HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-09; Planning Commission; Minutes• ... MINUTES
lilrlTDG <:Jl1 Pt.Mlln«; CXMUSSI°'
October 9, 1985
6100 P.M.
Di\ft CJIW •-nnc;r-1
TUT OP ~ I
PLACI at W'i'OOr Cl ty Counc 11 ov.t>ers
CALL 'ro ~1 1be Meting vas called to order by cf.ih•ar, 9chlehuber at 6100 p.m.
Pnt-,t, O\lliraan Schlehuber, Olaniuloners
Mt:hdden, 9111 th, Hal 1 , Holms, Marcus and
L' HM.lrewc.
Abaent, lt)ne.
Staff Nldler• Preaent 1
Oulrlea Gria, Prlnclpel Plarvwr
N.ik• Howe, Aaeoclate Planner
Dan Hantechke, Auiatant City ~ttomey
N.ichMl flDlDiller, i..., UN Planning Manager
Cl)G Wickha, Aaa>clate Civil lingineer
PLIDll 0, M.Ll'JIN«:I 11111111 led by O\al nnan Schlehuber.
Olainoan Bclhlehuber called attention tx, the Plaming
<l:llllllulon Procedure• being ahovt on the ■crNn and asked
the audience to teke a few minutes to read than.
1) ~w B~Z0-335 -cm OP CARLSBN> -Raquest for a ral an >-diiiint fro111 c /6-uiity <Daercial)
t:o IWt (AHidential "8di1a1 High Density) and a Zone aw. fraa 0-2-Q (General 0-rcial with a
()lallfied DIYelopnant Overlay) to ~ (Res idential
Danait)'"-fllltlple with a Qualified O.V.lopnant
ONrlay) for • ,.56 acre aite locatad at the
~t oomer of the La Oollta Avenue and Rancllo
Bent.a h Road interNCtl<:!).
Oulrl• Gria, Principal Planner, gave the pr._ntatlon on
thia lta u contained ln the ataff report, ualng a
trlft951arency to atlOW the •ite. Ila deacrl.bed the
nud and the pc-opoNd change• to the project and
that eta· f did not think this wu a eui table site
lot aaaerclal ~.
O.lran 8ch.lthuber opened the publ 1c hearing at 6107 P••·
1-.d the lnvl tatlon to speak.
-• fNd Nr»ny, 2618 Abedul Street, Carlllbad, oonailta"lt
..,_ra, dlacloead part of • pertnenhip in another
I_IMrbV 11n111a1rt:v n ~t.t thet • writbln doctaant be
IMl t1S ln the record. Ila di~ the history of the
nferr., to • trmaparency on the board. Ila
.-n1.4.l that lt ... pc.aibl• to 1110rk out • oaaiarcial
l vttb proptr acoe .. , and foeuaed hia diacuuion o"I the
rty nut to thi• project.
-MINUTES
October 9, 1985 Page 2
Nr. lilla Pringle, 2651 !Ut O\apMn, Mlerton, addressed
the traffic iuue concerning this site as outlined in his
traffic report. (NIIVl'IS ~ DID NC71' R!X:!IVE A CCPY OF
TRIS RIPCJtT TO INCLUD! WI'ffl 'l1IE Pm«rl'ES) • He eqihasized
that the tripe in the area -,uld be intercepted trips
rathe. t....n new tripe and added that an access could be
provided on Cantella as a NOOndary and 9fflergency access
alnce it_. not a typical residential street.
0..iraM Schlehuber uked the applicant if he was
~ting relX)l'ling to C-1-Q rather than C-2-0, ard Mr.
fl>rey replied that 0-1-Q liOuld be acceptable.
Since no one el• wished to speak, the publ 1c testimony
_. ooncllllted at 6125 p.11.
0-luioner Mchdden -.ntod L.O know about C-1-Q and if it
w:,uld be poulble to limit the hours that the busineases
wre op.1. Dan Hantachke, Maistant City Attorney,
aonti~ that in addition to limiting hours, they could
al_, liait u•H allowed in th• zone.
O..irmn 9chlehuber uked staff if they wanted time to
addreaa the iaauea raised in Mr. Pringle's report, and Mr.
Ori.a repl led that l f the ec-tuion was trisure of what to
rule due to the traffic luue, tha'\ staff i«>uld want
lddltional t1-to review the report.
In rNpana to OMii l"l'-'''l Schlehuber' s query, Mr. Gril'IIII
~tad that al though they could 111111 t WM, there was
enoui,h ~rcial acreage in the area Md he felt no more
.. r..ted.
Oaaluloner Nchddan lrd lcated that she could not eee
realdentlal at thla aite due to traffic and that she
oo"'1dn't ... how they could uke it livable with the
danaity they wre p.-opoalng. Elw Nid that she felt C-1-Q
-,uld be 9ood if the hour■ wre 11111 ted and l t was wl l
cleal9Md,
Oaal•loner Nllrcua concurred with 0-iuioner McFadden
and a;reect with Nr. Pringle'• traffic report. 11w
oonfllald that ahe dld not think thia location an
ldlial ap,t for reeldantial uaa.
•loner L' 1191.&A\m ~reed wl th uch of lllhat we said
eql"I F di his oonoerna. .. tlllllllhUiad hot did not .-nt
tbla lnt.enectlon to end 14> like lnclnitea Boulevard, but
•l.d lt _. ->0 --11 a aJ te for 0-2-Q. Ha aentloned it
d be al.ad at the convenient kind of ~rclal u
OIIII09llld to offlaee.
1N1onar a.1th ~ted that he felt that cin:ulation
aff -the pclnclpal 1 ... detenalning land UN
thl• oornac. alao -,tloned hla oonoerna about the
r Ind point.ad out that crouover traffic on
IA 0Nta nNded be oonaldered.
1 lehletd>a ateted that he could go along with
0-l-O and talked about the church pcoperty nut to the ...
, l
MINUTES
PLAllfIN:i C(Jtl(ISSICII October 9, 1985 Page 3
A -,tion ws pasaed denying GP~LU 85-6/ZC-335 and
directing staff to r•tum with docl.lnents for a zone change
t<:> c-1-0.
2) ~LU SH -CXWlT WASTE PWW.Dmff -Request for a
ral Plan Ameidnent from RD(, Resl.iential Low
Nadl\.al, 1.0-4.0 du/ac, to PI, Planned Industrial for
a portion of a 32 .9 acre parcel located south of the
Palomar Airport Business Park approxlm&tely one mile
west of El canlno Real.
Miu Hows, Asaoclate Plamer, stated that a request was
lllld4t for a continuance on this item until the General Plan
IIDendment hearing In January 1986.
OWirman Schlehlt>er opened the public hearing at 6 135 p.m
and iuued the invitation to speak.
Mr. l):)n Agatep, 2956 AooNYelt, carll!bad, endorsed staff's
reooaneroation.
Since no one el• wished to speak, the publ 1c testimony
wa concluded at 6136 p.m.
A aotion wa paued continuing Item 12 until the first
Oeneral Plan :.-r.-.nt hearing In 1986.
3) ~ 85-~~326 -'1111 ~ S'1uu: -Request for ~ ral an J .. uJ1Nnt frcm a Ruidential Low
Nadh• (ALN) land uae de■ignation to Naighborhood
0-.rcial (N) and a Zone Ching• fr011 lh\-10 to C-2
on ~perty looatad at 4901 ll C.ino RNl, on the
_.t ■lde of the Cbwltry Store.
<barl• Grla, Principal Planner, gave the pce•ntation on
thl• lta u contained In the ataff report, u■lng a
traftlll9nncy to ._, the ■ite. Ill diecuued the cdteria
6w ~rolal area■ and Indicated that ■taff did oot fNl
tble _. a dealrable ■ite for ~rcial ex~•lon and
alMd "-Y. Ill -..,;reated another site that staff felt
..id be better (,_.reek ~ ll C..lno RNl) •
°"'1naan lct\lehuber opawd the publ 1c hearing at 7 142 p.11.
l--1 th,, lnvl tation to ■puk.
llr. Jey llbffllan, 4901 ll C.lno RNl, C.rlllblld, deecribed
felt tba requuted aorne change wa the ao■t logical
.._. for the larw.t. Ill referred to petlLf n.i. by nel9hbor•
(llbld\ wn 1Uaittad to the O-i•lon for the record)
~~·tad that the Mjor I ty of people aurveyed felt
1an of the Cbwltry Stor• llhould be encouraged.
Schlehtftr
McFadden
9111th
Hall
Hol ...
Marcus
L'Heureux
Schlehuber
McFadden
9111th
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
L'Heureux
Cf> I
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MINUTES
Pt.A~ CXJIIUSSIOI October 9, 1985 Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
0-iaioner 111:lP'adden wanted to know how much land was
involved, am Mr. Hoffman replied that they were
r~atlng tl«> additional acres, bringing it to a total of
6.5 acres.
Mr. Don Agatep, 2956 Roosevelt, c.arlsbad, referred to a
graphic on the board and discussed the traffic circulation
probl... Hit explained that the surrounding properties
l«>Uld also need accees to El camino Real and pointed to
the area he f <?l t was the logical location for the
intereectiJn,
a:-nisaioner L' 8isureux asked about the right turn in and
right turn out only and wanted to know how far 1 t was from
Kelly Ori V1I. Mr. Agatep replied that 1 t was 400-500 feet.
Mr. Eric Wia.nan, 4826 l{elly Drive, c.arlsbad, expresaed
his concerns about the develoµnent, particularly with
re;ard to traffic safety. lte also coanented that he
conducted a similar survey and received different results
tha\ thoN referred to by Mr. Hoffman. Mr. WilMIMn
indicated that his real concern w11 that 1 t wasn • t
nece ... ry to add more caanercial :zoning in the area.
Mr. Jla Hicks, 2910 Mar\arl'wi Place, c.arlsbad, spoke on
behalf of the property owier (Ta\llrack and El camino Real )
referred to in staff•• report. lte talked ahollt ..ihy he
felt hi• property at that cnmer 1«1uld be better suited
for ~rcial IX>l'ling.
Mr. Bob Ladwig, 3088 Pio Pico, c.arlabad, repre•nted the
--...rtaons, and pointed out that this project was not
oonaist.,t with the exi■ting requirements of the General
Plan.
i.. lloffll■n, the applicant, told the Coalission that he
had si9Mturea backing up the m.ld>era he quoted for his
survey.
Slnoe no one el• wished to speak on this item, the public
tntla:>ny wa oonchded at 7105 p.m.
0:..tuioner Nllrc1.a ~tad that she agreed with staff's
rer: 1111 1 lldlitlon alnoe n didn't think it ws a good
looatlon for additional ~rcial a,ning, in th>lt traffic
wuld c,et •ne in the area.
Cclla1•iv,,., NDhdden uked if staff agreed with the 6 V2
N total ft i.. Gria rupondad that the total ws
pniblbly ac,curata, but that the UMbl• acreage My be
,..._ s~ there ww• slopes behind the property.
a..t•lo :-N0hdlhn stated that she felt that all of Nr.
• •• holdlnv lhould be addreuad at the ._ tiaa and
aa..lMlon lhould be pc-.ited with the tx>tal ■it•
"11ft. a. acldild that • l«>Uld be in favor of continuing tt lf tbay lldl!re-5 the tx>tal alt• and how to get traffic
tn n out on al caatn:> RNl •
O:llllt•lonar L'Utunux Mid that i.. Ag,at:.p raiad • good
lnt, .and he abo agreed that t:...ey should look at the
tel ■!te. II lnUcabld ha had difficult)' 1n •xpending
dle oaaie ial uae
(f) .
I l
MINUTES
Cktober 9, 1985 Page 5
0-issioner 81111th concurred with a.missioners Marcus and
L'Heureux and mentioned that he did not feel that this was
the a,st desirable location for a shopping center.
~inwm Schlehuber mentioned that there was a serious
traffic problem and that ht> could not agree to expand
~rci&l U8e on this property. He added that he hoped
staff 1«>Uld give the Planning Callnission some long range
planning for this area. He stated that he was in favor of
rejecting this application for expansion and asking staff
to 11111rk down areas appt"opriate for access points and
future use of this property.
'!'he Planning Ccnnission adopted the following Resolutions:
All:D»l'I<»I NO. 2497 Dl!NYD«, AN~ T0 'IHE LAND USE
lfW e# ffli Gl!NDW. PLAN flOII lmiIDE'NTIM. LCW MIDIL'M
CALN) TO N!I088(RDD OMIERCIM. (N) ~ PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATID <:ti THE WEST SIDE OF 'I1iE: COONTRY STORE, AT 4901 EL
CMI'NO RP.AL.
R!SOUll'ICli NO. 2498 Dl!NYDI:, A ZCIIE CK\N'.iE flOII R ·A--10 ro
0-2 ell i4'oNR1'Y G!NIRALLY LOCATm ~ 'IHE WEST SIDE OF 'ffiE
cnJN'mY ~. AT 4901 EL CAMINO REAL.
4) ~LU 85-11 -CITY OF CARLS8N> -A General Plan .a..i,t to iiiodlt'y the t.ai1 Use Plan to provide for
ntvieed density rang••·
Niu ltr:N9a, Aa8ociate Planner, gave the presentation on
this ital •• contained in the staff report, using a
tranaparency tD ahow the site. He explained that the
purpaee -■ to bring this in consistence with the
ra,• 1r,1at1ona llade by the Cithens Ccnnittee.
a-i•ioner Narc:ua Mked for clarification as tD which
r1119H ahould be narrowd, and O:aniuioner 9nith
~ted that he ■till had concerns about the .1 figures.
Din lllntaahke, Auiatant City Attorney, edvieed tne
•lon that they ooul~ MU r~nded chalcJe• to the ttvune.
<halralfl Bchlehuber o.--S the public hearing t 7115 p.m.
arwJ lllaad the invitation to apNk.
Llldwl9, Pio Pico, Carlsblid, repr-eaented the a.. ... ..-of a-roe Growth ~.ant o-t ttee and
a,ed the O:aalulon to edopt the prop,eed na -...,t.
that the O:aalulon My ~t m oonaider
the rMult.a of • traffic rd planning study being
ln the clcN\tma'i UM 11\ich lhould be ooatp).eted
•~ aontha.
tlahlehuber referred to the -■11 lot.a on La Coat.a
Ind .nted to knoll how they 1«>Uld be af fectad. Nr.
advl-.1 i.1•t the aenalty rqe• 1«>uld not •RUY
l-..ly app:oyed a.b.1lvla1ona.
lchlehuber •t.ated that he could not aupport the
t and IC>Uld roeoa n Id oonaiderlng 0-1.s,
4.M.01 t.0-15.01 15.0-23.0.
Schlehuber X
McFadden X
9111th X
Hall X
lt:>lmes X
Marcus X X
L'Heureux X
MINUTES
October 9, 1985 Page 6
O..iuioner Rall agreed that he could go along with
Cl\alra.n Schlehuber' s r9<..'0fi ndations.
·7
A .,uon ws lllllde reccwndlng approval of the Negative
Ollclaratlon and that staff return with doclln&nts
n,c. ding approval of an -rdnent to the Land Use
11-.-it of the General Plan by revising the City's Land
UN Plan t:o incorporate new density ranges as follows:
0-1 ~. 0-4.01 4.0-9.01 9.0-15.0; 15.0-23.0. 'ftle motion
WA NCOnMd and opened for d iscusslon.
An Wtdllelit to the mtion on the floor was passed
changing the density rangH to the following: 0-4.0;
4.o-8.01 8.0-15.01 15.0-23.0.
A .,uon wa puNd directing staff to bring back
appropr-late ~ta reoomneR:!ing approval of Resolution
No. 2506, changing the density ranges to the following:
'>-4.o, 4.o-e.o, 8.0-15.01 15.0-23.0
Owinan Schlehuber declared a recess at 7125 p.m., and
the Planning 0-iuion re-convened at 7 135 p.m.
5) za...1 -cm o, CARLSBAD -An anerdtnent to the
Ging oinUnanoe to regi.J ate the p1aownt of
Mt-111te ant.vlN.
llllte .,._, Aaociat• Planner, gave the preNntatlon on
thl■ i..-u oontained in the ataff report, uaing a
• tr&naparwncy to ehow the aite.
a..t•loner Na~ WMted to know llher• the diah would
be plaoed on a oomer lot, and Nr. HDwa replied that it
wuld not be allowd on t • aide adjacent tr the strNt.
\aaul•• r 8111th ~ted that the diah oould not be
• fr. 9l'Olftl 19"1 and IOndered about neighbors
Of'I the aeoond .-d third noora. Nr. Howe
t tile purpoae of thia regulation wa to
dlah fraa ..,._trlana and paople driving by ln
lt, 3219 Donna Dr'lve, Carlsbad, aur,geated
... of tile lqarae \ftter 2': of the ataff
and edlU the -,rd• •anit crou action llhowinr~
ty le atneU-after the -,rda
p1ani,• on ..-,. S, betwen llnaa lS-16 of the
el• wished to apa11k on thh1 it•, the public
t.elllltll-•Y _. l\&ted at 7 ••5 p.■•
Schlehuber X
McFadden X X
9111th X
Hall X
tt?lmes X
Marcus X
L'Heureux X
Schlehuber X
McFadden X X
91\ith X
Kall X
Holmes X
Marcus X
L'Heureux X
MINUTES
Cktober 9, 1985 Page 7
Chairman Schlehlber asked about non-functioning antennae
such as cablevision, a~ D!ln Hentschke, Assistant City
Attorney, indicated that the Ordinance excluded antemae
located on ooanercial cablevision companies property.
O:alissioner Snith qoostioned whether the ordinance
referred to all types of dish anteMae, and Mr. Howes
replied that they wre controlling all satellite dishes.
oa.dsaioner lblmes discussed some technical requirements
of satellite dishes and s~ested adding to page 6, line
19 of the Ordinance •that an additional antenna might be
pennitted by the Planning Cbnnission if more than one use
on the lot c&VlOt be Nrved by one antenna.•
Cuaiasioner Rall pointed out that most data transmitters
wre 30• and la\llller and that he felt requirements for
peraits of these dishes should be W!lived.
Oclllllissioner Marcus asked lolhat controls the City ~uld
have if satellite oWlers did not get a pennit, and
O:llalisaioner Hall responded that normally a Jo• dish did
not have a large area and ~uld be seen only in a
~rcial or industrial area. He indicated that he
didn't think it W!lS fair to require them to screen such a
.all dish.
O..isaionar L' Heureux stated that the Ordinance should
uke an attAllpt to require that anyone who sells the
utelli te dishes be required to advise potential buyers of
theee rules.
a..iaaioner Marcus cca,mted that the screening might
look -,ree than the antenna and asked who polices lihat
they IIOUld look like. Mr. Hentschke advised that the Land
U.. Planning Nlnllger 11Duld issue the permit.
PUrther diacuaion developed regarding Callnissioner
lblaee' ~tion, and O..issioner L'Beureux
~ giving the Land Use Planning Manager the option
to •Jllll'O" am permit appeals to the Planning Omnission
if IWHry.
Oaai•ioner L'Beureux brought up the subject of
alcr\19 ... s and public utility anteMae, and Mr. Bentachlte
pi,lntad out that the Public Utility Oclllllisaion would
r.gulate the public utilities antainH. ~isaioner
L•lllm'ela al.lie> aentioned that ■icrowves should be treated
alffwently, and Nr. Bentachke suggested excluding them
■tno. wt of thea wre on public utility eeaeaatts.
aa..l•ioner 8111th lrldicated that there should be a
-..rate cmU.nance for the microwave I.Slit.
a..l•loner L'lllureux stated that the real concerns wre wi tbl 11\t:av.M 1n the residential ar-■ on the street
a! or on the roof since any ~re ial area IIDuld
norally be wll a:Nl■Md.
aa..lNloner 8111th ■aid they could ooae back with
dlff.,,_t -,rding.
MINUTES
O::tober 9, 198 5 Page 8
O\ainnan Schleh•Jt>er suggested inc:wing Mr. Ladwig's
suggestion .
A a:>tion was passed asking staff to return to the PlaMing
O..iasion a revised Or"dinance that encompasses the
suggelltions and reooaaendations discussed, particula rJ.y to
include the language proposed by Mr. Ladwig, addi tional
lmlquage that give• sufficient flexibil i t y to the Land USe
Planning Manager to allow C0111nerc ial and industria l
c.w,ter• one per lot, language incllkled to al so enOOIIIPllsS
non-public uti 11 ty regulated microwave anterVtae and some
kind of provision r«1,1iring that those people who sell
the• types of ant9fY'lff to the public at least inform the
publ Ir c,f the rules ~ they sell it.
6) Z0.-123~ -CITY OF CARLSIW) -An amerdllent to t he Zonlngina,ce to make a minor revision to the
~•ldential llt>bile lbDe Park m ne.
~iuioner L'ltltureux advised that he would be ~bstaining
on tMe it..
Mike ll:>wa, Aaeociate Planner, gave the presentation on
thi• 1 ta a■ c.Jf'lt.ained in the st.act report, using a
transperency to show the differences betwen the Ci ty and
St.ate ordinances. HI diecuued the separations and
indicated it would be much easier to develop lots in
mbile home perk■•
0-iuioner filarcua ask for clarification regarding the
City Ordinance, and Mr. no-■ responded to har queation.
In rep\y to a ~tion by ac..iuioner '-1th, he ~ted
that they wre referring to fully encloaed garages.
Owli~ Scnlehuber opened the ~l lc hearing at 8 105 p.m.
Since no one wilhed t.o ■peak, it 11es cload at that time.
0-1•1oner Narc~ expn ... d concern about having very
aall lot.a.
0-1•1oner Nchdden mntloned that llhe looked at the
deflnltion• of 9'1ra.Je, .,bile , .... and •nufact~ home•
1n the mnl119 book ano ~led thllt llhe felt the ta.a
wr• not mblle haau.
Nr • ...,.._ lldviaed that the Zoni119 Or"dinMCe all~
~ haae• to be 1ncll.def1 "'1th -,bU e no.■•
ICt.
7)
Planning Q:.,alNlon adopt-' the following ~90lutlon,
110. 2tf5 ~DIJ APAOfM. fY ffll NIDATIV!
CClll , ANDl>Il«i TITU 21 ,
37 , IETICII 100, fY fUIICIPAL CClll,
l~ ( 7 l 10 RIIOJLATI
... Il.l Ml) GV6GIIL(•JfK'SI I ANCIOOS
WI'ftl fltl ~Tl KBI LI tDII PAlltS
, Aaaoclate Plainer, ~ve the pc-.-nt&..lon on
u oontalned in the at.aff report. Ill at.tad
Schlehuber
McFadden
9111th
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
L'Heureux
SClhletd>er
Nchdcten
a.1th
Rall
flDlaN
Narcua
L'IIIIUreux
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
IC
IC
IC IC
IC
IC
IC •
MINUTES
r .ANNIN; CCMUSSICtl O::tober 9, 1985 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS
I
t 'lllt at the present time there was no clear definition of
•qarages•.
Cmmissioner "11!rcus asked for clarification about renting
out garages, and Mr • Howes responded that even if a peraon
owned a condo, they could not rent out the garage because
i t 11111s a corrmercial use in a residential area.
C....lssloner Marcus lrdlcated that she didn't think it was
rkable.
I , answer to a qtJPry by Comnissioner Holmes, Mr. Howes
s tJ1ted that they were discussing net interior dimensions.
Chairman Schlehuber opened the public hearing at 8 :15 p.m •
.-..:i issued the invitation to speak. Since no one wished
to speak, the publ 1c testimony was c l sed at that time.
Callnlssloner 9111 th concurred that he agr with
O:>nmissioner Marcus.
Caanlssioner McFadden comnented that she agreed wl th the
i ntent but felt that the amendment was too broad.
Ool!lniasf 1ner Holmes expressed agreement with the intent
but p:> inc.<! out that there 11euld be problems enforcing it.
Chai nnan &..hlehuber said that 1 f staff umerstood the
ooncem• stated broadly and that the Comnissioner wanted
the owners to be able to control thel r unit, that staff
should ~ back with IIOffiething new.
C:O..iaaioner L' Heureux p:>inted out that the way the
Ord inanct, -• vr it ten was to 1 nc l ude any res 1 dent 1 al zone •
O'Wlir'IIS'I Schlehuber irdicated that he wanted to open it up
to ■ingle fMlly residences.
A. aoUon "88 paaaed direct lng st.Liff tx> return this 1 tem
IIW\ the) could reviN it to reflect the C01111181'\ts from
the Plann\ng ~iaaion in mnending this Ordinance.
fl) IC\-184 -CM'Y 0, CARLS8AD ·• ANrdnenta t.o the l.oning R" nano. fu eitibllih standards for eftll)loyN eating
er ~ tl0 be located outaide of office buildings in
the o (Office), c-fl (ltNvy Oonnercial-Umited
rial), M ( Induatrlal) and ~ (Plarv-.ed
I,.dm 1 rial) 10nea.
o.u-1 .. Orla, Principal Phnner, gave the preaentatlon °"
la 1 ■■ contained in the ■taft rep:>rt.
~-...-1 -wr Hall uked if thi ■ -,uld be conaidered part
f addition to the land8011p■ requiraent, and Mr.
r ,11-, that it could be included in the landecape
fll■ll ,ot\lehuber opaMd the ~ic hearing at 8120 p.11.
1 the lnv i tA tion to ~ak.
Schlehuber
McFadden
~1th
Rall
Hol.JDes
Marcus
L'Heureux
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
-)
MINUTES
October 9, 1985 Page 10
Mr. Bob Ladwig, 3088 Pio Pico, carlsbad, represented the
Koll Qmpany ard suggested being more flexible with regard
to the requirement that a mini11U11 of 300 square feet be
provided. Ra also asked whether Koll Company would get
credit for the mini parks they were providing. He added
that he would like a chance to discuss the issue with
staff and recamnended that the i tein be oontinued for
review by other developers for their input.
Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public
testimony was concluded at 8 :22 p.m.
Qmnissioner ft:>lmes stated that he felt this was an act of
big brother since he thou;iht the developers should be
given the choice of prnviding the areas for their
employees.
Commissioner Marcus concurred with Mr. Ladwig that Koll
O>tnpany should get credit for lts mini parks ard that she
had no problem in having it included in the Ordinance.
Qmnissioner McFadden stated that she had some of Mr.
Ladwig's concerns but felt it was a good ordinance. She
added that she would be willing to continue the 1 tem and
get feedback from other oompanies, and agr~ that the
size of the areas should be set based upon labor intensive
figures rather than square footage.
<lanissioner Hall agreed with what O:mnissioner McFadden
"'111!18 trying to do but fe 1 t that it 1o10uld have the opposite
result. He expressed concern that the more requirements
put on businesses, the more apt they were to go elsewhere.
Cllanissioner Marcus pointed out that a m.anber of years ago
recreation areas were included in most of the projects,
but not recently, and she felt they were necessary.
Qaiiasioner L'Heureux explained where the problem was
encountered IWld SUIJ9ested reworking the Ordinance and
•nUng 1 t to Mr. Ladvig, and throu;ih the Chantler, to some
apecific buaineuas to g t feedback to see how it could be
incorporated. Ra said that it 1110uld only apply to new
projacta and would serve to set standards.
Oaaiuioner Slllith indicated that he CQuld go along with
Mr. Llldwi9'• •UIJ9eation IWld possibly include some credit
for lnaide uting facilities. He added that he felt the
•1• should be baaed upon employee count.
O\ainaan Schlehuber msltioned that he thou;iht it was a
900d ldN but that an Ordinax:e le8 not necessarily
nNCIIMI.
A mtion •• pa■-d continuing Item 18 for revision and for CCla'lnt.
Schlehuber X
McFadden X
81111th X X
Rall X
ft:>lmee X
Marcus X
L'Hltureux X
' J
MINUTES
October 9, 1985 Page 11 \~~~
COMMISSIONERS \t~~
DISCUSS!~ ITDI
9) P<l>-87 -SPRAGUE APAR'IMDITS -Request for awroval of
a Planning 6-ilsslon Detennination for a three unit
apartment project in addition to one existing single
faily residence on a .308 acre parcel located at
2632 Jefferson Street in the R-3 zone.
Charles Grirnn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on
this itan as contllined in the staff report, using a
transparency to show the site and pointed to drawings on
the wall.
C'allnissioner Snith asked about the design compatibility
with the existing home, and Mr. Gri11111 replied that it was
fairly canpatible.
a:-issioner McFadden wanted to know about the eight
parking spaces, and Mr. Grinm confirmed that there were
only •ven, but that only seven were required since it was
an apartment project.
Callnissioncr L'Heureux indicated that he had a problem
with the WK>le area since there were a lot of long narrow
lots with single family homes on it and the possibility
that they could be developed into multifamily dwellings.
He expressed concern about the nul ti ple driveways and
openings and said he would prefer to encouri1ge seven or
eight large lots with one access rather than seven or
eight individual projects with seven or eight driveways.
a:-iuiOOll!r M!:.'!Fadden asked when the signal was going in
at L~ and Jefferson, and Clyde Wickham, Associate
Civil Dlgineer, answored that since the plans were in now
for the deYelopnent in which the signal ws required, it
1110uld probably be within one year.
<l:aliuloner Mcfadden expressed concern about the missing
perking apace and agreed with Ullllnissioner L'Heureux's
concern■ regarding -.utipl• driv....ys.
Ccai•ioner Hall (Jla■tioned if the parking spaces wuld
be coveced, and Mr. Gr 1-oonf 1 nned that they would.
O)ail'llll'I Schlehuber mentioned he was concerned about
addreaing the• Pl"Ojecta on a pi~piece basis and
f!■H they needed to look at a detailed study. Michael
lailler, Land U.. Planning Mlnager, pointed out that
the Tr•fflc and Planning Study being con:!ucted in the
dow\tol■\ arN 1110uld look at traffic and circulation
prabl-. H■ lldcSed that the ■tudy would identify problem •reaa and aai\:e rf"c • ldation■ for eolving .,.. of the
prabl-.
O\airaan Bchlebuber lalted to know if it "IOuld be posaible
to 9lw the Pl~ing Oali•ioner mre detail■ on the
•nu betwen t.Juna and Lu Plor•, and Mr. Wickhal
taplalned thet lt had been can■ldered. Mr. GrS.-added
t City Ml!Mger directed ■taff b) look at a larg9r
ot.W"• and thllt thi■ .:,uld be included in future report■•
MINUTES
Cxtober 9, 198 5 Page 12 1! :'t~ 0~ :f'~ ~
COMMISSIONERS q,. t~ \
A. motion was passed directir¥:J staff to return "'1th
doc\Jllents approvir¥:J Resolution No, 2499 ard addir¥:J a
condition requirir¥:J the design of the existing house
be CCfflpltible with the proposed structure.
O\airman Schlehuber asked for the status on Alga Hills and
Mr. Grinm replied that it should have been listed on the
agenda. O\airman Schlehuber stated that since they didn't
have time t.o review it, it 1«>uld be continued to the next
meetir¥:J.
APPROVAL OF MIN\rl'ES
'Ille Minutes of Septent>er 11, 1985 ...ere approved as
presented.
O\llinnan Schlehuber stated that nominations were in order
for the General Plan Special Review Camlittee and
s~ested that t1«> members be nominated, as well as an
alternate.
A. motion was pissed nominating Camlissioners 111'.:Fadden and
Slnith t.o the General Plan Special Review Oxmlittee.
A. mtlon WIIIS p.,aaed l'l0lllinatir¥:J O\airman Schlehli:>er as
alternate tx> the General Plan Special Aeview Camlittee.
0.1nun 9chlehuber reported on openir¥:Js on the Design
RIV1ew ec-1 tt.N and SUCJ99&ted that interested parties
notify Bobbie Hoder, Plamir¥:J DepartJDent, that they would
like to •rw.
0.1111111\ Schlehuber oonflr"Md that the O\ristmas Party
wu.ld be held on Saturday, Deceaber 14, 1985.
'lhe Qaaiuionera diacuued the tenna of the members on
the O.lgn Rwlew Board, and Olairaan 9chlehli:>er lldviNd
that the Clty Clerk wuld notify ...t>ers about appointment
to the rd in Septaber of NCh ~ar.
Schlehuber
111'.:Fadden
Smith
Hall
ft>lmes
Marcus
L'Heureux
Schlehuber
111'.:Fadden
Smith
Hall
ft>lmes
Marcus
L'Heureux
Schlehuber
111'.:Fadden
Smith
Hall
ft>lmes
Marcus
L'Heureux
Schlehuber
111'.:hdden
Smith
Hall
ft>lmes
Marcus
L'lteureux
@
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
MINUTES
OCtober 9, 1985 Page 13
By proper 1110tion, the meeting of Oct.ober 9, 1985 was
adjourned at 8 :55 p.m.
Respectfully sul::llli tted,
MIOW:L MI
Land Use Planning Manager
Ruth Stark
Minutes Clerk
MEETDCS ARE MS) TAPID AND KEPT CtJ FILE UNTIL 'lllE MINUTES
ARE APPROVED.
October 9, 1985
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Lot 249, La Costa Va le Unit No . 1
Your Case File No.: GPA/LU 85-6/2C-335
Ladies and Gentlemen:
, J
On behalf of Levante Properties, the o wn er of the above property,
we challenge and object to the General Plan Ame ndment and down-
zoning of our property.
The purpose of this letter is to s upplement the reports and
presentations made by our con s ultants Fred J. Morey and Weston
Pringle and Associates. Furthermore, we desire to incorporate
in your record matters set forth in our l etter of August 28th.
We believe that evidence and testimony will show that the pro-
perty is totally inappropriate for s uch proposed residential
use, and such use would have a s ubstantial adverse e nvir onmental
and economic impact on the area.
In reviewing this application, we believe that your Commission
s hould be aware of several matters concerning thi s property
which are not set forth in your staff's report .
Proiect Description: Prior to initiation of this proceeding, a
rev sed Site Development Plan has been submitt ed to your staff
providing for a neighborhood shopping center. This revised plan
has been submitted in accordance with the "Q " overlay zone
imposed by your Commission on May 8, 1985. The revisions were
mad in compliance with requests of you r staff. Our representa-
tives has been advised by staff t hat the application, as revised,
ie acceptable but that it will not be processed because staff
has been directed by your City Council to down-zone the property
to prohibit any commercial use.
W are sure that you will recall that this matter was before
your Commission two times, and that no one made any me ntion
that comm rcial use of this property was not appropriate.
In fact, your Commission specifically found that the proposed C-
20 waa consistent with the general plan.
Planning Commission
Page Two
October 9, 1985
We submit that a review of actions of your Commission and the
City Council over the years shows a consistent agreement for
dedication of this property for commercial use, and any departure
at this time is totally inappropriate.
This property was depicted on the San Diego County General Plan
as commercial, long before the development of the property. It
is shown on the La Costa Private Development Plan adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on June 8, 1971.
At the time of adoption of the Master Plan, Rancho La Costa had
initiated discussions withthe City of Carlsbad for annexation.
Prior to the annexation, processing of the tentative map for La
Costa Vale Unit No. 1 was commenced with the County. During this
processing and the processing of the annexation, our files indi-
cate that the placement of this commercial site, together with
the construction of La Costa Avenue and the inclusion of the
school site on Levante Avenue, was discussed with the Carlsbad
Director of Planning .
During the processing of the tentative map and annexation appli-
cation, all of the property in La Costa Vale Unit No. 1 was
rezoned by the County in accordance with the adopted Master Plan.
As a result of the proposed rezoning, the previously "C" zoned
property, located at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and
Romeria Street, was moved to the current site with~ buffer of
R-3 between it and the surrounding single-family zone~ property.
Contemporaneously, pre-annexation zoning hearings on the same
property were being held before your Commission. During those
hear i ngs, the subject property was discussed and, as a result,
the site was confirmed commercial but the surrounding R-3 was
changed to RD-M.
With the modificat ions made by the City Council, the County
Private Development Plan was adopted as the Master Plan for
La Costa on September 5, 1972 . On October 8, 1972, the final
map for La Costa Vale Unit No. l was recorded by the County.
In May of 1976, while the property was in the same ownership,
the La Costa Master Plan was adopted by t he City which continued
to show the property for commercial use.
In January of 1981, your Commission acted on an application for
rezoning of a portion of the property for rezoning from commer-
cial to RO-Min order to accommodate a division of the property
tor ue aa a proposed apartment project in connection with
adjacent property. Your Commission approved the rezoning and
' Planning Conun ission
Page Three
October 9, 1985
rejected your staff's recommendation that a "Q " overlay zone be
put on the rezoned property. A review of the staff reports,
both to your Commission and the City Counci l, show that the
r emaining commercially zoned property was compatible with the
rezoned property.
On June 8 , 1983, your Commission approv ed a Conditional Use
Permit for construction of a church and nursery school on the
adjacent property. Again, your Commission found that such a
use was compatible with the adjacent commercial site. We
strongly question whether your Commission would have approved
such a use if our property had been zoned for re~idential use.
In addition to these discretionary acts , which direc~ly affected
the subject property, your Commission has approved other develop-
ments within 300 feet of the subject property. These involved
the condomin i um projects both north a nd south of the subject
property.
In view of the heretofore consistent actions of your Commission,
we submit that it is inappropriate to effect a radical down-
zoning of the property unless there are strong and overwhelming
reasons. Your staff's report fails to s how any such justifi-
cation.
The staff report fails to address several issues.
As of this time, no formal applications have been submitted to
the City for commercial development across Rancho Santa Fe.
In addition, contrary to the statements of staff , there is not
adequate commercial property in the area. The commercial areas
mentioned are limited to 75% commercial u se and 25% office,
reducing the gross acreage to same 44 acres. Street improvements,
slopes, and access will substantially reduce t he net area
available to approximately 33 acres. In fact, informal pre-
liminary plans submitted to your planning staff limit the
commercial use to 23 acres and would provide for only 165,000
to 179,000 square feet of retail space.
You may recall that your Citizen Review Committee expressed
concern that there wa s not adequate commercial property in the
ar a.
If it 1• th cone rn of s taff that the commercial areas s hould
be reduced, w s ubmit that it would be more appropriate to
reduce it acro■e Rancho Santa Fe and away from t h is major
interaection.
@
'
Planning Commission
Page Four
October 9, 1985
We believe that it is inappropriate to compare this property
with that at the corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Re·al.
The Q overlay limits access solely to Levante. There are eight
inadequately spaced intersections within 300 feet of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue which creates the traffic congestion
problet:lS. We believe that, in fact, commercial development of
this property will reduce congestion at both El Camino Real and
Rancho Santa Fe by reducing trips which would otherwise have to
cross these two intersections.
Furthermore, to so drastically down-zone the property would
result in t his property being treated radically different from
similarly situated property. Specifically, the commercially
zoned properties across Rancho Santa Fe; at the intersections at
El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue; at the intersections at
El Camino Real and Alga Road; and at the intersections of Rancho
Santa Fe and Mission Estancia.
The proposed improvement standards on Rancho Santa Fe Road
make it impossible to develop the property for residential
use. The intersection of eight lanes at the end of a substan-
tial grade will generate s uch noise and fumes that the site
could not be developed at any reasonable cost.
Finally, your staff fails to address the economic impact of the
change in zoning. While a residential use will s ubstantially
increase both school and park needs in excess of the fees
generated , no s uch impact is made by commercial uses. Commer-
cial construction generates s ubstantia lly higher facilities
fees. Most significantly however, the commercial space will,
according to Urban Land Institute figures, generate sales tax
revenues to t he City of Carlsbad of approximatel y $60,000 to
$100,000 per year.
In view of the foregoing, we s ubmit that the proposed down-
zoning is arbitrary a nd capriciou s, and cannot be justified
aa reasonable.
Very truly yours,
Theodora Aroney,
Gen ral Partner
7690 Bl Camino R al, Suite 105
Carlabad, CA 92008
619-436-0262
001 Vine nt Biondo, Esq.
Hon. Mayor Casler @
!.
From WUOO(JI N£ H0f'IEOWNERS OCTOBER I, 1985
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLE A5E bl INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDEASIGNfD, FA VQB. THE
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORE S LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INTERFERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIROJlf1ENT
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE Ct TY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAME RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
I ► ' I ,-,
~ I' \ . -I' ,., ~ (Y
/ (
1
r 1
From WOUOBINE HOr-1EOWNERS OCTOBER I , I 985
THE CITY or CARLSBAD
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE. THE UNOERS I GNEO, FA YQH _ THE
O:PANS1m• OF THE F AC Ill TIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE
TH[ LOUNTKY STOKES LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INTERFERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENV IROtf1ENT
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES
NAI lf RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
:J.j/lJ i;P 1 ({4 fkt e/.)6
,~,tK r, Yoeccy S121s:: 7Raf2E ne,
, 1 £ u r .v £ lu! law 1-L , '&,.., 7:c., t:-'rv 7< ..c. .
16 C!.hv'( /c-f/p /J r,~,J ll,IY ~ 7 ~ {h C,_
!~}k(>ll~ vc11~:r«td wzr r&if-0€ QR, (l'IAS'MJ> Ci;)
. "\
rru111 wuuDf.J1N£ H(Jl"IE0WNERS OCTOBER I, 1985
j '-' THL CITY Of CARLSBAD
r,L[ASE bt INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAvt}8_ THE
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
I H[ LOUNTHY S TUfifS LOCA TION 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
1NTERHRE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIR0t-f1£NT
Wf WOUL D ENCOUF<AuE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
11fi1 •~'Ujfrf AD[i1 TION TO TH[ EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAI 1E RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
tJ -
i ____________________ _
b ____________________ _
~---------------------
lt1 ____________________ _
I \ ---------------------
I~----------------------
" ,, __ _
14 ____________________ _
I~---------------------
ltJ _____ _
,7 ---------------------
lb ____________________ _
,:, ----------------------
From RANCHO CARL SBAD OCTOBER I, 1985
l v J HI:, C. 1 TY Ot lAHL 5t:3Af.J
PL[A'.:,E. 1:3E. INFORMED lHAT WE , THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOR. THE
LXPAN~ION OF THE F ACILITIE.5 AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
lHE COUNTRY STORb LOCATION 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
1 I~ T ERF ERE. w I TH OUR NE I lJHBORHOOO EN VI ROt-t'lENT .
WE WOlJLD ENCOURAGE. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENOORSE THE
1->ROPOSEO ADDITION "fO THE. EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
"~~ .. =.~ O~•,. . ~ , ..... ,,
. ,
Fr om RAN(HOC A~L'.)B AO OCTOBEA I, 1985
lu J HL LI l Y Qt LAHL::>BAO
PL[ASE BE INFORMED THAT W[, THE UNOEASIGNED, FAVQH. THE
[XPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE..
1HE COUNTRY 510RE'.:) LOC A110N 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL ~T
1 NT E kFE RE WI TH CJUR NE I uHBURHOOD E.N VI RONMENT
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE Tl-£
PROPOSED ADDIT ION 10 THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAt'lE RESIDENCE REGI STEREO VOTER
b
()
IG
II
I L
I 3
,~
I 'J
I ti
I I
It\ __
' ',
_\J --
. '
A.
A I
·'
' '
-~
@
1 rnn, f-<ANLt iU (_ A~l 'lbAU OCTOBER I , 1985
JHL l !TY Llf LAHL5BAO
1->Lr'\~~L Bl INFORMED lHAT WE. THE UNDERSIGNED, ftH'OR_ THE
LXP AN')ION OF THE f A(ILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
l t-i[ COUNTRY STORE S LOCATION !5 CONVENIENT, BUT Will ~T
r~ r L Kf E Rl w I l H OUR NE. I uHBl.lRHOOD EN VI ROr-t1£NT .
Wl WO . l NCOU~AGE THE CITY OF CARLSB AD TO ENOORSE Hf
1-'ROPOSEL ADDITI ON 10 THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
~ ----------------------
b
y
11,
I I
I•
13 __ _
I ·l
lu
I /
ll
IJ
-d•.J
'· !
..
~ l)r -r~~ <,.-1 s .. ~ ~ -;;z.
''. '
. \Al
rrom [L CAl11NO EST ATES OCTOBER I , 1985
I u THE, C tTY OF CARL StlAQ
PLE ASE BE INFORMED lHAT WE. TH£ UNDERSIGNED, FAVQB _ Tt-£
[XPAN~ION OF TH[ f ACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTAY STORES LOCATION 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL N:>T
rNrERFERE WITH OUR N[IGHBORl-()0[) ENVIRON"£NT
W( WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY Of CARLSBAD TO ENXlRSE Tt-£
PHOPO~ED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CC>lMTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
.,,
rrom (L (.N11NO ESTATES OCTOBER I, 1985
Tu TH£ C I TY QF C AHL SBAD
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOR_ THE
L;.PAN~tON OF TH[ FACILI TIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORES LOC ATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL t«>T
tNrERFERE WITH OUR NEIGH60RHOOO ENVIRON1ENT.
W[ WUULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE Tt-£
PROPO~ElJ ADDITION TO THE EXIST ING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
REGISTERED VOTER
<-r b
II ____________________ _
''---------------------
1~---------------------
'~---------------------
'~---------------------
t 7 _____ ----------------
'~-----------------------
fr ur 11 II.ELLY OMI Vt / PARK ORI VE OCTO&R I, 1985
To TH£ CI TY ur CAAL !>t:IAO
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE, Ttt: l.N)ERSIGt£0, £AYQII . Tt£
EXPANSION OF THE F A(!LiTIES,AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORES' LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT Will ~T
INTERFERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRON'1ENT.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY Of CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE Tt£
PROPOSED AODl'f ION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
~~~~--~-~;z..__-17
~~~~-~~~:2....4-""1"6~/
/)
4~~....t..,;J..f-....C.-~~'-.£.~~_J..J.....I..IJ>._J....W..~ ...... ~__.,.----
-,--. "':-> •. / Y9'fb Re,~~-4£ v(' ~K!f\.'~t ,./ l:,cL.IL 1 e.r '4 ~~ t-tJ) !) s· G ·.t_w--q0~
VJ C ~ J ,,-r-1.~
~g " ¥ ?I;\ 0 ~ \ \
1 1~-1 /?~ ~
Vb-4~'"f--A-sr-L.~~_:i,~~~._~~--
~~'~'-'----=--=-~""--__;~.__~~--"'..:..t_.-~S
IO )/,..,_/11, /3'4
I,
' '·
,.
'.
·.,;,
From KELLY ORI VE / PARK D~I VE OCTOBER 1. 1985
To JhE (,ITV uf lABL!:lf:lAD
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAV(}R_ THE
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNrnY STORES. LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INTERF(Rl WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRON'1ENT.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
-'·
.-!
1 ... -~
·1
?'" . ,.,1 . \ ,,i
./ . ; ;, ..
t -◄ •
·;,'}
Fr om KELLY DRI VE/ PARK DRIVE OCTOBER I , I 985
r ,, 1 H( c11 v ur LAHL'.;ll;jAL
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, fAVQR. Tt£
LXPANSION OF THE F ACILI Tl[S AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORES' LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL t«>T
INTERFEAE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRON1ENT.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE. THE CITY 0, CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
)Vil-2:f.~~/4_~~-""--~~~~~~:.......-~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I ~ --i-J."-kl~~::::.!...:::.i~~_...z.~:....,t:+-1,..!S.~~t:.,;__~~
14-A.~~::!:..o,._,J.~~~...z...~~...J,I.J~~~'J::.--~:::=::::...
l ~ \~~Ail½,
j L ._
,.
. -· ·1
a ,~ . ..
Frur11 KELLY DRIVE I PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 1, 1985
T v JHE ll l Y VE (..AHL!:>bAf.J
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA VQR. Tt-£
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
1 HE COUNTRY STORES' LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, 8UT Will NlT
INTERFERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIROtf1ENT.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE Tt-£
PROPOSED ADDITION TO 1HE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
:: _______ J.J_'f.:...:,s~"-------
¥flw.1'J' ~
•'
. (, .
. ~'i
. "'l
• i
0
,,
·' •., . J., " I
., . ... . ,
• '1
I '
1'
From KELLY DRIVE/ PARK DRIVE OCTOBER 1, 1985
To THE Cl] Y uf CABI St$AD
PLEAS[ Bl INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVQB_ THE
EXPANSION OF THE f ACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORES. LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUl WIU ~T
INTERFERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIROtf"fNT.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
RESIDENCE
C;
10
II
I ~
13
1 ...
I ~
lb
17
lb
I C;
t
•.J.... ....
I
'i
CM-lrJ,4.cl Ii (' ~ ~~
H vrn INl ERE~ TED PARTIES QCTOBER I, 1985 ..,,
.• ·~:\: •. ·-~·•'I-~ ',('
. ~ .. ''".c ""l-' •
) r.. <f . r· .. t ,
PLlA5£ BL INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVQB. THE
LX~AN510N Of THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY $TORE.
Trl[ (OUNTAY 5-TOHES LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL t«>T
INlEHfU<( Wilt➔ OUk NEIGHBORt()()[) ENVIRON1ENT .
Wl WOULlJ ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TQEt'IX>RSE Tt£
1->RUPOS([J AUDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE·s FACILITIES.
... ' ..
,. ,;,
' .. '.
·1
. '
.. ,'
..
.. _ ....
I '
Frum INlERE~ T[(l IJARTIES OCTOBER I , 1985
~p~
l u l I\L b I 1Y Ul l nHL StlAL
1-'LlA~E BL INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, [AYQ/1 . Tt-£
LXl,JANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY $TORE.
lrl[ LOUNTRY 5TL1RE.s · LOCATION ISCONVENIENT,8Ul WILL t«>T
INTlRfWL WI I 110Uk NllGHBORHOOO ENVIRON1ENT.
Wl WUULl.J ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO.ENDORSE n£
f-lkUPO!JEu AfJDll ION TO THE EXISTING C~TijY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAME RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER~
)
Iv
11 -L...H,,il~-~:..t....,dl,,:.:ff-"~Mlllll~.;;;~i;;;;..~~..;,...,:;;.:;:;.Wl~C,-,"k.
I" '-Jzl "'1 .2J::;,,..,,.~ • ffU ~ 1.,.....t
:~--------------------
·•' '. • I
'' ·\
OCTOBER I , 1985
lu [t tL Ct TY uf kol/L Sl3AL
PLlA5£ BL INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, fA V'IJI, Ttf.
LX~ANSION Of THE f ACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
lrl[ (OUNTRY STOHt.'.:>' LOCATION ISCONVENIENT,BUT WIU. N)l
tN fCRFElll Wt 111 OUH Nt.luHBORHOOO ENVIRON1f.Nl.
WI:. WUULll ENCOURAGE. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE Ttf.
IJRUP05£u ACJDIT ION TO THE EXISTING Ccu-4TRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NN1E. RESIDENCE
' . ,.-,
• :t)
•
. ), .
' ~ .. ~1
' ,•.,.
•. l
CJ ¼ti ,'Nclw«ef u::s:I<: . C,,.>i(jba.d-.· _,~:·;
3/)c,y' £;,.)~ 4,(..0__ · .. :~ 1¢~ •
4 ____________________ _
Iv _____________________ _
II _____________________ _
1~----------------------
'~----------------------14 ______________________ _
....
'~----------------------
'~----------------------
I;·------------------•----
lb _____________________ _
_ ,, ___ ,__
,, .
' ' • I •l
l·rvr11 IN1ERE5TW 1-'ARTIES OCTOBER I, 1965
lu TH[ CITY QF (68LSBAu
PLE.A5E BE INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA voe. THE
LXfJANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY STORES' LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INTl:.HFEH[ WITti OUK Nl:.IGHBORHOOO ENVIRON'1ENT.
W£ WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
1-'HOPOSED AUDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAME. ) RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
1,_Uuer-£ ?(:a: I.J-'17/S~s'fu;•,o/.J v:( 'Y,f'S
' . '
@,,L . (' ,,
fr urn .w, •--INC If R'lf1 1WNfR£ OCTOBER 1 , 1985
I u ltiL l l TY QL LAKL SBA()
1)Lf A~f bl INFuRMl[J THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA VOil _ THE
EXPANSION OF TH£ FA( ILIT l(S AT THE COUNTRY STORE
TH[ LOUNTRY STORES LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL MH
INTERFERf WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRO~NT
Wf WOUL D E NCOUJ:< Ali[ THE CI TY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PR<JIJUSEO AOD 1 T ION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES
NA! lf RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
C)
Y&S
I
I
I
I
I
~rvrri 1NIER['.)Tlli PARTIES OCTOBER I, 1965
l 0 JHL CITY 01 1 nHl SbAu
PLlA'.:ll BL INFORME[) lHAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOB_ THE
LXf-'ANSION OF TH[ F A(ILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
i rl( (OUNTRY '.)TORES LOC ATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT Will ~T
INHRITkl Wllt-i OUR NE.IGHl:JORHOOO ENVIROtl1£NT
WE. WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CI TY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PRUPuS(CJ AUDITION 10 THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAMl RES IDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
7
v t, !,/ J ?,,:1 ~•~~
I I ts ~Htt,t-f4'Y'W'IU-++~~~---L~:::,¥>._.z::.--ie~-......:.--1
,,~,,, .~,-,.,,A,7
I ~ 6, b L 'l,q { k
,~ C'&<~"d £,-/J✓
I~ \~ ~-fh::~~ \)\t\~J ,'f>i .L ·,'!J!Jt~
1 IC
~?'1b ~ro..n~ C, '<· . 1e.s
2fi1.t f.t &tJ-,Jt3[£(1-0£• A 0
,2£):--: 'i k'-'C,,tC,.,,,,~ /1.D
('5°} ... --. ~l"t::,1~-<i'l'lr<{A ~-tfl-,~
5SJ!J~~j~~ML-jt>
L/ct21 /4-,/4✓_~ Y-u../ ;, ,
l/-l:, 4 I.,
l~+-,U.~~~----4:~~~"'-J-~' r~S(ij)
.'I -/-A,~~~U....::::..,__-....1/1;+--',..L.C:::-_.m,,A:IICIOillC-... ~~f ~
I rvrri iN IERbTLll l ·ARTlb OCTOBER I, 1985
T <, !bl C1 lY uf I nBLStiAL
PLlASE Bl INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA voe -THE
LXf'AN510N OF THE F AC IL !TIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE COUNTRY ~TORE.S LOCATION 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INT[W (1-{l Wl l H UUI< NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRON"JENT .
WI:. WUULD E.NCOURAl,[ THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
l->R0PU'.:>[L, ALJOIT IUN 10 THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NA/'11:. RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
~ ✓ L ~,,.,o _,, /) v c. //, ·5 7. 11/4
~ ,--✓ • z " {If-. V4--~-, ~ /~ ... , a. ~ ~ 7 7 ;:?ou---/< 0,f ·.
2£ .,~'"= 0 /e.LF ScOiJeo/ };c: 1 r ~:
,._
~ .
: ?,~t~i:J!:;;~1~\ ~k:'Ju, ~
"' _ f'&ru-. J~"" 1in1 G1.t&...i ct r~L /b
1 1
I I. ttc 1912
1 i ,Jfll INHRL~•H lt I Al-HI['... OCTOBER I, 1985
1 o THL CI IY ul Ld<LSbAL
PLI:. ASE BL INFORM[() THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED. FA VQB THE
LXf--ANSION OF THE r ACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THE (OUNTRY STOHES LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
1NTEl-<f"ERE WITH OUH NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRON'1ENT .
Wl WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
!->HOPOSElJ ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES
NAl'll RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
.:-J 1.5 .5 ·,)/A,dpJ,v S7 J'~.(s~ }'~..5
II I ' / /
INK: •"l" SI~ J. p,.,, -t,~ ~
t-r uni \n11'4DI IIPY.-1 a iii J •U If A&,
' ,, lmCtTY .~
OCTOBER I, 1985
PLEA:.:,( bl 1NFORl·lLD THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOR_ THE
EXPANS1CJN CJF THE FACILI TIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE
THf LUUNTK\ :iTOR(S LOC ATION 15 CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
1N1ERFERf WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIA0"'1ENT
WE WOULD ENCOUAAuE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PAuPGSED ADDI T1ur-.i TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES
NAI 1( RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
.f-f;. ~-6'.) of! /.k-~ A ,
~ /Jff<1 « ll 7 k«~/1-'-'f----==S."-");......:cJ:....::,3'----,;-S::::...(,,._Al_;_',A/...J,y~c;.L.I{;:.:.:~-,~-: r:;__!.;::d~--
, ~ t, {J &zv,\(1:2_ ttcfR8 Pe,vk ~
ti c'/VC/~ .... ~~t_.l_~~~_L~::...:_...JL.~~:..=..::.:..:!:_ __
;I?~ ~-ti ~84--< ~ L/3
9 -#-~-Hi~~~....,(...l.~~:,,t.JU~~~':...lj~~~~A.. 1
llJ ~~~ ~ ,
: ; ( ~~//irk 7/;;&~~
fl,
,7
lb ____________________ _
11.j ___ _
OCTOBER I , I 985
r v TH£ CITY QE CARLSBAD
PLEASE t:51: INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA VOR _ THE
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
THL LOUNTKY :.;TORES LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
INTERFERf WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIR0tf1ENT
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENOOR"E THE
PRCiPuSEu ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S ,:ACILITIES
. ' .
I 1-,11, 1f·illl<l:..,TLU I "H II[:., OCTOBER I , 1985
I •· li.1.L.. b 11) VI , :,iiL •Ll:\L•
nLASL bl 1N1ur~~l[[1 ll1AT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOR_ THE
1 Xf-'AN'.:>lllf'l uf Tt1f f ALILllllS AT THE. COUNTRY STORE..
i rlt ,L)UNIIO :)lllkL:..,LU(ATION ISCONVENIENT,BUT WILL NOT
·II IL l<I Ll<L w I I II uUI, NL lulitlOHHOOU E.NVIR0"'1£NT
WL v.uULL• ll'llUUkAu( TH[ LITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
f.'kut-'u:..,lu Al.JUll IL1N lu TH( EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
RE.SI DENCE REGISTERED VOTER
<,~ I
..
From INTERESTED PARTlES OCTOBER I , 1985
1 \) [ 11L C I TY l,)( l oHL SBAL
PU:.A'.:>E Bl INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FAVOR'_ THE
t:Xl->ANSION OF THE FACILITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE.
lrlE l.OUNTRY STORE S" LOCATION IS CONVENIENT, BUT WILL NOT
1NT£RFEHl Wt TH 0UH NllGHBORHOOD ENVIROl'f1ENT.
Wl WUULll ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PRUPOSEu AUDITION TO THE EXISTING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
NAl'1[ RESIDENCE REGISTERED VOTER
i , ,· A'
. ~ /. ,._t _.,.. I; .. /.;, l ,.: /:J i•t f'tC.tt11u, c;,1; .C¼
o ____________________ _
y ____________________ _
IG ____________________ _
I ' ---------------------
l 4 ____________________ _
13 ____________________ _
'~---------------------
'~---------------------
'~---------------------
''---------------------
l a _____________________ _
i~---------------------
.,,J ---------------------->,
... ' -
.;
1, ""' IN1£kl '.:.TLll l-'t\RT I[:. OCTOBER I , 1985
i V I t1L LI !Y ul L cBL SBAL
nl ASL Bl INFORMED THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FA VQB _ THE
LXf-'ANSION OF TH[ FACI LITIES AT THE COUNTRY STORE..
r1l (0UNTAY STORES' LOCATION IS CONVENIENT , BUT WILL ~T
· N lL RI [1-{L w 111 ➔ oun NLI GHBORHOOD EN VI R0tf'1ENT
Wl WUULU ENCOURAGE THE CI TY OF CARLSBAD TO ENDORSE THE
PROPuSEO AODITION 10 THE EXI STING COUNTRY STORE'S FACILITIES.
4 , 4, k"w L o >
' J
• C //,, ~,
l(J ---------------------
I \ ---------------------
I.---------------------
13 ____________________ _
14 ____________________ _
I~---------------------
1~--------------------
I I ____________________ _
In _____________________ _
I~---------------------
,l