Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-21; Planning Commission; Minutes. . . ,T MINUTES ’ Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 21, 1987 -3 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS ’ \ CALi TO ORDER: Chairman Marcus called the Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, McBane, McFadden, Schlehuber, and Schramm Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Jim Elliott, Finance Director PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. Commissioner McBane arrived at 6:08 p.m. INFORMATION ITEMS: 1) Pueblo De Oro Sales Office (Hodnett) - Proposed rental office for Pueblo De Oro, PCD-46, a 300 unit apartment project. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting a 600 square foot rental office and parking area for three automobiles to be located adjacent to the recreation facility at the northeast corner of a 300-unit apartment project near Hosp Grove. This property was approved several years ago at a density of 18.8 du's/ac. The Growth Management Control Point for the existing RMH General Plan designation is 11.5 du's/ac. The existing hillside constraints would not allow this density on the site. The project was approved with the understanding that one of the units would be the sales office which is the case in most similar projects. Some objections to the requested rental office are: 1) the submitted site plan does not show the existing 2:l or steeper slopes that the building and parking will overhang; 2) retaining walls may have to be constructed; 3) the stability of the slope is questionable and would require a detailed soil study; and 4) the project does not comply with the hillside development guidelines which require buildings to be set back from the edge of slopes and be buffered by a berm and substantial landscaping screen. Staff has denied the request and referred it as an information item to the Planning Commission. Although this is not a public hearing, Commissioner Schlehuber expressed a desire to hear from the applicant, if s/he was present. Chairman Marcus issued the invitation to speak. r‘ .‘? MINUTES ’ October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 Tony Nevers, Sunrise Management Company, representing the owners of Pueblo De Oro, addressed the Commission and stated that they purchased the building in June 1986 and recognized a need for an individual rental office located away from the rental units in a more open area. An informal request was made to the Planning Department for the office structure. She was unaware that the request had been denied and would like an opportunity to present more information to staff regarding the concerns which were presented. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the vacancy factor of the apartment units and Ms. Nevers estimated it to be 8-10X or approximately 25-30 units at a time. He then stated that he had walked the area and the soil is failing everywhere plus there are extensive concrete problems. He feels that corrective action would be extremely expensive and agrees with the staff denial. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to accept staff's position and deny the proposed rental office for Pueblo De Oro, PCD-46, a 300 unit apartment project. 2) Tyler Court - Requesting relief from Condition 15d of CUP-217(A). Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the City Council approved an amendment to Condition 15 of CUP-217(A) which approved this project in January 1984. Part D of that condition limited two-thirds of the occupancy to tenants without automobiles. As approved, this project had 75 dwelling units and 25 parking spaces. ZCA-187 enacted in April 1986 requires one space per two dwelling units. The property owner has since raised the total onsite parking to 51 spaces, increasing the ratio to one space per 1.47 dwelling units, which is 13 spaces more than required by ordinance. The applicant is requesting relief from Condition 15d requiring two-thirds of the occupancy by tenants without automobiles. Staff recommends approval since the project now meets requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner McFadden inquired why the applicant had not been required to improve Chestnut Avenue. Mr. Howes replied that enough space has been reserved for the future widening of the cul-de-sac but that dedication could not be required since no discretionary permit is needed to build a parking lot on someone's property. Commissioner Schramm noted that Condition 2 of Resolution 7474 (Line 28) requests relief from Condition 15 rather than Condition 15d and Mr. Howes replied that the resolution should correctly state 15d. Commissioner McBane inquired how the ratio of unit to parking spaces had been determined and Mr. Howes replied that the ratios were researched when the parking ordinance was revised. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm /1 i MINUTES October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to grant relief from Condition 15d of CUP-217(A). PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3) City of Carlsbad CIP - Review the City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1987-88. Jim Elliott, Finance Director, introduced the comprehensive Capital Improvement Program for 1987-88 and stated that it is one of the most important planning tools available to the City, providing a long-range picture of how the City will allocate available resources to a variety of projects that will affect the safety, environment, and quality of life for Carlsbad residents. This CIP implements growth management standards and addresses those standards which relate to City controlled facilities. Three of the standards (Open Space, Schools, and Water Systems) are not addressed because other methods are used to accomplish those needs. He cited the peak development period in 1985-86 and stated that capital improvements the first year ($17 million in 1987-88) will be extensive due to the high growth rate during that period. In the following four years the City will be spending approximately $10 million per year, and it is estimated that $10 million per year will be needed for the 6-10th years. The rate of growth has slowed from 2,800 units in 1985-86 to 850 units in 1987-88, and should remain at a level well below past years for the foreseeable future. 92% of the capital improvements are funded by development fees. Only 8% will be funded by tax supported bond issues or other funds. He reviewed the operating costs associated with capital improvements and stated that staffing of fire stations, libraries, etc. is a major expense which necessitates that capital improvement projects be scheduled and prioritized to minim&e operating costs and avoid deficit spending. He reviewed Proposition K which will appear on the November ballot. Prop K continues an existing tax and increases the license tax on new development. Prop K will generate additional revenue on new development to provide facilities and services required by the Growth Management Plan, and is unanimously supported by the City Council. Prop K requires a majority vote of the people. Commissioner McFadden requested the definition of a capital improvement project. Jim Elliott replied that a capital improvement project is any project which has a useful life of five years and costs $50,000 or more, however there are exceptions such as traffic signals and/or small street or intersection improvements. Generally, capital improvement projects include land acquisition, construction of streets, sewers, water mains, buildings, and traffic signals. Commissioner McBane inquired why the acquisition of open space was omitted from the description. Jim Elliott replied that acquisition of open space is not defined except in the Growth Management Plan which sets a standard of 15% open space, excluding constrained areas. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSlur* Page 4 Commissioner Schlenuber inquired about the c;ity's policy uu acquiring major road improvements such as El Camino Real, Palomar Airport noad, and Rancnu Santa Fe Road. Jim Elliott used Palomar Airnnrt Road as an example and stated that when it is wideneu, properLy owners along the roau will be assessed a share f-r widening the road but the City will pay part or fle cosL -ince tnerc are properties which cannot be included, i.e. agricultural land. Land which cannot De developed is ilot required ho bear tne JcJne burden as land which can be developed. Commzcraioner Scnl=nuoer inquired about deferred assessments of a particular roadway, i.e. the small stretch of Palomar Airport Roar; whicn IS owned by the County of San Diego. It the City advances money for improvement, can it be dererr=d to new owners at a lateL time-! Jim Elliott cited the case of Marron Road when it was rldenea a=Veral years ago. Hughes Development had to repay the City for the improvement when their development was approved. The City nau ylaceu a lien on the property. Commissioner Schlenuber inquired if the City policy had changed on certain thorougnr=res, i.e. El Camino Real, when traffic is generated by out-of-area. David Hauser, Assistant City angineer, replied that adJar;ent properLy owners pay fur one-halt. Some improvmm+s have been included in Public Facility Lees (YFPJ ur Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). Normally, intersections are covered under PFF. Commissioner SchrW requeaLed more information on rev&ue sharing. Jim Elliott stated that revenue bharing began in 1973. It was calculated on tax effort within the agency and population. The City was receiving between $~uu,uOO and $900,000 per year. Revenue sharing ended in October 1986 and we do not anticipate receivrYlg any more grant money. Commissioner McFadden inquired wny revenue snaring was shown on page 29 with an amount of $509,394. Jim r;ulJtt explainea that this amount was a beginning balance in lrar alid showed what would be expended %ring the projected five years. Chairman Marcus staLed that there appears not to ,,e any surplus in 1987 to transfer into +'-e CIP. Jim ElliotL replied that there may ue a small amount but that Prop K lp not obligatea to fund tne CU. If there is a shortfall in operating tunor, Prop K revenues couu legally be used for operating costs, if necessaLy. Commissioner McBane inqulreu it explLcit sensitivity analysis was done on the imnr-t of demand and revenues if growth is more V~ less Lhan projectea. Jim Elliott replied that a number 01 tests were done and that there were certain projects the City was onllgatea L~ fund, i.e. the llUrary scheduled in lQQ9-90. The City would like to avoid becoming crossways with tne growth management standards on such tnlngs as parks. There is room for movement on streets, traffic signals, and city orrices. The City cannot foresee the impact on roads. No growth would cause some serious problems. Commissioner McBane requested clarification of item 5, page 6, that capital facility operating costs have not been inflated between years and are based on 1987. Jim Elliott replied that an inflation factor has not been applied to city salaries for example. Growth in income sources was assumed but an inflation factor was not applied. MINUTES October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 Commissioner McBane requested the definition of a population-related revenue. Jim Elliott replied that sales tax would be an example since sales tax revenue would increase as population increases because more people would be spending more money, hence more sales tax revenue. Commissioner McBane noted that page 5 ends in mid-sentence and Jim Elliott replied that this will be corrected. Chairman Marcus inquired about item 4, page 6, that general operating costs will grow at a rate of 4X per year but does not count staff required to operate and maintain capital facilities. Jim Elliott replied that existing city staff will continue to exist and that there will be certain necessary increases in staffing such as street maintenance crews, or additional police officers. Staff required to operate capital facilities have been added to the base. Commissioner McFadden inquired what is included in operation and maintenance. Jim Elliott replied that operations includes salaries, retirement, fringe benefits, supplies, utilities, and small equipment such as desks, chairs, and automobiles, etc. Capital expense is building construction, street construction, etc. Debt service includes the purchase cost of Hosp Grove. Commissioner McFadden inquired why Cannon Road between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks is included in this CIP (page 13) since she feels that the widening of Tamarack, between Jefferson and Carlsbad Boulevard, is a much more important need. David Hauser replied that Cannon Road was included due to commitments made by the Council to widen Carlsbad Boulevard and include these improvements at the same time. Commissioner McFadden would like to see Tamarack moved up and Cannon moved back. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and requested that the record show the receipt of the following letters with recommendations to the CIP which are included as a part of these minutes: a) letter dated October 20, 1987 from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce signed by Gerald L. Long, 1987 President; bj letter dated October 21, 1987 from Rick Engineering signed by Robert C. Ladwig; and c) letter dated October 21, 1987 from Development Consultants Consortium signed by Jack Henthorn on behalf of Sammis Carlsbad Associates. Chairman Marcus issued the invitation to speak. Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering, residing at 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and inquired why the College Boulevard Assessment District south of El Camino Real, which does not involve City funds, was included on page 20 of the CIP report. As regards his letter to the Commission dated October 21, 1987, he stated that Rick Engineering is representing the landowners in Zones 11 and 12 which are located in the southeast quadrant of the City adjacent to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and requested consideration that a some improvement costs be included in the CIP for prime arterials within the City which provide a regional benefit. Rick Engineering would like to see Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road given prime consideration. He suggested that additional funds might be sought from surrounding cities and/or the county to support the improvements. MINUTES October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS Fred Morey, 2618 Abedul Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to see more equity in the CIP. He feels that Ranch0 Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial needs to be addressed and would urge the City Council and staff to consider adding two extra lanes in the general fund. He feels it is unfair to ask adjacent property owners to fund the extra lanes since a disproportionate share of the traffic would be generated out-of-area. He cited additional revenue which would be generated by the one-half cent sales tax increase if Proposition A passes on the November ballot. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner McFadden noted that the Chamber of Commerce letter dated October 20, 1987 is in total agreement with the widening of Tamarack. Jim Elliott, Finance Director, responded to Mr. Ladwig's inquiry on why College Boulevard was included in the CIP on page 20. The street is currently under construction, nearing completion, and although there is no cost to the City, it was listed to avoid questions. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that a policy should be established for the future with regards to Traffic Impact Fees and prime arterials. As regards the Tamarack widening, it is not number one on his list since he feels it needs more analysis due to the condemnations which need to be done. He would like to see the Macario Canyon and Carrillo Ranch park projects moved up. Jim Elliott replied that he cannot answer regarding the extent of the funding problem at Carrillo Ranch. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to see the stretch of county land on Palomar Airport Road widened. David Hauser replied that this project has been funded and design is in progress, with submittal to our Council scheduled for next month. Construction could begin in early 1987. Commissioner Hall inquired why the La Costa overpass is not scheduled until 1992. Jim Elliott replied that this project was timed for 1992 due to cash flow constraints. It may have to be done before. David Hauser replied that the intersection is failing but the street is not, and that funding in advance of 1992 cannot be identified at this time. Commissioner Hall inquired if the overpass poses a time frame problem with CalTrans and David Hauser replied that this is something which the Council needs to address. Engineering is proceeding with CalTrans now on all three bridges but CalTrans will only address one bridge at a time. Jim Elliott replied that page 21 shows an expenditure in 1987-88 of $400,000 for each bridge for engineering studies. Commissioner McFadden would like to discuss sewer fees and bonds. Jim Elliott replied that there are no sewer bonds in the CIP; the sewer bonds were issued in the 1960's and are being paid off by taxes assessed to people within the sewer service area. The bonds run until 1991. The Council needs to address the sewer master plan before it can be addressed in the CIP. The Encina expansion is a big issue. . ‘, ,r 0, MINUTES October 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 Commissioner Schlehuber discussed possible ways to address the CIP and recommending construction of certain projects before others, however Chairman Marcus feels that the CIP is a flexible plan and that final results depend on many outside sources. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to accept the City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program for 1987-88 Preliminary Report dated October 9, 1987 as presented in Resolution No. 2696. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried that the City study further the issue for future funding of prime arterials by Traffic Impact Fees. Commissioner McFadden would like the record to show that she voted no on this motion because she feels it is historically inequitable to now begin subsidizing developers for prime arterials and that the matter is not worth studying. Commissioner McBane complimented Jim Elliott and the staff on the excellent CIP report. Commissioner Schlehuber added that the analysis of each particular project was especially helpful. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of September 2, 1987 with a correction on page 7, Land Use, item 7 (vote corrected from 4-2 to 6-O). The Planning Commission approved the minutes of September 16, 1987 as presented. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: The Christmas Party was discussed and tabled to the next meeting. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reported that the November 4 meeting contained a very large agenda and the possibility of continuing some of the items to the following week was discussed. November 12 was preferable and Mr. Grimm will investigate what facilities are available for an unscheduled meeting. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schranrm 9 t 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 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of October 21, 1987 was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm - RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I !?ri%‘,NVr;,c~:i~~~~~~ 365 SO. RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD . SUITE 100 SAN MARCO& CALIFORNIA 92069 . 619/744-4806 October 21, 1987 Planning Commissioners CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive + Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: 1987-1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the landowners in Zones 11 and 12, I would suggest that on prime arterial roads, particularly Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, that some improvements be included in the C.I.P. I would suggest possibly two travel lanes be included or additional improvements your staff may recommend. .Thereasans for the request are as follows: Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road are prime arterials on the Carlsbad Circulation Element. From previous counts, on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road in particular, it was demonstrated that only about 20 percent of the current traffic is local traffic. I Both these routes are regional routes and provide for through traffic in the City of Carlsbad. Through special setbacks adopted by the City of Carlsbad, development is required to stay back a minimum of 50 feet from the right-of-way on prime arterials, further emphasizing the regional significance of these roadways. For, the reasons stated above, there appears to be support to include two lanes or other improvements in these two roads within the C.I.P. program so that fees can be collected from throughout the city for these regional facilities. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd.OOl October 21, 1987 D EVELOPMENT i C ONSULTANTS I C ONSORTWM City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Chairman & Members 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF AVENIDA ENCINAS SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD This letter is written on behalf of the Lee Sammis Company and Sammis Carlsbad Associates. The purpose of this corres- pondence is to call to your attention an item that has been overlooked in the formulation of the draft Capital Improvement Program. Avenida Encinas between Palomar Airport Road and its current terminus is only partially improved. (see Exhibit 1) In reviewing this particular stretch of street in the field, it is obvious that the development on the east side of the road is served by City-required curbs, gutters and other public improvements. There is no potential for development on the west side of the road. Therefore, it is suggested that widening this street to meet City requirements be included in the Capital Improvement Program. The rationale for this is two fold. First, Avenida Encinas is a portion of a frontage road system servicing the entire area southerly of Cannon Road and Westerly of Interstate 5. Coupled with Carlsbad Boulevard it is an integral part of the circulation loop system servicing the beach area. This system serves to relieve a portion of the local burden on freeway overcrossings by permitting alternative north/south traffic movement. (Exhibit 2) The second part of the rationale is that this section of Avenida Encinas is the only section which can not be funded by adjacent development. This is due to the fact that the ATS&F Railroad Right-of-Way abuts the street on the West side. As noted below, the remaining portions of the roadway will be fully improved as development occurs. Extension southerly of Poinsettia Lane to Carlsbad Boulevard will be a function 2892 JEFFERSON l P. 0. BOX 2143 l CARLSBAD, CALiFORNlA 92008 l (619)434-3135 - October 27, 1987 Ltr: Chairman & Members Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Page Two of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park, while extension between Poinsettia and the current terminus will be provided by developers of the Lusk and Lee Sammis parcels. (Exhibit 3) In summary it appears that this portion of Avenida Encinas is a candidate for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program as a Traffic Impact Fee funded project. T,he improvement of this portion of Avenida Encinas (cost estimate $356,063 5 ref: Zone 3 Local Facilities Plan) should have been addressed as development of the Encina Treatment Plant and,other development adjacent to the easterly side of the street took place. This did not occur. As a result, mitigation is required which is beyond that which would normally be required of the remaining development in the area. As owners of property southerly of this section of roadway we are faced with the potential of correcting a 2700' long half width improvement obligation beyond that which would be normally required. In addition if appears as though there would be a potential for reimbursement of associated costs. Since the purpose of the traffic impact fee is to correct these types of conditions (ref: Barton Aschman traffic report and staff workshop) it is requested that you recommend to the City Council that Avenida Encinas improvements south- erly of Palomar Road to the current terminus be included ih the Capital Improvement Program as a Traffic Impact Fee funded project. ry truly y urs, cJ--4k /' cp ack Henthorn On behalf of: Sammis Carlsbad Associates -4 \. I.“.. 1 .m I L -. . . EXHIBIT Pa BATKIUITOS LAQOON . \ BATIOUITOS LAWOu - 9 \ m -1 RLM , Q a -P-T- -i a \,A -- v-- \, I’ - OS L-A BATMUITOS LAQOW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4 October 20, 1987 Ms. Mary Marcus Chairperson, Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Chairperson Marcus: The Chamber of Commerce has taken the opportunity to review the proposed Capital Improvement Program currently under consideration by the Planning Com- mission and City Council. We would like to compliment City staff on the preparation of the CIP to buildout, giving us a long range view of the public improvements planned for our community. Our review included informative meetings with John Cahill and Bob Johnson. Your consideration of the attached recommendations is appreciated. Sincerely, GLL/PS:fvg Attachment cc: Planning Commissioners (w/att) 5411 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100 l P.O. Box 1605 l Carlsbad,California 92008 l (619) 729-5924 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Review of City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program Recommendations: Move Tamarack Avenue improvements (Jefferson to Carlsbad Boulevard) up to Year 3 from 1997. A lot of that property has already been bonded for the improvements and it is a major element of circulation. For safety's sake alone this should be given greater priority. Move development of Macario Park (or at least partial development of it> up to coincide with Cannon Road development, that is within the Year 3 to Year 10 Period instead of 1997. Development of lagoon access from Macario will ease crowding of facilities on the north and west areas of Agua Hedionda, making water sport areas less crowded and safer. Similiarly, plan development of Carrillo Ranch0 park simultaneously with the street access. Additionally, include $100,000 in Year 1 to add to the $90,000 grant from the state and take measures to prevent further deteriora- tion of the Rancho. If itmnediate stop gap measures are not undertaken, there will be no Ranch0 to develop in 10 to 12 years. This is a valuable asset to the community and the expenditure of some money now will save money in the fu- ture. On prime arterial roads, particularly Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, some improvements should be included in the CIP. We suggest an addition of two travel lanes. Previous counts on Ranch0 Santa Fe in par- ticular, demonstrate that only about 20% of the current traffic is local. Both routes are regional routes and provide for through traffic in the City of Carlsbad. Through special setbacks adopted by the City, development is required to stay back a minimum of 50 feet from the right-of-way on prime ar- terials, further emphasizing the regional significance of these roadways. Fees should therefore be collected throughout the City for these regional facilities. The completion of the gaps in College Avenue between El Camino Real and Oceanside city limits should be added into the CIP. Oceanside has completed their section of College and completion of Carlsbad's section would take much pressure off Highway 78 and Marron Road. One concern which has surfaced is the need to keep pace with sewer serv- ice demands and the expansion of the Encina facility in phases 4 and 5 (Vista/Carlsbad joint sewer reach). Providing service concurrent with need is imperative. 5411 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100 l P.O. Box 1605 l Carlsbad,California 92008 l (619) 729-5924