Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-05; City Council; 7999-1; REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX SDP 84-05: CARLSBAD GATEWAYI ' 2 .4 G' 3 a, a 8 u u a d .rl 9 8 0 3 2 -I E w * a 5 %2 a, -4 2s a k ka g rlrl mm 8 ~5 +-I od d &&CI 4s Q %; 8 :2 gD' ' 4J-u (d a,a3!z '' 3.2 0 03 cr +d 8 pht. 3 3.4. $%a, y Ad\ 9 "" -4 -2 u) 8 UQ -c ;; i J@2 mLn Ln 0303 m mm .. 2 s 6 a $ z 3 0 0 CIT~F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL AB# 7997- #/ TITLE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE DEPT. k MTG. 3/5/95 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR INDUSTRIAL/ CITY A1 DEPT.- SDP 84-5: CARLSBAD GATEWAY CITY MI RECOMRilENDED ACTION: OFFICE COMPLEX PLN - The Fllanning Commission and staff are recommending that the Counciil approve SDP 84-5 as recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution NO. 2410. ITEM EXPLANATION The zpplicant is requesting approval of a site development pla for cionstruction of an industrial/office complex on the east side of El Camino Real just north of the Cablevision building. This site development plan was first heard by the Planning Commission in October, and was denied based on the fact that i proposed driveway on El Camino Real violated the City's arter: spac:l.ng policy. The applicant appealed that decision to the perm:.t the driveway and sent the project back to the Planning Comm -ssion for conditions. The Council also indicated that tl wantc?d to see the site development plan following Planning Cornin .ssion review. Counc:il. The Council, on December 18, agreed by a 3-2 vote tc At tjie meeting of February 14, the Planning Commission approva the iroject with conditions, Conditions 34 and 35 are being contested by the applicant. Those conditions require the developer to complete Palmer Way north, to and including the Barb ?r Connection (see attached map), or complete an assessrnei district (in conjunction with the O'HaE project and other propzrties) which would extend Palmer all the way to Colleqe Boul2vard. The Planninq Commission, with one exception, and Engiieerinq staff feel that one of the above connections is necessary prior to occupancy of the project. All other issue: regarding this project were resolved to the satisfaction of tl Cornmission. For further information please see the attached staff reports and correspondence from the Engineering Department to the p1 ann ing Commi s s ion. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land IJse flaming Manager has determined that this projec will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on September 18, 1913 which was approved by t5e Planning Commission on February 14, 1985. f a * PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO, 7Ff9-#/ b FISCAL IMPACT The increased need for city capital facilities resultinq fro1 this development will be offset by the payment of the public facilities fee. Any capital facilities related directly to development will be constructed and paid for by the develope Increased operating expenses related to this development wil offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue generated by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis of this development has been conducted at this time predictions of the portion of operating expenses covered by additional operating revenue created as a result of this pro cannot be made. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports with attachments 2. Planning Commission Resolution Mo. 24111 r . ~OCATION MAP. 9 C ONNEC TlON BECKMAN INST. ------ CARLSBAD ---e----- CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER SDP a '1 2 3 4 5 6 a 7 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 ' 17 18 19 a 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2410 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 84-5, TO ALLOW COMPLEX ON 16.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, APPLICANT: CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE NORTH OF THE CABLEVISION BUILDING. CASE NO: SDP 84-5 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed wi City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; a WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a r as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the MuniciF the Planning Commission did on the 14th day of November, 19 the 23rd day of January, 1985 and on the 14th day of Februa 1985, consider said request on property described as: A portion of Parcels 1 and 2, in the City of Carl: County of San Diego, State of California as shown 10060 of Parcel Maps filed in the Office of the Cc Recorder of San Diego County, May 23, 1980.; WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considc 1 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring t I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ' heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to Development Plan No. 84-5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct* (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he the Commission APPROVES SDP 84-5, based on the follol findings and subject to the following conditions: ///I 1/11 . * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 a 0 Findings: 1) The project is consistent with all City public facility icies and ordinances since: a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, insured that final map will not be approved unless the City Cour finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has condition that a note shall be placed on the final that building permits may not be issued for the prc unless the City Engineer determines that sewer seri available, and building cannot occur within the pr( unless sewer service remains available, and the P1; Commission is satisfied that the requirements of tl public facilities element of the general plan have met insofar as they apply to sewer service for thi project . b) All necessary public improvements have been provid will be required as conditions of approval. c) The applicant has agreed and is required by the in of an appropriate condition to pay a public facili will enable this body to find that public faciliti be available concurrent with need as required by t general plan. fee. Performance of that contract and payment of 2) The project is consistent with M-Q zone standards and compatible with surrounding existing and future uses i area. 3) The project, as conditioned, is consistent 'with the "E Camino Real Corridor Standards". 4) The uses as listed on Exhibit "X", dated October 10, 1 are compatible with existing and future permitted uses j 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this vicinity as stated in the staff report. 5) This project will not cause any significant environmer impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by Planning Commission on January 23, 1985. 6) The project is located within the Palomar Airport Infl area and has been found to be consistent with the prot of the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan pex letter from SANDAG dated, August 27, 1984. Use Planning Manager on September 18, 1984 and approvf Conditions: 1) Approval is granted for SDP 84-5, as shown on Exhibit dated August 24, 1984 and "B" - nG", dated July 24, l! incorporated by reference and on file in the Land Use Office. Development shall occur substantially as shol otherwise noted in these conditions. PC RES0 NO. 2410 -2- b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I-8 - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 W 2) This project is approved upon the express condition thz building permits shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sew6 service is available to serve the project. 3) This project is approved upon the express condition th building permits will not be issued for development of subject property unless the City Engineer determines t sewer facilities are available at the time of applicat such sewer permits and will continue to be available u time of occupancy. 4) This project is approved upon the express condition th applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as require City Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on fj the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, i according to the agreement executed by the applicant j payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated C by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, ti application will not be consistent with the General PI approval for this project shall be void. sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applic, ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuai 6) Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to t' Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and th Real Water District, dated May 25, 1983. 1984, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated 5) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance Land Use Planning Conditions: 17) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of t site plan incorporating the conditions contained here Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building pc site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the L 8) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and tion plan which shall be submitted to and approved bq Use Planning Manager prior to the issuance of buildir permits. Such plan shall minimize the amount of lam area devoted to lawns and other plantings requiring amounts of water, and shall include drought tolerant in their place. In addition, this plan shall incorpc landscape standards identified for this area in the 1 Guidelines Manual. 9) A 500' scale map of the project shall be submitted ti Land Use Planning Manager prior to the recordation o final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets and adjacent to the project. i 10) PC RES0 NO. 2410 -3- ~ll parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallo size. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 l9 e m 11) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris 12) A uniform sign program for this development shall be s to the Land Use Planning Manager for his review and ap prior to occupancy of any building. As part of said E no free standing signs shall be allowed along El Camir 13) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. I of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Use Manager. 14) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, st architecturally integrated and shielded from view and sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisf, the Land Use Planning Manager and Building and Planni Director 15) Project entryways and landscape areas shall be design identified on Exhibit 'A", dated August 24, 1984. Th along El Camino Real shall be redesigned to include a 25-foot landscape area from right-of-way line (includ revised right-of-way line to accommodate a decelerati lane) to parking area along this entire frontage subj the approval of the Land Use Planning Manager. This will include the deletion of 17 parking spaces adjace deceleration lane. All other setbacks shall be maint shown on this exhibit. 16) uses allowed in "Building B" shall be restricted to t and conditional uses identified in Exhibit nXn, date< 10, 1984, attached to this resolution. A note to th: shall be placed on the approved site development plar subsequent building plans. All aspects of the "El Camino Real Corridor Standard! ! 17) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 they pertain to this site, shall be complied with in entirety. Engineering Conditions : 18) The developer shall agree to participate in the form and shall participate in an assessment or other dist may be satisfactory to the City of Carlsbad Council the design and construction of improvements €or the sewer facilities serving the AH27 Basin as shown on "Interceptor and Trunk Sewer System Master Map," dat Other areas as the City Engineer may determine neces desirable may be included in any such district. 1984, which is on file in the Office of the city Eng //// //// PC RES0 NO. 2410 -4- I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e 19) Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from this may be required. In addition to the requirements for t connection permit the developer shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipa: The developer shall apply for an industrial waste disc1 permit concurrently with the building permit for this 1 No Certificates of Occupancy for the project will be i, before the industrial waste discharge permit applicatic requirements have been met, all applicable fees paid a permit issued. 20) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to t commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. 21 ) The grading for this project is defined as "controlled ing" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Grading shall be performed under the observation of a engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinat inspection and testing to insure compliance of the WOL the approved grading plan, submit required reports to Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of t Carlsbad Municipal Code. 22) Upon completion of grading, the developer shall insurc "as-graded" geoloqic plan shall be submitted to the C Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geolog! exposed by the grading operation, all geologic correcl measures as actually constructed and must be based on tour map which represents both the pre and post site t This plan shall be siqned by both the soils engineer enqineering qeologist-. The plan shall be prepared on or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent 123) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the Drojl unless a letter of permission is obtained from the ow the affected properties. I I I 24) A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approv separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disp if located within the city limits. 25) All slopes within this project shall be no steeper th The off-site slope laying to the east of this project be graded so as to provide a 2:l slope for its entire adjacent to this project or the improvements required these conditions. 26) Prior to hzuling dirt or construction materials to ar proposed construction site within this project the df shall submit to and receive approval from the City EI for the proposed haul route. The developer shall COI all conditions and requirements the City Engineer ma: with regards to the hauling operation. PC RES0 NO. 2410 -5- w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 27) The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off- siltation. The developer shall provide erosion contro measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/det basins of type, size and location as approved by the C Engineer, The basins and erosion control measures sha shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer E the start of any other grading operations. Prior to t removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the served shall be protected by additional drainage facil slope erosion control measures and other methods requj approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall mi the temporary basins and erosion control measures for of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall qi their maintenance and satisfactory performance througl deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to Engineer. 28) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures provided or installed as may be required by the Count: Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the Cit: neer. 29) The developer shall pay the current local drainage ar prior to approval of the final map or shall construct age systems in conformance with the Master Drainage P City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City En 30) The owner of the subject property shall execute a hol harmless agreement regarding drainaqe across the adja property prior to approval of building permits. 31) The drainaqe system shall be designed to ensure that resulting from a 10-year frequency storm of 6 hours c hours duration under developed conditions, is equal t than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency ar duration under existing developed conditions. Both t 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determir detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish tk results, Alternate methods of meetinq this conditior are satisfactory to the City Engineer may be used. T solution that includes creation of a backwater in thl upstream? off-site, storm drain will be allowed. Th developer shall grant an easement to the City allowi continued discharge of storm waters through the priv drain system within the project. The storm drain sy' this project shall remain private and shall be maint the owner of the project. I (I 32) Land for all public streets and easements shown on t plan shall be dedicated on the final map and shall k granted to city free and clear of all liens and encu brances. PC RES0 NO. 2410 -6- + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 m 33) The developer shall record an easement securing the ri! unrestricted public access for the property adjacent tc southerly line of the project that fronts on El Camino The form and content of the easement deed shall be to satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be recordec certified copy provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The access easement sh4 no less than 24 feet wide and shall include access fro1 permitted by this project. 34) Improvements listed in this section shall be installed agreed to be installed by secured agreement by the dev before the issuance of any building permit. The devel shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Engin pay all associated fees and performance guarantees pri issuance of any building permit. The developer shall prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or occ of any portion of the project for any purpose. The improvements are: a) Palmer Way to full width industrial street standar its existing northerly terminus to the northerly 1 the project. This includes securing the right-of- this street. b) A temporary turn-around, barricade and warning sic the northerly temporary terminus of Palmer Way. c) Sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (which la approximately 155 feet easterly of the intersectic Palmer Way and Impala Drive) thence to the interse of Palmer Way and Impala Drive thence to the nortk line of the project. Manholes constructed under t item shall have appropriate stubs for future connc The developer shall commission a sewer basin stud] sufficient in detail and to the satisfaction of tl Engineer to ascertain the size of sanitary sewer facilities required by these conditions. d) Sanitary sewer pump station sized to meet the requirements of sub-item (c) above. e) El Camino Real to one-half width prime arterial (s standards for its entire length along the project frontage The median required by this sub-item sh installed at such time as the City Engineer direc Palmer Way and El Camino Real via the right in/out dry said improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engi I 1 f) Additional street lights on El Camino Real g) Street lights on Palmer Way h) All public improvements shown on the site plan i) Remove and replace the sidewalk in El Camino Real to the curb inlet located approximately 235 feet of the southwesterly corner of the project. It i anticipated that approximately 50 square feet of must be replaced. Removal and replacement of all public facilities j) during the course of constructing this project PC RES0 NO. 2410 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 e a k) Deceleration lane and appropriate signage for the c on El Camino Real. The lane shall be no less thar feet long. The deceleration taper shall be no less 50 feet, long. Except for the tapered portion, the shall be no less than 12 feet wide. 1) Palmer Way to full width industrial street standarc the northerly line of this project to the westerly of "C" Street, except that the pavement width shal' feet and centered in the right-of-way. Concrete c gutter and sidewalk may be omitted. Asphalt curb be provided. A 300 foot long width transition for Way, with appropriate signage, shall be provided f northwesterly boundary of the project in a wester1 direction. The alignment of Palmer Way and the lo of 'IC" Street shall be similar to that shown on th approved tentative map for CT 83-6. m) "C" Street to full width industrial street standat the northerly line of Palmer Way to the existing travelled way of El Camino Real, except that the g width shall be 28 feet and centered in the right-o Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk may be omitted. Asphalt curb shall be provided. The alignment anc location of "C" Street shall be similar to that SI the approved tentative map for CT 83-6. The acceleration and deceleration lanes shown on the tentative map for Ct 83-6 are specifically not apy n) El Camino Real to prime arterial standards for its northerly half for distances of 300 feet on each z the intersection with *IC'' Street, except that on11 improvements that pertain to those facilities reql the City Engineer to construct a right in/out on11 intersection with "C" Street shall be reuired. , 35) The developer may satisfy conditions 34(1), 34(m) and by initiating and completing the proceedings for an I* 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 assessment or other district as may be satisfactory t city of Carlsbad Council to fund the design and const of the improvements listed in this condition. The di formation proceedings shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. a) Palmer Way to full width industrial street standa it's existing northerly terminus (which lays approximately 390 feet north of the south-east co this project) to the northerly line of 'C' Street from the easterly line of College Boulevard to th easterly line of 'B' Street. the easterly line of 'B' Street to the northerly 'C' Street. I I b) Palmer Way to full width collector street standax c) 'C' Street to full width industrial street standz Palmer Way to El Camino Real. PC RES0 NO. 2410 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0 a d) The-portion of College Boulevard east of its mediar laying between the westerly extension of the northa right-of-way line of Palmer Way to the southerly li El Camino Real. The portion of College Boulevard t constructed shall be to major arterial standards e, that the curb to curb width shall be forty feet. e) El Camino Real to prime arterial standards for its northerly half for distances of 300 feet on each s the intersection with IC' Street, except that only improvements that pertain to those facilities requ the City Engineer to construct a right in/out only intersection with 'C' Street shall be required. f) Temporary median improvements, lane striping, traf warning and control facilities (excluding traffic signals) and associated facilities to provide an i intersection at College Boulevard and El Camino Re g) Temporary barricades at the street intersections 2 major driveway entrances that are not in use at t? of construction of these street improvements. h) Street lights* i) Domestic water, sanitary sewer and storm drain lir located within the rights-of-way to the street bei constructed by the assessment district. 1) Storm drain facilities necessary to serve the strc being constructed by the assessment district and adjacent properties that would otherwise have imp( storm water due to the street design of the asses: district. The improvements of this condition shall be construct I I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sub-items a, this condition and the portions of sub-items g, h, i, of this condition that are within or necessitated by items a, c# and e of this condition shall be complete to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for this 1 36) The developer and Owner of the project shall relinqui direct access8 to El Camino Real for the project site excepting only the driveway shown on the site plan ar driveway for right in/out access only. 37) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regula design requirements of the respective sewer and water regarding services to the project. //// ///I -9- PC RES0 NO. 2410 I 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 e @ 38) The design of all private streets and drainage systems final map, The structural section of all private stre shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall inspected by the city, and the standard improvement pl and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of building permits. 39) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked VE at all times, and shall have posted "NO Parking/Fire I Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad MUI Code be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of 40) All plans, specifications, and supporting documents fi improvements of this project shall be signed and seal Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each she be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may signed and sealed on their first page. sheet of each set of plans shall have the fallawing certificate: Additionally "DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE" I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for t project, that I have exercised responsible charge ove design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of t Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specffications by the City of Carlsbad is confined tc only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, oj responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm) Firm: Address: City, St.: Telephone: BY Date: - (Name of Engineer) R.C.E. NO. # 41) The developer shall provide the City with a reproduc copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning Cc The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approc the City. The map copy shall be submitted to the Ci Engineer prior to improvement plan submittal. PC =SO NO. 2410 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 42) Prior to recordation of any final map for this develop] the Owner shall give written consent to the annexation area shown within the boundaries of the Tentative Map existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscap District No. 1. Fire Condi€lons: 43) Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete bc plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. 44) Additional public and/or on site fire hydrants shall 1 quired if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal. 45) The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site pl showing locations of existing and proposed fire hydra] on site roads and drives subject to the approval of tl Marshal 46) An all weather access road shall be maintained througl construction. 47) All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenai shall be operational prior to combustible building ma. being located on the project site. 48) Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structu PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, h the 14th day of February, 1985, by the following vote, to AYES : Commissioners L'Heureux, Smith, McFadde Marcus and Rombotis. Chairman Farrow. NOES : ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. VERNON J. FARROW, Chairmz CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS! ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2410 -11- l e 0 0 MEMORANDUM DATE : February 14, 1985 TO: P1 anning Commi s s ion FROM: Land Use Planning office SUBJECT; SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER Request for approval of a site development plan to allow construction of a mixed-use industrial/office complex on a 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino Rea: north of the Cablevision building. At the January 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to research the feasibility of constructing Palmer Way through the use of an assessment district. The attached staff report on this matter, from the City Engineering Department, recommends that the project be approved per Resolution No. 2410 (as recommended at the Januar 23 meeting) with the addition of a new condition. The props condition would give the developer a choice to either consfruc Palmer Way north, to, and including the Barbour connection as originally proposed by staff, or initiate and complete an assessment district for these improvements. Attachments: 1) - Engineering Staff Report 2) Location Map 3) Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated January 23, 198' November 14, 1984 and October 10, 1984 PJK : ad - e 0 February 5, 1985 TO: ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT LA3 CARLSBAO GATEWAY - SOP 84-5 In the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1985, Commission requested staff to investigate the feasibilit: constructing Palmer Way by assessment district proceedings. ! of the Commissioners also expressed their concern that the bui of the assessment district not fall unduly hard on the tl smaller parcels between the Gateway Project and the Sycai Creek Project. Engineering staff has reviewed the assess' cost spread procedure and the feasibility of an assess district as requested by the Planning Commission. The primary issue is whether or not an assessment district serve the needs of the City to alleviate the burden create the developer. Staff's greatest concern in this issue is tiln The Engineering staff believes that the completion of Palmer and the Barbour connection is integral to this project and the roads should be constructed prior to any occupancy in project. If an assessment district is formed it should fund construct Palmer Way from its existing northerly terminL College Boulevard, the Barbour connection, and a portion of width of College Boulevarad from Palmer Way to El Camino I We think that the incl6sion of the portion of Palmer Way nor1 the Barbour connection and the College connection would resu an asszssment district that could more equitably assign bent and costs. The larger district would also tend to spreac fixed costs of the district (e.g., Bond Council, Administra Formation) over a larger base. The question remains wheth not an assessment district proceeding would have the nece inprovesents constructed within a time frame that would nee needs of this development. Our experience is that an av time from initiation of the district to start of constructi 18 month8. An exceptional project might get started withi months of initiation. A district presently being process the City hasn't reached the construction phase for two years though property owners protesting the disrict are ir minority. We leave it to the Planning Cornmission to ar whether or not the potential assessment district participar this case would reach rapid and amenable conclusions that result in construction of Palmer Way before the occupancy I Gateway Project occurs. -1- * l 0 a In response ts, the commissioner's expressed concern that costs of the assessment district be equitably distributed we only say that the essence of the process is fairness. Quot from Section 5343 of the Streets and Highways Code, "He sh thereupon assess 'upon and against lands in the assessm district the total amount of the costs and expenses of such wa and in SO doing shall assess the total sum upon several lot: parcels of land in the assessment district, benefited thereby, report-ion to the estimated benefits to be received by eact he said several lots or parcels of land." (U nderlining is ( for emphasis.) Our previous experience and recent conversati with an engineer who is highly experienced in assessment dist proceedings suggests that a typical determination of bene would factor the useable lot area that can be served by street, the lot frontage, and the quantity of traffic that lot would generate. The district could purchase right-of-way the street. The purchase price would mitigate the Finan impact on the properties that have a disproportionate amoun roadway on them. Fairness is the central theme in both law good practice in spreading the cost in assessment districts. The Engineering staff offers the following recommendations tc Planning Commission: 1. Retain the conditions of approval that were recommende staff for this project For the January 23, 1985 Plar Commission. 2. Add the following condition: "The developer may satisfy conditions 34(1), 34(m) and 3 by initiating and completing the proceedings fo assessment or other district as may be satisfactory t City of Carlsbad Council to fund the design and constru of the improvements listed in this condition. The Dis proceedings shall be completed prior to the 1SSUan building permits. a. Palmer Way to full width industrial I standards from it's existing northerly teI (which lays approximately 390 feet north c south-east corner of this project) to the nor' line of 'C' Street and from the easterly 1 College Boulevard to the easterly line 1 Street. b. Palmer Way to full width collector street sta from the easterly' line of 'B' Street t northerly line of IC' Street. standards from Palmer Way to El Camino Real. C. 'C' Street to full width industrial -2- - 0 d. The portion of College Boulevard east of ita med and laying between the westerly extension of northerly right-of-way line of Palmer Way to aoutherly line of El Camino Real. The portion Colle'ge Boulevard to be constructed shall be major arterial standards except that the curt curb width shall be forty feet. e. El Camino Real to prime arterial standards for northerly half for distances of 300 feet on t side of the intersection with 'C' Street, exr that only improvements that pertain to tl facilities required by the City Engineer construct a right inlout only intersection with Street shall be required. f. Temporary median improvements, lane strip traffic warning and control facilities (exclu traffic signals) and associated facilities provide an interim intersection at Col Boulevard and El Camino Real. g. Temporary barricades at the street intersect and major driveway entrances that are not in ua the time of construction of these st improvements. h. Street lights. i. Domestic water, sanitary sewer and storm t lines located within the rights-of-way to streets being constructed by the asses! district. j. Storm drain facilities necessary to serve streets being constructed by the asses! . district and to drain adjacent properties would otherwise have impounded storm water d the street design of the assessment district. The improvements of this condition shall be constructed t satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sub-items a, c, e, of condition and the portions of sub-items g, h, i, and j of condition that are within or necessitated by sub-items a, c e of this condition shall be completed prior to issuance c Eertificate of Occupancy for this project. -3- - G e STAFF REPORT DATE : January 23, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER - Request for approval of a site development plan to allow construction of a mixed-use industrial/office complex ori a 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino Rea north of the Cablevision building. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager e ADOPT Resolution No. 2410 APPROVING SDP 84-5 based on the mngs and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND At the November 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, the primarily due to its proposed direct driveway onto El Camino Real. Subsequently, on appeal, the City Council, by a 3-2 vol overruled the Planning Commission denial, and stated their intention to approve the El Camino Real driveway. The projeci now being returned to the Planning Commission for conditions approval . An approval resolution with conditions, is attached to this report. The conditions reflect off-site roadway improvements recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. A memo describing professional opinion on the matter is attached. Included in the improvements are a deceleration lane on El Ca Real for safety reasons (which will result in the loss of 17 parking spaces), and the extension of Palmer north to and including the Barbour connection. Detailed exhibits were distributed to the Planning Commission for the October 10,1984 meeting. Commission voted to deny the Carlsbad Gateway Center project .J e 0 Attachments 1. 2. Location Map . 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2410 4. Staff Report, dated October10 and November 14, 1984 5. Variance Report from City Engineer 6. Exhibit "X", dated October 10, 1984 7. Exhibit 'Y", dated October lo, 1984 8. Background Data Sheet 9. Disclosure Form 10. Environmental Documents Memo from Marty Bournan, Traffic Engineer, dated January 4, 1985 PJK:ad 1/10/85 - -2- - .C v) 4 re gr 5 sa t z2 ii .r 0) 411 & t- t oa7 ml- Lt i--- i L+ - WCrJ tn5 2. eL US If1 F' :'<I j\I j wo L ~~~~~~~~,,~~!!l~~~ [fib $€lV 11 2 -40 ! @ < 7 L QY- la rt- ' ti, ~~;~~i~l~~ t ti e li,l "t']ii 1 uc I$ "Ei'% goes, z: r ;,u 2: ngg;; su=+ ?&! 0 e( mu :s st !a 0 e JANUARY 4, 1985 TO : PAUL KLUKAS FROM: Marty Bouman Traffic Engineering Consultant CARLSBAD GATEWAY PROJECT The justification for the variance allowing the "mid-block" access to El Camino Real was based on an assumption that such access was a secondary access, with primary access(es) coming off of Palmer, on the east side of the project. The developer has consistently referred to the El Camino Real access as a secondary access, to serve only traffic from the south on El Camino Real, and -- to the north on El Camino Real. My testimony to the City Council emphasized that unless a primary access exists, the secondary access actually would be -7 the primary access. The developer would argue that the primary access ZFZ Palmer will exist. that primary access off of Palmer does not exist unless and through from Faraday to College. through to College, then traffic arriving from the north on College would be forced to make a left turn at El Camino Rea and a left turn, or most likely a U-turn, at El Camino Real and Faraday. It would create ridiculous, out-of-direction travel through two already congested intersections. A promise that Palmer will be built to connect Faraday with College "some day" is not good enough. It must be there before the mid-block access off of El Camino real is allowed -7 MY position is until Palmer is constructed as a through street all the way If it did not connect 73-g MARTY B MJB:cle cc I Walter Brown fiFY’LALk%L A\>L* ~,cr~~,-~l 1 Lr e =e1, 1984 Q e. STAFF REPORT DATE : November 14, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER - Request approval of a site development plan to all construction of a rnixed-use industrial/off ice corn1 on a 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino R north of the Cablevision building. I. RECOMMENDAT I ON It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolu No. 2364 DENYING SDP 84-5, based on the fin= contal therein. I1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On October 10, 1984, the Planning Commission considered development of a 16.5 acre site, located between El Camino and Faraday Avenue, just north of the Cablevision building. that meeting, the Commission identified four issues, or pro areas, with the project. They were: 1) Direct access to El Camino Real. The.Commission indic that this would not be looked upon favorably. To meet de-sac requirements, however, the project should conditioned to construct Palmer Way’s connection to Camino Real north of the site. 2j The applicant should work with adjacent properties achieve a mutually satisfactory drainage scheme. 3) Landscaping and architecture on the north and e elevations of the project (within the Sunny Creek views should reflect a design small in scale, and generq compatible with the residential area in these directions no loud nofse-generating activities take place dur n igh t ime hours . 4) Potential uses in the project should be restricted so - e a Discussion of the identified issues, the only one necessitating substantial redesign of the project is the deletion of direci Camino Real access. . The developer has indicated a reluctancl comply with this directive, as he feels such access absolutely necessary for the viability of the project. With respect to issue 2, the developer has met with "downst property owners in an effort to achieve a drainage s satisfactory to all. It appears that this has been accompli Exhibit "Z", attached, delineates this drainage plan. Pro owner signatures, indicating their concurrence, are attached. Engineering staff concludes that this pla acceptable if the entire drainage system is enclosed in underground storm drain. Phere is @an@ern that the SYS proposed may cause extensive erosion as runoff descends natural slope to Agua Hedionda Creek. The project architecture, as proposed, will not appear bulk unattractive from the Sunny Creek residential area. Struct facing this direction consist of single-story offices. loading doors or other unsightly features would be visible. The developer has indicated that he will not oppose practical landscape conditions or noise-generating I restrictions the Commission may wish to place on the project In summary, staff concludes that the developer has not colc with the El Camino Real access restriction identified b Commission as a problem with the project. As a result, recommends denial. . Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2364 2. Loctation Map 3. Site Plan 4. Exhibit "Z", dated November 9, 1984, with property o agreements- PJK : ad 1 l/7/8 4 - - -2- 0 @ STAFF REPORT DATE : October 10, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER - Request for approval of a site development plan to allow construction of a mixed-use industrial/office ample: on d 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino Rei north of the Cablevision building. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager ADOPT Resolution No. 2364 APPROVING SDP 84-5 based on the fings and subject to the conditions contained therein. I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the development of a previously complex. The site is located on the east side of El Camino F (between El Camino Real and Palmer Way), north of the Cablevision building. The site slopes moderately down to the north. Surrounding property to the north is vacant. The recently constructed Palomar Tech Industrial Park exists across Palmer Way, to thc east. The Faraday Business Park Industrial buildings are unc construction to the south, and Koll's Carlsbad Research Cent! located across El Camino Real to the west, The site fronts on two public roadways, El Camino Real to th west and Palmer Way to the east. Palmer Way functions as a frontage road for El Camino Real and will eventually provide link between Faraday Avenue and College Boulevard. The project proposes one 2-story, 50,000 square foot office building, one 1-story 38,000 square foot limited COmmerCial building, and seven 1-story multi-tenant industrial building 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed project consistent with the M-Q zone graded 16.5 acre site into a mixed-use industrial/of f ice standards? Is it compatible with surrounding existing l future uses? 0 0 2) Does the pro-ject meet the "El Camino Real Corridor" standards? xs the project's circulatimi adequate and Safe? 3) 4) Are some limited commercial uses appropriate for the site? Discussion The subject property is zoned M-Q (industrial-qualified overlay). Due to the extremely lenient requirements of the M-zone, the City has avoided utilizing this zone as much as possibLe over the past several years. It contains no setback c other design criteria, or performance standards. The subject site is one of the few M-zoned properties remaining in the Citl Q-Overlay zoning does, however, require Planning Commission review of the site plan. As shown on Exhibits 'A" and "B', the project incorporates an attractive entry statement (with landscape median and enriched paving) for the El Camha Real access, building along this frontage is set back from the roadway and will appear unique and attractive. On-site parking spaces provided are well in excess of the numb required by code. While the developer feels that this number spaces is important to the success of the project, this aspect results in a project that is generally dominated by asphalt parking lots. Pedestrian circulation and overall aesthetics i severely compromised due to this factor. Since the property has frontage on El Camino Real, its development is subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Standarc The project design meets these standards except for the setbac requirement for parking areas. In the southwest corner of thi site, parking spaces encroach about 7 feet into the required foot (completely landscaped) parking setback from El Camino R Through the modification of several on-site regular size spac to compact size spaces, this area of the project can be redesigned to comply with the standard. Approximately 17 spa must be eliminated, however, adjacent to a deceleration lane along the El Camino Real frontage, to comply with this setbac requirement. The City Engineer has indicated that acceleratj and deceleration lanes are necessary for the safety of motor] travelling El Camino Real and has included a condition requii their construction (as shown on Exhibit "Y"). These lanes wc push the right-of-way line (and 25-foot landscape setback) il the project up to 12 feet and result in the elimination of approximately 17 parking spaces. The developer opposes the conditions requiring the lanes and the elimination of parkin1 The two-story office - 2- e 0 El Camino-Real is a prime arterial in the City's circulation system. As such, access to it is severely restricted. Accesg encouraged along frontage roads such as Palmer Way. Engineer has indicated that his office could support a right- in/right-out access .to El Camino Real on this site on the condition that acceleration and deceleration lanes are provide and that the tro Palmer Way accesses are designed as wide, attractive entry alternatives. Staff feels that, as conditioi the resulting plan makes an adequate attempt at maximizing thl two Palmer Way entries and minimizing the El Camino Real entr: while keeping the El Camino Real streetscape attractive and st Overall, on-site circulation is functional and adequate. The attached resolution includes a condition that the develop improve Palmer Way "to full-width industrial street standards from its existing northerly terminus to the northerly line of project". The developer disputes the need for this length of roadway, and proposes to improve the roadway only up to the northerly entrance to the subject project, and to bond for th remainder (to the northerly property line). He feels the not portion will remain unused and will result in a maintenance problem. Staff prefers its construction up-front because of difficulty in calling the bond once the project is complete, the fact that it is anticipated to be only a short time until link to College Boulevard is completed. As shown on Exhibit "A", the developer is proposing that the large 34,000 square foot building along El Camino Real (Builc B) be permitted to consider limited commercial uses. Staff concerns about the visual impact of a commercial building, excessive traffic attracted to the site by commercial uses, i the compatibility of such uses, may be alleviated by the ado1 of a very restrictive list of allowable uses. Although the : compatible and could be detrimental to the existing and futu uses in this area. Staff could support the commercial uses listed on attached Exhibit "X". Such user-types exclude nor retail uses and allow only commercial businesses that would directly to persons or businesses in the surrounding planned industrial area. Conditional uses could also be allowed as provided in this exhibit. It is recommended that this exhib adopted as part of the approving resolution. Staff concludes that this project meets the standards of the zone, is of lesser quality design but generally compatible SI surrounding properties and, as conditioned, meets City requirements. The City is zoned M-Q, many issues allowed in the M-zone would not be IV . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this proje will not have an adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on September 18, 1' d -3- e 0 Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2364 2. Variance report from City Engineer 3. Exhibit "X", dated October 10, 1984 4. Exhibit "Yn, dated October 10, 1984 5, Location Map 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Disclosure Form 8. Environmental Document 9. Letter from SANDAG, dated August 27, 1984 IO. Exhibit "A", dated August 24, 1984, and "B" - "GIt, dated July 24, 1984. PJK:ad 9/25/84 -4- 0 e EXHIBIT "X" October 10, 1984 Uses permitted in "Building B" of CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER: (1) All uses permitted by Section 21.34.020 in P-M zone (se (2) Business systems store (3) Computer store (4) Office furniture store (5) Office supplies, equipment store at tachmen t ) Conditional Uses - Uses permitted upon the granting of a 1) Eating and drinking establishments 2) Day care centers 3) Health and athletic clubs conditional use permit: CARL~AD GATEWAY CEN' R- EL CAMINO REAL ENTERAN F E EXHl 10-1 DECELERATION LANE SIDEWALK /PARK W A Y ( 1 0') - 0 e September 20, 1984 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE The Developer of this project has requested a variance from Cil Design Standards. In accordance with Section 18 of the Street Design Criteria of the City Standards, the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative act to grant vari to the City Standards provided the following findings can be mf 1. That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a variance of the Standards. stantial drainage problems. with existing or future traffic and parking demands or 2. That the granting of such variance will not cause sub- 3. That the granting of such variance will not conflict pedestrian or bicycle use. 4. That the granting of such variance will not be detriment to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is granted. 5. That the granting of such variance will not adversely City staff has reviewed the variance request and is making the recommendation that follows in this memorandum. 1. Location: El Camino Real along the Project Request: Allow access to the project from .. affect the comprehsneive general plan-. frontage. El Camino Real in contravention o Access to be as shown on the site Reason : The Developer feels that the five findings for approvals can be mad1 that the driveways are necessary the economic viability of the pro City of Carlsbad Street Design Cr Staff Recommendation: Approve - 0 0 Page two September 20, 1984 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE Explanation 1. Extraordinary circumstances at the location are occasioned by the anticipated heavy right turn movement from the south which is destined for the complex during the morning hours when people are going to work. It would be better to accommodate such movement directly into the complex via a deceleration lane and angled right turn, than to mix it wit left turns and through movements at a nearby major inter- section. The same holds true for evening home-bound traffi leaving the complex and going north. Obviously, there must never be Consideration given far left turn access or egress at the location. 2. No drainage problems. 3. It will better accommodate future traffic, enhance the ability to park expeditiously, and have no effect on pedestrians or bicycles. 4. Not detrimental to the public welfare nor have any effect on property in the vicinity. on the comprehensive general plan. Marty Bournan Traffic Engineer WB : MB :n j c . -I-_ .. - -- *--- ,c futhu infomtid S reWLrea0 YOU wLAA -- e LA&~ BA~ GA%~, ~~e:individual, partnership, joint venture, corptation, syr APPLICANT: e &em wiw?m= 28/Q (AY/hlO D?c \~~o~* SUITc' tQ2, _r*Y ! Business Address 6 /9 2?G- b307 Telephona Numb.= AGENT : J&ucAeb 5 Name 2820 CI(M,UO btL el0 &U?i'd JLl% 2/2 h Business Address 6fF' &7/-67~& Telephone Numbsr 7Ld~ &UA/TR~ LL*A MEblBERS: g fR€D wAC.3 L4 =TOLL4 CA. Qzo; Elzmt *(individual ,etne3 joint venture, coqora tzon, syndication) Home Mress sf! d &@o rAM/hm h&o , &Id & 201 At€zo, c4. Business Address 6/4 Z4k43U7 %-y- V6/ 6 7r-f YI/A ~,ae &Up bHa y I dnJ/s NeWPorQ7 8eW4.r. ( /Yao A/l Bfisnc Jww 2v~- 42mpbffi L 7ff 7r2-2dGG 7H v L7A' s-33 Telephone NIIjbtr Telephone Xumber !;=!!e Home Address 3isiness Address Zt1ephor.e N&er Telephone Sunber - (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/we declzze ucder Penalty of perjury that the infomation contained in t closure is t-n* and correct and that it will remain true and correct and relied upon as being true and correct until mended. CA~CS~AB G~XF~RV App 1 i can t / BY . t e ,. r- I &,,. -.? _f * ,. L :??(I f'nqint-cr 11~~,1J C.AI I tc )rii 1.1 <I2 1 i 1 - 1-ln-I 5,111 Ihvqo KOLL rlie hdl Coiii~~Linv if, 19) ~O~.~i~[) March 1, 1985 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Gateway Center (Site Development Plan - SDP 84-51: Return to City Council From Prior Hearing Held December 18, 1984 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: I am speaking on behalf of the current owner of the land on which the project referred to above is proposed to be constructed. The project applicant, Davis Developments ("Applicant"), is in escrow to acquire the subject property from Koll-Wells El Camino Associates, the owner. I am President of The Koll Company, Southern Division, general partner .. of Koll-Wells El Camino Associates. (For purposes of convenience, I will refer to the owner as "Koll.") 1. Incorporation of Other Communications. Throughout the various hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council on SDP 84-5, a variety of materials have been submittec on behalf of the Applicant. For the most part, those have beer presented in the body of and as attachments to written statements prepared by and submitted over the signature of Kenneth H. Lounsbery. I am aware that Mr. Lounsbery has prepared and is submitting to the City Council another package of relevant materials dated March I, 1985, to be considered at agrees with, and adopts and incorporates the factual and legal assertions set forth in all materials submitted by Applicant ("Applicant's Materials") as if submitted by Koll. the March 5 City Council hearing. As property owner, Koll 2. The Principal Issue Before You. I will not take the time to recount the history of this particular matter. That i ably done in Applicant's Materials. The principal issue before the Council now is a proposed requirement, which the Planning Commission seeks to attach to the project (conditions numbered 34 1, m and n). Those would 9 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Two require, before occupancy of the Gateway Project, that the Applicant have built and paid for a very expensive and difficult "off-site" series of road improvements (the "Palmer-Barber Connectionll) briefly described as: Both (i) extension of Palmer Way, not now in existence, from the northerly boundary of the subject property through three adjacent properties owned by three other people a distance of approximately one-third mile to the north (this would only be the first leg of the anticipated eventual continuation of Palmer all the way to College, some distance to the north); and (ii) a connector road, sometimes referred to as the "Barber Connection" from that off-site extension of Palmer, going west and intersecting with El Camino Real in a non-signalized intersection providing for right turns on to and off of El Camino Real. [Note: This is in addition to the Palmer frontage within the project boundaries, a condition to which Applicant (and owner) have no objection.] Alternatively, the Planning Commission would accept the formation of an Assessment District to construct all of Palmer from Farady north to College, including the Palmer-Barber Connection, but insists that Applicant form and conclude the district prior to occupancy of the Gateway Project. I will refer to the Planning Commission's proposed condition, and alternative, as the "Palmer-Barber Condition.'' 3. Koll's Objection. Koll believes that the proposed Palmer-Barber Condition will (i) kill the Gateway Project and (ii) prevent development of the site, by making development unfeasible. The legal and factual basis of Koll's objection is, essentially, based upon the following points: (A) it is neither fair nor legally justifiable to impose this condition upon the Gateway Project; and (B) the City has the means to accomplish the construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection ai the appropriate time, by means of an Assessment District, appropriately set up using the services of a qualified Assessment District Engineer to establish ti) the correct properties to be included within such district and (ii) the fair allocation of the cost burden amongst those properties. e 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Three A. It is neither fair not legally justifiable to impose this Palmer-Barber Condition upon the Gateway' Project. Fundamental to any legal justification for requiring the expensive off-site improvements contemplated by the Palmer-Barber Condition, is a clear factual establishment that (i) there is a need for the off-site improvements in question, at this time, and (ii) the need is created by the project which is to be burdened with building them. In other words, the City can only impose this condition upon the Applicant if there has been a clear factual finding that the Gateway Project creates the need for the Palmer-Barber Connection. There has been no such findinq of fact. The project is before the City for review under the provisions of the Q overlay zone. Prior to this "Q review," the land which is the subject of the Gateway Project has been through the division of land mapping process in the City of Carlsbad, including environmental review. No where in that process since Koll has been involved with this property has there ever been any for this sort of off-site road improvements. No where in that environmental or mapping process was there ever the suggestion that this property would be required to sustain the burden of this sort of off-site road improvements. finding of fact suggesting that this property creates the need Further, in the Q review process itself for the Gateway Project, no facts were introduced by the City to demonstrate that this project creates any need justifying the Palmer-Barber Connection. As discussed in the Applicant's Materials, the initial reports from City staff all recommended approval of the project and not one such report suggested a requirement for any off-site road improvements. Although staff has subsequently changed its position, that change is not supported by any facts establishing any need attributable to the Project. In fact, the Gateway Project does NOT create the need for - the Palmer-Barber Condition. It is ironic that the first mention of what led to the Palmer-Barber Condition was the statement by an adjoining land owner, Mr. O'Hara, before the Planning Commission. O'Hara is, of course, the principal involved in the prospective development of the extensive, multi-phase Sycamore Creek project to the north of the propose( Palmer-Barber Connection. The approval of his project had carried with it a condition that, at the appropriate time, he install much of Palmer Way, including a portion of it off his site, and the Palmer-Barber Connection. That requirement was I e 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Four based upon findings made by the City, in the course of reviewing the O'Hara project, that the O'Hara project would create the need for those improvements. During Applicant's appearance before the Planning Commission, O'Hara complained that somewhere in his discussions with staff, some member of the staff had told him that they intended to require the Koll property to bear some portion of the burden at such time as the Koll property were to be developed. Thus, O'Hara claimed, the Planning Commission should in effect fulfill this staff statement to O'Hara (if such a statement was in fact made) by imposing the requirement on the Koll Company. Of course, we do not know what was said to Mr. O'Hara, or when. However, assuming that the statement he reports was actually made to him by a member of the staff, that has absolutely no legal bearing upon the Gateway Project. It was not part of the processing of Gateway. Koll was not even aware of it, nor was the Applicant. Further, such a statement (even if made) is not a substitute for the legally required factual determination that the Gateway Project actually creates a need, at this time, for construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection. The only credible evidence presented on the subject of need was submitted by Applicant. It is the report of a qualified engineer, stating that the Gateway Project would contribute not more than five percent of the total traffic volume utilizing Palmer Way. There have been no facts submitted to the contrari Thus, the only facts in the record show that the Gateway project does - not create any need for the Palmer-Barber Connection. If there is a "need" it does not come from the Gateway Project. At least two of the Planning Commissioners, and members of staff, have referred to the City's need for, or desire for, completion of the Palmer-Barber Connection at this time. Several references were made to the general desirabilit] for a northerly extension of Palmer beyond the Gateway Project, at least to the Barber Connection, and that this would facilitate traffic circulation from sources vaguely referred t as lying "to the east." Assuming that this is true, "City need" and "general desirability" do not justify imposing the condition upon the Gateway Project, without it having been established that the Gateway Project creates the need. In fact, it is established that the Gateway Project does - not create the need. e 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the city Council March 1, 1985 Page Five The legal and fair course of action for the City to take i: either (i) require those traffic generators "to the east" to pay for the Palmer-Barber Connection, or (ii) cause formation of an Assessment District in which all those who contribute to the need and obtain benefit from the Palmer-Barber Connection share fairly in the cost. The Palmer-Barber Condition will not measurably benefit traffic flow to and from the Gateway Project. The lack of causal connection to Gateway is also demonstrated by looking at the effect (or lack of effect) of the proposed improvements on the traffic flow to and from Gateway. One need not be a traffic engineer to realize that the entire design of the Palmer-Barber Connection, contemplated by staff, will not measurably benefit the Gateway Project (whatever it may do for other parts of Carlsbad). Obviously, the mere extension of Palmer Way itself to the north of the project (without the Barber Connection) would accomplish nothing by way of access, since it is not connected to anything to the north. It would be like a freeway ramp ending in mid-air. No extension of Palmer should be constructed off-site unless it goes somewhere. The proposed hook-up is the "Barber Connection" to El Camino Real. But look closely at this. It is not necessary for the Gateway Project. Traffic coming to the south on El Camino Real will not be allowed to turn left at the Barber Connection (it is "right on, right off" from El Camino Real). Thus, in order to reach the Gateway Project, traffic will come south to Faraday, and then either (i) turn left and proceed to the Palmer frontage within the project, or (ii) make a U-turn and enter off El Camino Real. In either event, the "Barber Connection" contributes nothing to this. As far as traffic leaving the project, one path would obviously be the on-site Palmer frontage - to Faraday - to El Camino Real. There is also the additional easy access to El Camino Real from the front of the project, already approved by the City Council, involving the "right in, right out" driveway "Palmer-Barber Connection" is obviously not necessary, and on11 duplicates egress already available. with acceleration and deceleration lanes. The expensive B. The Proper Solution. The proper solution is to recognize that there is no valid connection between the Gatewai Project and the City's need or desire for the Palmer-Barber Connection. Accordingly, the proposed condition should be deleted as a requirement with respect to the Gateway Project. e 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Six That is not to say, however, that the City should not validly be concerned about how to accomplish the eventual construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection if the City truly believes it to be something which the City needs or will need. If that is the case, we believe that the City has the means at hand to accomplish that construction in a way which is fair to all. The number of alternatives available to the City de.;ends, in some part, upon a determination by the City as to whether of the Palmer-Barber Connection wait until such time as the construction of "Palmer north" is required all the way to College, or (ii) whether the City ought to accelerate the construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection to a sooner date, even a date in the near future. (i) it is in the best interest of the City to let construction Construction concurrent with "Palmer north" to Colleqe. If the City determines to wait, then it still has two further alternatives. The Palmer-Barber Connection is now required as a condition of the Sycamore Creek project, and the City could just rely upon that. This would place the entire burden upon Mr. O'Hara's development, but would be within the City's rights If the City believes, however, that it is not fair for this burden to be imposed totally upon the O'Hara project, the City could cause formation of an Assessment District. Such an Assessment District could either be for just the Palmer-Barber Connection, or perhaps more logically it should include all of Palmer Way from Faraday to Colleqe with the Barber Connection included. In any event, in accordance with established legal procedures, the City could work with a qualified Assessment District Engineer in order to determine the correct properties to be included within the district, and the appropriate method for apportioning the cost burden among them. The Applicant and Koll have stated that (depending upon which of them owns the property) they would commit now to participate in such a properly formed district which includes all benefited properties and fairly apportions the burden. Construction in the near future. If the City determines that the needs and desires of the City are best served by construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection in the immediate future, the City again may form an Assessment District for thal in question, it will participate in such a properly formed district which includes all benefited properties, and properly purpose. Koll will commit that, if it is owner of the propert: e 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Seven apportions the cost burden among them. We understand that the Applicant would likewise so commit itself. We hope that you and the City Council understand that K~ll values its relationship with the City of Carlsbad. We have no objection to paying our fair share of improvements which are justifiably required as a condition of development. We strongly believe that the proposed condition in question is not fair, and that it is not legally supportable. We thank you for your time and attention, and hope that you will understand and appreciate our point of view. Very truly yoursl THE KOLL COMPANY / Bernard E. Fipp, / President, Southern Division City Council Qdf'ch 5, 1985 City of Carl sbad 1200 Elm Avenue tarlsbad, CA 92008 Ladies and Gent1 emen : My name is Robert Delorm and I reside at 2421 Dunstan in Oceanside. I have been privileged to sit at your Council meetings many nights, and I know 4 are all fair minded individuals. To come to a fair decision to my predicament, necessary for you to know the following facts. The eleven(l1) acre parcel of land situated between Mr. O'Hara's project on the and the Gateway Project on the south has a bizarre boundary. The eastern part c has over seven hundred(700) feet of boundary line. Most of it is canyon and gu' and is virtually unusable. That part comprises over sixty(60) percent of the pl The western frontage with an access on El Camino Real, is two hundred fiftythrei feet and comprises the usable part of the parcel, which is only five(5) acres. In October of 1983, I widened El Camino Real by 16 feet per City requirements. have built curbs, sidewalks, and installed street lights on my El Camino Real f I have paid to remove a main water pipe that was placed too close to the surfac the land by the water company, and installed the mains in a safer depth to bear kinds of traffic. I have enlarged and resurfaced the existing access to El Cam Real which we (Barber, Wrisley and I) have been using since 1970. I have been led to believe that all the preceding improvements were necessary s I would keep a permanent access to El Camino Real. On March 28, 1984, 1 was confronted with a map of my parcel with the so called ceptual '(A" Street right across the five(5) usable acres of the parcel. Naturi I was and am opposed to this road at that location. However, the City engineei pursuaded me that this road is for the good of all and will have to be built. that meeting Mr. Banche on behalf of Mr. O'Hara assured the Commission and me I they would compensate me for the land used for the road, and any part that wou' separated and unusable because of the placement of the road. Now, on January 23, 1985, there is talk about an Assessment District and who w' benefitted by the road. I am generally in favor of this concept, but will ask Mrs. Grosse speak to you in greater detail about the Assessment District, If the final decision is for the construction of this road, I would appreciate approximately when construction will begin, and I expect to be fully compensat any land used in construction of the road, and any part separated from the usa portion of my land. Historically, it is a time honored practice, and the fair American way to hell 1 ittle fellow attain his or her goal and prevent being trampled upon because I she is too small to be noticed. I know you are all fair minded individuals and I have no doubts that your dec. will be just. Respectfully yours 9 CI-sXo &+&E k- m Robert Delorm 0 0 7330 Engineer Road ';an Die:;o Caliturnia 92111-1464 KOLL The Ko11 Comp.inv (h19) 292-5550 Narch 1, 1985 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Gateway Center (Site Development Plan - SDP 84-5): Return to City Council From Prior Hearing Held December 18, 1984 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: I am speaking on behalf of the current owner of the land on which the project referred to above is proposed to be constructed. The project applicant, Davis Developments ("Applicant"), is in escrow to acquire the subject property from Koll-Wells El Camino Associates, the owner. I am President of The Koll Company, Southern Division, general partner of Koll-Wells El Camino Associates. (For purposes of convenience, I will refer to the owner as "Koll.") 1. Incorporation of Other Communications. Throughout thc various hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council on SDP 84-5, a variety of materials have been submittec on behalf of the Applicant. For the most part, those have beer presented in the body of and as attachments to written statements prepared by and submitted over the signature of Kenneth H. Lounsbery. I am aware that Mr. Lounsbery has prepared and is submitting to the City Council another package of relevant materials dated March 1, 1985, to be considered at the March 5 City Council hearing. As property owner, Koll agrees with, and adopts and incorporates the factual and legal assertions set forth in all materials submitted by Applicant ("Applicant's Materials") as if submitted by Koll. 2. The Principal Issue Before You. I will not take the time to recount the history of this particular matter. That i ably done in Applicant's Materials. The principal issue before the Council now is a proposed requirement, which the Planning Commission seeks to attach to the project (conditions numbered 34 1, m and n). Those would 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Two require, before occupancy of the Gateway Project, that the Applicant have built and paid for a very expensive and difficult "off-site" series of road improvements (the IIPalmer-Barber Connection") briefly described as; Both (i) extension of Palmer Way, not now in existence, from the northerly boundary of the subject property through three adjacent properties owned by three other people a distance of approximately one-third mile to the north (this would only be the first leg of the anticipated eventual continuation of Palmer all the way to College, some distance to the north); and (ii) a connector road, sometimes referred to as the "Barber Connection" from that off-site extension of Palmer, going west and intersecting with El Camino Real in a non-signalized intersection providing for right turns on to and off of El Camino Real. [Note: This is in addition to the Palmer frontage within the project boundaries, a condition to which Applicant (and owner) have no objection.] Alternatively, the Planning Commission would accept the formation of an Assessment District to construct all of Palmer from Farady north to College, including the Palmer-Barber Connection, but insists that Applicant form and conclude the district prior to occupancy of the Gateway Project. I will refer to the Planning Commission's proposed condition, and alternative, as the "Palmer-Barber Condition." 3. Koll's Objection. Koll believes that the proposed (11) prevent development of the site, by making development Palmer-Barber Condition will (i) kill the Gateway Project and unfeasible. The legal and factual basis of Koll's objection is, essentially, based upon the following points: (A) it is neither fair nor legally justifiable to impose this condition upon the Gateway Project; and (B) the City has the means to accomplish the construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection at the appropriate time, by means of an Assessment District, appropriately set up using the services of a qualified Assessment District Engineer to establish (i) the correct properties to be included within such district and (ii) the fair allocation of the cost burden amongst those properties. 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Three A. It is neither fair not leqally justifiable to impose this Palmer-Barber Condition upon the Gateway Project. expensive off-site improvements contemplated by the Palmer-Barber Condition, is a clear factual establishment that (i) there is a need for the off-site improvements in question, at this time, and (ii) the need is created by the project which is to be burdened with building them. In other words, the City can only impose this condition upon the Applicant if there has been a clear factual finding that the Gateway Project creates the need for the Palmer-Barber Connection. Fundamental to any legal justification for requiring the There has been no such finding of fact. The project is before the City for review under the provisions of the Q overlay zone. subject of the Gateway Project has been through the division of environmental review. NO where in that process since ~oll has been involved with this property has there ever been any finding of fact suggesting that this property creates the need for this sort of off-site road improvements. No where in that environmental or mapping process was there ever the suggestion that this property would be required to sustain the burden of this sort of off-site road improvements. Prior to this "Q review," the land which is the land mapping process in the City of Carlsbad, including Further, in the Q review process itself for the Gateway Project, no facts were introduced by the City to demonstrate that this project creates any need justifying the Palmer-Barbe: Connection. As discussed in the Applicant's Materials, the initial reports from City staff all recommended approval of the projec. and not one such report suggested a requirement for any off-site road improvements. changed its position, that change is not supported by any fact establishing any need attributable to the Project. the Palmer-Barber Condition. It is ironic that the first mention of what led to the Palmer-Barber Condition was the statement by an adjoining land owner, Mr. O'Hara, before the Planning Commission. O'Hara is, of course, the principal involved in the prospective development of the extensive, multi-phase Sycamore Creek project to the north of the propose Palmer-Barber Connection. The approval of his project had carried with it a condition that, at the appropriate time, he install much of Palmer Way, including a portion of it off his site, and the Palmer-Barber Connection. That requirement was Although staff has subsequently In fact, the Gateway Project does NOT create the need for 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Four based upon findings made by the City, in the Icourse of reviewing the O'Hara project, that the O'Hara project would create the need for those improvements. During Applicant's appearance before the Planniny Commission, O'Hara complained that somewhere in his discussions with staff, some member of the staff had told him that they intended to require the Koll property to bear some portion of the burden at such time as the Koll property were to be developed. Thus, O'Hara claimed, the Planning Commission should in effect fulfill this staff statement to O'Hara (if such a statement was in fact made) by imposing the requirement on the Koll Company. Of course, we do not know what was said to Mr. O'Hara, or when. However, assuming that the statement he reports was actually made to him by a member of the staff, that has absolutely no legal bearing upon the Gateway Project. It was not part of the processing of Gateway. of it, nor was the Applicant. Further, such a statement (even if made) is not a substitute for the legally required factual determination that the Gateway Project actually creates a need, at this time, for construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection. The only credible evidence presented on the subject of need was submitted by Applicant. It is the report of a qualified engineer, stating that the Gateway Project would contribute not more than five percent of the total traffic volume utilizing Palmer Way. There have been no facts submitted to the contrary Thus, the only facts in the record show that the Gateway Koll was not even aware project does - not create any need for the Palmer-Barber Connection. If there is a "need" it does not come from the Gateway Project. At least two of the Planning Commissioners, and members of staff, have referred to the City's need for, or time. Several references were made to the general desirability for a northerly extension of Palmer beyond the Gateway Project, at least to the Barber Connection, and that this would facilitate traffic circulation from sources vaguely referred to as lying "to the east." desire for, completion of the Palmer-Barber Connection at this Assuming that this is true, "City need" and "general desirability" do not justify imposing the condition upon the Gateway Project, without it having been established that the Gateway Project creates the need. In fact, it is established that the Gateway Project does not create the need. 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council Page Five March 1, 1985 The legal and fair course of action for the City to take is either (i) require those traffic generators "to the east" to pay for the Palmer-Barber Connection, or (ii) cause formation of an Assessment District in which all those who contribute to share fairly in the cost. the need and obtain benefit from the Palmer-Barber Connection The Palmer-Barber Condition will not meas,urably benefit traffic flow to and from the Gateway Project. The lack of causal connection to Gateway is also demonstrated by looking at the effect (or lack of effect) of the proposed improvements on the traffic flow to and from Gateway. One need not be a traffic engineer to realize that the entire dlesiqn of the Palmer-Barber Connection, contemplated by staff, will not measurably benefit the Gateway Project (whatever it may do for other parts of Carlsbad). Obviously, the mere extension of Palmer Way itself to the north of the project (without the Barber Connection) would accomplish nothing by way of access, since it is not connected to anything to the north. It would be like a freeway ramp ending in mid-air. No extension of Palmer should be constructed off-site unless it goes somewhere. The proposed hook-up is the "Barber Connection" to El Camino Real. But look closely at this. It is not necessary for the Gateway Project. Traffic coming to the south on El Camino Real will not be allowed to turn left at the Barber Connection (it is "right on, right off" from El Camino Real). Thus, in order to reach the Gateway Project, traffic will come south to Faraday, and then either (i) turn left and proceed to the Palmer frontage within the project, or (ii) make a U-turn and enter off El Camino Real. In either event, the "Barber Connection" contributes nothing to this. As far as traffic leaving the project, one path would obviously be the on-site Palmer frontage - to Faraday - to El Camino Real. There is also the additional easy access to El Camino Real from the front of the project, already approved by the City Council, involving the "right in, right out" driveway with acceleration and deceleration lanes. The expensive "Palmer-Barber Connection" is obviously not necessary, and only duplicates egress already available. B. The Proper Solution. The proper solution is to recognize that there is no valid connection between the Gateway Project and the City's need or desire for the Palmer-Barber deleted as a requirement with respect to the Gateway Project. Connection. Accordingly, the proposed condition shou.ld be 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Six That is not to say, however, that the City should not validly be concerned about how to accomplish the eventual construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection if the City truly believes it to be something which the City needs or will need. If that is the case, we believe that the Cit.y has the means at hand to accomplish that construction in a wa:y which is fair to all. The number of alternatives available to the City depends, in some part, upon a determination by the City as to whether (i) it is in the best interest of the City to let construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection wait until such time as the construction of "Palmer north" is required a.11 the way to College, or (ii) whether the City ought to accelerate the construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection to a sooner date, even a date in the near future. Construction concurrent with "Palmer north" to College. If the City determines to wait, then it still has two further alternatives. The Palmer-Barber Connection is now required as a condition of the Sycamore Creek project, and the City could just rely upon that. This would place the entire burden upon Mr. O'Hara's development, but would be within the City's rights, If the City believes, however, that it is not fair for this burden to be imposed totally upon the O'Hara project, the City could cause formation of an Assessment District. Such an Assessment District could either be for just the Palmer-Barber Connection, or perhaps more logically it should include all of Palmer Way from Faraday to College with the Barber Connection included. In any event, in accordance with established legal procedures, the City could work with a qualified Assessment District Engineer in order to determine the correct properties to be included within the district, and the appropriate method for apportioning the cost burden among them. The Applicant and Koll have stated that (depending upon which of them owns the property) they would commit now to participate in such a properly formed district which includes all benefited properties and fairly apportions the burden. Construction in the near future. If the City determines that the needs and desires of the City are best served by construction of the Palmer-Barber Connection in the immediate future, the City again may form an Assessment District for that purpose. Koll will commit that, if it is owner of the property in question, it will participate in such a properly formed district which includes all benefited properties, and properly 0 0 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council March 1, 1985 Page Seven apportions the cost burden among them. We understand that the Applicant would likewise so commit itself. We hope that you and the City Council understand that Koll values its relationship with the City of Carlsbad. We have no objection to paying our fair share of improvements which are justifiably required as a condition of development. We strongly believe that the proposed condition in question is not fair, and that it is not legally supportable. We thank you for your time and attention, and hope that you will understand and appreciate our point of view. Very truly yours, THE KOLL COMPANY Bernard E. Fipp, President, Southern Division !! LUS RDI CONSTRUCT10 P CO. KENNETH H. LOUNSBERY Vice President, General Counsel Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF CARLSRAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Gateway Center App1ica.n.t : Davis Developments Mayor and City Council Plembers: Approval of the Gateway project must be separated from the City’s long-term goal to complete Palmer Way. The Commission recommends approval of the Gateway project, subject to the condition that the developer immediately complete the off-site construction of Palmer Way and the Sarber connection. Alternativeiy , it is suggested that, prior to occupancy, the developer could form an assessment district to fully construct Palmer Way from the project to, and including, College Avenue. Either condition would create a dispute or result in abandonment of the project. The Gateway project will contribute less than 58 of the future traffic flow on Palmer Way. Thus, the completion of Palmer Way a.s the sole responsibility of this developer becomes an unreasonable burden. The developer is, however, prepared to immediately construct that portion of Palmer Way which abuts the project. Further, the developer will consent to join in a future assessment district to be formed by the City for the long-term completion of Palmer Way on the basis of a camprehensive area of benefit. Therefore, the applicant requests that the Gateway project be approved , as recommended, provided that the developer shall: 0 Immediately install frontage improvements on Palmer Way, and 0 Participate in a future assessment district to be formed by the City for the long-term completion of PaImer Way. The Applicant’s Statement provides background information and a more detailed explanation of the d.eveloper’s request. 1570 Linda Vista Drive l San Marcos, California 92069 l (619) 744-3; 33 State License No. 207287 0 0 . A PPJJICANT'S STATEMENT Date: March 1, 1985 Project: - Re: Review Date: Council Meeting of March 5, 1985; Agenda Item # 21 Landowner: Koll Co. (Seller) Applicant : Davis Developments (Buyer) Critical Issues : SDP 84-5 Carlsbad Gateway Center Continued Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1985 Palmer Way Off-Site Construction PRIOR MEETINGS January 23 Commission Meeting On January 23, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's project in the narrow context of specific direction from the City Council. The Council had directed that the project be afforded access from El Camino Real and, further, requested a recommendation from the Commission regarding a future improvement plan for Palmer Way. The applicant has consistently resisted the staff's recommendation that this project be burdened with the improvement of Palmer Way from the subject property to the "Barber connection." In an effort to reach a compromise between the staff's recommendation and the applicant's concern, the Commission indicated a willingness to consider an assessment district to accomplish the improvement. In the words of one Commissioner at the close of the discussion on January 23, the key to such a district would be the "fair and equitable distribution of assessments according to benefit". The matter was continued until February 14 to allow the applicant and staff to work out a proposed solution. Staff Meetings Pursuant to the applicantls request, Walter Brown and a Planning staff member met on February 1 with the applicant and other interested property owners. The discussion, however, revealed initial positions taken by the engineering department which were unsettling. They were: e 0 . o The Palmer !Say extension "will be built" now no matter what the applicant says. o The project "cannot" open until Palmer Way is completed to Barber, irrespective of the method or manner of improvement. o As an alternative to completing the extension to Barber, the staff would "allow" the applicant to participate in an assessment district to install Palmer Way from the Gateway project to College, including reconstruction of College Avenue, the Barber connection, rights of way, slope easements, severance costs, water, sewer, storm drain, street lights and administrative expenses. o The area of benefit for such a district would be limited to the O'Hara, Koll/Davis, Barber, Wrisley and Delorm properties. The staff would exclude anv other nonconsenting properties from the district irrespective of benefit to such properties. o o While the staff conceded that a formula for spreading benefit according to front footage improvements is fair, it would "remove" any engineer from the proceedings who suggested such an approach. o The project could not open until the improvements were completed. Not surprisingly, the applicant disagreed with the staff's concept of fairness and equity. An extended discussion followed and a certain amount of progress seemed to have been made toward compromise. The meeting ended with the understanding that the applicant would return with a draft of a new condition that would define the applicant's willingness to participate in an assessment district. On February 5, a second meeting took place. In the interest of compromise, the applicant presented a draft condition which would have formed an assessment district to install Palmer Way through the Barber connection. The compromise was quickly and summarily rejected. At that point, we had no alternative but to agree to disagree. -2- 0 0 . February 14 Meeting On February 14 the Planning Commission adopted the staff recommendation without change. There was limited discussion of the issue; two commissioners indicated total disinterest in hearing any further testimony from the applicant. Other commissioners prevailed and abbreviated statements were offered to supplement the written report submitted by the applicant. Briefly stated, the Commission's decision resulted in a two-part recommendation : Prior to occupancy. . . 1. The applicant should install off-site improvements on Palmer Way through the Barber connection, or 2. The applicant should form a two party assessment district and install improvements which would complete Palmer Way to and including College Avenue. IMPACT OF CONDITIONS The conditions recommended by the Commission amount to a de facto -- denial of the project. They are impossible for the applicant to achieve. The construction of Palmer Way to and including the Barber connection would require the applicant to obtain rights-of-way across the properties of three non-consenting landowners (Barber, Wrisley and Delorm). Each such owner is adamantly opposed to the construction of Palmer Way and would bow to nothing less than condemnation for the necessary right-of-way. Even if the applicant possessed the power of eminent domain, the off-site requirement would be an impossible burden to bear. The expense of constructing Palmer Way and the Barber connection, with appurtenant public improvements, is estimated to cost $400,000, without including the value of right-of-way, slope easements or severance damages. The alternative of forming and concluding a two party assessment district to install Palmer Way to and including College Avenue before occupancy is even more far-fetched. The above-described estimate will triple . -3 - 0 0 - The conditions suggested by the Commission are impossible for this, or any, applicant to meet. Simply stated, the Gateway project could never be built if the City were to impose such conditions. CONDITIONS NOT REASONABLE The need for the extension of Palmer Way, in the context of this project, has never been established. No factual information was supplied to the Commission to support the need for extending Palmer Way to serve the needs of the Gateway development. Two commissioners referred to the City's need for the completion of Palmer Way. Several references were made to the general need for the extension of Palmer Way. At no point, however, was it established that the Gateway project created such need. Indeed, the facts presented to the Commission established that less than 5% of the traffic expected to use Palmer Way would be generated by the Gateway complex. We attach the report of our traffic engineer which reiterates the point. (Exhibit A) The traffic engineer's report makes a second point. The traffic which will use Palmer Way is generated from at least six other major projects in the area. Stated differently, more than 95% of the traffic which is predicted to use Palmer Way will come from sources other than the Gateway project. Under the circumstances, it is unfair and unreasonable to expect the Gateway project to bear the burden of either condition suggested by the Commission. ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION The processing of the Gateway application has been expanded out of proportion to its significance. The project is a specifically permitted use in the M-Q zone. The applicant needed nothing more than a site plan review pursuant to the Q-overlay process. Everyone agreed that the project plan is exemplary; a much less acceptable form of development could have been proposed in the permissive M-Q zone. Originally, the staff was unqualifiedly supportive of the project in its initial recommendations. Consider: -4 - 6 a . o Attached is a copy of the original recommendation of approval by the Planning Department. It approves of access to El Camino Real; it does not require the extension of Palmer Way. Proposed conditions 34 1, m and n, were originally non-existent ; they were added later to require such extension. (Exhibit l3) The Traffic Engineer approved access to Ell Camino Red and did not suggest that Palmer Way would need to1 be extended; a copy o of the engineer's report is attached. (Exhilbit C) o The City Engineer reviewed and, in writing, approved the map for the project. The map showed access to El Camino Real and did not provide for the extension of Palmer Way. A copy of the map is attached, with the Engineer's comment. (Exhibit D) The conditions in question were first revealed to the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1984. At that point, they were discussed by the Commission in the context of another project which had been required to install improvements on Palmer Way at some time in the future. Since the first Commission meeting, the staff has abandoned its original position and has embraced the view that the improvement of Palmer Way is "necessary. '' The original staff position was a reasonable, rational approach to the requirement of off-site improvements. No facts were presented to suggest the need for extending Palmer Way and none have been presented to date. Accordingly, there was no hint of a requirement that Palmer Way would have to be extended. The staff merely required Gateway to install full frontage improvements on Palmer Way ... a condition with which the applicant has always agreed. The staff's original position was justifiable and should be adopted by the Council. PALMER WAY: LONG TERM Separate Issues This project cannot, by itself, or even with the help of a few More others, solve the long term traffic circulation problems of the area. -5 - 0 @ . to the point, this project cannot anticipate and be expected to meet the traffic demands created by future neighboring projelcts. The approval of the Gateway project, on the one hand, and the long term plan for the installation of Palmer Way to meet the City's general traffic needs, on the other, are distinct issues and must not be artificially linked. The method of completing the construction of Palmer Way must be separated from the consideration of this project which has so little bearing upon the future need for Palmer Way. That is not to say that Gateway should not be a contributor to a long-term solution, provided the contribution is reasonable. Toward that end, Gateway can be reasonably required to install that portion of Palmer Way which abuts the site. Rut, the comprehensive, long-term solution of future traffic problems cannot be confused with the approval of this project. Assessment District The eventual completion of Palmer Way as a through street is an issue which transcends the Gateway project. Thus, any condition which requires this applicant to successfully form and complete an assessment district for the construction of Palmer Way from Gateway to College Avenue is more than Gateway can deliver. In fact, it is more than any single development could deliver, including O'Hara's Sycamore Creek Industrial Park project to the north of the subject site. There is, however, the seed for a solution in the recommendation by the Commission regarding the formation of an assessment district. It is possible for Gateway to join other benefitting property owners in an assessment district that could be formed by the City to accomplish the full installation of Palmer Way. Gateway is prepared to join such a district although it would deserve a credit for any portion of Palmer Way for which it had previously paid. We also believe that, if the City formed the district, the O'Hara properties could be included by property owner consent. The inclusion of other benefitting properties would create a district which would promise the completion of a comprehensive public improvement. -6 - e e a No property owner, O'Hara, Gateway, or any other benefitting land owner, should bear more than its fair share of any such improvement. That is the essence of the assessment district process. Those landowners who benefit from an improvement should pay their fair share, but no more. Gateway is prepared to consent to its participation in a comprehensive assessment district formed by the City which includes all benefitting properties. We are advised that the Sycamore Creek Industrial Park would similarlv join in such a district, provided that the district were offered as an alternative to any mandate to install Palmer Way in its entirety. Such a requirement would be acceptable to both the Gateway and O'Hara projects if it were added as a condition of approval of each project. The Council sought a method of completing the installation of Palmer Way. The consent by Gateway to join in an area-wide district provides the promise for such a long term traffic solution. An assessment district which includes all benefitting properties is a reasonable answer to the Council's request for a solution. Prior to the formation of such a District, Gateway is prepared to immediately contribute toward its success by installing frontage improvements on Palmer Way. Upon such installation, however, occupancy of the development should be unimpaired. While Gateway is willing to consent to its inclusion in the long term commitment to complete Palmer Way, the accomplishment of the long term goal should not be a condition of completing this project. CONCLUSION The applicant requests that the Gateway project be approved, subject to those conditions previously recommended by the Planning Commission; provided, however, conditions 34 l), m) and n) be deleted and condition #2 suggested by the Commission at its February 14 meeting be rejected. In the place of said conditions, it is requested that the following condition, identified as #42, be added: 42) Developer shall consent to its inclusion in any assessment district formed by the City to include all benefitting property -7- 0 @ - owners for the purpose of completing the installation of Palmer Way from the southerly boundary of the project to and including certain portions of College Avenue and El Camino Real; subject to the right of developer to receive a credit for the cost of any portion of Palmer Way installed by developer prior to the formation of such district. Carlsbad Gateway Project -8- @ tRAFFlC ENGINEERING . erman CON SU LTA NTS immel and Associates, Incm 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 180. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 (71 4)%+&3&k 8 5 2-8 6 16 February 26, 1985 01 Davis Developments 2810 Camino Del Rio South Suite 202 San Diego, Ca. 92108 Attention Mr. Fred Walters Palmer Road Extension City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Walters: At the request of Terry Lutz, of Williamson & Schmid, we have analyzed the impact of traffic generation from Gateway Center to Palmer Road. Our analysis is based on the extension of Palmer Road, between College Boulevard and Faraday Road, with the Barber connection to El Camino Real. The traffic volumes projected consider full development and occupancy of presently proposed projects in the area, and right turn only movements at El Camino Real to and from the Barber connection. With the completion and occupancy of Faraday Business Park, County Business Park, Palomar Tech Center, Impala Center, City there would be a total average daily, two-way traffic volume Of between 8,000 and 8,200 vehicles using the connection of Palmer Road between Faraday Road and ?he Barber connection. Of the 8,O to 8,200 vehicles using this connection, with the conditions ind cated, about 350 to 380 would be traffic generated by Gateway Center, or only about 4% to 5% of the total average daily volume If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact us. of Carlsbad Operation Center, Sycamore Creek and Gateway Center, Sincerely yours, HERMAN KIMMEL & ASSOC., INC. EXHIBIT A CATION SUBMITTAL e APW JUL, 24, 1984 - @ STAFF REPORT DATE : October 10, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: SDP 84-5 - CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER - Request for approval of a site development plan 'to allow construction of a mixed-use industrial/office complex on a 16.5 acre site on the east side of El Camino Real, north of the Cablevision building. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolution No. 2364 APPROVING SDP 84-5 based on the mngs and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the development of a previously graded 16.5 acre site into a mixed-use industrial/office complex. The site is located on the east side of El Camino Real (between El Camino Real and Palmer Way), north of the Cablevision building. The site slopes moderately down to the north. Surrounding property to the north is vacant. The recently constructed Palomar Tech Industrial Park exists across Palmer Way, to the east, construction to the south, and Koll's Carlsbad Research Center i located across El Camino Real to the west. The site fronts on two public roadways, El Camino Real to the west and Palmer Way to the east. Palmer Way functions as a frontage road for El Camino Real and will eventually provide a link between Faraday Avenue and College Boulevard. The project proposes one 2-story, 50,000 square foot office building, one 1-story 38,000 square foot limited commercial building, and seven 1-story multi-tenant industrial buildings. 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Is the proposed project consistent with the M-Q zone The Faraday Business Park Industrial buildings are under standards? Is it compatible with surrounding existing and future uses? EXHIBIT B a1 e . I 2) Does the project meet the "El Camino Real Corridor" standards? 3) Is the project's circulation adequate and safe? 4) Are some limited commercial uses appropriate for the site? Discussion The subject property is zoned M-Q (industrial-qualified overlay). Due to the extremely lenient requirements of the M-zone, the City has avoided utilizing this zolne as much as possible over the past several years. It contains no setback or other design criteria, or performance standards. The subject site is one of the few M-zoned properties remaining in the City. Q-Overlay zoning does, however, require Planning Commission review of the site plan. As shown on Exhibits "A" and IIB", the project incorporates an attractive entry statement (with landscape median and enriched paving) for the El Camino Real access. The two-story office building along this frontage is set back from the roadway and will appear unique and attractive. On-site parking spaces provided are well in excess of the number required by code. While the developer feels that this number of spaces is important to the success of the project, this aspect results in a project that is generally dominated by asphalt parking lots. Pedestrian circulation and overall aesthetics are severely compromised due to this factor. Since the property has frontage on El Camino Real, its development is subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The project design meets these standards except for the setback requirement for parking areas. In the southwest corner of the site, parking spaces encroach about 7 feet into the required 25- foot (completely landscaped) parking setback from El Camino Real. Through the modification of several on-site regular size spaces to compact size spaces, this area of the project can be redesigned to comply with the standard. Approximately 17 spaces must be eliminated, however, adjacent to a deceleration lane along the El Carnino Real frontage, to comply with this setback requirement. The City Engineer has indicated that acceleration and deceleration lanes are necessary for the safety of motorists travelling El Camino Real and has included a condition requiring their construction (as shown on Exhibit "Y"). These lanes would push the right-of-way line (and 25-foot landscape setback) into the project up bo 12 feet and result in the elimination of approximately 17 parking spaces. The developer opposes the conditions requiring the lanes and the elimination of parking. - 2- e m . v El Camino Real is a prime arterial in the City's circulation system. As such, access to it is severely restricted. Access is encouraged along frontage roads such as Palmer Way. The City Engineer has indicated that his office could support a right- in/right-out access to El Camino Real on this site on the condition that acceleration and deceleration lanes are provided, and that the two Palmer Way accesses are designed as wide, the resulting plan makes an adequate attempt at maximizing the two Palmer Way entries and minimizing the El Camino Real entry, while keeping the El Camino Real streetscape attractive and safe. Overall, on-site circulation is functional and adequate. attractive entry alternatives. Staff feels that, as conditioned, ! The attached resolution includes a condition that the developer improve Palmer Way "to full-width industrial street standards from its existing northerly terminus to the northerly line of the project". The developer disputes the need for this length of roadway, and proposes to improve the roadway only up to the northerly entrance to the subject project, and to bond for the remainder (to the northerly property line). He feels the nothern portion will remain unused and will result in a maintenance problem. Staff prefers its construction up-front because of the difficulty in calling the bond once the project is complete, and the fact that it is anticipated to be only a short time until thc link to College Boulevard is completed. As shown on Exhibit "A", the developer is proposing that the large 34,000 square foot building along El Camino Real (Building B) be permitted to consider limited commercial uses. Staff concerns about the visual impact of a commercial building, excessive traffic attracted to the site by commercial uses, and the compatibility of such uses, may be alleviated by the adoptior of a very restrictive list of allowable uses. Although the site is zoned M-Q, many issues allowed in the M-zone would not be compatible and could be detrimental to the existing and future uses in this area. Staff could support the commercial uses listed on attached Exhibit "X". Such user-types exclude normal retail uses and allow only commercial businesses that would cate directly to persons or businesses in the surrounding planned industrial area. Conditional uses could also be allowed as provided in this exhibit. It is recommended that this exhibit b adopted as part of the approving resolution. Staff concludes that this project meets the standards of the M-Q zone, is of lesser quality design but generally compatible with surrounding properties and, as conditioned, meets City requirements. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on September 18, 1984. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 p 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 6 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e . 11) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy ai thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 12) A uniform sign program for this development shall be SUI to the Land Use Planning Manager for his review and app prior to occupancy of any building. As part of said prc no free standing signs shall be allowed along El Camino 13) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Lo of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Use P Manager. 14) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, sha architecturally integrated and shielded from view and t sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, pu to Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfac the Land Use Planning Manager and Building and Planning Director . 15) Project entryways and landscape areas shall be designed identified on Exhibit "A", dated August 24, 1984. The along El Camino Real shall be redesigned to include a rr 25-foot landscape area from right-of-way line (includin revised right-of-way line to accommodate acceleration/d eration lanes) to parking area along this entire fronta subject to the approval. of the Land Use Planning Manage This redesign will include the deletion of 17 parking I adjacent to the deceleration lane. All other setbacks be maintained as shown on this exhibit. 16) Uses allowed in "Building B" shall be restricted to thc and conditional uses identified in Exhibit "X", dated C 10, 1984, attached to this resolution. A note to this shall be placed on the approved site development plan E subsequent building plans. 17) All aspects of the "El Camino Real Corridor Standards", they pertain to this site, shall be complied with in ti entirety. Engineering Conditions: 18) The developer shall agree to participate in the format: and shall participate in an assessment or other distric may be satisfactory to the City of Carlsbad Council to the design and construction of improvements for the sal sewer facilities serving the AH27 Basin as shown on thc "Interceptor and Trunk Sewer System Master Map," dated 1984, which is on file in the Office of the City Enginf Other areas as the City Engineer may determine necessai desirable may be included in any such district. //// //// PC RES0 NO. 2364 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 * 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a e . 19) Ptetreatment of the sanitary sewet discharge from this may be required. In addition to the requirements for a connection permit the developer shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal The developer shall apply for an industrial waste disch permit concurrently with the building permit for this p No Certificates of Occupancy for the project will be is before the industrial waste discharge permit applicatio requirements have been met, all applicable fees paid 'an permit issued. 20) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to th commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. 21) The grading for this project is defined as "controlled ing" by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Grading shall be performed under the observation of a c engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinate inspection and testing to insure compliance of the work the approved grading plan, submit required reports to t Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of tl- Carlsbad Municipal Code. 22) Upon completion of grading, the developer shall insure "as-graded" geologic plan shall be submitted to the Cit Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology exposed by the grading operation, all geologic correcti measures as actually constructed and must be based on t tour map which represents both the pre and post site gr This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer z or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent i 23) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the projec unless a letter of permission is obtained from the own€ the affected properties. engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on i 24) A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approvec separate grading permit issued for the borrow or dispo: if located within the city limits. 25) All slopes within this project shall be no steeper thai The off-site slope laying to the east of this project I be graded so as to provide a 2:l slope for its entire t adjacent to this project or the improvements required I these conditions. 26) Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any shall submit to and receive approval from the City Eng for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comp all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may with regards to the hauling operation. proposed construction site within this project the devl PC RES0 NO. 2364 -5- I 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 0 . 27) The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off-si siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/deter basins of type, size and location as approved by the Cit Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prj the start of any other qrading operations. Prior to thf served shall be protected by additional drainaqe facilit slope erosion control measures and other methods requirf approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall mair the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guai their maintenance and satisfactory performance through t deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to thc Engineer. 28) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures s removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the i provided or installed as may be required by the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the City neer. 29) The developer shall pay the current local drainage area prior to approval of the final map or shall construct d age systems in conformance with the Master Drainage Pla City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engi 30) The owner of the subject property shall execute a hold harmless agreement regarding drainage across the adjace property prior to approval of building permits. 31) The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that ru resulting from a 10-year frequency storm of 6 hours or hours duration under developed conditions, is equal to than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 h 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the results. Alternate methods of meeting this condition 1 are satisfactory to the City Engineer may be used. No solution that includes creation of a backwater in the upstream, off-site, storm drain will be allowed. The developer shall grant an easement to the City allowing continued discharge of storm waters throuqh the privatc drain system within the project. The storm drain systc this project shall remain private and shall be maintail the owner of the project. 32) Land for all public streets and easements shown on the plan shall be dedicated on the final map and shall be granted to city free and clear of all liens and encum- brances. PC RES0 NO. 2364 -6- 1 3 q2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 6 0 e . 33) The developer shall record an easement securing the righ unrestricted access for the property adjacent to the southerly line of the project that fronts on El Camino R The form and content of the easement deed shall be to th certified copy provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The access easement shal no less than 24 feet wide and shall include access from Palmer Way and El Camino Real via the right in/out drive permitted by this project. 34) Improvements listed in this section shall be installed c agreed to be installed by secured agreement by the devel before the issuance of any building permit. The develoF shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Enginee pay all associated fees and performance guarantees prior issuance of any building permit. The developer shall ir said improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engine prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or OCCUE of any portion of the project for any purpose. The improvements are: satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be recorded a) Palmer Way to full width industrial street standard: its existing northerly terminus to the northerly lir the project. This i cludes securing the right-of-w: b) A temporary turn-around, barricade and warning sign: the northerly temporary terminus of Palmer Way. Thf temporary turn-around shall be as per City Standard: drawing GS-5 except that the street width and bulb I shall be as for an industrial street. c) Sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (which lay! approximately 155 feet easterly of the intersection Palmer Way and Impala Drive) thence to the interseci of Palmer Way and Impala Drive thence to the northe: line of the project. Manholes constructed under th item shall have appropriate stubs for future connec The developer shall commission a sewer basin study sufficient in detail and to the satisfaction of the facilities required by these conditions. d) Sanitary sewer pump station sized to meet the requirements of sub-item (c) above. e) El Camino Real to one-half width prime arterial str 7 this street. 735 &-e& ~Z/---yA&~. Engineer to ascertain the size of sanitary sewer 25 26 27 28 f) Additional street lights on El Camino Real 9) Street lights on Palmer Way h) All public'improvements shown on the site plan i) Remove and replace the sidewalk adjacent to the cur inlet located approximately 235 feet northerly of t southwesterly corner of the project. It is anticip that approximately 50 square feet of sidewalk must replaced. j) Removal and replacement of all public facilities da during the course of constructing this project PC RES0 NO. 2364 -7- * 1 5 6 7 a @ $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 0 0 . k) Acceleration and deceleration lanes for the drivewai Camino Real. The lanes shall be no less than 100 ff long, the acceleration taper shall be no less than : feet long and the deceleration taper shall be no le: 50 feet long. Except for taper lanes, the lanes shi no less than 12 feet wide. 35) Approval of this project (SDP 84-5) is granted subject City Waiver of "Access Right Relinquishment", that was 1 on the project by Parcel Map No. 10060. (Said relinqui: surrendered access rights to Carlsbad Boulevard along tl project frontage). This condition shall in no way bind City to waive the, "Access Right Relinquishment", or to prepare and record any document to that end. No buildi permit for this project shall be issued until the waive procedure is complete and a quitclaim deed to effect it Right Relinquishment", this approval will no longer be 36) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulati design requirements of the respective sewer and water a regarding services to the project. recorded. If the City chooses not to waive the, nAcces 37) The design of all private streets and drainage systems be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of t final map. The structural section of all private stree shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R- tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall inspected by the city, and the standard improvement pla and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of building permits. 38) All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked veh Away Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Muni Code. 39) All plans, specifications, and supporting documents for improvements of this project shall be signed and sealed Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each sheet 'be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may t signed and sealed on their first page. Additionally tk sheet of each set of plans shall have the following certificate: at all times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire La "DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE" I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for thl project, that I have exercised responsible charge over design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of tht Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards. //// PC RES0 NO. 2364 -0- ,e . ,. c, 'e t- \' ; . September 20, 1984 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE The Developer of this project has requested a variance from City Design Standards. In accordance with Section 18 of the Street Des4gn Criteria of the City Standards, the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative act to grant variances to the City Standards provided the following findings can be met: 1. That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions applicable to the situation of surrounding, property necessitating a variance of the Standards. 2. That the granting af such variance will not cause sub- 3. That the granting of such variance will not conflict stantial drainage problems. with .existing or future traffic and parking demands or pedestrian or bicycle use. 4. That the granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the variance is granted. affect the comprehsneive general plan. 5. That the granting of such variance will not adversely City staff has reviewed the variance request and is making the recommendation that follows in this memorandum. 1. Location: El Camino Real along the Project Request : Allow access to the project from b6 frontage. E1 Camino Real in contravention of City of Carlsbad Street Design Criteria Access to be as shown on the site plan. Reason: The Developer feels that the five findings for approvals can be made and that the driveways are necessary for the economic viability of the project. Staff Recoiiiiiienda ti on: Approve EXHIBIT C - 4 e - e (; e Ly Page two TO : PLANNING COMMISSION 'September 20, 1984 FROM: City Engineer CARLSBAD GATEWAY CENTER, SDP 84-5 REQUEST FOR STANDARD VARIANCE Exp7anation 1. Extraordinary circumstances at the location are occasioned ..by the anticipated heavy right turn movement from the south which is destined for the complex during the morning hours when people are going to work. It would be better to accommodate such movement directly into the complex via a deceleration lane and angled right turn, than to mix it with left turns and through movements at a nearby major inter- section. The same holds true for evening home-bound traffic leaving the complex and going north. Obviously, there must never be consideration given for left turn.access or egress at the location. 2. No drainage problems. 3. It will better accommodate future traffic, enhance the ability to park expeditiously, and have no effect on pedestrians or bicycles. 4. Not detrimental to the public welfare nor have any effect on property in the vicinity. on the comprehensive general plan. / & W - Marty Bouman WB IMB : njc Traffic Engineer a Q + b March 5, 1985 Mayor Mary Casler and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 It is clear that Mr. Delorm's property is too small to support the cost sf the In fairness, the following suggestions regarding formatiori ef the Assessment Dir shod d be fol1 owed: 1) 2) Spread Engineer should create as large a district as he can recomrilend. 3) All firture developments included in the Assessment District shol;ld be required to participate. fi) Existing projects should be included in the Assessmeqt District to tbe that they can be forced to participate. 5) In determining the cost-spread, Spread Engineer should not assume that Delorm or Wrisley or Barber's property would be required to pay fcr this road a condition to development. The condition on O'Hara's project that he contirrue and improve the "A" $11 the way to palmer Way and to make the "T" connection at El Carnino Real shoa deleted, and in lieu thereof that O'Hara's project be requSred to participate i Assessment District. Delorm, Wrisley and Barber should be compensated out of Assessment Disi funds for right of way, including severence damages, if any. 6) 7) 8) The Gateway Project be required to participate ir, the Assessment Distr Gateway Project and O'Hara Project should be required to pay the up fr costs to finance the Assessment District. Sincerely yours, &LfL-- L' Bebe Grosse /dd e Q a > 3 * - NOTES CONCERNING CARLSBlD GATEWAY C€NT€R -- 1. traffic Generation: Per SANDAG - Comnercial Included/Business Park 16 per 1,000 sq. ft. Site: 225,000 sq. ft. 16 x 225 = 3,600 daily trips 2. Traffic Distribution from Site: Assumption - Palmar is primary access with two access points. El Camino Real is secondary access with one access point. Primary access (Palmer) = 80% of 3,600 = 2,900 Secondary access (ECR) = 20% of 3,600 = 700 3. Palmer Traffic Distribution - 70% North, 30% South 4. Palmer Traffic Impact from Site: North = .70 x 2,900 = 2,030* South = .30 x 2,900 = 870 * A look at the circulation element shows that a substantial amount of the site traffic to and from the west and south is likely to utilize Palmer and College (College Boulevard ultimately provides an outstanding southwest/northeast "shortcut" - serving both 1-5 and State 78). 31 51 85 Marty Bouman