial project. At the north end of the site, PDP intends to install a drug store (with a 24-hour drive-thru pharmacy) consisting of 13,800 square feet, and another small retail area of 5,750 square feet where PDP hopes to place yet-another Starbucks Coffee franchise. The backs of the these stores will be directly opposite Poinsettia Lane. Moreover, the entire commercial center will be visible from motorists traveling along 1-5 and up the ramp leading from the freeway to Poinsettia Lane. There is no question that transforming the existing undeveloped site into a strip-style commercial center will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding environment, reducing the quality of life for nearby residents. From Sea Cliffs perspective these impacts fall into the following six categories: (1) traffic and road safety; (2) noise; (3) light and glare; (4) air pollution and odors; (5) aesthetics and community character; and (6) crime. We will discuss each of these in kind. A. Trafic and Road Safety Impacts The traffic problems associated with the Sea View Pointe project are obvious to anyone who has looked at a map of the project site or physically inspected the property. Access to the project from Poinsettia Lane is legally foreclosed, which means that all cars and trucks seeking to enter or exit the commercial center will have to use Lowder Lane, which is often misidentified as Paseo del Lowder Lane is a two-line street that dead-ends at the Sea Cliff entry, approximately 1 IO feet from the proposed driveway into Sea View Pointe. Although Lowder Lane is not shown on the General Plan’s circulation map, it is considered a local street by the City’s engineering staff Is As such, it has a design capacity of 1200 Average Daily Trips (ADT) - a number already exceeded by (See. Exhibit 8, attached hereto.) However, in its pre-fling submittal to the City’s Planning Department, PDP referred to the road as Paseo del None, which is incorrect. ”The attached Tract Map for the property properly identifies the roadway in question as Lowder Lane. ‘‘Sea Cliff resident Leonard Martyns obtained this information verbally from the City’s engineering staff. 88888888888811815(15 1 bo Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 7 the 1930 vehicles which enter and exit Sea Cliff each day.’’ The proposed Sea View Pointe project will place an additional 6,023 ADT on Lowder Lane, exacerbating existing congestion. In such situations, traffic standards set forth in the City’s General Plan may be violated.. Under the General Plan, all city streets must operate at Level of Service (“LOS’) C.I6 Any project which causes service levels to deteriorate to LOS D or worse creates a significant impact that must be mitigated. In this case, Lowder Lane is already over-taxed; and forcing it to absorb an additional 6,023 ADT will certainly trigger a General Plan violation. What is worse, it is highly doubthl that the project’s tr&c impacts on Lowder Lane - as well any associated violation of the General Plan’s Circulation Element - can be cured or reduced to acceptable levels. Road widening alone, even if possible or feasible, would not address the more hndamental problem, which is that Lowder Lane is a dead-end street which hnctions as the sole means of access to the 300 homes in Sea Cliff Note also that congestion along Lowder Lane is severe throughout the day, not just at the traditional peak-hours. Cars often stack up at the entry gate, with vehicle queues frequently stretching beyond the proposed curb-cut into the Sea View Pointe commercial center. When and if the center is constructed, cars seeking to exit Sea View Pointe may become blocked by cars driven by residents seeking to enter Sea Cliff This will aggravate everyone concerned. In short, without access along Poinsettia Lane, the Sea View Pointe commercial project will have to rely on Lowder Lane for ingress and egress; and Lowder Lane cannot handle another 6,023 vehicles per day. It is simply not up to the task. B. Noise Impacts In the Noise Element ofthe General Plan, the City has established two well-founded policies regarding noise impacts in Carlsbad: (1) residences are among the most noise-sensitive receptors in the city and must be protected as such; and (2) land uses along 1-5 already receive significant amounts of noise and, to the greatest extent possible, should be protected from additional noise intrusion.” Sea Cliff is one of those-rare properties that is covered by both policies. It is a residential community, and therefore a “sensitive” noise receptor; and it also receives substantial road noise from ”This ADT figure is drawn from the City’s most recent vaffic study for the area. I6General Plan, Land Use Element, at p. 29. Relevant excerpts from the General Plan are anached hereto as Exhibit 9. 17 See, Exhibit 9, General Plan, Noise Element, at pp. 2 and 4 88888888888811815051 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 8 1-5.” Indeed, as traffic along 1-5 has increased - especially heavy truck traffic - exterior and interior noise levels at Sea Cliff have also increased.19 The proposed commercial project will almost certainly make things worse, because the road noise from the project’s 6,023 ADT will be received directly by those Sea Cliff homes which back up to Lowder Lane and Poinsettia Lane. However, road noise is not the only problem. Noise from within the commercial center itself will also add significantly to the burden placed on Sea Cliff residents. Parking lot noise - characterized by car door slams, car alarms, vehicle start-ups and tire squealing - can be especially annoying, as it tends to be high intensity noise which punctuates the ambient sound environment. According to the Site Plan prepared by PDP, most of the commercial center’s parking spaces are located in the eastern portion of the subject property, where they will have a maximum noise impact on Sea Cliff homes. Most troubling of all are the 46 parking spaces nearest the southern boundary of the site, as these will be only a few feet away from existing Sea Cliff residences along Dahlia Way, many of which sit above the proposed Sea View Pointe development and will not benefit from standard noise attenuation measures. One must also keep in mind that the stores and restaurants at Sea View Pointe will keep very late hours, not closing until 10 or 11 o’clock in the evening. Indeed, the proposed drug-store plans to stay open 24 hours a day. This changes not so much the amount or character of the noise, but the level of its intrusiveness. Noise in the evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents. It interrupts conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as watching television; and it makes sleep difficult. Car door-slams, car alarms, squealing tires and the other parking lot noise will surely occur in the evening and nighttime noise periods, and it is unclear how (or whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels.20 Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries, especially those for grocery stores, often occur late at night or very early in the morning, well-prior to the opening of the business day. Such deliveries are made with semi-tractor trailers and other large vehicles which generate sigdicant amounts ofnoise (e.g., noise from diesel engines, noise from “back up” beepers, and noise from roll-up bay doors). The disruptive, high intensity nature of this noise, combined with “Sea Cliff also receives substantial road noise from Poinsettia Lane. I9The tratfic increases along 1-5 in City Zone 19 (which covers Sea Cliff and Sea View Pointe) have been phenomenal and well beyond the projections of the City and SANDAG. For example, in the LFMP approved on December 22, 1987, traffic volumes on 1-5 north of Poinsettia Lane were projected to be 153,000 ADT at build-out. However, in the summer of 1998 -before the opening of Legoland - Caltrans counted 186,000 vehicles per day on 1-5 at Tamarack. Since the opening of Legoland, these numbers have almost cenainly gone up. Lmax scale and not on the CNEL scale. 2oSingle-event, high intensity noise such as that from parlung lots is typically measured on an Leq or 8888888888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud’) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 9 the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake Sea Cliff residents from their sleep and create general annoyance. Finally, there are the stufionuty noise sources internal to the commercial project, These consist primarily of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed on the roofs of the commercial buildings. Not only is this equipment noisy, it operates continuously (albeit on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with the truck deliveries and late night parking lot noise, the loud whirring from these mechanical systems will create noise just when everything else has quieted down and people are trying to sleep.2’ Given the overwhelming number of existing commercial uses within a 3 mile radius of Sea Cliff, and given the weak demand for this project, the potential noise impacts from Sea View Pointe - both direct and cumulative - can hardly be justified.” C. Lighting and Glare Impacts Sea Cliff currently receives very little light wash and glare from external sources.L3 Few if any residential windows are exposed directly to existing light sources. Unfortunately, this will change with the advent of Sea View Pointe. Light and glare from the project - namely in the form of car headlights, store lights and signs, and parking lot light standards - will necessarily affect those Sea Cliff homes nearest the proposed commercial center. As with the project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most disruptive during the nighttime hours, when Sea Cliff residents quiet their own interior lights and prepare for bed. Simple things that we all take for granted - such as watching television without exterior glare or sleeping in a room without heavy curtains on the windows - become difficult or impossible when homes are not adequately shielded from nighttime light sources. We are not convinced that PDP can soften the light and glare impacts of Sea View Pointe sufficiently to mitigate these impacts to Sea Cliffs residents. D. Unpleasant Odors and Other Air Quality Impacts ”A shon butjmportant demographic note is in order here. Sea Cliff is not an adult-only residential community. Manv Sea Cliff homeowners and tenants are families with school-age children. The scientific literature abounds with studies establishing that children exposed to excessive noise levels. especially when such exposure results in sleep disruption. often develop learning disabilities and other problems. (See. e.g., the article regarding noise impacts on children, attached hereto as Exhibit IO.) We at Sea Cliffwant to protect are youngest residents from this kind of hazard. *’Under the City General Plan, exterior noise levels may not exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and interior noise levels may not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Exhibit 8, General Plan Noise Element. at p.7. 23 street security without impacting home interiors. Sea Cliffs internal lighting (Le., lighting within the Sea Cliff community) has been designed to enhance 8888888888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page IO In addition to the vehicle exhaust from the 6,023 ADT generated by the project, we at Sea Cliff are also concerned about two other types of air quality impacts - odors from the restaurant and grocery store, and diesel emissions from delivery trucks. PDP has not stated what kind of restaurant it plans to install at Sea View Pointe. but all restaurants emit significant amounts of cooking exhaust, usually dispelled though vents on the roof, which is then dispersed to off-site receptors (e.g., Sea Cliff homes). Because such exhaust is the by-product of cooking, it is often unpleasant or even repellant to one’s sense of smell. This is one reason why restaurants are rarely located next to residences. Odors from trash are another problem. Both the proposed restaurant and the proposed grocery store will generate “food-trash” which begins to stink when left in trash areas exposed to sunlight and air. Sea Cliff homeowners should not be subjected to these kinds of odors. The project’s diesel exhaust impacts create a less obvious, but perhaps more vexing issue. Since 1990, diesel exhaust has been on the State of California’s list of “Proposition 65” known carcinogens. And in August 1998, after years of scientific study, the California Air Resources Board voted to list diesel exhaust particulate as a toxic air contaminant (“TAC’) because of its carcinogenic properties. In fact, the regulatory authorities, including the South Bay Air Quality Management District, now consider diesel exhaust to be the primary cause of pollution-related lung cancer in Southern California.2J Due to Sea Clis proximity to 1-5 -a major trucking comdor - Sea Cliff residents already receive more than their share of diesel exhaust. The Sea View Pointe commercial center will only make things worse. Trucks delivering food and other items to the proposed grocery store are diesel powered; and it is standard practice to allow these trucks to idle while deliveries are being made. Further, since deliveries must take place during certain prescribed hours in the day (usually early in the morning or late at night), it is not uncommon for a number of trucks to arrive at the store at the same time. In such situations, the trucks sit idling in queues, waiting for the loading dock to clear, substantially increasing diesel emissions.2s Given the off-shore wind flows at the project site, diesel exhaust from these deliveIy trucks will almost certamly be blown over to Sea Cliff, exposing Sea Cliff residents. E. Aesthetic and Cbmmunity Character Impacts No matter how Sea View Pointe may be characterized by its proponents, it is nothing more than a “strip mall” seeking to take advantage of its freeway frontage. In appearance and in function, the proposed project is no different than the many small, “detached commercial centers which have 24 See, Los Angeles Times article, attached hereto as Exhibit 11. ”Safeway stores were recently sued for allowing delivery trucks to idle excessively in queues, on the ground that such idling generated unhealthful emissions of diesel exhaust. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit 12.) 888888 M81181505 4 Mayor Claude A. (''Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 11 so thoroughly blighted neighboring cities. Historically, the City Planning Commission and City Council have admirably and successhlly prevented such projects from locating in Carlsbad and tarnishing the Carlsbad aesthetic. However, City approval of Sea View Pointe would signal an unfortunate reversal ofthis sound and protective land planning policy. Given the small size of the lot (5.1 acres), PDP will find it difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate the kind of spatial designs and landscaping plans necessary to ensure aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. Already, PDP has balked at the landscaping setbacks and the tree planting requirements imposed by the Rancho Carlsbad Overlay Zone. Without these setback and trees, the project will look especially urban and barren, as it will consist of almost nothing but buildings, light standards and asphalt parking lots. Given the aesthetic impacts of the project, and given the physical limitations of the project site, it would appear that some other use would be more appropriate at this location. Moreover, within a 3-mile radius (or 5-minute drive) of Sea Cliff, there are nine grocery stores, three coffee shops, three pharmacies, 36 restaurants, and three health food stores.26 It is an embarrassment of riches. Do we really need another 50,000 square feet of retail at this particular location?z7 F. Crime and Safety Impacts Apart from the strictly environmental impacts of the proposed project, we at Sea Cliff are also concerned about the project's potential to increase crime in the area and compromise the security of our residential community. The proposed drug store with the 24-hour drive-thru pharmacy is a good case in point. In its planned location, the drug store would be just a short walk (amounting to a couple hundred feet) from the balconies and windows of Sea Cliff homes. We are worried that the drug store, particularly late at night or in the pre-dawn hours, will attract criminals seeking to steal prescription pharmaceuticals. We are uncomfortable knowing that this activity, while not an everyday occurrence, will take place periodically right outside our doors. Then there is the issue of security gate breaches. As indicated above, entry into Sea Cliff is controlled by electric gates which swing open to allow vehicles to pass once the proper code is City's Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Study, dated October 1996, at pp. 25-26. The same 3-mild5-minute criterion was used by the City during its August 1999 workshops on the "Shopping Center Policy Scenarios." *%e 3-mile/S-minute radius criterion for determining a "commercial demand area" was used in the of drive to their shopping destinations. However, there is no evidence to support this theory. In fact, experience 271t has been suggested that the project's location would encourage existing homeowners to walk instead suggests that most existing residents will not walk to the proposed project: There is too much MIC and it is too difficult to carry a household's worth of groceries back home on fwt. The potential dangers of walking at nighttime will also encourage people to drive to the store. 888888 enea)88118,505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud”) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 12 entered on the key pad. After the vehicle passes through the gate, the gate closes. The problem is that the security gate opens and closes rather slowly. An unauthorized vehicle traveling closely behind a resident’s car can easily enter the complex before the gate shuts. We have no security guard taking names and checking identification. Currently, unauthorized vehicle and foot traffic into Sea Cliff is a significant problem for our residents. It is not uncommon for uninvited “guests” (it?., trespassers) to enter Sea Cliff and use our tennis courts and pools, and sleep in our common areas. If Sea View Pointe is approved, this problem will surely worsen. The project will place 6,023 vehicles per day on Lowder Lane. Any of these cars could ride in the “wake” of a resident vehicle entering Sea Cliff and gain unpermitted access to our residential community. Unauthorized foot traffic into Sea Cliff would also increase. Such a situation would render our security gate largely ineffectual, and make Sea Cliff a less safe and desirable place to live. In summary, there is substantial evidence that the Sea View Pointe project will create significant impacts on the surrounding environment, potentially reducing the value of the homes and quality of life in Sea Cliff. Moreover, it would appear that at least some of these impacts cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels. A full environmental review under CEQA is required for this project; and that review should begin immediately so that the requisite technrcal studies are completed prior to the City’s formal consideration of PDP’s proposal. III. THE PROJECT SITE’S COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED A. The Subject Property Should be Included in the City’s Ongoing Study of Consumer Demand for Commercial Uses in Carlsbad Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, undeveloped commercial sites are to be reviewed every five years to determine whether their zoning designations remain appropriate. (Gen. Plan, Land Use Element, Policy C.12.) From the staff report prepared for the City Council meeting of March 9, 1999, it appears that the zoning for the subject property has not been re- examined since 1994, when the City did a comprehensive General Plan update. Thus, it is now time (five years later) to evaluate whether the 5.1 acre parcel in question is appropriately zoned for neighborhood commercial - a determination that will largely depend on existing and foreseeable demand for retail services at that location. zoning report, Fortunately, the City has already begun to develop the market data necessary to assess the designation of the property. In October 1996, the City’s Planning Department prepared a entitled Neighborhood and Community Commercial Land Use Sfu+, which analyzed the demand for additional commercial uses in Carlsbad. This land use report, whose study area originally included the 5.1 acre site at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane (Paseo del None), then became the basis of a later report, issued in July 1999, entitled Commercial Development Survey Report (the ‘‘I 999 Report”). Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 13 In the 1999 Report, staff conducted a scientific survey of 605 residents to determine their shopping preferences and to learn if other non-shopping interests counter-balanced any perceived demand for new commercial uses. Unfortunately, the subject property was not included in the 1999 Report’s study area. So the seven “outcome scenarios” which emerged from the 1999 Report did not consider the 5.1 acre parcel that PDP now wants to develop as a commercial center. This is a serious omission that must be corrected. We at Sea Cliff respectfully request that the City include the subject property in its commercial demand study, so that the site receives the kind of re-evaluation required by Land Use Policy C.12. B. Southwestern Carlsbad is Over-Saturated With Existing Commercial Uses If the City were to focus on the 5.1 acre parcel in question, and make a list of the various retail stores within a 3-mile/5-minute radius of the project site, the City would likely be astounded by the abundance and diversity of exisfing shopping opportunities for Sea Cliff residents and the residents of other neighborhoods along Poinsettia Lane and Paseo del Norte. For example, PDP intends to “anchor” Sea View Pointe with a “Henry’s” grocery store. However, within a 3-miIe/5- minute drive of the project site, there are nine grocery stores: Von’s Grocery Ralphs Grocery Tip Top Market Carlsbad Ranch Market Hadley’s Market Pelly’s Market 7-Eleven Mini Market Chevron Mini Market Costco Grocery There also appears to be little latent demand for the proposed drug store at Sea View Pointe, since there is a Rite Aid pharmacy in the Poinsettia Shopping Center, a pharmacy at Von’s in the Alga Shopping Center, and another pharmacy at Costco off of Palomar Airport Road. We are also full to the brim with coffee shops. There is the “Coffee Time” coffee house in the Poinsettia Shopping Center, a Starbucks at the Company Stores, and the La Costa Coffee House in the Alga Shopping Center. As for restaurants, health food stores and specialty food stores, these can be found in virtually any direction, with an incredible variety of offerings, by driving less than 3 miled5 minutes.28 It is simply hard to imagine an area more saturated with neighborhood commercial opportunities. We the project site. 28By last count, there are 36 restaurants and three health food stores within a 3-milel5-minute radius of 888888 8888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 14 do not need more; and we are concerned that existing business will begin to fail when newer retail stores (especially chains) enter the market and attempt to capture an already sated clientele. Please consider these issues when determining whether Sea View Pointe, or any commercial use, should be placed at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane (Paseo del Norte). IV. A MODEST PROPOSAL: REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES We at Sea Clido not begrudge Mrs. Smith the economic use of her property. She is entitled to a reasonable return on her investment. However, that “return” must not come at the expense of Sea Cliff residents. Our quahty of lie should not be degraded simply to allow PDP, whose principals do not even live in the City of Carlsbad, to maximize their profits and build a commercial center for which there is little demand and no perceptible need.” Our investments, too, must be considered, and these will surely erode if the “strip mall” center proposed by PDP is approved and constructed. There is, however, a potential solution to the problem: Rezone the subject property for residential uses. Ideally, homes similar in type and style could be constructed on the site and then annexed to Sea Cliff There would be no need for the developer to install additional homeowner facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools, as these are already in place at Sea Cliff and under-utilized. Ifdeveloped for residential purposes, the project site would create few, if any, of the adverse impacts associated with the Sea View Pointe commercial center proposed by PDP. Further, we would be happy to work with the developer and the City to ensure that the annexation process goes smoothly. Our proposal to rezone the subject site for residential uses is not without precedent in Carlsbad. In fact, as recently as 1997, the City changed the zoning designation of the former Aviara Information Center site from neighborhood commercial to residential. The City made this rezoning decision after determining that there was sufficient commercial coverage in this part of Carlsbad, and that a new commercial project was not needed. Our position is that the City could, and should, make the same findmg with regard to thi 5.1 acre parcel at the comer of Poinsettia Lane and Lowder Lane, since this parcel is-only 1.4 miles (less than a 3 minute drive) from the former Aviara Information Center site. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Sea Cliff does not support the proposed SeaView Point commercial project. The environmental impacts of Sea View Pointe - traffic congestion, noise, 29 PDP is based out of Beverly Hills, California. Mr. Edwins of PDP also a P.O. box in Del Mar 8888888888881181505 1 Mayor Claude A. (“Bud) Lewis Members of the City Council October 19, 1999 Page 15 light and glare, air pollution, aesthetic degradation, and increased crime potential - cannot be justified by the supposed benefits of the project, which are few and small. In fact, the project provides nothing beyond what is already available to Sea Cliff and its neighbors. Put simply, the property should be considered for uses other than commercial, ie., residential. We at Sea Cliff appreciate greatly the City’s willingness to focus so much of its attention on the difficult issues presented by the Sea View Pointe proposal. We know the City Council will study our remarks closely in the course of its deliberations, and for that we thank you. If you or anyone at the City have questions regarding the comments set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Sea Cliff Homeowners Association Addie Swiesen, Secretary Enclosures INDEX Exhibit Document Description 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. January 7, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Ray Patchett, City Manager re: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone with map and permit January 27, 1999 letter from Martin Orenyak, City of Carlsbad, Community Development Director to Peter Walsh re: property at southeast comer of 1-51 Poinsettia Lane February 19, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Ray Patchett re: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone January 13, 1999 letter from Peter A. Walsh to Seacliff Homeowners Association requesting letter of position July 9, 1999 letter from Pacific Development Partners, LLC to City of Carlsbad letter of support to remove parcel from Overlay Zone Report to the Planning Commission, March 17, 1999, recommending Zone Code Amendment, Zone Change and Loci Coastal Program Amendment August 12, 1999 letter from City of Carlsbad Planning Department to John Edwins Tract Map for subject property Carlsbad General Plan excerpts League for the Hard of Hearing article “Noise & Its Effects on Children” September 10 Los Angeles Times article “AQMD Focuses on Dangers of Diesel Exhaust” Mealey’s Emerging Toxic Torts article ‘‘California, Environmental Groups Sue Grocery Chains For Diesel Fume Emissions,” dated June 26, 1998 . 108407 wwO11180828 1 EXHIBIT 1 January 7, 1999 Ray Patchen 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY MANAGER - CARLSBAD RE: CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE Dear Mr. Patchat, I am writing to you on behdfof my mother, Caroline Smith, who is the owner of the undeveloped 5 acres on the southwest comer of Paseo del None and Pointha Lane, regarding the Ciws proposed inclusion of that lot into the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. This action threatens to significantly reduce the value of that land if it is included in the zone. We are respectfUUy requesting that the City's Community Planning Depmmt reconsider their recommendation to include this lot and allow it to be devdoped according to the existing requirements. In reviewing this matter pleare consider some of the background of that pro* and its ownership. My parents purchased that lot as part of a forty-five acre minsaction in the early '80's and my Wer, Cecil Smith, master-planned and sold the acreage on the west side of the fretway through 1986. During that period, specifically November 10.1982, the City approved a zoning chqc for the five acre parcel to C-I -Q Neighborhood Commercial (Resolution W2037). After my father's death in 1996 we received hundreds of inquiries and numerous hmal offm on the property and my mother ultimately accepted a proposal and opened escrow with Pacific Development Partners (PDP) in June, 1998. Since that time John Edwina of PDP has worked diligently with the California Coastal Commission to clarifj~ title issues and his dtbrw resulted in the Commission reissuing a Coastal Development Pamit ("82-537) on November 4,1998. Immediately &er receiving this pennit John, his partner, Mark Burger, and I met with the Board of Directors of the SeacliHdmcowaers Assodion to inform them of PDP's planned development of a neighborhood center anchored by a specialty food market and a drugstore. This meeting, while mom informative than condusive, was cordial and several specific types of retail 1uw were discussed along with SeaClifps input about objectionable uses. A second meeting was scheduled for this we& but we postponed it to give the parties involved M opportunity to re-evaluate their plans in light of the decisions made at the December 9th workshop. After reviewing the intent and Purpose of the overlay zone (21.208.010) we strongly dlsagree that this lot should be considered “tourist serving”, especially in light of its long- standing zoning designation as “neighborhood commercial“. By Definition (21.208.015) the concerns of Staff are “uses involving the provision of goods or services designed primarily for tourists and visitors to the city”. The proposed uses in this development would be for the benefit and enjoyment of the &dents in the immediate area and would not target the tourists. As a matter of fact, it is the continuing residential buildout in this area that has made this site attractive to these stores. Furthermore, as defined in Boundrrics/Appliubility (21.208.020) “the provisions . . . shall not be applied to industrial, office or residential uses“. Although this lot is zoned commercial it is located two miles south of Carlsbad Ranch and is encircled by homes. This lot cannot be assembled into a larger parcd and its distance from the subject BTC~ and its size should be considered as valid reasons to exclude it from the zone. It is, after all, the only commercial property on the east side ofthe tieeway included in the zone other than the propema dong the Palomar Airport Road corridor. In summary, please reaiue that if the decision is Wi to include this lot into the zone a long- time property owner will suffer a substantial financial IOU in the value of her property. The natural topography of the land would not be able to offset the reduction in the “net usesble” area that would be the result ofthe increased setbacks. PDP has already made substantial progress with mo anchor tenants for this site and this turn of events has put both deals in jeopardy. Our plans were to tkm up the tenant commitments, discuss them with the SeaClii Association and then begin the submittal process with the City, confident in the faa that the Coastal Commission had already issued their pamit. My family has invested heavily in Carlsbad and we mend into this agreanent with PDP out of respect for their expertise in developing small, unique sites. As we said at the workshop we will gladly agree to City Council review as part of the process to achieve the objective of this ordinance. We believe the events that preceded the workshop, however, should be taken into account and we urge you to request Staffto reconsider and reverse their recommendation and exclude this property &om the zone. If you would like to discuss this matter in person please feel fne to call me anytime. I appreciate this opportunity to express our concerns to you. . (760) 720- 1281 (619) 456-9907 CARLSBAD ZCA RANCH OVERLAY ZONE 98-0 1 ILCPA 98-05 73 San Diem Discnet Xfornla Coasral Commission 654 Miseon Gorge Road. Suite 220 San Diego. Califomla 92120 (714) 280-6992 " ~~ -~ Page 1 of 6 ATSS a6.5aa , ?he California Coasta: Comnission granted to 1 On February 23. 1983 ! tiis Permit for the development described below. subject to the attache0 R. C. Jewett Co. and Cecil A. Smith. an irlwai Standerd and Special conditions. Description: Subdivide 5.13 aces into four (4) parcels consisting of the :I following: Parcel R1 = 1.3 acres, Parcel W2 = 1.1 acres, Parcel #3 = 1.4 acres, aqd Parcel 84 - 1.25 acres. Project also involves of roads and approximately 35,444 cubic yards of balanced cut and site preparation including installation of utilities, construction fill. i Lot area 5.13 acres Zoning c-1-Q ' Plan designation CN - Neiqhborhocd Comercial I i Site: East of Interstate-5, south of Poinsettia Lane and west of Paseo del Sorte. in the City of Carlabad, San Diego County. APN 214-171-34 Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Comnis 0 by ~~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned permi ttec acknowledges receipt ai this permit and agrees to abih by a?l term and condi tlonm thereof. . 5/81 74 C.C. Mayor Claude (Bud) Lewis Counciiwoman Ramona Finnila Councilwoman ~nn K~IC~ J Councilwoman Julie Nygaard Councilman MattHaU enc: Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Map California Coastal Development Permit ,/ 'XHlBlT 2 - City of Carlsbad January 27, 1999 Pe!er Walsh 6452 Avenida Manana La Jolla, CA 92037 PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I-S/POINSElTIA LANE The C~ty has received your letter dated January 7, 1999 stating your desire to be excluded irom the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. As'vou are aware, at the December 9, 1998 workshop. Council gave clear direction to stafi to include the subject propefty into the overlay because oi ~ts freeway irontage, commercial land use designations, and the recognition that theme park influences go funher than the immediately adjacent freeway offramps. Also consistent with thts. was the Council's direction to correspondingly expand the overlay zone northward to include the commerclally designated parcels east of 1-5 between Chestnut and Tamarack Avenues as well as the commercial parcels around the intersection of 1-5 and Tamarack Avenue. With regards to your future development plans, we suggen you process a Preliminary Review applicatlon with Planning staff to assess the xope of potential impacts of the overlay zone ordinance. The City notes and appreciates your diligent effons to include the adlacent residential areas into your initial development efforts. The City zlso notes that your commercial center is geared toward nelghborhood commercial uses and not tourists. Nevertheless, the Council's concern is for Cornmerclal and tourist-serving uses within the coverage area of the overlay zone and the ability to develop allowed land uses 1s not betng elimtnated. The desired scale of Intensity, signage and other features may need modiftcatcon glven the overlay zone ordinance; however, the Prelimlnar). RevIek, process will help assess the most likely impacts iuntil the overlay zone is formally approved, all standards and crcteria contalned In the drak ordtnance are not finalized). Thank you for expressing your concerns regardcng th~s Council initlated project. YOU are urged 10 consider processing a Preliminary Revlew and participate in the Planning Commlssion and citv Council heartngs to further express your views to the decision makers in this matter. Sin:erely, M0:EM:bln C: Ray Patchen. City Manager File - ZCA 9841 2075 La Palmas Dr. - CarlsBad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 \ EXHIBIT 3 February 19, 1999 Ray Patahett 1200 Carlsbad VUage Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY MANAGER - CARLSBAD RE: CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE Dear Mr. Patchat, I have written to you before canccrning the inclusion of my mothds property, the five acre parcel at Paseo Del None gnd Pointscttia Lane, in the Carisbad Ranch Overlay Zone. As much as I appreciate the response from the Community Planning Director I do not believe l$s suggestion to submit a Preliminary.Plan Review alters the impact this proposed decision wiU have on this property. Time is ofthc csscnce and with no criteria established to review site plans my mother stands to lose substantially due to this delay. I am respectlily requesting that this matter, specificaUy removing this property 6om the meeting. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. , overlay district, be placed on the agenda of the City Council for the March 2,1999 SincerelL A Peter A. Walsh (760)'720-1281 arltb.dal r.' s 37 3 -XHIBIT 4 LA JOtlA MARKETPLACE - Peter A. Walsh Telwnone 16 191 456-9907 Fox (619) 456-519 75 IA Gira:a Avenue, Suite 84 La ?oI!a. CA 92037 January 13, 1999 ~o+,ara ~eff~er - President SEACLIF'F Home.ownm Association 7154 Lantana Terrace Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Howard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank yop and the Bod'of Directors for meeting with me and. PDP regarding the development of our five acre lot &>our suppocof our .7 position to maintain the existing development standards and oppose the City including this lot into the'carlsbad &ncb overlay zone. Woqld you be, so kind as to wite,a letter to me .confirming your position' so that I can have it for review by the v~5ou.s City officials? It would be most helpfid. As promised please find enclosed a map of the overlay zone for your file. .. .. . .. , ,. CordpUy yours, .. . , .. .... ,. . . : .. . .. .. . .. I. .. Peter A. Walsh ' . PACIFIC k ARTNERSLLC FVELOPMENT Julv 9. 1999 Mayor Claude "Buddy" Lewis Ciry Council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD I200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 RE: Council Meeting July 6. 1999 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: At the Council m.:eting on Julv 6. 1999. the question was raised concerning Pacific Development Parmm, LLC working reladonship with the Sea Cliff Hmc Owncn Association (HOA) Board of Directors. Pacific Development Parmca, LLC and Mr. Pcrcr Walch have met three (3) times with the Board of Directon ro discuss a Neighborhood Center at the SW coma of Pate0 Del None and Poinsettia Lme. At our lac meeting the Board of Dmmn voted in suppon (with one abstention) IO suppan the removal of the 5.1 acres fmrn rhc Overlay Zone. On April 2, 1999,l spoke to Mr. Howard Heffaer concerning our efforts to redesign the cenm to mm the Overlay Zone stunduds and requested 8 rneenng with the residenrs of Sen Cliff Mr. Heffncr. informed me thnt I would have m meet with the Board Of Directon, and if the Bod decides to hold a general meeting they will five nolice. It is our intention IO hold a gmed neighborhood mating with all the midents in the area to discuss the merits of our neighborhood center. This information should help to clear up any misunderstanding; however. 1 will be happy to answer any funher questions you may have, and can be reached at 858 ,755.0675. P~JCC~ Dir-tcr SAN DIEGO OFFICE DELMAR.CA?2014-I788 8S8.755.0675 FAX 858.7SS.1706 PO BOX 24aa TOTRL P. 03 Planning Commission Minutes December 5.2001 EXHBlT 4 Page 20 9. GPA 01-01 - SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS - Changes n the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan's new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new "Local Shopping Center" designation to 13 sites with the old "Neighborhood Shopping Center" and "Community Shopping Center" designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a including Regional Commercial, in various areas of the City. Mr. Wayne introduced the next item. Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, stated the project concerns the redesignation of the general plan assignment for 17 properties. He stated that on March 21, 2001 they took to the City Council a new general plan policy framework that modified a number of things in the general plan, which was a culmination of a number of workshops, a telephone survey of the public's shopping patterns, and hearings. Ultimately, the new policy framework modified the mix of land uses that affect shopping centers, specifically merging the former Community Commercial class and the Neighborhood Commercial class into a single class called Local Shopping Centers. The framework requires all local shopping centers be framework also provided goals, policies and guidelines indicating where the centers would be located, how neighborhood in orientation but with an option to have community commercial tenants. He said the new they would be distributed throughout the community and how they would be developed when approved. A new zone is yet to be created to implement the new general plan class. He said the current actions are to assign the Local Shopping Center designation to sites to replace the old Neighborhood and Community Commercial designations that no longer exist, and to conduct the site study to determine the need for additional shopping centers beyond the ones currently built and where they should be located. He showed a list of existing shopping centers that currently have a Neighborhood or Community Commercial designation that are recommended to be assigned the new Local Shopping Center designation. He said it is basically a non-substantive issue; they're simply changing the nomenclature. The main issue is what to do with the vacant sites that are designated Neighborhood or Community Commercial. Mr. Turner said Staff approached this issue by first looking at the Council's general plan policies adopted in March for locating shopping centers which states no strip commercial; centers should be located not within the residential neighborhoods but on the adjoining major roads; and trade areas should have no gaps, some overlaps okay, 5 minutes of travel time, and minimum population within the area. He described the methodology used in the travel time study as well as the assumptions used in the study. He showed a map with the results of the initial analysis. He pointed out the study area and identified areas by within 5 minutes. Based upon the principles adopted in March the areas that have no centers within 5 color codes that have no centers within 5 minutes, one center within 5 minutes, and two or more centers following additional principles: 1) Use the vacant sites already designated for shopping centers first to minutes are the areas that need additional shopping centers. To eliminate the gaps Staff added the identify new centers. 2) They would not delete sites unless the owners and neighbors agree the site is not in developing the site and it would be helpful to reduce gaps. Using those principles the Staff desirable and if the site is not needed for coverage. 3) Add new sites if owners and builders show interest recommendation is to convert the following existing vacant sites to the Local Shopping Center designation: Sunny Creek Plaza, MAG Properties, Tienda de la Esquina, and Smith-Walsh. The Robertson Ranch and Bressi Ranch are currently designated for residential and are part of ongoing master plan developments so they would be new sites to the commercial inventory. They also recommend that Calavera Hills be deleted from the inventory and converted from Community Commercial to Residential Medium High. The last change is to convert the Pavilion site from Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium High to Regional CommerciallOfficelResidential Medium High. Mr. Turner then showed the results of the travel time analysis after the Staff recommendations were applied which indicated all trade area gaps were eliminated and that most of the city would have two or more centers within 5 minutes travel time. Benefits of overlapping trade areas include: Better prices due to competition and potential for complementing goods and services, owners don't lose desired commercial designation, and the City could not be overly commercialized. He stated they are using a floating dot designation on two sites (Robertson Ranch and Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 21 Bressi Ranch) which means there remains flexibility to later fix the exact sites as part of the master planning process. Mr. Turner stated it was an extremely difficult project due to the traffic modeling done for the traffic analysis. He acknowledged Bob Johnson and Steve Jantz who were critical to getting that work done, SANDAG who did the actual traffic modeling, and Karl von Schlieder and Toby Semroc, the GIS folks, who prepared the actual exhibits. Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Turner what he envisions for the Country Store location. Mr. Turner replied when they created the new land use classification they called out in the general plan some typical characteristics for local shopping centers and the Country Store does not meet all of these new characteristics and yet it has functioned as a small little mom & pop store. Since it didn't fit neatly into any commercial categories they decided to designate it as a legacy kind of site. It was not used as an existing shopping center in the site analysis. Chairperson Segall asked why the Albertson's on Carlsbad Village Drive wasn't listed on page 2 of the Staff Report (existing neighborhood or community commercial) and questioned why stores such as Costco and Tip Top Meats were not listed. Mr. Turner responded when they started this exercise several years ago the original Council question was do we have enough space for shopping centers. Staffs question was do you want Neighborhood or Community Commercial? We were trying to divide up all the Village is part of the Village and is designated V and is part of a much larger general commercial district. existing retail places into one of those categories. We looked at some of those -the Von's Center in the Therefore, the Village was out-scoped from the original staff study. In the general plan text we talked about retaining the village as the one generalized commercial district we would retain in the city, which makes it strip commercial in nature. For the current study, we recognized that the Von's functions with the surrounding retail there with the type of characteristics that a shopping center has. So while it didn't need to have its general plan designation changed, we did feel it functioned as a local shopping center and should include it in the mix. The Company Stores and Costco were designated as Regional Commercial early on. Costco would probably be called Community Commercial if we were looking at it today because it's one of those big box types of developments, but it's standalone and not a center in the definition of our the way we define that today. It's not a discrete center with a main anchor such as Von's or Sav-on. current General Plan, which says it has to be three stores. The area including Tip Top is strip commercial Mr. Wayne added that it's also governed by its own specific plan and part of that functions as tourist serving commercial and part of it is industrial, it's an old relic mix. The restaurant and specialty market is tourist serving. Chairperson Segall said the point is, the kinds of goods and services that you want which you pinpointed within 5 miles or less, aren't including those specialty kinds of places. Mr. Turner replied it could be argued both ways. If they were to redo the analysis they could perhaps include that site and see how the mix would come out. He said his sense is there wouldn't be a lot of difference in the results because that particular area already is shown by the study to have basic coverage, and in some cases multiple coverages, so adding it would just add more multiple coverages in that area and wouldn't identify further gaps. financial impacts to the city from possible loss of sales tax revenue because we opted to go with smaller Commissioner Baker asked when the analysis was done if any consideration was given to the long term types rather than big box type stores. Mr. Turner responded that that was looked at fairly carefully by the Finance department when Staff did the original trade area analysis back in 1996. The Finance and in the future is such that we can accommodate those changes and feel it is better to make land use Department said there might be some effect on the city's tax base but the general revenue picture today decisions on the basis of good land use planning and not have them driven by fiscal considerations because they're not critical to us. Commissioner Baker asked if Commercial is any less profitable than Residential Units from a developer's point of view. Mr. Turner said in the case of the Calavera Hills area the people who now control the master plan are primarily residential builders in the McMillan Corporation. They have a commercial wing well as an operating store for a number of reasons, partly because of access and it's in the middle of a and his understanding from discussions with them is that they felt this particular site would not function neighborhood and not on a main boulevard. In the case of Bressi, they feel that there is a need for some 81 Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 22 support because they saw the original study and thought it would be important to provide the kinds of goods and services their residents would like to have. Turner said part of the rock and quarry pit is in the City of Oceanside and there is a proposal to build a Commissioner Baker asked what's happening with the gravel pit area on the northeast end of the city. Mr. community commercial center there, to be called Quarry Creek, with a Target and Home Depot. The actual sand and gravel pit within Carlsbad that may be reclaimed at some point, has access and habitat issues and we have not yet determined what the use may be and we do not yet have a Facilities Management Plan for that area. Commissioner Baker said she thought it was decided that there would not necessarily be a shopping center at both Sunny Creek and Robertson. Mr. Turner said that was one of the issues debated regarding overlapping trade areas going back to the policies adopted in March. Using these policies and other principles that Staff utilized, where there was an existing designation on a vacant site, such as Sunny Creek, it would be kept in the mix if it helps provide coverage for an area that needs it. He pointed out that area, indicating it needed coverage and Sunny Creek would help with that, if built. Both the Commission and City Council - in the policies adopted in March also said some competition, some overlapping mix of goods and services would be good for the city, therefore something around Robertson Ranch might be okay. Both the Commission and Council also looked at the issue of prohibiting development on El Camino strong stand saying that if it's done well and efforts are made to protect the scenic value of that corridor Real allowing it if the scenic corridor could be protected. He reminded the Commission that it took a very something could be developed on Robertson Ranch. Therefore, since there was former strong interest in developing the Ranch, and no policies adopted precluding it, Staff took the position to include it in the mix recognizing there would be a degree of overlapping trade areas with Sunny Creek. Chairperson Segall opened public testimony. Association along with the Board of Directors and members of their Land Use Committee. She Sally Lyons, 7019 Lavender Way, Carlsbad, stated she was representing the Sea Cliff Homeowners Amendment. She stated that Sea Cliff, a community of 300 homes, is adjacent to Site 16, the Smith- recognized and commended the Staff and Commission for their efforts in preparing the General Plan Walsh property. She stated their homeowners association had provided comment letters requesting that the adverse impacts of a commercial project on site 16 be analyzed before approving the new designations. The impacts include traffic, safety. air quality, aesthetics, and quality of life. She stated commercial development on this site is not consistent with the city's commercial objective 51. The commercial diversity but add to the existing stock of similar establishments in the area. A commercial property is located where there is significant commercial overlap. These businesses do not enhance center on this site simply results in over commercialization of the area with no increase in diversity. The site, given its location and small size, will only support a strip mall kind of development which is expressly disfavored by the City. As a strip mall immediately adjacent to a residential project, any commercial project is inconsistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a desirable residential open space community as noted in Commercial Objective 51, The Sea Cliff Homeowners Association requests an ROI to redesignate the Smith-Walsh property for noncommercial use. who is the owner of the property. He said he was there to request that Planning Commission adopt Staffs Pete Walsh, 2885 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, stated he was present on behalf of his mother, Caroline Smith, will allow them to develop the site consistent with its long time zoning and within the parameters set by the recommendation and approve the shopping center redesignations. He said the General Plan Amendment Coastal Commission which controls the use of the property. Mr. Walsh stated that since well before the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone was ratified in November 1999 the owner of this particular properly has and all other issues related to this new shopping center policy had been resolved. He commended Staff, been unable to determine the future of her property until the Staff research and reports were completed to the Commission reflect the direction the citizens of Carlsbad wish to go in the future. He added especially Dennis Turner, on their meticulous work in this assignment and said the results being conveyed approval will move us one step closer to bringing different smaller desirable competitive stores into the retail community. thanks to Mr. Turner for including Site 11. He said previous applications for a commercial site located on Ken Cablay, 3529 Cannon Road, Suite 519, Oceanside. representing the Robertson family, expressed his the Robertson Ranch have been withdrawn and are expired. He said probably the most significant thing fa Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 23 that is occurring on the Ranch as it relates to this General Plan Amendment, is the Ranch is in the early stages of being master planned. He said they have embarked together with the McMillan Development Company and master planned the entire site and think a shopping center in this portion of the city will not only serve the Ranch but the city as well. He said they have some very strong opinions as to the theme as well as the maturity of the ensuing development of the Ranch and see a very rural type of atmosphere to occur. He stated the policy, with respect to the scenic corridor of El Camino Real, is very strongly taken and they have even enlarged the scenic corridor to create a very aesthetic and a sofl street scene. Commissioner Compas asked if it is his intention to develop the shopping center on the Ranch even if Sunny Creek goes in. Mr. Cablay replied he believed so, it's more of a passion for the family, and they will still pursue a commercial development on the site. Russ Kohl, 3317 Don Pablo. Carlsbad, president of the Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners Association, stated many residents and owners in the community have heard about Sunny Creek for quite a few years and over the years have become disillusioned and discouraged, He said they are definitely outside of the considered very highly because Sunny Creek has been talking about this for about 7 or 8 years and they 5-minute reach of any community centers and support the overall concept. They would like 11 to be need some local shopping for their community of about 800 residents. Chairperson Segall closed public testimony and asked for a motion to continue the meeting for another 15 minutes. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that the Planning Commission continue the meeting to complete Item #9. VOTE: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman. and Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 6-0-0 environmental review associated with the development of a shopping center on the Smith-Walsh site. Mr. Mr. Turner responded to the issues raised by Ms. Lyons. One of the issues regarded the adequacy of the Turner said that many of the vacant properties do not have a current development proposal. They are strictly looking at a land use issue and it's very difficult to do an environmental review without a project to review. Although there has been a preliminary review on this property in the past it was not a formal proposal to the City and the City never does formal environmental reviews on preliminary reviews. The other vacant sites that do have project proposals are undergoing full CEQA reviews and appropriate environmental documents have beenlare being prepared for those specific proposals. He said when a proposal is made for the Smith-Walsh site the site-specific environmental issues would be looked at then. In summary, the response on this is there is no land use change being proposed, it already has a Neighborhood designation, and we're simply changing the nomenclature. Commissioner Baker asked if the commercial designation was there before the Sea Cliff subdivision. Mr. Turner said that property was originally tied with land that the Ralph's center is on across the freeway. When the Local Coastal Plan was developed they were treated as a single property and that goes back to Cliff was built. 1980, so he assumes the general plan designation goes back at least that far. He didn't know when Sea Mr. Turner went on to the issue raised on Objective 61. He said the policy was quoted in part by MS. Lyons and stated he would like to read the whole policy. He stated that the Commission specifically recommended adding language to Objective B1 that supported overlapping trade areas to create diversity in goods and services. He stated that three situations in the proposal are being done in keeping with that recommendation - the Smith-Walsh site relative to the Ralph's, Robertson and Sunny Creek, and Tienda de la Esquina with MAG Properties. He said all three of those pairs will have overlapping trade areas and would be affected by any suggestion that we go in a different direction. 83 Planning Commission Minutes December 5.2001 Page 24 Another point was the issue of over commercialization. Mr. Turner said if over commercialization means two or more shopping centers within a 5 minute trade area then much of the city is already in that state. He said their recommendation is consistent with the analysis that some overlapping trade areas are okay in the future. He said that, based upon the 1999 preliminary review for the site, the characterization by Ms. Lyons that this site would be a strip commercial development was simply incorrect. The earlier year. He objects to the characterization of the development on the Smith-Walsh property as a strip mall. proposal fully complied with the definition of a shopping center, added to the general plan in March of this Visitor Serving Overlay Zone that affected the whole western side of the city, the Sea Cliff folks asked if Regarding a request for an ROI, Mr. Turner stated a couple years ago when the City was developing the the Council would consider a redesignation of the Smith-Walsh site from Neighborhood Commercial to something else. The Council was in the midst of discussing the larger issue and wanted time to think about it. Later, Staff brought forward a Resolution of Intent to do that change. When Council came to vote on it they decided not to pass that Resolution of Intent. There was some ambiguity as to what the designation should become and you can't make a change if you have nothing to change it to. The resolution was not approved and that basically ended the issue with regard to Council direction to change the designation on the property. He said based on the new policies and the study Staff sees no reason to change the designation. Commissioner Compas stated he was somewhat surprised and very pleased with how all these sites fit together and do exactly what you want them to do. He asked if that was serendipitous or was there some great designer that picked these sights some time ago. Mr. Turner replied that he thinks there was some serendipity and some luck and they also had a lot of good input from folks over the years who were proposing to the City places where shopping should be. Not all these sites were there many years ago. The market drives the success of shopping centers and in many cases the market has made suggestions where these sites should be. He said Staff tried to add a couple where they think they should be and in work. Staffs trade area analysis, which is not a standard industry analysis, corroborates the market's each of the cases where they've added them it's been in a place where developers suggested it would analysis and vice versa. Chairperson Segall wanted to confirm that the Commission is not in a position to talk about the merits of whether the Smith-Walsh property is in a good location and at this time they're just changing designations, and at some point if a development moves forward they would have an opportunity to look at the site in its totality. Mr. Turner replied they would have that opportunity with any of the vacant sites. When a real project comes forward, the particulars of the environmental issues associated with that proposal and the particular site design would be brought before the Commission. He also reminded him of one of the things Council requested them to do when they bring the new zone forward, which is to create a new shopping center permit that would have the Council as the final decision maker on all shopping centers and shopping center remodels. He said then there would be a two-level review for actual site proposals in the future. Chairperson Segall expressed concern regarding a traffic problem at the Smith-Walsh site because there a name change. Mr. Turner replied that any development that's put on that property, whether it's multi- is only one way in and out and wanted to know how Staff would address an issue when they're only doing family residential, office. or anything else, would generate traffic that would leave to be dealt with. In the preliminary review that was conducted on the conceptual proposal some feedback was provided by the engineering department on that particular issue. There will probably have to be some street widening and whether all of the concerns can be resolved for the design or if the design would require a major re- working would be a site specific issue that would be worked on after a project is formally submitted. .Chairperson Segall wanted to know if ultimately the designation could change if it's determined you can't do what you want on the site due to traffic impacts, etc. Mr. Turner replied Staff would listen very carefully to what the Smith-Walshes have to say if they can't get a design that works there and they want to consider something else. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5104 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution No. Planning Commission Minutes December 5,2001 Page 25 5105 recommending approval of shopping center redesignations GPA 01-06 based on the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION None VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman, and Trigas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Exhibit 5 Letters of Comment (Received following preparation of Planning Commission staff report Russ Kohl, President, Rancho Carlsbad Owners’ Association Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Properties, LLC 86 , GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES, LLC STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER November 20,2001 Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Shopping Center Locations Ladies and Gentlemen: On December 5,2001 the planning staff will recommend to the Planning Commission where to locate retail commercial sites in the City through ultimate build out. The decisions which the Commission will be asked to make will not be policy-like in nature, but rather will be the application of a policy decision which the Commission made a year ago on December 6,2000 when the Commission voted unanimously to amend those portions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan pertaining to retail commercial development. You will likely receive public input as to the appropriateness of some of the locations. We would hope that the Commission would compare the comments received against the Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies and Action Programs set forth in the recently amended Land Use Element, which were so painstakingly prepared by staff, reviewed and adopted by your Commission and confirmed by the City Council. We would further hope that the Commission would disregard comments which are inconsistent with the adopted policies of the City. The policy guidance in the Land Use Element as to where local shopping centers are best to be located is quite explicit and should serve you well in reaching your decisions. Each site which the Commission designates( and the Council confirms) will still need to receive site development plan approval and a local shopping center permit. Those subsequent reviews will be quite detailed and are designed to address issues of concern about the design and operation of a shopping center. The meeting of December 5,2001 is for deciding where these facilities should be located to best serve not only the present residents of Carlsbad, but also the future residents of Carlsbad. Details about design, and environmental effects of specific projects, hopefully will be deferred by the Commission until the appropriate site plan approval requests, with any required CEQA related studies, are properly before the Commission. One Upper Newport Plaza, P.O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 25 I 2040 (949) 752 0885 Fax Email: gtp@ohill.com 813 Members of the Planning Commission November 20,2001 Page 2 Thanks for taking time to read my letter and good luck. Best regards, 7 "-7.l-7"- Larry Tucker LTIcrf cc: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner 88 5200 EL CAMlNO REAL . CARLSBAD CA 92008-3899 lrfrbad November 30,2001 TO Planning Commission - City of Carlsbad An: Dennis Turner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 FROM: Russ Kohl, President Rancho Carlsbad Owner’s Association, Inc. RE: Case File: GPA 01-06 Shopping Center Redesignations Hearing: December 5,2001 Dear Planning Commission: As a resident, property owner in Rancho Carlsbad, and as President of the Rancho Carlsbad Owner’s Association, Inc., I heartily endorse the City’s General Plan changes to redesignate 14 properties to “Local Shopping Center”-L. The proposed redesignation is to be commended. It provides a clearer and more “resident-friendly” designation and use for these properties. Rancho Carlsbad is a 504 unit, resident owned, common interest condominium community for 55 years and older residents. It will celebrate its 30 year anniversary in 2002. Though I can’t speak for Association members, my best guess is that having closer and more accessible shopping centers (specifically sites 9, 11, & 12) will be welcome news to most residents of Rancho Carlsbad. The end result will greatly increase public safety and well being of all residents in Carlsbad. Russ Kohl, President Rancho Carlsbad Owner’s Association, Inc. (R.C.O.A.) 33 17 Don Pablo Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 CC: Sue Loftin, General Counsel R.C.O.A. Mayor Bud Lewis ADMINISTRATION PHONE’ (760)438:0333 FAX 1160)438-1608 VIAF""AIL March 1,2002 Re: Site Dcvelopnmt Plan 82-3 7220 Avenida Encinas. Carlsbad, California Dear Dcnnis: Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the upcoming GPA 01-06 Shopping Center Redesigmtiom. After reviewing the December 5,2001 Report to the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad Commercial Land Use Element. I am cautiously comfortable with the redesigmtions. I do feel compelled, however, for the record to call attention to Site Development Plan 82-3 under which our above nferencsd office building, along with Poinsettia Village as a whole, was developed. Our building wns originally planned and built as an ofice building and has been operated in that manner since then. It is operated by us as a pride of ownership building and I feel that our operation and maintenance of the building makes it an asset for both our company and the community. Accordingly. I would not want the new designation to alter or reduce the futurr land use options of our oficc building pmel in any way. Timothy M. hson Executive Vice President TMW:sh cc: City Clerk's Oflice March 05,2002 City Of Carlsbad Case. File GPA 0 1-06 Shopping Center Redesignations Dear City of Carlsbad City Council and City Plmer, as outlined in the documents distributed regarding the above Case File and discussed before the City Council on March 5,2002. My concerns apply to site 11, listed as Robertson Ranch, NE of El Camino real near Lisa Street. The proposal for this site would change the zoning from RLM to L. As a resident of Carlsbad, I wish to raise the following points and challenges to the General Plan Amendment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The map enclosed with the information highlights a small area off of El Camino (east side) as the affected area. However, the Robertson Ranch is a much larger properly. It is unclear if the rezoning applies to the entire Ranch, or just this small area. Rezoning of the entire Ranch would be clearly unacceptable to the current and future residents of the area There have been numerous unsuccessful a!tempts to disregard the will of the residents and propose commercial development on the comer of Tamarack and El Camino. The document describes Lisa Street as a reference for this proposal. However, there is no Lisa Street on the east side of El Camino, nor is there any diagram or map showing a proposed street or the location of the area. Debating this proposal without such a map cannot be done without all the information needed. If no such map exists, then this proposal becomes invalid. If the plan calls for rezoning ofjust a small portion of the Robertson Ranch as highlighted, then that area must be specified as a subset of the ranch, with clear and consistent boundaries and limits. This area should be referred to in a distinct manner, as to be clear to any resident which subset or parcel of land is in question. The actual land in question is unclear based on the information sent to the public. The preservation of a greenbelt and parkway environment along El Camino is important to the residents of the area We do not want to see om stretch of El Camino slowly become like the stretches of El Camino in Encinitas, or tum this corridor into an “Orange County-like” shopping comdor. The traffic on El Camino, close to the 78, is already problematic and unacceptable. Further congestion that is added by building commercial entities along El Camino is short-sided and will create greater resident dissatisfaction. Any building in the noted area should be done off ofthe main thoroughfare in a manner that is made, in the area. environmentally and architecturally appropriate and that blends with other structures -natural and man- Any commercial building in this area adequately address the dangers of the high-voltage lines in the vicinity, the gas pipelines, the safety of the children who access Kelly Elementary School, and the water drainage and preservation of the wetlands area, which extends just to the other side of El Camino Real. Any commercial development on the Southeast comer of Tamarack and El Camino is unacceptable to the residents of the area. The continued proposals to do so, despite the numerous resident complaints and protests, shows disregard for the public will and a poor understanding of the positive aspects of Carlsbad that draw people to come to live in this city. In thirty years, when this council is looked back upon by a subsequent generation of representatives, I hope that they can be praised for preservation of the open space and greenbelt and agricultural areas of Carlsbad. The promotion of another mini-mall with a fast-food restamant, a liquor store, and over-hchised department store is not the legacy that any council should have. I appreciate the work that the council members have done to preserve this atmosphere in Carlsbad, and in their willingness to engage in discussion with the general public. Respectfully, Dr. Donald T. Miller 4610 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-729-3832 02/20/02 WED 15:47 FAX 760 761 0908 NORTH COUNTY TIMES SM 0222-Carlsbad-3x9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Cii of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Councll Chambers, 1200 Tuesdav. March 5. 2002. t,> consider changes in me land use Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad, Caiibrnia. at 630 p.m. on dass designations on 17 Individual propenles lo brlng them into lwnon and number of local shopping centers. Spedfically. mnformance with the general plan's new policy vision kr the assigning the new 'Local Shopplng Center designation to 13 sites with the old 'Neighborhood Shopplng Center' and Tommunity Shopping Center" designations, converting one slte designated Community Comrnerclal to Residential -Medium High Density, converSng two sites lrom Residential. Low-Medium Mmblnatlon designation, including Community Commercial to a Densly to Local Shopping Center, and converting One site with 8 comblnatlon d8SlgnatiOn. including Regional Commercial, in various ara of the Clry. Those persons wishing io speak on this proposal are cordial1 1nvIid.b attend the public hearing. Co ies of the staif repon wii be avsllable on and after Fridav. Mami 1.2002. It you haw any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Deparunent 81 @6al602-4609. If you challenge the Geneml Plan Amendment in court, you may be limed to raising only those issues you or someone else raised 81 the public hearing described m this nodce or written correspondence deilversd IO the of Carlsbad, Ann; Cii Clerk's Office, ai or prior io the public hearlng. CASE FILE; GPA 01-ffi CASE NAME SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CARLSBAD Legal 72126. February 22.2002 M 001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan's new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new "Local Shopping Center" designation to 13 sites with the old "Neighborhood Shopping Center" and "Community Shopping Center" designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low- Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional Commercial, in various areas of the City. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any - If you challenge the General Plan Amendment 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 01-06 CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS PUBLISH NORTH COUNTY TIMES: [DATE] PUBLISH THE COAST NEWS: [DATE] CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1/8 Page Ad in Two Papers PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE: OFCALIFORNIA County of San Diego 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: February 22, 2002 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at San Marcos , California this 22nd~ day of february. 2002 Legal Advertising m ,E_> This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Notice of Public Hearina NOTICE .OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE NAME: SHOPPiNG CENTER REDESIGNATIONS CITY COUNCiL CITY OF CARLSBAD L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesdav, March 5. 2002, to consider changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping Center” designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping Center” and “community Shopping Center” designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional Commercial, in various areas of the City. 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 Friday, March 1, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment 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 CorresDondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerks Office, at or prior to the piblic hearing, CASE FILE: CASE NAME: PUBLISH NORTH COUNTY TIMES: PUBLISH COAST NEWS: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CARLSBAD GPA 01-06 SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS Friday, February 22,2002 Thursday, Februaly 21,2002 SHOPPING CENTER SITES GPA 01 -06 S Shopping Center Redesignations December 5,2001 GI,. I'rops\rd Site hjor . LocationlAddresr \a. Development Consrrl \isitor Serving Assessor's Parcel Propen?. Xumben Ovcrls: Zone7 ~ From ! Anchon SrrlU Zone? ('hmwI Carlrbad Plaza Nonh KE corner of El Camm 167-030-29 167-030-50 167-030-74 and 5 \ 0"s 167-0304 Dc~ciopcd 167-030-32 I Real and Manon Rd KO <. No Good Guks Carlrbad Plaza Souh Real and Mamn Rd. Plaza Paseo Real Real and Awara Parkway 4 SE carncr of El Camino West Bluff Plaza 215-052-75 and 76 215-052-06 i 2 hi0 L C Fml Devclapcd No 167-030-52 SE Comer of El Camino Sman A i 3 L C \OM Developed Yes NO 215-050-71 and 12 NW comer of El Camino NO L C Commercial Dcrelopcd No General 223-060-28 and 29 SIB Avc and Rancho West of El Camino Real. General Plan Desimationr: N = Neighborhood Commercial (class no longer exists) C = Communiry Commercial (class no longer cxirtr) RMH = Rcsidential. medium height (8 -I5 d.u.!ac.) L - Local Shopping Ccnter (reccnrly created land use class) T-R = TraveliRecreatian Commercial 0 = Office and Rclared Commercial R= Regional Commerical RLM = Rcsidcntial. low medium (0 - 4 d.u.lac.) ExhibitGPAOI-06 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@ CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST 801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST 701 ENClNlTAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 ' CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 US. FISH &WILDLIFE 2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY SERVICES CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER DENNIS TURNER 01/03/2002 mAW€RV@ Address Lahels CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 VALLECITOS WATER DlST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 921234340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 921084402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG DEPT ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 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 SANDIEGO CA 92101 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SARA GUlN 4675 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 4850 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92006-3811 DEREK a KENDALL HOLMES 4923 LOMA COURT FAMILY HENKEN CARLSBAD CA 92006 WANDA HANNA 4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PEGGI LOREN2 3906 SIERRA MORENA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBYANN a MIM GUALTIERE 4360 EL CAPITAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4540 TRIESTE DR GARY a SYLVIA GRAHAM CARLSBAD CA 92008 K GAVIN 4505 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDY a DAN GAITAN 4135 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUSAN GUTIERREZ 1864 PALISADES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LORI HOMSTED 3608 CHESHIRE AV CARLSBAD CA gzooa BERNICE HILL 2984 RIDGEFIELD AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 STACY HENDERSON ’ 4879 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 PAT B DON HADLN 4628 TELESCOPE AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 41 10 LA PORTALADA DR LESTER B AGNES GUSNARD CARLSBAD CA 92008 MR 8 MRS GROSSE CARLSBAD CA 92008- 5850 SUNNY CREEK RD MR B MRS M GOLAS 4720 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4551 ESSEX CT LARRY 8 SHIRLEY GAST CARLSBAD CA 92008 G FURROX 820 CITRUS PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 PAT KELLY 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92008 PATRICIA HOLMES 2657 REGENT RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 JIM HICKS 5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 VERNON a EVELYN HANSEN 4587 ESSEX COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4415 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92006 PETE umy HAAS JULIA HUFF 3930 HOLLY BRAE LANE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBIN GREEN CARLSBAD CA 92008 3825 SIERRA MORENA AV 4630 LA PORTALADA DR DANIEL GLASSEY CARLSBAD CA 92008 J 8 J GAIANTE 4660 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 IRENE FUCHS 4635 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 4866 PARK DRIVE BEVERLY A FRED LORENTSEN CARLSBAD CA 92008 RLITH LONG 4519 ST GEORGE CT B LITHGOW CARLSBAD CA 92008 4571 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAO CA 92008 MR a MRS w T LISENBY 4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAO CA 92008 ~~ HANS 8 SALLY LINDENSHOV JAY LEVINE 4927 LOMA COURT JOSEPH a LUCH LEVESWE 4350 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 2688 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~~ ~~ ~~~ CARLSBAD CA 92008 ZIEMER 4728 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 RALPH KUBIAK 2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 LYNDA KRAK 6609 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KAZlM KONYAR 1757 TAMARACK AV CARLSBAO CA 92008 4721 TELESCOPE AV KIM 8 JILL KLEREKOPER CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY a NANCE HOOD CARLSBAD CA 92008 1788 EAST POINTE AV HENRY 8 VESTA KIDD 4726 BIRCHWOOD CR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARLINE 8 JIM HOPE 4558 CAPE CODE CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALDEN 8 MALYNDA KAY 4367 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008-7924 ALDEN KAY 6300 YARROW DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-1597 WILLIAM WENJARIN 4430 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JERRY KALICK 4734 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MR a MRS w JOOLINGEN 3827 SIERRA MORENA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 LYNDA JONES 2665 REGENT RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 CLIFF JOHNSON CARLSBAD CA 92008 2741 GLASGOW DR WEaDRJENKS 4548 CAPE COD CR CARLSBAD CA 92008 S INFERRERA 1828 HIGH RIDGE DRIVE CARLSBAO CA 9200e-3759 CAROLYN HUlTENMAIER 2750 AUBURN AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANK HUTCHINS 2590 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAO CA 92008 JOHN FLENTZ 4541 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 TOM KING 4781 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEPHEN BERK 3520 CATALINA DRIVE GORDON FRENCH 2913 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 LINDA CALDER 4645 LA PORTALAOA DR CARLABAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANA BROWNELL 2020 AURA CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ELIZABETH BOlTORF 4527 CARNABY COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4949 PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL 8 DENA BLISS MR 8 MRS ROBERT BEYNON ~" 4415 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARY 8 JOE CICCARELLI 3412 SANTA CLARA WAY CARLABAD CA 92008 DAVID BEESON 1745 TAMARACK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD ARMSTRONG 2621 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4745 GATESHEAD RD FRAN AGLIATA CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT 8 TAMARA LEIDER 4499 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 REESE BROWN 271 1 ATHENS AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 4549 ESSEX CT CHRISTINE BORIS CARLSBAD CA 92008 MR 8 MRS ROBERT BLASlNl 3629 CHESHIRE AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 DR 8 MRS S CARMICHAEL 4566 HORIZON DR CARLABAD CA 92008 NANCI BENSON-GRUNING 4703 BIRCHWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVEN B SUSANA BAUM 4610 TRAFALGAR LANE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRIAN a SHEILA ANDERSON 4125 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GEORGE AFANSEV 4550 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 W R BEVERLY 4605 LA PORTRALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 2703 TIBURON AV MR 8 MRS FELDMANN CARLSBAD CA 92008 Use template for 5160@ Use template for 5160; WILLIAM BRADFORD CARLSBAD CA 92008 P 0 BOX 883 JOHN 8 SUE BLOSCH 481 1 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PATRICIA BIXLER 4878 SEVILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 PETER 8 MARSHA BERTINO 2709 SOUTHAMPTON CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROD 8 JUDY BENSON 4405 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 4213 SUNNYHILL DR DOUGLAS BAKER CARLSBAD CA 9200B3M7 EDWARD ALOE 2613 SLITTER ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOUG 8 LAUREE ADAMS 4519 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WM & VIRGINIA DAVIES 4345 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROSEMARY FALKENSTEIN 4108 LA PORTALADA CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANK ESQUEDA ANGFI A 8 JOHN ESCALLE DAVID a JEAN ELLIS 4732 AMBERWOOD CT 4640 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~~ 4862 ALONDRA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALEX EBEL 4467 GLADSTONE CT CARLSBAD CA 92OMI 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 ROB WNATH STE 2A MR a MRS E DES ROSIERS 4307 SIERRA MORENA CARLSBAD CA 92008 7720 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 TAFFY CANNON 4430 TRIESTE OR CARLABAD CA 92008 JIM FRAMPTON 4220 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MR a MRS RALPH DARTON 4230 TRIESTE DR AUDREY B CURLEY P 0 BOX 863 CARLSBAD CA 9201a0863 BOB EDA CROSBY 4411 SALISBURY OR CARLABAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES CRISP STE 301 14549 ARCHWOOD STREET JOS CORNWELL 4403 MAYFAIR CT CARLABAD CA 92008 ROBERT a GLORIA COOK 4575 CHELSEA CT CARLABAD CA 92008 VANNUYS CA 91405- ANN COLLINS 4762 GATESHEAO RD CARLABAD CA 92008 BILL AND ILA CLAYTON 6569 CONEFLOWER DR CARLABAD CA 92009-2512 CHASE COMAN 5855 SUNNY CREEK RD CARLSBAD CA gzooa DEBRA CLARKE 4807 KELLY DR CARLABAD CA 92008 VIOLET CLARK 4740 BIRCHWOOD CIR JANET CLARK 2622 VALEWOOD AV CARLABAD CA 92008 AL 8 GAIL DE WEESE 3815 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 ANOREARYAN 3502 DONN DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHRIST a JOAN POTZ a HAYASHI 4798 NEBLINA DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BONNIE 8 FRED SMELTZER 4823 KELLY DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 JOHN SLAWSON STE C 2564 STATE STREET CARLSBAD CA gzooa CAROL SHIRK 4625 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVESHAUGHNESSY 2&12 FAIRFIELD AV CARLSBAO CA 92008 FREDA & VANCE SCHWEITZER 4650 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 . RICK & LISA SCARCIA 4245 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92111 BARRYSPACHER 4914 PARK CT CARLSBAO CA 92008 JENNIE LUM 4530 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92102 JIM ROEGER CARLSBAO CA 92009-4031 1547 MARITIME DR G RADLOW 7760 FAY AV LA JOLLA CA 92027 JEFF 8 MAURINE SAllERWHlTE 4366 TUOLUMNE PL CARLSBAO CA 92008-7924 ARTHUR WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOO CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL 8 SONYA WIT 4825 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ARTHUR SERRIN 4423 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JERRY 8 SHARON SCHUCK 2721 ATHENS AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 VlRGlNlASMlTHE 4340 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 4656 CORALWOOD CIRCLE BARBARA RUSClTTl CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUM1 RICE 4454 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 RICHARD RECK 4534 HARTFORD PLACE CARLSBAO CA 92008 CAROLINE PRESCOll 4669 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 FAMILY TORRES 4919 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 PAUL WOLKIN 4107 LA PORTALAOA OR CARLSBAO CA 92008 LAURA WINEHOLT 6664 CURLEW TERRACE CARLSBAO CA 92008 4728 EDINBURGH OR EMMA SCOTT BARBARA 8 KARL SCHAEFFER 4440 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAO CA 92008 ANGEL SANTIAGO . ~ "" . 2395 LAFAYETTECT CARLSBAD CA 92008 GUY RONEY 3495 PONTIAC DR CARLSBAD CA 9200&2135 RESIDENT STE D 2340 VIA FRANCISCA CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAND1 RAY 2959 CAPE COO CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 LESLIE & PAUL POZNANTER 4824 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 4545 LA PORTALADA OR RICHARD 8 NANCY WOZNIAK CARLSBAO CA 92008 MR 8 MRS A WlllENDORFER 2721 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAO CA 92008 JERRY 8 ARLENE WEINTRAUB 4435 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 4625 TRIESTE DR ELAINE TUTTERROW CARLSBAD CA 92008 RESIDENT STE 207 MI7 TOBRIA TERRACE CARLSBAD CA 9mo8 JAU TANK 4656 WOODSTOCK ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 WANDA STILES 4305 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RANDY STEWART 4615 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 TRACY TROUSSET 4919 LOMA COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 .. DECK POPE 1977 EAST POINTE AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANK MORRALL 4635 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ~ ~~ ~. . ... -. .. . " VIRGINIA MOORE 4652 CORALWOOD CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 4381 SHASTA PL ED a GAIL WALKER CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY SMITH 2729 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRAD 8 DUREA THRALL 3608 ASHBY CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOYCE a CHARLES STIFFLER 4820 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WILLIAM STEELE 2001 EL CAMINO REAL OCEANSIDE CA 92054 RAY MC NAY 2905 LANCASTER RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 RALPH a MYRTLE MOYER 4730 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MR a MRS RALPH MORGON 4145 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONALD a AMY MILLER MR & MRS JOHN VAALER 27581NVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PETER 8 SUSAN TRENT 2706 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOUISE TESTERMAN 4951 AVILA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 JIM SUTCLIFFE 4583 PICADILLY CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 HAROLD STIDOLPH 4814 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BONNIE SPOSATO 4563 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LESLIE MURRELL 4718 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 H L MOYER 4724 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 2618 ABDUL ST FRED MOREY CARLSBAD CA 92009 LACY METCALFE 4901 AVILA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 CAROLYN MUDGETT 2541 REGENT RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 AGNES MC CAFFERlY 4545 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOE MATUSINEC CARLSBAD CA 92018-0863 P 0 BOX 863 MICHELE MARTINET .... .. .. .. ". 1865 EAST POINTE AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD 8 DORIS MACKEY 4721 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS a JILL NASH 2978 RIDGEFIELD AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEBRA MC NAIRN 1794 EAST POINTE AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 ZDEP CARLSBAD CA 92008 1978 HIGH RIDGE AV MARGARET 8 LEE MASSEY 4710 AMBERWOOD COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN MARTIN 2287 BRYANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NICK MELILLO 3746 LONGVIEW DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT PETERSON MARY 8 ROGER PHILLIPS 2766 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 2765 VICTORIA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 4560 TRIEST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 JACK a NORMA PAEPKE JANICE PACAYOS 3505 TRIESTE DR 2768 DUNDEE CT DON PATERSON MARJORIE PETERSON 4624 DRIFWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-3716 JOHN OSHAUGHUESSY 4096 LOMA LAGUNA DR ' 4385 TUOLUMNE PLACE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARY 8 KAREN POLSTER Am-RY? Add,ress labels Use template for 5160@ Use tempkte io: 5;$. ROBERT MEED 2264 LINDSAY DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 2970 LEXINGTON CIRCLE MARY MC GRAW-GUERRERO CARLSBAD CA 92008 4891 SEVILLA WAY SHIRLEY MAXWELL CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEN MARTYNS 7304 LANTANA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009- KURT MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LAURA a DON OGAN 4202 SIERRA MORENA AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS PAPPAS 4410 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARION PEIPMEYER CARLSBAD CA 92008 3018 GREENWICH ST JOHNORMEROD 4563 LAMBETH COURT CARLSBAD CA 92008 4325 LA PORTALADA DR MR 8 MRS SCOT OCONNELL CARLSBAD CA 92008 Laser SISO? BErrY NIELSEN 2663 sUTTER STREET CARLSEAD CA 92008 PETER 8 SYLVIA NIELO 2629 VALEWOOD AV CARLSEAD CA 92008 4839 KELLY DR ROBERT NELSON CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDITH POOLE 4407 MAYFAIR COURT CARLSEAD CA 92008 4817 NEELINA LAWRENCE PAULSEN CARLSEAD CA 92008 ASPEN PROPERTIES JOHNTWOROGER STE 270 8799 BALBOA AV SANDIEGO CA 92123- EIZIEFF. GORDON M. a ASSOCIATES CARLSEAD CA 9201a-2143 PO BOX 2143 BUSINESS REAL ESTATE EROK ANTHONY VILLESEUR STE 200 BUSINESS REAL ESTATE EROK MARC DOYLE STE 150 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSEAD CA 92008 4380 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92122- . ~~~~ CARLSEAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JAN SOEEL 5620 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSEAD CA 92008 CARUSO AFFILIATED HOLDINGS CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPMENT 1965 PRATT ELVD ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007 SANDRA G YAVITZ STE 14 SANTAMONICA CA 90401-1112 100 WlLSHlRE ELVD CE COMMERCIAL REAL EST JEFF PINTAR COMMONWEALTH TITLE JIM SARD0 STE 600 SANDIEGO CA 92108 1455 FRAZEE ROAD GENERALAMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE STE 190 STE 900 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92121-2127 . - ANAHEIM CA 92801- 1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE HALE DAY GALLAGHER JIM HICKS STE 820 W LIBERTY ST RENO NV 89501 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES MIKE HOWES STE 150 5900 PASTEUR CT CARLSEAD CA 92008 ~~ JOHN EURHAM a co RETAIL COMM LA JOLLA MARKETPLACE PETER ac WALSH a SMITH SUITE 4 7514 GIRARD AV LA JOLLA CA 92037 STE 1 1901 CAMIND VIDA ROBLE CARLSEAD CA 92009 CARLSEAD CA 92008 MAG PROPERTIES PHIL WARD 5075 FEDERAL BLVD SANDIEGO CA 92102 NEECE COMMERCIAL WILLIAM NEECE ~~~~ STE 212 4241 JUTLAND DR SANDIEGO CA 92117 CARLSEAD CA 92009 NICHOLS GENEVA FAMILY TRUST LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651- 1506 S COAST HWY PLANNING SYSTEMS DENNIS CUNNINGHAM STE 100 1530 FARADAY AV CARLSEAD CA 92008 PLANNING SYSTEMS PAUL KLUKAS STE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92009 1530 FARADAY AV PROCOPI. CORY, HARGREAVE STE 2100 DAVID HUEEARD 530 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101-4469 RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE L L C NEWPORT BEACH CA 92657- 19 CALAIS ROGERS a UCKER JEFF ROGERS STE 1050 591 CAMINO DE LE REINA SAN DIEGO CA 92105 ~~~~~. Address I .! Labels, Laser 5160@, STE 102 LINDA ROEGGE SAN DIEGO CA 92121- 10455 SORRENTO VALLEY RD 7306 LANTANA TERRACE CARLSBAD CA 92009- THECAPEHOA TOM FLANAGAN 2988 RIDGEFIELD AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 VANDERBURG LIVING TRUSl STE 645 ARCADIA CA 91006 150 N SANTA ANITA THE LONDON GROUP STE 360 GARY LONDON 12770 HIGH BLUFF DR SANDIEGO CA 92113- VANDERBURG REAL €ST HOLDINGS HOUSTON TX 77067- 12700 NORTHBOROUGH NOB 100 MARK LANGAN STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 92130- 12220 EL CAMINO REAL THE VONS COMPANIES INC STE A417 32158 CAMINO CAPISTRANO SAN JUAN CAPO CA 92675 VONS COMPANIES STE 645 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE ARCADIA CA 91OOE- Smooth Feed SheeWM AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC (STORE NO 6720) C/O ALBERTSONS #6720 P 0 BOX 20 BOISE ID 83726 Use template for 5160@ AZURE INVESTORS L L C C/O SUMMIT REALTY ADVISORS LLC ST LOUIS MO 63105 225 S MERAMEC AVE #301 BOARD OF ADMN TR C/O PAC PROPERTY 321 58 CAMINO CAPISTRANO #A417 SAN JUAN CAPO CA 92675 BVD ASSOCIATES LLC 8 E BROADWAY #200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 841 11 CANAM PROPERTIES LLC 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS #A CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY GROUP L P C/O DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 2235 FARADAY AVE #O CARLSBAD CA 92008 VANDERBURG LIVING TRUST GREAT WESTERN BANK <LF> C/O WAKEN & CO 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE #645 ARCADIA CA 91 006 KELLY RICHARD C TR&KELLY 2770 SUNNY CREEK RD ROBERT P TR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MASUE TRUST WHITE PLAINS NY 10607 77 TARRYTOWN RD #IO0 NEW WEST PETROLEUM S D 2 INC SACRAMENTO CA 95814 1831 16TH ST AZALEA INC C/O WAKEN 8 CO ARCADIA CA 91 006 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE #645 BRESSI LENNAR RANCH VENTURE L 24800 CHRISANTA DR #200TI LC MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 CALAVERA HILLS II L LC C/O MCMlLLlN COMPANIES 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 CAROLINES SURVIVORS TRUST 05- 6452 AVENIDA MANANA 15-87 LA JOLLA CA 92037 DOWNEY SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION P 0 BOX 6010 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 HINDS THOMAS F&MARY JANE 9720 WlLSHlRE BLVD #204 LIVING TRUST 12-26-96 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 LA COSTA ESTANCIA CORP 340 S FLOWER ST ORANGE CA 92668 C/O CUNNINGHAM-BARISIC DEV MITCHELL LAND&IMPROVEMENT CO C/O D W MITCHELL 2919 GARDENAAVE SIGNAL HILL CA 90806 NICHOLS GENEVA M FAMILY TRUST 07-29-71 1506 S COAST HWY LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 BRUCE PHYLLIS A TRUST 04-29-95 6272 SILVERWOOD DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 CALVARY CHAPEL NORTH.COAST 7188 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 CONTINUING LIFE COMMUNITIES LLC C/O RICHARD ASCHENBRENNER 800 MORNINGSIDE DR FULLERTON CA 92835 DAYTON CORP C/O CPTS WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 1371 OAKLAND BLVD #200 GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE C/O CONNING MORTGAGE LOAN INSURANCE CO DEPT ANAHEIM CA 92801 1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE #I90 HOFFMAN JAY F TR 4901 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MAG PROPERTIES 3838 CAMINO DEL RIO N #222 SAN DlEGO CA 92108 MOORSTEEN KAY TR C/O FOODMAKEWAX ASSMT 1777 NE LOOP 410 #I250 SAN ANTONIO TX 78217 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY CO C/O ROBERT F INGOLD <LF> INGOLD FAMILY L P 0 BOX 185 BONSALL CA 92003 aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5 160@ Smooth Feed SheetsTM PAY LESS DRUG STORES P 0 BOX 8431 NORTHWEST INC HARRISBURG PA 17105 ROBERTSON FAMILY TRUST 04-19- 95 5056 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 VANDERBURG LIVING TRUST 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE #645 ARCADIA CA 91006 WORLD SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION C/O ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT OAKLAND CA 94612 1901 HARRISON ST a AVERYB Address Labels RALPHS GROCERY CO COMPTON CA 90220 1100 W ARTESIA BLVD THE VONS COMPANIES INC <LF> C/O PAC PROPERTY FEDERATED CITY EMPLS 32158 CAMINO CAPISTRANO #A417 SAN JUAN CAPO CA 92675 VANDERBURG REAL EST HOLDINGS LP C/O EQUILON REAL ESTADMN HOUSTON TX 77067 12700 NORTHBOROUGH NOB 100 Use template for 51608 RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE L L C NEWPORT BEACH CA 92657 19 CALAIS TOSCO CORP C/O PROP TAX DEPTIDC 17 P 0 BOX 52085 PHOENIX AZ 85072 VONS COMPANIES INC <LF> KELLY RICHARD C TR ET AL C/O WAKEN CO 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE #845 ARCADIA CA 91 006 Laser 5160@ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday. March 5, 2002, to consider changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan's new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new "Local Shopping Center" designation to 13 sites with the old "Neighborhood Shopping Center" and "Community Shopping Center" designations, converting one site designated Community Commercial to Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation, including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional Commercial, in various areas of the City. 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 Friday, March 1, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4609. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment 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, Attn: City Clerk's Office, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 01-06 CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS PUBLISH NORTH COUNTY TIMES: Friday, February 22,2002 PUBLISH COAST NEWS: Thursday, February 21,2002 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CARLSBAD SHOPPING CENTER SITES GPA 01-06 Shopping Center Redesignations December 5,2001 Propem .~~sessor's Parcel Visitor Serving Coastal Dcrtlapmcnt Major G.1'. l'ruparrd LacarionlAddrrrr Xumbcrr Olrrla) Zone? Zone? Status Anchors ('haw<. Carlsbad Plaza Sonh 167-030.29 h'E corncrofE1 Camtno 167-030-32 Dc\cIopcd c -! : Real and Marron Rd \ani 167-0304 167-030-50 167-030-74 and 5 , Front 1 I,, NO S" COOJ G">i Carlrbad Plara Soh SE CorncroiEl Camtno 167-0304? NO KO Dcrrlopcd FIN1 C L Real and Mamn Rd. Plaza Parco Real NW corner of El Camno 215-050-71 and 72 NO Yes Dercloped \'on< C L Real and Avian Parkway i Smn b Lira Strect. oiPalamar Airpon Road 223-060-28 and 29 Sam Fe Rd. Gencral Plan Dcrienations: N = Neighborhood Commercial (class no longer cmra) RLM = Rcridcntlal. low medium (0. 4 d.u./ac.) C = Community Commerctal (clarr no longer cxrrtr) RMH = Rcridenual. medium hcighl (8 -I5 d.u./ac.) 0 = Office and Related Cammercml L = Local Shoppmg Center (reccnlly created land UIC class) T-R = TraveliRccreatm Commercml R = Regional Cammertcal Exhiblt GPA 01-06 1 Two Objectives Assign “I”’ GP designations to sites with Conduct site study to determine if old “N’ and “C” commercial designations additional shopping centers needed to complement inventory of existing, built centers 2 3 I Travel-Time Study: Assumptions Use build-out condition (the future) + General Plan land uses + General Plan major roads + Travel at posted speed limit + Ignores some shopping is done “on peak” (less 1 Traffic Model assumes travel is done “off peak” than posted speed limit) Existing /future stop lights add one minute delay 1 Results: “Best case” scenario. Actual travel may (but not all future lights are known today) take longer in some instances. 4 Results and Conclusions Some areas within 5-minute travel time of one center (basic service) Many areas with five minutes of two or more shopping centers (overlapping trade areas) BUT, some areas will not be within 5-minute travel time of any center (“gaps” in trade areas) + These areas will be underserved + New policies say we need additional centers to eliminate gaps 5 6 Carlsbad Plaza No. (1): “C” to “L” Carlsbad Plaza So. (2). “C” to “L” West Bluff Plaza (4): “C” to “L” Plaza Paseo Real (3): “C” to “L” 8 Un-named - Vons (8): “N’ to “L” SITE t 9 ~~~ Calavera Hills (Village E-I) (IO): “C” to “RMH’ 10 The Pavilion (17): “C/O/RMH’ to “L/O/RMH’ ’ 11 12 Staff Recomendation: Robertson Ranch AND Sunny Creek IN No Centers Within Five Minutes One Center Within Five Minutes Two or More Centers Within Five Minutes Alternative: Sunny Creek Only No Centers Within Five Minutes One Center Within Five Minutes Two or More Centers Within Five Minutes 13 Alternative: Robertson Ranch Only No Centers Within Five Minutes One Center Within Five Minutes Two or More Centers Within Five Minutes Poinsettia Village (7): “TWC” to “TRL” Smith-Walsh (16): “N’ to “L” 14 15 For Additional Information Please Contact Dennis Turner, Principal Planner Phone: (760) 602-4609 E-mail: dturn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Faraday Administration Building 1365 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 16