HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-09; La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center; Tentative Map (CT) (5)City of Carlsbad
Public Works — Engineering
August 26, 1998
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division
Building 105
Presidio of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94129-1250
DELINEATION OF FLOODWAY FOR SAN MARCOS CREEK
In accordance with FEMA procedures, please find enclosed an application requesting a FEMA
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) relative to the proposed redevelopment of La
Costa Plaza, located in the City of Carlsbad, adjacent to San Marcos Creek. On the basis of
federal and local regulations, the proposed project must be located outside the floodway of San
Marcos Creek, which is not yet delineated.
The information contained in this application delineates the floodway of San Marcos Creek so
that the proposed project may be implemented. The following items are included with this
application:
Form 1, Revision Requestor and Community Official Form
Form 2, Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Form
Form 4, Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form
Form 5, Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form
Form 7, Bridge/Culvert Form
Hydraulic Study for FEMA CLOMR for San Marcos Creek, dated December, 1997
If you have question or need additional information regarding this application, please contact
Kenneth Quon of our office/jat (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. Thank you for your prompt
attention to this matter.
-OYO B.
Public Wocfc6 Director
c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Kepneth Quon, Associate Engineer
v<feff Gibson, Associate Planner
Margaret Purviance, O"Day Consultants
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 431-5769
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANOTEMENT AGENCY
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
O.M.B. BurdenTW3067-0148 \ FEMA USE ONLY
Expires July 31. 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.13 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-
0148), Washington. DC 20503.
1. OVERVIEW
1. The basis for this revision request is (are): (check all that apply)
0 Physical change
0 Existing
0 Proposed
Q Improved methodology
Q Improved data
D Floodway revision
fj Other To delineate the floodway
Explain,Floodway is not yet delineated
2. Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek
3. Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad
4. FEMA zone designations affected: A
(example: A, AH, AO, A1-A30, A99, AE, V, Vl-30, VE, B, C, D, X)
5. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are):
Community
No.
Community
Name
EX: 480301 Katy.City
480287 Harris County
06073C City of Carlsbad
County State
Harris, Fort Bend TX
Harris TX
San Diego CA
Map
No.
480301
48201C
06073C
Panel Effective
No. Date
0005D 02/08/83
0220G 09/28/90
1034 June 1997
6. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding, structures, and associated disciplines: (check allthat apply)
Types of Flooding Structures Disciplines*
13 Riverine
D Coastal
D Alluvial Fan
D Shallow Flooding (e.g. Zones AO and AH)
D Lakes
Affected by
wind/wave action
D Yes
El No
Olher(describe)_
D Channelization
D Levee/Floodwall
0 Bridge/Culvert
D Dam
D Coastal
D Fill
D Pump Station
D None
D Channel Relocation
D Excavation
D Other (describe)
0 Water Resources
D Hydrology
L53 Hydraulics
D Sediment Transport
O Interior Drainage
D Structural
D Geotechnical
D Land Surveying
D Other (describe)
^~* *-'ullcl VUCOV.1. IV/^J
* Attach completed "Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor" Form for
each discipline checked. (Form 2)
2. FLOODWAY INFORMATION
7.
8.
Does
Does
If yes
the affected flooding source have a floodway designated
the revised floodway delineation differ from that shown
. give reason:
on
on
the effective
the effective
FIRM
FIRM
or
or
KBPM?
FBFM
D
0
Yt-s
Yes
QD
No
No
FEMA, Form 81-69. OCT 94 Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form!Page 1 of 4
Attach copy of either a public notice distributed by the community stating the community's intent to revise the
floodway or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent
jurisdictions.
9 Does the State have jurisdiction over the floodway or its adoption by communities participating in the NFIP?
D Yes 0 No
If yes, attach a copy of a letter notifying the appropriate State agency of the floodway revision and documentation of the
approval of the revised floodway by the appropriate State agency.
3. PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS
10. With flood ways:
1 A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development
in the floodway? D Yes 0 No
IB. If yes, does the development cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more
than 0.000 feet? D Yes rj No
11. Without flood ways:
2A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development in
the 100-year floodplain? [3 Yes D No
2B. If yes, does the cumulative effect of all development that has occurred since the effective SFH A was
originally identified cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more than
one foot (or other surcharge limit if community or state has adopted more stringent criteria)? Q Yes 0No
If the answer to either Items IB or 2B is yes, please pro vide documentation that all requirements of Section 65.12 of the
NFIP regulations have been met, regarding evaluation of alternatives, notice to individual legal property owners,
concurrence of CEO, and certification that no insurable structures are impacted.
4. REVISION REQUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT
12. Having read NFIP Regulations, 44 CFR Ch. I, parts 59,60, 61, and 72,1 believe that the proposed revision 0 is
D is not in compliance with the requirements of the aforementioned NFIP Regulations. -
5. COMMUNITY OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
13. Was this revision request reviewed by the community for compliance with the community's adopted floodplain
management ordinances? H3 Yes D No
14. Does this revision request have the endorsement of the community? KI Yes D No
If no to either of the above questions, please explain:
Please note that community acknowledgment and /or notification is required for all requests as outlined in Section 65.4
(b) of the NFIP Regulations.
6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
15. Does the physical change involve a flood control structure (e.g., levees, floodwalls, channelization, basins, dams)?
DYes Q No
If yes, please provide the following information for each of the new flood control structures:
A. Inspection of the flood control project will be conducted periodically by
entity
_with a maximum interval of months between inspections.
B. Based on the results of scheduled periodic inspections, appropriate maintenance of the flood control facilities
will be conducted by
(entity)
to ensure the integrity and degree of flood protection of the structure.
C. A formal plan of operation, including documentation of the flood warning system, specific actions and
assignments of responsibility by individual name or title, and provisions for testing the plan at intervals
not less than one year, D has D has not been prepared for the flood control structure.
Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 2 of 4
D. The community is willing to assume responsibility for D performing
maintenance and operation plans of the
overseeing compliance with the
(Name)
flood control structure. If not performed promptly by an owner other than the community, the community
will provide the necessary services without cost to the Federal government.
Attach operation and maintenance plans
7. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA
16. After examining the pertinent NFIP regulations and reviewing the document entitled "Appeals, Revisions, and
Amendments to Flood Insurance Maps: A guide for Community Officials," dated January 1990, this request is for
a:
CLOMR
b. LOMR
c.PMR
d. Other:
A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would
justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed hydrology changes (see 44 CFR Ch.I,
Parts 60, 65, and 72).
A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodpluins,
flood ways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typically depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR
Ch.I Parts 60 and 65.)
A reprinted NFIP map incorporating changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations.
Because of the time and cost involved to change, reprint, and redistribute an NFIP map, a
PMR is usually processed when a revision reflects increased flood hazards or large-scope
changes. (See 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60 and 65.)
Describe
8. FORMS INCLUDED
17. Form 2 entitled, "Certification By Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor" must be submitted.
The following forms should be included with this request if (check the included forms):
Hydrologic analysis for flooding source differs from that
used to develop FIRM
Hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that
used to develop FIRM
The request is based on updated topographic
information or a revised floodplain or flood way
delineation is requested
The request involves any type of channel modification
The request involves new bridge or culvert or revised
analysis of an existing bridge or culvert
The request involves a new revised levee/floodwall
system
The request involves analysis of coastal flooding
The request involves coastal structures credited as
providing protection from the 100-year flood
The request involves an existing, proposed, or modified
dam
The request involves structures credited as providing
protection from the 100-year flood on an alluvial fan
D Hydrologic Analysis Form
(Form 3)
13 Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form
(Form 4)
IS Riverine /Coastal Mapping Form
(Form 5)
n Channelization Form (Form 6)
Ef Bridge/Culvert Form
(Form 7)
D Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Form
(Form 8)
D Coastal Analysis Form (Form 9)
fj Coastal Structures (Form 10)
D Dam Form (Form 11)
D Alluvial Fan Flooding Form
(Form 12)
Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 3 of 4
9. INITIAL REVIEW FEE
1 8. The minimum initial review fee for the appropriate request category has been included. D Yes E3 No
Initial fee amount: $
Check or money order only. Make check or money order payable to : National Flood Insurance Program. If
paying by Visa or Mastercard please refer to the credit card information form which follows this form.
or
19. This request is for a project that is for public benefit and is primarily intended for flood loss reduction to insurable
structures in identified flood hazard areas which were in existence prior to the commencement of construction of
the flood control project. D Yes fj No
or
20. This request is to correct map errors, to include the effects of natural changes within the areas of special flood
hazard, or solely to provide more detailed data. D Yes D No
Note: I understand that my signature indicates that all
information submitted in support of this request is
correct.
1^4>>-^UN CL-V^--V"~' "Jr
Signature of Revision Requester
Printed Name and Title of Revision Requester
Company Nfime
Telephone No. y Date
f
)
Note: Signature indicates that the community
understands, from the revision requester, the
impacts of the revision on flooding conditions
in the community. /
' jyqnatur&of Community Official
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Printed Name and Title of Community Official
Citv of Carlsbad
Community Name
3/2~k/^8/
1 / Date
Does this request impact any other communities? D Yes Efl No
If yes, attach letters from all affected jurisdictions acknowledging revision request and approving changes to flood way,
if applicable.
Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required, it may be helpful for FEMA's review.
Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 4 of 4
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MA^BEMENT AGENCY
CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR FORM
O.M.8. Burdemto. 3067-0148
Expires July 31, 1997
FEMA USE ONLY
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average . 23 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503.
1. This certification is in accordance with 44 CFR Ch. I, Section 65.2
2. 1 am licensed with an expertise in hydraulics
[example: water resources (hydrology, hydraulics, sediment transport, interior drainage)* structural,
geotechnical, land surveying.]
3. I have 31 years experience in the expertise listed above.
4. I have 0 prepared O reviewed the attached supporting data and analyses related to my expertise.
5. I Shave D have not visited and physically viewed the project.
6. In my opinion, the following analyses and /or designs, is/are being certified:
hydraulic study for CLOMR
7. Base upon the following review, the modifications in place have been constructed in general accordance with plans
and specifications.
Basis for above statement: (check all that apply)
a. CD Viewed all phases of actual construction.
b. n Compared plans and specifications with as-built survey information.
c. d Examined plans and specifications and compared with completed projects.
d. D Other •
8. All information submitted in support of this request is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any
false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001.
Name:Howard H. Chang
(please print or type)
Title:Consultant in hydraulics
Registration No. C22,649
State California
(please print or type)
Expiration Date: December 31, 2001
Type of License
I "
Civil
Signatu
June 15, 1998
Date
*Specify Subdiscipline
Note: Insert not applicable (N/A) when statement does not apply.
Seal(Optional)
FEMA Form 81-89A. OCT 94 Certification by Registered Professional
Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Form MT-2 Form 2
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
O.M.8. Burden No. 3067-0148
Expires July 31. 1997
FEMA USE ONLY
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.25 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-
0148), Washington, DC 20503.
Community Name:Carlsbad
Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek
(One form for each flooding source)
Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad
1. REACH TO BE REVISED
Downstream limit: El Camino Real Bridge at River Mile 2.55
Upstream limit: River Mile 2.93
2. EFFECTIVE FIS
LU Not studied
L"H Studied by approximate methods
Downstream limit of study
Upstream limit of study
D3 Studied by detailed methods
Downstream limit of study River Mouth at Mile 0
Upstream limit of study.
1—' Floodway delineated
River Mile 15.45
Downstream limit of Floodway _
Upstream limit of Floodway
3. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Why is the hydraulic analysis different from that used to develop the
D Not studied in FIS
LJ Improved hvdrologic data/analysis. Explain:
FIRM. (Check all that apply)
[3 Improved hydraulic analysis. Explain, new bridge at
improvement, proposed development
El Camino Real, channel
Q Flood control structure. Explain:
D Other. Explain:
FEMA Form 81-89C. OCT 94 Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 1 of 6
3. RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
Models Submitted
For areas which have detailed flooding:
Full input and output listings along with files on diskette (if available) for each of the models listed below (items 1, 2,3,
4, and 5) and summary of the source of input parameters used in the models must be provided. The summary must
include a complete description of any changes made from model to model (e.g. duplicate effective model to corrected
effective model) At a minimum, the Duplicate Effective (item 1) and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions (item 4)
models must be submitted. See instructions for directions on when other models may be required.
For areas which do not have detailed flooding:
Only the 100-year flood profile is required. A hydraulic model is not required for areas which do not have detailed
flooding; however, BFEs may not be added to the revised FIRM. If a hydraulic model is developed for the area, items 3
and 4 described below must he submitted.
If hydraulic models are not developed, hydraulic analyses for existing or pre-project conditions and revised or post-
project conditions must be submitted. All calculations must be submitted for these analyses. (See item 6 below)
1. Duplicate Effective Model
Copies of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS, referred to as the
effective models (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year multi-profile runs and the
floodway run) must be obtained and then reproduced on the requestor's
equipment to produce the duplicate effective model. This is required to
assure that the effective model input data has been transferred correctly to
the requestor's equipment and to assure that the revised data will be
integrated into the effective data to provide a continuous FIS model
upstream and downstream of the revised reach.
2. Corrected Effective Model
The corrected effective model is the model that corrects any errors that
occur in the duplicate effective model, adds any additional cross sections to
the duplicate effective model, or incorporates more detailed topographic
information than that used in the currently effective model. The corrected
effective model must not reflect any man-made physical changes since the
date of the effective model. An error could be a technical error in the
modeling procedures, or any construction in the fioodplain that occurred
prior to the date of the effective model but was not incorporated into the
effective model.
3. Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model
The duplicate effective or corrected model is modified to produce the
existing or pre-proiect conditions model to reflect any modifications that
have occurred within the fioodplain since the date of the effective model but
prior to the construction of the project for which the revision is being
requested. If no modification has occurred since the date of the effective
model, then this model would be identical to the corrected effective or
duplicate effective model.
4. Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model
The existing or pre-proiect conditions model (or duplicate effective or
corrected effective model, as appropriate) is revised to reflect revised or post-
project conditions. This model must incorporate any physical changes to
the fioodplain since the effective model was produced as well as the effects
of the project. When the request is for proposed project this model should
reflect proposed conditions.
5. Other: Please attach a sheet describing all other models submitted.
6. Hydraulic Analyses (Only if Hydraulic Models are not developed)
Please attach all calculations for the existing or pre-project conditions and
the revised or post-project conditions. Proceed to Form 5, "Riverine/Coastal
Mapping Form".
Natural Floodway
D
Natural
D
Floodway
D
Natural Floodway
D
Natural Floodway
Natural
D
Floodway
D
Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 2 of 6
4. MODEL PARAMETERS (from model used to revue 100-year water surface elevation)
1. Discharges: Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
10-year
50-year
100-year 12,000 cfs 12,000 cfs
500-year
Attach diagram showing changes in 100-year discharge
2. Explain how the starting water surface elevations were determined From the study for the
existing model
3. Give range of friction loss coefficients (Manning's "N") Channel 0.03 - 0 . 035
Overbanks 0.03 - 0.05
If friction loss coefficients are different anywhere along the revised reach from those used to develop the FIRM,
give location, value used in the effective FIS, and revised values and an explanation as to how the revised values
were determined.
Location FIS Revised
NA '
Explain:_
4. Describe how the cross section geometry data were determined (e.g., field survey, topographic map, taken from
previous study) and list cross sections that were added.
from topographic map
5. Were natural channel banks selected as the location of the left and right channel banks in the model?
Q Yes D No If no, explain why not:
Ritserine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2Foim4 Page 3 of 6
4. MODEL PARAMETERS (Cont'd)
6. Explain how reach lengths for channel and overbanks were determined:
Measured from topographic map
5. RESULTS (from model used to revise 100-year water surface elevations)
1. Do the resu 1 ts indicate:
a. Water surface elevations higher than end points of cross sections? KJ Yes L_' No
b. Supercritical depth? : D Yes SI No
c. Critical depth? '. 0, Yes D No
d. Other unique situations D Yes H No
If yes to any of the above, attach an explanation that discusses the situation and how it is presented on the
profiles, tables, and maps.
2. What is the maximum change in energy gradient between cross-sections?
Specify location
3. What is the distance between the cross-sections in 2 above?
4. What is the maximum distance between cross-sections? 220 ft
Specify location Sec 2.72
5. Floodway determination
a.What is the maximum surcharge allowed by the community or State? 1.0 foot
b. What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions? 0.8 foot
Specify location Sec 2.93
c. What is the maximum velocity? 13.5 fpS
Specify location Sec 2.59
d. Are there any negeative surcharge values at any cross-section? 0 Yes D No
If yes, the floodway may need to be widened. If it is not widened, please explain and indicate the maximum
negative surcharge.
Explain: Negative surcharge of -0.4 foot occurs at Sec 2.68.
The higher water surface elevation is used for the floodway.
Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 4 of 6
5. RESULTS (Cont'd)
6.
7.
Is the discharge value used to determine the floodway anywhere different from that used to determine the
natural 100-year flood elevations' |~1 Yes IY! No
If Yes, explain:
Do 100-year water surface elevations increase at any location? I— 1 Yes I—I No
If yes, please attach a list of the locations where the increases occur, state whether or not the increases are located
on the requestor's property, and provide an explanation of the reason for the increases. (For example: State if the
increase is due to fill placed within the floodway fringe or placed within the currently adopted floodway limits)
NA
Please attach a completed comparison table entitled: Water Surface Elevation Check (See page 6)
6. REVISED FIRM/FBFM AND FLOOD PROFILES
A. The revised water surface elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS Model (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-
year), downstream of the project at cross-section 2.55 within 0 feet (vertical) and upstream of
the project at cross section within feet (vertical).
B. The revised floodway elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS model, dowstream of the project at
cross section NA within feet (vertical) and upstream of the project at cross section
within feet (vertical).
C. Attach profiles, at the same vertical and horizontal scale as the profiles in the effective FIS report, showing
stream bed and profiles of all floods studied (without encroachment). Also, label all cross sections, road crossings
(including low chord and top-of-road data), culverts, tributaries, corporate limits, and study limits. If channel
distance has changed, the stationing should be revised for all profile sheets.
D. Attach a Floodway Data Table showing data for each cross section listed in the published Floodway Data Table in
the FIS report.
Proceed to Riverine /Coastal Mapping Form
Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page S of 6
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGMENT AGENCY
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHECK
COMMUNITY NAME
SECNO
EFFECTIVE
NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC'
DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE
NCWSEL1 FCWSELJ SURC.3
FLOODIND SOURCE
CORRECTED EFFECTIVE
NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC.'
EXISTING/PRE-
PROJECT NAME /IDENTIFIER
PROJECT
NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC3
REVISED/PROJECT
NCWSEL1 FCWSEL'SURC.3
COMMENTS:
1 -1 00-year (natural) Water Surface Elevation 2-Encroachment (floodway) Water Surface Elevation 3-Surcharge Value
Include all cross sections in the models between tie-in points. Any interpolated values should be indicated in parentheses.
Sheet of
MT-2 Form 4 Page 6 o'f 6
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
RIVERINE/COASTAL MAPPING FORM
O.M.B. Burden No. 3067-0148
Expires July 31, 1997
FEMA USE ONLY
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-
0148), Washington, DC 20503.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Carlsbad
Water from San Marcos Creek
Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad
1. MAPPING CHANGES
1. A topographic work map of suitable scale, contour interval, and planimetric definition must be submitted showing
(indicate N/A when not applicable):Included
2.
3.
4.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Revised approximate 100-year floodplain boundaries (Zone A) El Yes
Revised detailed 100- and 500-year floodplain boundaries Q Yes
Revised 100-year floodway boundaries [jjj Yes
Location and alignment of all cross sections used in the revised
hydraulic model with stationing control indicated 03 Yes
Stream alignments, road and dam alignments {Xj Yes
Current community boundaries S Yes
Effective 100- and 500-year floodplain and 100-year floodway
boundaries from the FIRM/FBFM reduced or enlarged to the
scale of the topographic work map D Yes
Tie-ins between the effective and revised 100- and 500-year
floodplains and 100-year floodway boundaries LJ Yes
The requestor's property boundaries and community easements C3 Yes
The signed certification of a registered professional engineer S Yes
Location and description of reference marks D Yes
Vertical datum (example: NGVD, NAVD etc.) S Yes
Coastal zone designations tie into adjacent areas not being revised D Yes
Location and alignment of all coastal transects used to revise the
coastal analyses D Yes
If any of the items above are marked no or N/A, please explain:
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
n NO
n NO
D No
O No
D No
59 No
w No
D No
D No
ffl No
CU No
IS No
D N/A
D N/A
D N/A
D 'N/An N/A
D N/A
LJ N/A
n N/An N/An N/An N/An N/A
D N/A
No D N/A
What is the source and date of the updated topographic information (example: orthophoto maps, July 1985; field
survey, May 1979, beach pro files, June 1987, etc.)? nrrhophoto map of 1991
What is the scale and contour interval of the following workmaps?
a. Effective FIS scale
scale 2 footb. Revision Request 1" = 100'
_Contour interval
Contour interval
NOTE: Revised topographic information must be of equal or greater detail.
Attach an annotated FIRM and FBP^M at the scale of the effective FIRM and FBFM showing the revised 100-year
and 500-year floodplains and the 100-year floodway boundaries and how they tie into those shown on the effective
FIRM and FBFM downstream and upstream of the revision or adjacent to the area of revision for coastal studies.
Attach additional pages if needed.
FEMA Form 81 -890. OCT 94 Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 FormS Page 1 of 3
1. MAPPING CHANGES (Cont'd)
5. Flood Boundaries and 100-year water surface elevations:
Has the 100-year floodplain been shifted or increased or the 100-year water surface elevation increased at any
location on property other than the requestor's or community's ? O Yes O No
If yes, please give the location of shift or increase and an explanation for the increase.
NA
a. Have the affected property owners been notified of this shift or increase and the effect it will have on their
property? ! D Yes Q No
If yes, please attach letters from these property owners stating they have no objections to the revised flood
boundaries if a LOMR is being requested.
b. What is the number of insurable structures that will be impacted by this shift or increase? • -
6. Have the flood way boundaries shifted or increased at any location compared to those shown on the effective
FBFM or FIRM? '. Q Yes Q No
If yes, explain:
NA
7. If a V- zone has been designated, has it been delineated to extend landward to the heel of the primary frontal
dune? D Yes D No
If no, explain:
NA
8. Manual or digital map submission:
03 Manual
D Digital
Digital map submissions may be used to update digital FIRMs (DFIRMs). For updating DFIRMs, these
submissions must be coordinated with FRM A Headquarters as far in advance of submission as possible.
Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 Form 5 Page 2 of 3
2. EARTH FILL PLACEMENT
1. The fill is: D Existing 53 Proposed
2. Has fill been/will be placed in the regulatory fioodway? D Yes S No
If yes, please attach completed Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form.
3. Has fill been/will be placed in floodway fringe (area between the fioodway
and 100-year floodplain boundaries)? 0 Yes d No
If yes, then complete A, B, C, and D below.
A. Are fill slopes for granular materials steeper than one vertical
on one-and-one-half horizontal? D Yes §3 No
If yes, justify steeper slopes
B. Is adequate erosion protection provided for fill slopes exposed to moving flood waters? (Slopes exposed to
flows with velocities ofup to 5 feet per second (fps) during the 100-year flood must, ata minimum, be
protected by a cover of grass, vines, weeds, or similar vegetation; slopes exposed to flows with velocities
greater than 5 fps during the 100-year flood must, at a minimum, be protected by stone or rock riprap.)
, 0 Yes D No
If no, describe erosion protection provided
C. Has all fill placed in revised 100-year floodplain been compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density
obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test Method or acceptable equivalent method? d Yes EJ No
D. Can structures conceivably be constructed on the fill at any time in the future? E Yes n No
If yes, provide certification of fill compaction (item C. above) by the community's NFIP permit official, a
registered professional engineer, or.an accredited soils engineer.
4. Has fill been/will be placed in a V-zone? D Yes D No
If yes, is the fill protected from erosion by a flood control structure such as a revetment or
seawall? tH Yes E No
If yes, attach the coastal structures form.
Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 Form 5 Page 3 of 3
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I O.M.B. Burden^T3067-0148 \ FEMA USE ONLY
BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM I Expires July 31. 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-
0148), Washington, DC 20503.
Community Name: Carlsbad
Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek
Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR f or San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad
1. IDENTIFIER
1. Name of roadway, railroad, etc.: El Camino Real
2. Location of bridge/culvert along flooding source (in terms of stream distance or cross-section identifier):
river mile 2.55
3. This revision reflects (check one of the following):
[J New bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS
Q Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
Q New analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
(Explain why new analysis was performed)
2. BACKGROUND
Provide the following information about the structure:
1 Dimension, material, and shape (e.g. two 10x5 feet reinforced concrete box culvert; three 30-foot span bridge
with 2 rows of two 3- foot diameter circular piers; 40-foot wide ogee shape spillway)
188 foot span bridge with 4 sets of piers
2. Entrance geometry of culvert/type of bridge opening (e.g. 30°- 75 "wing walls with square top edge, sloping
embankments and vertical abutments)
sloping embankments
3. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8)_
HEC-2
If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the
flooding source could not analyze the structure(s). (Attach justification)
Note: If any items do not apply to submitted hydraulic analysis, indicate by N/A
* One form per new/revised bridge/culvert
F E MA Form 81 89 E. OCT 94 Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 1 of 6
3. ANALYSIS
Sketch the downstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show, at a minimum, the maximum low
chord elevation, invert elevation, minimum top of road elevation, and ineffective flow widths.
The sketch is attached to the report for CLOMR
Sketch the upstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show, at a minimum, the maximum low
chord elevation, invert elevation, and minimum top of road elevation.
Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form? Page 2 of 6
3. ANALYSIS (Cont'd)
Elevations Above Which Flow is Effective for Overbanks
Upstream face
Downstream face
Left Overbank
13 feet
13 feet
Right Overbank
13 feet
13 feet
Minimum Top of Road Elevation
Upstream face
Downstream face
Left Overbank
13'
13'
Right Overbank
13'
13'
100-Year Elevations
Upstream face
Downstream face
Water Surface
Elevations
11.54'
11 .25'
Energy Gradient
Elevations
13.0'
12.84'
Discharge
Amount of flow
through/over
the structure (s) (cfs)
Low Flow
12.000 cfs
Pressure Flow Weir Flow Total Flow
The maximum depth of
flow over the roadway/railroad (ft.)
Weir length (ft.)
Top Widths
Upstream face
Downstream face
Total
Floodplain
Width
184*
184'
Total
Effective Flow
Width
184'
184'
Floodway
Width
184'
184'
Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 4 of 6
3. ANALYSIS (Confd)
Sketch the plan view of the structure(s) Show, at a minimum, the skew angle, cross-section locations, distances
between cross sections, and length of structure (s).
flow
Attach plans of the structure (s) certified by a registered Professional Engineer.
Culvert length or bridge width (ft)
Calculated culvert/bridge area (ft2)
by the hydraulic model, if applicable
Total culvert/bridge area (ft«)
Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 3 of 6
3. ANALYSIS (Confd)
Loss Coefficients
Entrance loss coefficient _ n ,
Manning's "n" value assigned to the structure(s) _ 0 . 025
Friction loss coefficient through structure (s) _
Other loss coefficients (e.g., bend
manhole, etc.) _
Total loss coefficient 1 . 75
Weir coefficient 3
Pier coefficient 1.05
Contraction loss coefficient 0.2
Expansion loss coefficient 0.4
4. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS
1. A. Is there any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can
affect the 100-year water surface elevations? •_-.• D Yes SI No
B Based on the conditions (such as geomorphology, vegetative cover and development of the watershed and stream
bed, and bank conditions), is there a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and
deposition) to affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or conveyance capacity through the
bridge/culvert? D Yes ED No
2. If the answer to either 1A or IB is yes:
A. What is the estimated sediment (bed material) load?
cfs (attach gradation curve)
Explain method used to estimate the sediment transport and the depth of scour and/or
deposition
B. Will sediment accumulate anywhere through the bridge/culvert?Q Yes Q No
If yes, explain the impact on the conveyance capacity through the
bridge/culvert?
5. FLOODWAY ANALYSIS
Explain method of bridge encroachment
(floodwav run) Method 1 was used.
at 6 fps or less
The overbank velocities are maintained
Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 5 of 6
5. FLOODWAY ANALYSIS (Confd)
Comments (explain any unusual situations):
Attach analysis.
Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 6 of 6
6052 NORTH 16TH STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
August25, 1998 V-
FEDERAL EXPRESS 7 STANDARD
ASSOCIATES, INC.TELEPHONE (602) 955-0999
j FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292
Jeff Gibson ,
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
. Carlsbad, CA, 92009- 1576
; (619)438-1161-
RE: Liquor Sales ,
Proposed Lucky / Sav-On Store #121-283
> La Costa Plaza x -'- , .
Carlsbad, CA • ' ' . t ^
•• Dear Jeff: { ". , - - ., " , ^ -. . ' , '• •- \-\ .'.. •*• • v~ ^ -, ' " x
As we:recently discussed, we understand that the parking lot lighting plan Was approved as a part
of-the recent Civty-approved exhibits for this project. ; % / /x~ _' ~ \ *
\' .. ' v' " S ^ " . "^ . .. * > . .- -; ^ . / .', '- ' f . - ' r , ^
We also understand that the sale'pf liquor is an allowed use for grocery stores mthe C-l zone.
-- However, in preparation for applying to the ABC for a license, American Stores asks that a city
f epresentative sign and return one of the attached forms.- Instructions for return are^cm the
bottom of the^form. , - " N -' \ , '.,
_ Also enclosed are two copies of the final Signage Guidelines, or sign program, fprXa Costa ^
/ .Plaza. Your have previously indicated your approval of this fmaf format. Please stamp'and _-
return One set to our office to keep things "official.'' v
- Thank'you for your assistance in this complex project. \ \^ ; ^ \'':'.
'• ' Best Regards,' . .' ^" / .._ . ' "•. /-^ ._-,_. ..:_."." ,' ' '''^ t.^ ' .
- - - FORTNEY Associates, Inc.
Dorian F. Fortney, AIA
08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAGE 02
' JUL-31-98 FRI 12:32 Gfl^A POLICE DEPT . FAX NO, 31021^P 02
T KENT
171 • We»T t«£ND »TBCCT / OAaoefMA. CALIFORNIA 9O247-3732 ./ (SlO)
David M-
29, 1998 Acting Deputy Cftfyr of Poflco
REF: 95-181
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
The City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Re: ARCO AM-PM Mini Market. Artesia Boulevard/Vermont Avenue, Gardena, CA
.Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Craig YamasakJ, ARCO Site Acquisition Manager, has asked to me to recount our
experiences with the ARCO AM-PM Mini Market in the City of Gardena, ARCO first
approached us more than three ytars ago with their development proposal. The
proposed ARCO site at Artesia Boulevard and Vermont Avenue '8 the gateway to ojr
city and is in close proximity to severe! densely populated residential neighborhoods.
The area residents, along with Gardena's community planning staff, expressed growing
concerns of safety, crime, and loitering problems,
Mr. Yamasakl and ARCO were very responsive and worked with residents, staff
members, end members from our department in addressing these concerns ARCO
devised a unique solution to these issues of potential loitering and the attraction of a
"bad element* to the area.
ARCO created their first police "drop-in' station. A small office was added to the AM-
PM Mini Market with a private entrance from the exterior end interior access through
the manager's office. Two-way-mirrored windows overlooking the entrance and '.he
pump islands ware installed for increased visibility, Workspaces ware equipped with a
telephone, a computer/printer, and multiplexing video analysis equipment that allcws
officer* to view and analyze crime scene videotapes and print freeze-frame pictures
from the crime scene videotape for fast reproduction and distribution. Multiplexing
equipment of this type ia very expensive and had not been within our budget
This drop-in station is not a police substation, but the workspace, along with the office
equipment and video tape analysis equipment has been very useful to the Gardens
Police Department, and is a convenient place to fils reports and conduct police
business for officers in the fieid. This facility is also frequented by officers from the Los
Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
n«afe «<Wrw« all eomrnvfitonfora » tfw CfcW of Pallet,
08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAPF
y& m • .&*r\ I ^i i i . rHuc.
To; City of Carlsbad 8/03/98
RE: ARCO Page 2
I invite you to v.sit the sit? and sec for yourself the work that bar. been done at th« site m this city.
Ple&s* f«el free to contact m« or my staff regarding this project arid our experience with A.RCO and
Mr. Yamasaki.
Vary truly yours,
CommuTiiry Development Director
08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAGE 04
«UG 03 '98 01: 33PM CIJ£! OT GHFttMR
w. C'CAB.
rfvo
MAY V. DO), Cdy C/ortiuoHtrvro F. YIAWHA, civ tf»«»vw Aueust 3, 1998
MfTQHlU. <S. LAN8D1LL. C*x M»n«o»r
USA E. KRA.NITZ, Cfly *rter>wy
=$ W.
AL CEFll-IFPO. C->u/
GWgN
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbfld Village Drive
Ctrlrtftd, CA 92008
Subject; ARCO AM-FM in the City of Qardena
Mr. Craig Yamasaki of ARCO Products Company has asked me to ^Tite a letter regarding our
experience with the ARCO A.M-P.M ninmurr ar.d ARCO Products Company in our community
As the Community Development Director for the City of Gardcna, it was rr.y rtfsponsibi'.ity to
oversee the zoning entitlement process, issue pfcmiits for the developiwsM" and rnopitor for
compliance with the conditions of approval.
The location selected prssBiit^d »e\feral obalkngss from a planning standpoint, The site is located
adjacent to a Willows Wsiland locawd in our city, which is an important and sensitive habitat area to
our community, Theiefore. in addition to the normal :omniunity concerns about the location of this
type of facility with regard w potential for cnme and other issues relating to a 24 hour operation.
there were concerns about other issues such aa potential ad-verse impacts from noise, light and the
presence of gasoline related products on the willows habitat.
Mr. Yemssaki ard his staff went to £«*< efforts to ittajce sure that these issues were addressed. Mr
Yamasaki personally worked with <he community to understand and try to address their concerns at
the time the entitlements were being considered. They designed the parking lot lighting lo avoid any
off site light flnd glare. They installed a state of the art vapor recovery system and gasoline tank
system. The combination of their security camera system and operational policies has been quite
effective in deterring crime and presenting a positive image. To those \uho dr,vr by or use th«."
facility, it present)? th= image of a cjean and safe faci'ilv. They also developed a polius "drop-in
workstation" equipp«d \vith telephones, computer and fix equipment and video tape crime analysis
equipment for use by local law enforcement cffbers. vatcfc it is my tifiderstsocog has been very
helpful to our safety personnel.
Our overall experience with Mr. Yamasa'ki and ARCO Products Company has been quite positive
Since that time, Mr. Yamasaki and ARCO have continued to be responsive to this department and
have maintained *c site consistent with their commitment and the conditions imposed on the site.
They are approaching :ht» 3'" year since openintr the facility arc we have had no problems or
complaints None of ths concerns expressed hov« COIT.C to pass.
08/04/1998 05:39 7148572706 PAGE 01
< JUL-31-98 FRl 12:33 GA^IA POLICE DEPT FAX NO. 310217^ P. 03
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
July 29, 1996
Page 2
The AM-PM Mini Market with the police "drop-in" station, has been a welcome addition
to our community, srio" ie a good example of ARCO's commitment to provide solutions
to maintain giafaty and deter crime,
The AM-PM Mini Market has been operational for more than a year, and there has
been no crime or loitering reported at this facility. The presence of law enforcement
officers and ARCO'» crime deterrent program with its' extensive interior and exterior
video aurvejllanci and strict policy of "no loitering* and "no selling of alcohol and
tobacco products to minors", ha$ been very affective. ARCO's operation standard is of
the highest order end remains a highly regarded resource to the Gsrdena Foflc<3
Department and our community.
Pleas* contact me directly et (310) 217-9602, if you wish further information in this
regard.
Sincerely,
David M. Morgan
^ CITY OF CARLSB FOR ACTION
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Referred to r /wx
D Please Handle
D Investigate and Report
D Draft Reply for
D Please Call Requestor
M. Respond Directly/Send Copy of Response w/RFA
Signature
RETURN COMPLETED REQUEST TO
Requestor's Name
Address 7 1 V O
City
j^i (J
/}
Date
Phone #
Explanation of Request
sS)
/. /C&^^t-
/—,
-V-^
/ vTx*-g. • / -7
_Received By
Action Taken "Jo
/!
Requestor Notified of Action Taken:
Handled By
Yes D No
t./Div. [ IDept./Di Date
(Kclurn original whiii' copy wilh response)
gIGERHARD DESIGN GROUP
A i INTERIOR
July 27, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (760) 720-9461
AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Development at El Camino Real and La Costa Ave.
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I have been a resident of Rancho La Costa for twenty-five years and have been
operating my business in the area for the same amount of time, so therefore, I have
considerable interest in the development of the areas surrounding my home. In the
past, I have been notified by mail regarding the development of other areas in the
vicinity. However, I have recently been informed, not by the City of Carlsbad, of a
city council meeting on August 4th in which the use of the land where La Costa Plaza
is currently situated will be discussed.
I was greatly disturbed as to why I, or any of my neighbors, was not notified by mail
of this meeting? Why were we not informed of the meeting before the Planning
Commission regarding this property which I understand has already taken place? Is
the City trying to slip something through?
What I had heard was that another market, drug store and gas station are being
contemplated. I find that incredible considering the number of markets in the
immediate area. It is also surprising to have a gas station in such an environmentally
sensitive area as the lagoon and San Marcos Creek. In my opinion, the current
commercial code needs re-evaluation, if this sort of development is allowed.
Pl;ua do La CosiU Real • 7740 El Camino Rc;il, Suite K • Rancho La Cosia, CA 92009
(760) 43^3)181 • (760) 436-7945 (facsimile) . Las V*«as (702) 896-4595
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
July 27, 1998
Page 2
As a taxpayer and long-time resident of Carlsbad, I hope you will give this matter
extensive consideration. Postponement of discussion at this time would be highly
advisable until proper notification of residents in the area to this objectionable
development
Very truly yours,
AHG:ig
c: Jeff Goodsen
Carlsbad Planning Department
Total Pages (2)
J.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 31, 1998
Andrew H. Gerhard
Gerhard Design Group
7740 El Camino Real, Suite K
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-
ON SHOPPING CENTER
Dear Mr. Gerhard:
Major Lewis and the Planning Department received your letter dated July 27, 1998, concerning
the upcoming August 4tn City Council public hearing for the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping
Center. The Mayor's office has asked me to look into the matter and respond back to you
concerning the legal public hearing notice for the project. The reason you did not receive a
public hearing notice in the mail for he Planning Commission and City Council public hearings
is because you do not own property within a 600 foot radius around the project site (Plaza de La
Costa). The Planning Commission meeting that took place on June 17, 1998, and the upcoming
City Council meeting on August 4, 1998, were both publicly noticed in .the local community
newspaper, the North County Times, 10 calendar days before the meeting date. As required by
local ordinance, all public hearing dates on major development projects located within the City
of Carlsbad are published in the community's local newspaper.
In the future, when you hear about a development project or read about it in a newspaper article
and it is of particular interest or concern to you, please contact the Planning Department and we
will place your address on the project's public hearing notice list. This will ensure that you are
sent a public hearing notice in the mail, no matter how far away you live from the project site. If
you have additional questions about project processing, please feel free to call me at the Planning
Department, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455. Thank you for your interest in the La Costa Lucky
Sav-on Shopping Center project.
Sincerely,
JEFF GIBSON
Associate Planner
c: Mayor Lewis
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894
&
GERHARD DESIGN GROUP
ARCHITECTURAL INTERIOR DESIGN
July 27, 1998
COPY
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (760) 720-9461
AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Development at El Camino Real and La Costa Ave.
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I have been a resident of Rancho La Costa for twenty-five years and have been
operating my business in the area for the same amount of time, so therefore, I have
considerable interest in the development of the areas surrounding my home. In the
past, I have been notified by mail regarding the development of other areas in the
vicinity. However, I have recently been informed, not by the City of Carlsbad, of a
city council meeting on August 4th in which the use of the land where La Costa Plaza
is currently situated will be discussed.
I was greatly disturbed as to why I, or any of my neighbors, was not notified by mail
of this meeting? Why were we not informed of the meeting before the Planning
Commission regarding this property which I understand has already taken place? Is
the City trying to slip something through?
What I had heard was that another market, drug store and gas station are being
contemplated. I find that incredible considering the number of markets in the
immediate area. It is also surprising to have a gas station in such an environmentally
sensitive area as the lagoon and San Marcos Creek. In my opinion, the current
commercial code needs re-evaluation, if this sort of development is allowed.
Plaza de La Costa Real • 7740 El Camino Real, Suite K • Rancho La Costa, CA 92009
(760) 43^3)181 • (760) 436-7945 (facsimile) • Las Vegas (702) 898-4595
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
July 27, 1998
Page 2
As a taxpayer and long-time resident of Carlsbad, I hope you will give this matter
extensive consideration. Postponement of discussion at this time would be highly
advisable until proper notification of residents in the area to this objectionable
development.
Very truly yours,
Andrew H. Gexhard
Jeff Goodsen
Carlsbad Planning Department
Total Pages (2)
ELAINE CRYSTAL
2003 Costa Del Mar
Chateau 657
Carlsbad, CA 92009
July 27, 1998
Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am the owner of two chateaus in La Costa immediately adjacent to the
(760) 931-0743
Fax: (760) 931-9073
that is up for
consideration by you on August 4 at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Camino Real. I was out of the
state at the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission in June and wish to make known my
thoughts on the proposed development at this time.
My husband and I have a permanent home in Jackson, Mississippi; but we have made a substantial
investment in the condominiums we own at La Costa and anticipate spending a majority of our time here
as he retires. I have been on the Planning Board in Jackson and served as its Chairman for seven years
so I appreciate the importance of your decisions in the area of planning and zoning as it regards city
development.
I have visited the Planning Department of the City and am familiar with the proposed development. In my
opinion the development does not enhance the City of Carlsbad nor is it needed in that particular location.
There is a shopping center directly south across the street on Camino Real that badly needs rehabilitation
and could be used for similar purposes. At the same time, there is crying need for an upscale shopping
area in that part of Carlsbad.
With the assets of La Costa and the Four Seasons Hotel and the many tourists that they attract, as well
as the residential development taking place, the opportunities and need for such a development is
obvious. At the present time, shopping excursions to Del Mar, La Jolla and downtown San Diego take
place as part of the planned activities for tour groups and Hwy 5 is further clogged with traffic to those
destinations by Carlsbad residents seeking fine shopping and dining opportunities while tax dollars are
lost in Carlsbad. If you wish to insure the continued success of The Four Seasons and La Costa and
encourage other fine developments, then it is important to take these factors into your consideration.
I appreciate the constraints of the property but know that these can be largely overcome to allow for
additional small scale retail and restaurant development in the only area that is within walking distance of
major tourist attractions. "Big box" retail and certainly gas station development are not appropriate for this
area and certainly already available in Carlsbad and Encinitas at this time. Your commercial codes need
to be expanded to insure quality development, in my opinion.
If there is additional opportunity to meet with you or hear your deliberations on this matter, I can be
reached at 931-0743 for most of August or can be located at 601-969-6910, ext. 225.
Thank you for your considerations of this important matter for the future of Carlsbad.
Sincefely,
Elaine Crystal
cc: JeffGoodsen
Carlsbad Planning Department
£itv of CdTrlsbad
Planning Department
July 22, 1998
American Stores Prop, Inc.
348 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SUBJECT: CT 97-09 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
Enclosed please find revised Resolution 4311. Condition Number 23 previously did not have
modifications as recommended at Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
L
MICHELE HARDY
Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4311
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-O894
\ 6052 NORTH 16TH STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
ASSOCIATES,June 11. 1998
FEDERAL EXPRESS / PRIORITY
x x ' •
Jeff Gibson ' / .- > ,
City of Carlsbad
2075' Las P alma's Drive "' >'
Carlsbad^ CA. 92009-1576
(619)438-1161 '-'---'-'-
. . ..
RE: Color Exhibits ^ - ; .. \ . .
Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283
La Costa Plaza - Intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real
.";., Carlsbad, CA/ - ' / ,\, •< '.'/•-- . .
TELEPHONE '(602) 9554)999
FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292
X - , \Dear Jeff: ~ ' - ' / • ~: ^ • v
The following color exhibits are attachedTor your use at the upcoming meetings:
xl. Corner Perspective (shows old sign that has been deleted from current plans)
^ 2. Central Retail Perspective. .: ' ^ < '/ ,
3." Lucky;/ S;av-on Perspective -. 7 ; " / - > . • ' , "J
4. Retail elevations (3 sheets) •'.-.. ' '^.^ v' ~ - ~/' -'• , , ... v - . • \
The architect is coloring a new set of Lucky ^elevations, with tne added landscaping, which will
^be sent direct to your office by Monday, along with color and materials boards.
Please let me know if you need anything else for the upcoming meetings. If changes ;are
absolutely necessary for City Council, weca'n discuss those next week. ' ' >']
-See you1 on the 1.7"'. ( , ^ • ' - V , • ' f ' y"• . ;: >• • ' ... , ' ' • .• \.^- 'Best Regards, , \. . ' ' ' - •
nc.
- NDorian F. Fortney, AIA
President -
Enclosuresv ''"'"..
/Cc: Larry Tucker
KareemAli '
A
t
June 12, 1998
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.
REPRESENTING
ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO
LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON
Mr. JeffGibbson
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Proposed Lucky Store #121-283 Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mr. Gibbson:
Enclosed is the American Stores Properties, Inc. general roof plan that should be similar to the City's
requirements. It needs to be included with the package you will be receiving or have already received from
Dorian Fortney of Fortney Associates, Inc. Please attach it for future reference and/or any changes you
may have.
Should you have any questions and/or comments, please contact me after June 22, 1998, when I return
from vacation. I can be reached at (714) 739-7490.
Respectfully,
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.
Kareem Ali
Entitlements Manager - Western Region
cc: Dorian Fortney - Fortney Associates, Inc.
File-121-283
061298 l.doc
CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
A Subsidiary of American Stores Company
FORTI)EY 6Q52 NORTH 16TH STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
June 11, 1998.ASSOCIATES, INC.
FEDERAL EXPRESS / PRIORITY
TELEPHONE (602) 955-0999
^FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292
Jeff Gibson
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive"
Carlsbad, CA> 92009-1576
(619).43 8-1161
RE: Color Exhibits ( ' ^ /.' ,
Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283
, ..i La Costa Plaza - Intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real
; Carlsbad, CA,.;. - .- • ',',''/ : -. ^ * ' j
\ \
JDear;Jeff: - ,,- v . . , • ": \ \ !•I •. • • ' ••!/•,
' ~ . ' ' \ . ' " - A ' l '' • • ' ' '
The following color exhibits are attached for your use-at the upcoming meetings:
' • -^ , '
1. -'Corner Perspective (shows old sign that has been deleted from current rjlans)
2. Central Retail1 Perspective^ . '_ . •. •' \ '-"
v 3. Lucky / Sav-on Perspective ^ / ^ ^ , ,.. '-\ ,/
4. Retairelevations (3 sheets)-" \ l '•• ', / -, . • '' ^.,
.The- architect is coloring a new set,of£ucky elevations, with tb^ added landscaping, which' will
be sent direct to your office r|y Monday, along with color and materials boards. • ~ . •
•••-••, - ; " '' ' ' ' ' •' V " ' y ^ .,-Please let me know if you need anything /else for the upcoming meetings/ If changes are
absolutely necessary for City,Council, we can-discuss those next week/ - >
-' ' • _ • - - V ^ ^ ' ''• • \' ^ " > • v ; . •
See you on the 17th. , ' • -, ^": ,.''.;. , .- v ' ; ^;.\ - •; » ,:• •
Best Regards, ' / .'FORTNEY Associates, Inc.- ^~> ' \
Dorian F. Fortney, AIJ
'President \ "
Enclosurs
.Cc: Larry Tucker
Kareem Ali
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
June 10, 1998
Mr. Jeff Gibson
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: Redevelopment of La Costa Plaza
Dear Jeff:
All of the resolutions and conditions for the above referenced project should
now be in form acceptable to the applicant, with one exception. We would
like condition 3 of Resolution 4315 (SUP 97-02) rewritten as follows: "The
berm to be located on the La Costa Resort & Spa Corporation site shall be
landscaped with native vegetation and irrigated temporarily until the native
vegetation is in a healthy and thriving condition."
During the negotiations of the American Stores Properties, Inc. ("ASPI")
acquisition of less than an acre of land from Leucadia County Water District
("LCWD"), LCWD discovered that some of its facilities (including sewer
pumps) were well below the level of the 100 year flood plain. LCWD
requested, and ASPI agreed to place a low profile berm on a portion of
property owned by La Costa (which was also agreed to by La Costa). The
sole purpose of the berm is to provide some additional level of flood
protection for LCWD facilities. The berm is not part of our retail
development. The area in which the berm will be located is east of our
proposed center and is in a natural state at the present time, with natural
materials growing around it. In our opinion it is unnecessary, and
furthermore, it would look unusual for non native plants and shrubs to
otherwise be located in this natural area. We believe that it makes more
sense to vegetate the berm area with native materials, irrigate those
materials until they have taken hold and then let the area return to a natural
One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Ffoor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658
(714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584
Mr. Jeff Gibson
Page two
June 10, 1998
condition. We would like the planning commission to consider our request at
its meeting of June 17, 1998.
Very truly yours,
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
Larry Tucker
On behalf of American Stores Properties, Inc.
LT:jv
cc: Jim Poynter
Kareem AN
Dorian Fortney
Steve Grant
Perkowitz + Ruth architects inc.
Architecture / Planning / Interiors
To: Mr. Jeff Gibson, Associate Plan:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Project: Carlsbad, CA
Regarding: Roof Plan
0 Enclosed
D Under Separate Cover
Description:
D Site Plans
D Elevations
D Sketches
D Working Drawings
TRANSMITTAL
Date: June 5, 1998
D By Hand
0 Via FED EX
D Shop Drawings
D Specifications
D Correspondence
D Literature
Job No.: 97-107.11
D Via Mail
D Via Messenger
D Prints
D Mylar
D Sepias
D Vellums
Copies Description
1 Half Size Plan of Roof and Equipment Similar to the Luckys in our Site Plan Difference
Being the Different Loading Dock Configuration.
Remarks:
D At Your Request
D For Your Approval
D For Your Signature
As per the request of Dorian Fortney.
For Review & Comment
! For Your Use/Info
For Your Files
D For Distribution
D For Bidding
D Other
cc: File
Vasilis Papadatos, Design Manager
S:Vasilis\trn\June\0605-3.doc
911 Studebaker Road
Long Beach, CA 90815
562/594.9333
Corporate Office:
Long Beach, CA
Regional Office:
Newport Beach, CA
CTP
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
JuneS, 1998
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
Ms. Kateri Luka
Arco Products Company
4 Center Pointe Drive
La Palma, CA 90623-1066
Re: Former Arco Station 1939
7654 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California
Dear Kateri:
It was a pleasure meeting with you, Marci Richards of Secor and Nasser
Sionit of the County of San Diego, at Nasser's office on May 28, 1998. We
discussed the following during the course of our meeting:
1. Nasser indicated that at the present time the County did not intend to
require Arco to remove anymore soil from the site, and if any
contaminated soil were encountered during our construction that Arco
and American Stores Properties, Inc. would need to deal with it as
they saw fit (but in all events in accordance with legal requirements).
That is, no further remedial action on soils would be required.
2. Nasser stated that the Regional Water Quality Control Board deemed
the ground water under the site as unusable for drinking water
purposes and therefore now that the free product has been removed,
the County intends to only require periodic monitoring by Arco to
ascertain that the plume is stable. Marci stated that it was her belief
that the plume was very small and stable. Accordingly, the County
does not intend to require any further ground water remediation at this
time.
One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Floor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658
(714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584
Ms. Kateri Luka
Page Two
JuneS, 1998
3. In order to meet County monitoring requirements, Arco wanted the
right to have the three existing monitoring wells remain on the site. In
order to determine whether the location of the monitoring wells would
potentially interfere with our site work or building construction, I
agreed to have a copy of our grading plan delivered to Marci and
Marci agreed to plot the location of the monitoring wells on our site
plan and provide a copy to us. Hopefully the monitoring activities will
be concluded before the shopping center construction is completed,
since apparently it is necessary to have a drill rig on the site in order
to remove the monitoring wells. If the monitoring wells will interfere
with our construction, we will request the wells be relocated.
4. From a schedule standpoint, I indicated that we hope to receive City
approvals by the end of July, 1998 and that it would take
approximately 26 weeks from the date of the approval to the date of
commencement of construction. Construction, therefore is expected
to commence late January to early February, 1999. However,
demolition will probably occur as early as December, 1998.
5. Marci was to provide to me a copy of the first quarter monitoring wells
report which was delivered to the County. I also request that Marci
provide a copy of such report directly to Dale Patton, American Stores
Properties, Inc., P.O. Box 26948, Salt Lake City, UT 84126-0948. I
also request that Marci send a copy of each subsequent quarterly
report to both Dale and me.
I appreciate your continuing cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
By:.
Larry Tucker
General Partner
cc: Nasser Sionit
Dale Patton, ASPI
Robin Edwards, Esq.
Debbie Felt, Esq., Arco
Jim Poynter, ASPI
Kareem Ali, ASPI
Steve Grant
Jeff Gibson, Carlsbad Planning Department
Marci J. Richards, Secor
Eos Nmos ^thrilte^ of La Costa Valley move
SANDRA HAZELTINE
STAFF.WRITER
, . • , , •CARLSBAD/- Los^Ninbsi
Preschool and- Kindergarten*'
may be one of the first resi-
dents to move to south Carls-
bad's recently opened LalCosta.
Valley development. : ,; '
The preschool, which lias;
been serving the community •
from the same La Costa build-
ing for eight years, is negotiat-
ing with the developer of the
master-planned community to
^operate a* public tday care that
'will open there later this year.
Officials >at the preschool hope
, to have a deal in place within a
- . v ,,>< Los Ninos occupies about
5,000 square feet of space in La'
Costa Plaza, at El Caniino Real
and La Costa Avenue.
There are plans to demolish
the plaza and build a new cen-
ter anchored by a Lucky super-
market and Sav-On drug store
in its place. •„,,,..„,„. ':
'•- The pres^Bbf 'wSs frnalizing'
a lease agreement to: remain at
the plaza after it was renovated
when the offer came through
for the La Costa Valley proper-
ty "The opportunity just came
up and we're very thrilled
about it," said Cindy Cesena,
co-owner of Los Ninos.
"If everything works out,
this would allow La Costa Plaza
to incorporate more retail
space. It just seems to make
sense for everyone involved."
Officials with Grant Tucker
Properties, developers of La
Costa Plaza, said Los Ninos'
'Continued froilB-
The new building will feature
5,700 square feet, and will be
designed specifically as a day
care. "•-
What makes the move even
more attractive is that it is lesswhere, we're happ^; f6r th^nii" ^
„ Plans for •ttiepla^a*fi4ve been•*; than a mile away from the cur-
submitted to the city, anil'••'a^e''^:.vjrent facility, so parents won't
•nnt*+£*rt *A 'rrrv' VhA&Y*a» t-li iv*1EJ1 ofi-tvt-ri «^-; . T-ioira *-'ri tT*Oir£il •ffai* *-fi /^TWI"» frll^-iT*.have to travel far to drop their
children off, Cesena said.
tKe> •;' '*' Parents were alerted of 'the
'possible move and negotiations
' week, and, most seemed'
. ,?,-As it staffidspteafel^/Sav^6n^and an ARCO gas" station'" aridy
ininimart are the only confirmedtenants. ,',. •,^^---^--~-:^j~-^ •••-
'..;.. Los Nmps^hppes^o^moye intp^
this fall 'wh'en^i|tni^teSjfe6af6.>..,.-,. . --»,..'• :• ^ffi^anff^iff^f:.f ,i-r. ••'.'facility is scheduled to be com-
pleted. . ^ ' ?i .
La; Costa Valley held its grand
' bpenihg and first home sales on
Sunday. Located just east of El
Camino Real along Calle
;,f Barcelona, it will feature; a mix
;/ of public trails, residential
homes, schools arid community
amenities including the public
day-care facility.
withdrawal from the negotia-
tions table would have little ef-
fect on their plans to build the
new center.
The space that was set aside
for the preschool will still be
built, though it is not known
who will occupy it.
"If Los Ninos wants to be a
tenant in our center, that's'
great," said Larry Tucker, gener-
al partner of Grant Tucker
Properties.
"If they want to go else-
> MOVE, B-4
A
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.
REPRESENTING
ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO
LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON
May 28, 1998
Mr. Jeff Gibson, Assistant Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: Disclosure Statement
Lucky Store #121-283
NEC La Costa & El Camino
Dear Mr. Gibson:
Attached you shall find the Amended Disclosure Statement for the above referenced
store.
Should you have any questions and/or comments, please contact me at (714) 739-7490.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.
Kareem Ali
Entitlement Manager - Western Region
0528 l.doc
CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
A Subsidiary of American Stores Company
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 26, 1998
Dorian Fortney
Fortney Associates Inc.
6052 North 1 6th St.
Phoenix AZ 85016
SUBJECT: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-04/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97-
03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON
SHOPPING CENTER
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you
on Friday, May 26, 1998, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed
by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be
held on June 8, 1998. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for
you at 10:00 am. If you have any questions concerning your project you should
attend the DCC meeting.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Jeff
Gibson at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455.
CITY QF CARLSBAD
E. WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:JG:kc
File Copy
2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
~f\
May 6, 1998
TO: KATHLEEN CASO
FROM: Associate Engineer Quon
REVISIONS TO ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
CT 97-09/CUP 97-03/GPA 97-02/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/ZC 97-02
1. Condition No. 42 should be listed as the first engineering condition.
2. Add condition No. 48:
48. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections
in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following
statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's).
"No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above
the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified
as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-
Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition."
3. Replace condition no. 65 and the + condition with:
64. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The
offer shall be made by a certificate on the final for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and
without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Public right-of-way dedications required of this project are:
a. A public utility and access easement for access to the Leucadia
County Water District property.
b. Along the project frontage on El Camino Real to accommodate a 12'
wide deceleration lane.
c. Along the project frontage on La Costa Avenue to accommodate a
14' wide dedicated right-turn lane.
4. Replace condition no. 67 with the following:
67. Direct access rights for all lots abutting El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue
shall be waived on the final map except for the approved driveway locations
shown on the tentative map.
5. Replace the + condition following no. 67 with the following:
• The developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
that lot line adjustments have been accomplished with the adjacent
property owners so that lot lines conform with those shown on the
tentative map.
6. Replace condition no. 71 b with
b. Dedicated right-turn lane on La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real for
westbound to northbound traffic.
7. Delete condition no. 76.
8. Replace condition no. 78a with the following:
a. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the
exception of fire system water lines.
9. Delete condition no. 78b.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have questions, please contact me at extension 4380.
COMMUNITY: LUCKY ENG CONDITIONS MODIFIED
Date: May 5. 1998
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
TO:
FROM:
Jeff Gibson
Kelly Efimoff CMWD NO.97-277
SUBJECT: La Costa Plaza (Luckv/SavOn)
The District is responding to your request for conditions on the subject project dated
April 7. 1997. In response to your inquiry of May 4, 1998, the District has reviewed the
subject project. Based on our review of the project, we have the following conditions
regarding potable water, recycled water and sewer systems:
1. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will
be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The
San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance
of application for any meter installation.
2. The Developer shall provide detailed information to the District Engineer
regarding water demand, irrigation demand, fire flow demand in gallons per
minute, and projected sewer flow in million gallons per day.
3. The entire potable water system, recycled water system and sewer system shall
be evaluated in detail by Developer and District Engineer to insure that
adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met.
4. All District pipelines, pump stations, pressure reducing stations and
appurtenances required for this project by the District shall be within public right-
of-way or within easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad
-'Page two
Planning Department
Date: May 5, 1998
5. Sequentially, the Developer's Engineer shall do the following:
A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements.
B. Prepare and submit a colored recycled water use area map and submit
this map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the
District Engineer.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and recycled water improvement
plans, the Developer shall submit preliminary system layouts to the
District Engineer for review, comment and approval.
6. The following note shall be placed on the final map. "This project is approved
upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for
development of the subject property unless the District serving the development
has adequate water and sewer capacity available at the time development is to
occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will continue to be available until
time of occupancy."
7. All potable water and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right of
way.
8. The following items shall apply if checked:
D No more than 19 homes shall be served on a single potable water distribution
pipeline. For those locations with more than 19 homes, a looped potable water
pipeline system shall be designed.
^ A public fire flow system shall be required for this industrial or commercial
development, and it shall be constructed as a looped pipeline system.
9. The looped potable water system shall connect to the existing potable pipelines
for the 318 H.G.L. pressure zone. The loop shall include a minimum of one (1)
connection within La Costa Boulevard, a minimum of one (1) connection within
El Camino Real and fire hydrant runs shall be limited to a maximum of one
hundred fifty (150) feet.
10. All irrigation meters for this project shall be placed within the El Camino Real
right-of-way for future connection to reclaimed water mains.
11. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of all water pipelines
(onsite and offsite) as necessary to serve this development and to provide onsite
easements, therefore. All existing water pipelines shall be abandoned and
removed. Subsequent to abandonment and removal, all existing easements will
be quitclaimed.
Page three ^^
Planning Department
Date: May 5, 1998
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Kelly Efimoff
Associate Engineer
KJE:sjs
•City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 30, 1998
Larry Tucker
Grant Tucker Properties
One Corporate Plaza
P.O. Box 7974
Newport Beach, CA 92658
SUBJECT: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97-
03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAVON SHOPPING
CENTER
Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning
Commission on June 17, 1998. However, for this to occur, you must submit the
additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by May 21,
1998, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the
scheduled' hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the
Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been
submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans:
A) 13 copies of your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans,
floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets
folded into SVz' x 11" size.
B) One 81/2" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and
floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is
photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included
on plans.
2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please
submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed
form:
A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all
property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property,
including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San
Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized
assessment rolls.
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT^-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97^/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
APRIL 30, 1998
PAGE 2
foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or
owner.
C) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property
owners and/or occupants within a 100 and/or 600 foot radius of the
subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left
justified, void of any punctuation. For any address other than a single
family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included but
the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the
street address line. DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels.
DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY.
Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Airal Rounded MT Bold 9 pt .Courier 14
pt, Courier New 11 pt,), and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as
follows:
UNACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith Mrs. Jane Smith MRS JANE SMITH
1 23 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 123 Magnolia Ave. APT 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Apt. #3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
C) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1 " = 200', showing all
lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively
numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of
the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director
if the required scale is impractical.
D) Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for
covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current
postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards
are also accepted.
Sincerely,
JEFF GIBSON
Associate Planner
JG:mh
Attachment
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE
LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES.
APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER
APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
BY:
DATE:
RECEIVED BY
DATE:
APR-17-98 08:42AM FROM-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUPDEVELC 714-760-8584 T-056 P.02/02 F-545
RICHARD AND KAREV BARNES
7623 RUSTICO DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
PHONE (760) 632-0821
4/13/98
MRS. ANNE KULCHm
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.CARLSBAD, CA 92008-19S9
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF LA COSTA PLAZA
DEAR ANNE:
WE ABE PLEASED WITH THE DEVELOPER'S EFFORTS TO HEAR OUR
CONCERNS AND THE» WILLINGNESS TO RESPOND WITH PROPOSED
CHANGES. THE PROPOSED PLAZA IS DESIGNED TO BE
AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND BASED ON THE SITE PLANS WE HAVE
SEEN, THE PROJECT APPEARS TO MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS,
THE PROPOSED ROOFING MATERIAL WILL BE AN EARTH TONE COLOR
CALLED "SUMMER SAGE". EACH OF THE AH* CONDITIONING UNITS
WILL BE CAMOUFLAGED WITH A BROWN ANODJZED FRAMEWORK
WITH BROWN ANNODIZED PERFORATED MESH.
WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LUCKY BUILDING
WD-L BE LINED WITH TREES D7 LEUCADIA WATER DISTRICT VfJLL
PERMIT THEM OR VINES SHOULD THE TREES POSE A PROBLEM FOR
THE DISTRICT.
BEST REGARDS,
RICH & KARJN BARNES
7623 RUSTICO DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
t
Jo Vw\6/V\fl,KsL_
From ^)'\ Jp
Date 17 19
D Reply Wanted
* Reply Necessary
f
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Interoffice Correspondence
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OFFICE: Planning
DATE: 3-
ATTACHEMNTS: X REPLY REQUESTED: ' X SIGNATURE
REPLY:
DATE:SIGNATURE:
FORTNEY .-< ' j 6052 NORTH 16TH STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
ASSOCIATES,, TELEPHONE (602) 955:0999
' FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292
March9,1998''" ^ , ' - ( ) _ _/-
/"A ,1 _/ ' /
HAND DELIVERED _
"— X ~~ - "-- • •- ,'
^- - \ ' r ' .
JeffGibsbn '^ ' ' • ' ' ' ' • . .-.' ^ ' '
City of Carlsbad / N /
,2075 Las Paimas Drive "^ * - i; ^ '
Carlsbad, CA. 92009-1576 - . .--, '• i < ", ^ '!
(619)438-1,161 rj ~ • ; .' - ' - '4~>'
vJ - - -^ . ' "
RE: Response to City Comments v ^ - \- _ /
Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283 ) i
La Costa Plaza ^ Intersection of La Costa Avenue and Eltamino Real
Carlsbad, CA .s
; '•- \ '; ' -, ' - V '
Dear Jeff: ' \ „ _ /
The following are responses, to City Comments "Issues of Concern" of (l'0/l 5/97 (Planning
Department), and 10/27/97 (Engineering Department) as well as redliiied Landscape comments
fromXarry Black, dated 11/4/97. /Redline sets are also, attached for your reference. ,.,''-
RESPONSES TO ISSUES OF CONCERN, dated 10/15/97:
\ '.' \ '''--. _. •'' ' ,
1. The Arched entry plement previously interpreted as a wall has been Eliminated.
•' . . ^ ' \ • -, ' / ' -,
2. The site' plan has been revised to separate standard'from compact space's with landscape
1 planters, thereby providing both separation and enhancement. ,
3. The westerly lot line for Lot No. 8 has been moved to the top of the slope, •=- \
4. Landscape planters have been added along buildings E-G. , "
5. Parking numbers have been revised to reflect all past and^current revisions. / v. _/ ' - . -~". ' \ ""-'"••
6. --. A continuous hedge has been provided'in lieu of a wall along the south side of the drive
north of Building C, as discussed \yith planning staff. x ; ^
1 'l ' '' - • - - '~ • / • ' f7. The signage proposed for the Arco .building is well within the allowable area restrictions^
Trademark logos and lettering have been utilized for a consistent national image, and are not
x inconsistent with other channel lettering proposed throughout the "center. The monument
sign serves a dual purpose, withj'modest" identification of the business, and posting of
v competitive pricing. Internal illumination of this information is a legal requirement in the
/ State of California. The length of this.sign has beer) reduced to 12 feet,N as requested by staff.
- .. x -, '. -' • -- ••>'1"' ' ( - \ ,•-'.'•' ' ' •" 1
.... , v
, v ' '' .-'• ' < • . .
v ' 1^ --.'•-... 'W • • . v __ -• N ,. •
/ " . ' 1 .
Jeff Gibson ) ; - • - . -^ \ ' ' ^
^ N March 9,: 1998'' 7 ,> V ^ x ' '•- "' ,. > '' i \ - ' •-Page Two v~ ^ > ;, , ' ;
1 : . , " •• - . ' " X -•- ;
/ • , ' - -•• ' /1 ' ' .-'.\ • -^ ;. .•• > ' ^ - i o • - '
• .. v •' >.- ^ • -V ' - . f ^ . . -; ; /We feel that the proposed-sign is similar in scale and design to others proposed within the center.
.8. ARCp attests that^Fast food partnering program 'is no longer apart of.Arco facilities. The
^ ' . '\ area in question on the floor plan is for Deli foods as part of the mihirmart and will not be \
used for fast food preparation. Parking recalculation and revision is not necessary.x
( - N
• r 1 '• 9.t The revised sign program complies with/the maximum allowed area of, 1300 square feet.
- , v This cajculated maximum includes the frontages of all stores, including the loading frontage
;7 on the Lucky store, which has been communicated to staff. x
x . \.' ' ••
; _, -' \ v' ( /:- " - ' . • ' •' 'V '• v ' {> - ,. / i
/ • -. " \10. The Los Ninos preschool^will operate with a maximum of 100 children at^this location,
L ~- which can be supported by the ^proposed play area^ '• > \ \
i
\'~ . , - ,11. The City has provided the referenced design element via\a rendering of a similar design. The
A trash detail, with trellice, is now^epresented in the 'revised drawings. ,
12. The site plan has been revised to incorporate City redline comments.
-"',.'••••'• /•''•' .,'. ^ :',, ' : ,> ^ •':.\ • . . -~ ' . r -•' . f - ^
RESPONSES TO ^ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS", dated 10/27/97:- ' ! v- :^ - ; '. . > • •-• x - • ~ - //,
la. The traffic^ engineer, Ifehr & Peers, summarized the results of a supplemental study,x dated
August I'l,' 1997 in their Jetter ofx ^October 30, 1997. They conclude thatjbased on the
•operational Analysis, the lengths of the proposed left turn pockets areyadequate. A copy of '
' • their letter is attached. ' x .; " . ' -~ -. " " . ~ , , / ^,' • ' A ' ' v \ ' • ' ^v ^ " ' ' ' ' ' ; '- • .. ,lb! The same consultan,t summarizes his response to this item by statirig that the right-turn
cannot be exiended without reducing or /eliminating the bay transition* The bay transition^
enhances traffic flow near the project's entrance and enables me pedestrian crossing distance
^ across La Costa Avenue -to be minimized;- therefore,; reducing or eliminating the bay/
' transition is not recommended.1 7 , <''•'. ^ ' ' ^" " "•' 7 "-• •... ,, . - .. -lc. This item , referenced the^pefformance of thex site intersections, and has been addressed in an
October 31, Jl 997^ letter from Grant Tucker Properties. Anticipated future intersection
^ performance's no worse .with the development of this project, and in fact improved
xj performance will result at;the project,entrance on La Costa Avenue due to the project
improvpmehtsi A copy of the referenced letter is attached. / "r
2. Xsvpreferred byjthe City, the west side of the turn pocket in the median on El Camino Real is
to/be,striped. .''•>.-.•';,,'• , } . " -•'|',.'; •.,'"' ^, . ^ x-
^
I
I
.x Jeff Gibson
March 9, 1998
Page Three '
\ , >.;••-:' < ' ' > . - M
/ ' v v ' \ l >' \.3. The raised median improvements fronting the site>onEl Camino Real will be terminated at
;x the project; boundary, as- there are no raised medians beyond. Striping (alignments will be
' -' '"' ' ' ' ' "Vcoordinated. , , _; f ,-
;V/ .''_ ' f.'S ' •'" ' "" (< " C ' VN '
4. A Bus stop has been added in a location advised/by NCTDr
, 5, The angled alignment of the drive north bf Building/Qdoes, roughly align with ,westerlyvdrive
/serving Building C. Any further realignment of obtain direct east- westj relationship, would
/ • <- . offset-;adjacent drives, reduce parking spaces or both. We do not anticipate significant cross
\; traffic at this location,)and feel that the current design is workable. ~ . /x .x
access to SDG&EytowerA structures.'"•••""•'.'
2. Palm trees within the SDG&E easement area have not been added due to SDG&E height
restrictions. -.x' <•• '. \ ' , s •' '\ • - ;-,
'•; i .,V ~'/y ' v/ V 7/ ''"- ' • A; '' '" , s ' [/i' V " '•" '"
- 3. Vine pockets have been provided at columnl locations in lieu of larger plantings, for the same
reason as noted above, and^s agree, d^ wjjji ^ff. ^ , ^'" ^ , ' \ % . "V
- ^ -.l\^, ' - -\ A'^..-' v -s '•:• : ,''•'' >..
/••••': I' '/ ') -' ' ' ''-. "{ '. .: '• '-'. I -•• •(>':•> ' -, : ^ «' • ;"' •::'-"V' •, '•>•• ,'^ ' , \ • - . , .' \ .'/•>-
'" < -. , / • i. / V "v (, ^ - ""
;Y> '- L ' ^' ' •... -'." 'I'' . ,' '"
1 6. Proposed striping within^the;project, site has vbeen-added for the entrance areas on both La
Costa Avenue^and on El Carhino Real, as well as striping for the gas station' .driveway. ^
7. We feel it isvimportant to maintain the parking spaces p front of Building C. These are,
' similar to and, should^ present 'no mo^e' /significant an' issue than those ^parking spaces
/ adjoining isles in frontof Buildings D, E and F. ^ We have\widened,and eliminated parking
A on the main aisles, which arelhose serying'the La Costa Avenue and El Camino^Real drive
'; entries.' • i - . ^ '• \- \ , • ^'' ^ ^._ • , -\ ' ',"
8. The east parking lot has been revised per City concerns.
^ 9, Detailsfof the 'proposed detention basin have' been provided. t
' ( / '' i ' ~ N- • " v . • , \v i / - ' i ' ~~' ' ' ^ ~ .10. We have delineated on the plans the 100-year flood line for\"before" and "after"1 conditions.'
J ' ^ • "^* / —'-, ^ ^ j/\ ' ^ ' ^' . '' - • ' \
RESPONSE TO LANDSCAPE REDLEVE COMMENTS: "
^ >' « ) ' ' • ~~ ~ " ' / -/All issues on^the landscape plan redlirie dated 11/4/97 have been addressed or resolved through \-'
subsequent meeti'ng with LarryvBlack. The following notes clarify^the final revisions: A
. / ' \ " ' '' •' ' ~ • / ' '' -'.A ' V ' ' \\ - '.. —(- ' i ] \
• • 1\ i ' ^ x •'.''-••'. ^ / ' /-, i L Continuous screening at the perimeter of the parking lot must>be broken at the required , "> I
; I (
r
.
Jeff Gibson
.' . ' ..' March9, 1998V
' --Page Four . ' '•
' - x J • ' '
/ . - •^ ~ . . v ^ • • .• . • v ,.-'-- ' 4. Further restriction/ on the access to the Lucky loading area, would severely restrict truck." ••" N \ i ' /i ' -- ; v i N ^\ • • / movements, while not accomplishing, significant screening. The landscape additions have'therefore not been required by s^taff.
- ARCO plan revisions will be submitted separately.; However; many of the re'dlirie comments on
/ their\ plans have been addressed through SL revision to the master sign^program and site plan.f• ' .. .. .:-..'., ^ / ^. ',.:/;. - . ^ •.' . - ; ~ ', . \:
We appreciate your assistance with this complex project. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions! And please notify us "of any. upcoming meeting dates so that we might schedule travel
for several representatives." , \ '. ; " -\''. \ x, ^ J x
\ ' < ' •' ' ""\;: - ' "'\ ^ • ] >' - ' '" ;
Best Regards, .', >/x ^ .. / \- • . \ ,. t . '-• .-.' ,/) ' ^r
FORTNEYAssociates, Inc: / " ^ , \ ,. ' _ ; vI i .si S I- i I - - ' • ( J ^ , . . /-- i ' v
• ', i / • *~ \. \
j /
Dorian F. Fortney,v /
• v PC:' KenQuon
- • -
A ' " \
i / Larry Tucker v/ / i ^' / 7 •,/•'. J '-- *' . ' ',
KareemAli _, i "\ / , •-' i ^ ^
- Jim Kilcoyne .-''•' ^ - '• x
• • i - - J •/- j- - " ' Meg Purviance \~" •
v , • ' Greg'Evans ( > f l ,
Craig Yamasaki
x \ MikeRiggle / ^ '
v /
I .
Signage Guidelines
Imaging
Identification
Prepared by:
FORTNEY Associates, Inc.
6052 North 16* Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(602) 604-8066
March 1998
\
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
To: See below
Attn:
Date: 03/13/98 Job No.: 961033
Project: Lucky #121-283
Re:: Resubmittal for GPA 97-02/ZC 97-
02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP
97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97-32/PUD 97-13
T.M..-CT 97-09
Dwg:
City of Carlsbad HAND 760-438-1161 760-438-0894
Jeff Gibson
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Enclosed:
1 Redlines of previous submittal
1 Copy of City comments (Planning-10/15/97 and 11/25/97, Engineering-10/27/97)
1 Narrative response to Planning and Engineering comments
3 Tentative map
3 Site plans
3 Landscape plans
3 Building elevations and trash details
3 Fixture plan
1 Reduced site plan
3 Updated preliminary Title Report
1 Sign program
1 Scale map
Remarks: Enclosed is submitted for your review and approval. Should you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you. -\*h
By: Meg purviance
cc: Kareem All, ASPI
Dorian Fortney, Fortney
Larry Tucker, Grant/Tucker
Paul Loubet, ARCO
7220 Avenida Encinas
Suite 204
Carlsbad, California 92009
760-931-7700
Fax: 760-931-8680
Civil Engineering
Planning
Processing
Surveying
E-mail:odayconsul@aol. com
R-13-98 02:11PM FROM-PACIF1C DEVELOPMENT GROUP 714-760-8584 T-416 P-02/02 F-004
A
JO6L M GJTVlCf
March 13,199X
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
D. Richard Rudolf
Assistant City Attorney
CttyofCwlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
Re: #121-283; Carlsbad, California
Dear Richard:
Enclosed arc TWO (2) fuUy executed original copies of the Indemnity and Defense
Agreement Regarding Commercial Devdopmentljof La Costa Plaza for the above-referenced
property.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Very truly-y
- — Jell H. Guth
Mr. Kareem All (with enclosure)
Mr- Larry Tucker (without enclosure, by fax: to (714) 760-8584)
««<EAS7 lOOSOUTv, -Si^Tt.
TO BO* *7»4? / SdCT LAKS C'TV UTAM &-l?T-Oo*7
TOTflU PRQE.002
March 16, 1998
TO:Jeff Gibson
via Planning Director
FROM: City Attorney
LA COSTA PLAZA DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
Attached is a fully executed original of the "Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding
Commercial Development of La Costa Plaza (#121-283)". Please keep it in your files in
the event of a lawsuit.
D. RICHARD RUDOD
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
attachment
INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF LA COSTA PLAZA
(#121-283)
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Carlsbad, a
California municipal corporation ("City"), and American Stores Properties, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation ("Applicant"), is entered as of the /p?-" day of
HA^L : 1998.
RECITALS
A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with
Applicant's redevelopment of commercial property located at the
northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad,
California, hereinafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza".
B. Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04
and CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negative declaration rather
than a Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental
Impact Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and
Applicant is willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and
indemnify City in the event of environmental litigation on the terms set
forth herein.
C. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as imposing any
constraint or limitation on, or contractual commitment of, City's
legislative or administrative discretion regarding La Costa Plaza or the
conduct of the public's business.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these Recitals, the parties
hereby agree as follows;
1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this
Agreement are the approvals required in connection with the environmental
documents (the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program) pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa
Plaza by Applicant. "Environmental Litigation" as used herein shall mean any
lawsuit filed by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the
above-described environmental documents, or nullifying, invalidating or setting
aside any or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such
lawsuit is based upon the alleged sole negligence or intentional misconduct of
the City's officers, agents and employees.
2. Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City,
upon receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall
tender defense of the City therein to Applicant. Applicant, at its election, shall
defend such action, and if Applicant elects to defend such action Applicant shall
defend the City, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees
from and against Litigation Costs in the Environmental Litigation, as provided
herein, at Applicant's sole cost. If Applicant elects not to defend such action,
Applicant shall be responsible for any award of attorneys fees and costs entered
in connection with an immediate default without appearance by City in such
action, provided that Applicant shall have the right to contest, in its own name
or in the name of the City, any such award of attorneys fees and costs.
Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation
as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. Following an
initial election to accept tender of defense, Applicant may at any time thereafter,
upon five (5) days prior written notice to the City elect to withdraw such
defense, and Applicant shall thereupon be released from all further obligations
of such defense. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the
Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's
choice. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the City hereunder,
Applicant shall have sole discretion to determine the appropriate strategies and
tactics employed in defense of the Environmental Litigation; provided however,
that (a) settlement of any Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial
court decision or request for reviews of any appellate decision may not be
effected, taken of dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which
consent shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and
strategies shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated
thereunder and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the
City reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may
terminate Applicant's defense of the City and any and all obligations thereafter
to defend or hold harmless the City under this Section 2 and the City shall be
entitled to retain its own counsel, at its own cost, and take whatever action or
inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending its interests in the
Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right to defend its own
interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own counsel and, if it elects to
defend the action, to have the City's interests represented by separate counsel
(reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City
Attorney, if the City so requests). Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as
defined in Section 3 below) through the time frame and events described in
Section 4 below. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the action and/or
pay for the defense of the City in connection with Environmental Litigation and
said defense has not been terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall
fully cooperate with Applicant in that defense.
3. Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Subject to the
provisions of Section 4 below, Applicant shall pay and/or reimburse to the City
the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by City in defense of the
Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall include: (i) as to services
provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the City, reasonable
attorney's fees as charged by such other counsel or the City Attorney; and (ii)
all other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in
connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring
Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior written approval of Applicant as
to billing rates of the law firm (or City Attorney) working on such litigation,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant
shall endeavor to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to by
incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within thirty
(30) days of receiving an invoice, and other supporting documentation
reasonably acceptable to Applicant, therefor.
4. Termination of Litigation. Applicant shall reimburse Litigation
Costs incurred (a) by City through the date when the City receives Applicant's
written notice of Applicant's decision not to defend, or to withdraw and cease
such defense of the Environment Litigation, or (b) by the City through the date
the City delivers its notice terminating Applicant's defense of the City pursuant
to Section 2(c), above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein,
if Applicant elects not to defend, or to withdraw and cease defense of the
Environmental Litigation at any time, the City thereafter shall be entitled in its
sole discretion to pursue or terminate the Environmental Litigation, without,
however, any right of further contribution of Litigation Costs or otherwise from
Applicant.
5. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other
communications (collectively, "Notices") hereunder shall be in writing and
given by (i) established express delivery service which maintains delivery
records, (ii) hand delivery, or (iii) certified or registered mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses, or at such
other address as the parties may designate by Notice in the above manner:
To Applicant:
American Stores Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 27447
Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0447
Attention: Legal Department (121-283)
Fax no. (801)961-5595
To City:
Attention: Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlbad, California 92009
Fax no. (760)438- 0894
Notices may also be given by fax, provided the Notice is concurrently
given by one of the above methods. Notices are effective upon receipt, or upon
attempted delivery if delivery is refused or impossible because of failure to
provide a reasonable means for accomplishing delivery.
6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to the Environmental Approvals and the
Environmental Litigation.
Wherefore, the parties hereto execute this Agreement on the date first set
forth above.
CITY OF CARLSBAD,
a Municipal corporation
By:
Michael Holzmiller,
Planning Director
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
Its. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
Approved as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
. ASSISTANT SECRE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
ASPI LEGAL
A
AMERICAN STOIBS PROPERTIES, ING.
REPRESENTING
ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO
LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON
March 11, 1998
Jeff Gibson
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Re: Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center
Enclosed you shall find the EIAF for the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center. I have
signed it persuant to the City's request.
If there are any questions or comments, please call me at (714) 739-7490.
Sincerely,
\AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.
jxareem AH
Entitlements Manager
cc: Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Prop.
Dorian Fortney, Fortney Assoc.
Jim Kilcoyne, ASPI
KA/crw
031198.doc
CONSTRUCTION DEPT. - 6565 KNOTT AVENUE, MAIL DROP #5914, BUENA PARK, CA 90620
CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH
A Subsidiary ot American Stores Company
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(760) 434-2891
FAX: (760) 434-8367
March 3, 1998
Joel H. Guth
Director of Legal Affairs
American Stores Properties, Inc.
444 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: LA COSTA PLAZA (CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA)
Dear Mr. Guth:
Mr. Rudolf asked that I return to you the four original "Indemnity and Defense
Agreement Regarding Commercial Development of La Costa Plaza (#121-283)"
documents which have been signed by Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director and
Approved as to Form by Mr. Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney. Once the Agreement has
been executed by American Stores Properties, Inc., please return a fully executed
original for our file.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this regard.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.
Vefly truly yours,
RANDEE HARLIB
Secretary to the City Attorney
rmh
enclosures
c: Planning Director
Jeff Gibson
INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF LA COSTA PLAZA
(#121-283)
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Carlsbad, a
California municipal corporation ("City"), and American Stores Properties, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation ("Applicant"), is entered as of the day of
, 1998.
RECITALS
A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with
Applicant's redevelopment of commercial property located at the
northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad,
California, hereinafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza".
B. Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04
and CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negative declaration rather
than a Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental
Impact Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and
Applicant is willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and
indemnify City in the event of environmental litigation on the terms set
forth herein.
C. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as imposing any
constraint or limitation on, or contractual commitment of, City's
legislative or administrative discretion regarding La Costa Plaza or the
conduct of the public's business.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these Recitals, the parties
hereby agree as follows;
1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this
Agreement are the approvals required in connection with the environmental
documents (the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program) pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa
Plaza by Applicant. "Environmental Litigation" as used herein shall mean any
lawsuit filed by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the
above-described environmental documents, or nullifying, invalidating or setting
aside any or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such
lawsuit is based upon the alleged sole negligence or intentional misconduct of
the City's officers, agents and employees.
2. Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City,
upon receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall
tender defense of the City therein to Applicant. Applicant, at its election, shall
defend such action, and if Applicant elects to defend such action Applicant shall
defend the City, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees
from and against Litigation Costs in the Environmental Litigation, as provided
herein, at Applicant's sole cost. If Applicant elects not to defend such action,
Applicant shall be responsible for any award of attorneys fees and costs entered
in connection with an immediate default without appearance by City in such
action, provided that Applicant shall have the right to contest, in its own name
or in the name of the City, any such award of attorneys fees and costs.
Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation
as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. Following an
initial election to accept tender of defense, Applicant may at any time thereafter,
upon five (5) days prior written notice to the City elect to withdraw such
defense, and Applicant shall thereupon be released from all further obligations
of such defense. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the
Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's
choice. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the City hereunder,
Applicant shall have sole discretion to determine the appropriate strategies and
tactics employed in defense of the Environmental Litigation; provided however,
that (a) settlement of any Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial
court decision or request for reviews of any appellate decision may not be
effected, taken of dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which
consent shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and
strategies shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated
thereunder and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the
City reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may
terminate Applicant's defense of the City and any and all obligations thereafter
to defend or hold harmless the City under this Section 2 and the City shall be
entitled to retain its own counsel, at its own cost, and take whatever action or
inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending its interests in the
Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right to defend its own
interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own counsel and, if it elects to
defend the action, to have the City's interests represented by separate counsel
(reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City
Attorney, if the City so requests). Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as
defined in Section 3 below) through the time frame and events described in
Section 4 below. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the action and/or
pay for the defense of the City in connection with Environmental Litigation and
said defense has not been terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall
fully cooperate with Applicant in that defense.
3. Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Subject to the
provisions of Section 4 below, Applicant shall pay and/or reimburse to the City
the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by City in defense of the
Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall include: (i) as to services
provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the City, reasonable
attorney's fees as charged by such other counsel or the City Attorney; and (ii)
all other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in
connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring
Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior written approval of Applicant as
to billing rates of the law firm (or City Attorney) working on such litigation,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant
shall endeavor to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to by
incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within thirty
(30) days of receiving an invoice, and other supporting documentation
reasonably acceptable to Applicant, therefor.
4. Termination of Litigation. Applicant shall reimburse Litigation
Costs incurred (a) by City through the date when the City receives Applicant's
written notice of Applicant's decision not to defend, or to withdraw and cease
such defense of the Environment Litigation, or (b) by the City through the date
the City delivers its notice terminating Applicant's defense of the City pursuant
to Section 2(c), above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein,
if Applicant elects not to defend, or to withdraw and cease defense of the
Environmental Litigation at any time, the City thereafter shall be entitled in its
sole discretion to pursue or terminate the Environmental Litigation, without,
however, any right of further contribution of Litigation Costs or otherwise from
Applicant.
5. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other
communications (collectively, "Notices") hereunder shall be in writing and
given by (i) established express delivery service which maintains delivery
records, (ii) hand delivery, or (iii) certified or registered mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses, or at such
other address as the parties may designate by Notice in the above manner:
To Applicant:
American Stores Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 27447
Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0447
Attention: Legal Department (121-283)
Fax no. (801)961-5595
To City:
Attention: Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlbad, California 92009
Fax no. (760) 438-0894
Notices may also be given by fax, provided the Notice is concurrently
given by one of the above methods. Notices are effective upon receipt, or upon
attempted delivery if delivery is refused or impossible because of failure to
provide a reasonable means for accomplishing delivery.
6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to the Environmental Approvals and the
Environmental Litigation.
Wherefore, the parties hereto execute this Agreement on the date first set
forth above.
CITY OF CARLSBAD,
a Municipal corporation
Michael Holzmiller,
Planning Director
AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
By:
Its:
Approved as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY
Bv:
Deputy City Attcfcaey
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
February 17, 1998
TO: Planning Director
FROM: City Attorney
LA COSTA PLAZA DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
Enclosed, please find four copies of the Indemnity and Defense Agreement I have
negotiated on your behalf with legal counsel for American Stores Properties, Inc. (Lucky
Stores) with regard to the mitigated negative declaration for the project. As we discussed
last Friday, please execute all four copies, insert the appropriate fax number for your
office at the top of the signature page, but do not insert a date on the first page of the
Agreement.
I have signed approval on behalf of the City Attorney's office. Please ask the project
planner, Jeff Gibson, to return all four signed copies directly to Mr. Guth, their Director of
Legal Affairs (at the address I wrote to him on February 10, 1998, with a copy to Jeff
Gibson). Please make sure Jeff requests the return of at least one signed original back
from Mr. Guth, so we have a contractual document to rely on in the event environmental
litigation does occur.
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
attachments
c:Jeff Gibson
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE i^
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989/~>
(760) 434-2891
FAX: (760) 434-8367
February 10, 1998
Joel H. Guth SENT BY FACSIMILE ONLY
Director of Legal Affairs
American Stores Properties, Inc.
444 East 100 South
Salt Lake City. Utah 84111
RE: YOUR FILE NO. 121-283; CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (LA COSTA PLAZA)
Dear Mr. Guth:
This is in response to our telephone conversation and your follow-up revision of the
draft Indemnity Agreement forwarded by your cover letter of February 5, 1998. This
appears to be getting excessively cumbersome for our mutual purposes. I suggest an
alternate, short form replacement for the current draft agreement as amended to date.
It would clarify that Environmental Litigation would not include any lawsuit otherwise
meeting the definition of Environmental Litigation, if it was based upon the alleged sole
negligence or intentional misconduct of the City's officers, agents and employees. If
that was the basis for the suit, American Stores would have no duty to defend and
indemnify.
In addition to the clarifying definition, it would have one provision as a replacement
section two to read as follows:
"2. Applicant's Indemnification and Defense of City.
Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers,
agents and employees against all costs, expenses, attorneys fees
and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in
defending Environmental Litigation, whether the same proceed to
judgment or not. Further, Applicant, shall at its expense, upon
written request by the City, defend any such suit or action against the
City, its officers, agents or employees."
Our concern is that the City not spend any money defending either a spurious or
meritorious suit to set aside the Environmental Approvals. My proposed provision will
allow the City to require American Stores to pay any legal costs the City incurs in the
defense (or non-defense) of such an action. Additionally, it will give the City the ability
to tender defense to American Stores, if it chooses to do so. That is the City's choice,
and in either event the City would be in control of making that decision. If the City
decides to defend itself (at American Stores defense), American Stores, of course, has
the legal ability to involve itself in the suit as the real party-in-interest.
The more likely scenario is that the City will tender defense to American Stores, which
tender will be accepted, and the entire expense of defense of both the City and the real
party-in-interest will be absorbed by American Stores, and American Stores will be in
charge of the litigation, with a duty upon the City for reasonable cooperation.
If you agree with this approach, I suggest
1. amending the following changes: the title of the Agreement to read:
"Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding Commercial
Development of La Costa Plaza";
2. changing the first Recital to read:
"A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with
the redevelopment of commercial property located at the northeast
corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad,
California, hereafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza".
3. Change the word "enters" to "enter" in the next to the last line in Recital B; 4.
4. change paragraph one to read as follows:
"1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this
Agreement are the onvironmontal roviow approvals required in
connection with the environmental documents (the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa Plaza.
'Environmental Litigation' as used herein shall mean any lawsuit filed
by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the
environmental documents or nullifying, attacking or setting aside anyl
or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such lawsuit
is based upon the alleged sole^negti^&nce^gtKM^^Ql misconduct of
the City's officers, agents and employees."
With my new paragraph two and the "entire agreement" concluding clause, and
signature block, I believe we would have a reasonable, adequate agreement for our
purposes.
Alternatively, if you want to stay with the basic scheme of the current version, please
make all the same corrections to the Title, Recitals, Definitions in Section One, and the
following changes to the existing balance of the Agreement:
1. In Section Two, at the top of page two, change it to read: "tender defense of the
City therein to Applicant".
2. In paragraph two, after the sentence relating to Applicant's ability to withdraw
defense upon five days written notice, insert the following new sentence:
"If Applicant determines not to defend such action, but that judgment
should be entered against the City (and/or Applicant), Applicant shall
indemnify City for any litigation expenses, costs, or Plaintiffs attorneys
fees awarded against or agreed to be paid by City."
3. In the middle of Section Two after the reference to the City's right to terminate
Applicant's defense of the City, please insert after the phrase "any and all
obligations" the word "thereafter".
4. Near the end of that same very lengthy sentence, please make the concluding
phrase of the sentence read as follows:
"... and take whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests
of the City in defending its interests in the Environmental Litigation."
5. In the next sentence please change the reference to the "City" in the phrase "if it
elects to defend the City" to "action"; and change the parenthetical phrase
relating to the reasonable acceptance by the City to read as follows:
"(reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City
Attorney, if the City so requests)."
6. In the next to last "sentence, in Section Two, please change "Litigation Cost" to
Litigation Costs". In the last sentence, please insert the words "the action" in the
introductory phrase so that it reads: "In the event the Applicant elects to defend
the action and/or pay for the defense of the City..."
7. In Section Three, line two, please change the word "and" to "and/or". In line five,
please change it to read:
"provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the
City, reasonable attorneys' fees as charged by that Counsel...".
8. At the top of the next page, please re-insert the parenthetical reference to the
City Attorney, and change the period at the end of the last sentence to a comma
and add the following concluding phrase:
"or provide a revolving deposit fund to City consistent with a
Litigation Costs budget, as agreed when such a budget is formed."
9. Please add the following new Section Five establishing the names and address
of persons to administer the Agreement and renumber Section Five as Section
Six:
"5. Contract Administration.
The name of the persons who are authorized to administer and give written
notice and/or receive written notice on behalf of the City and on behalf of the
contractor in connection with this Agreement are as follows:
For City: For Applicant:
Title: Title
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
My preference is the "short form" discussed above. In either event, I hope that the
above suggested changes are acceptable to you and we can finalize this Agreement
soon.
Very truly yours,
D. RICHARD
Assistant City Attorney
afs
c: Jeff Gibson
JAN-19-98 F10N 16:56 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P. 01
January 19, 1998
TO: Jeff Gibson A
FROM; Randee Harlit(jj(
LA COSTA PLAZA
I have transcribed Rich's notes and they are attached. He was not able to review this
since he was out of the office all afternoon.
I will leave him a copy and if he has any problems with my transcriptions he will contact
you.
Basically, he wants this to be a true indemnification agreement. Please call if you have
any questions.
JAN-19-98 MON 16:57 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P, 02
January 19,1998
TO: Jeff Gibson, Planning Department
FROM: City Attorney
LA COSTA PLAZA
In response to your Request for Legal Advice dated January 7, 1998,1 have the following
comments regarding the "Agreement Regarding Commercial Development at the NEC El
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, California ("La Costa Plaza")":
A. RECITALS
1. Recital A should be changed to read as follows:
"City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with the
redevelopment of La Costa Place (the "Project").
2. Recital B should be changed to read as follows:
"Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04 and
CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negativs declaration rather than a
Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental Impact
Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and Applicant is
willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and indemnify City in the
event of environmental litigation."
3. Recital C - no change.
B. Now Therefores
1. Section 2 should be changed to read as follows:
"Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City, upon
receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall
tender defense thereof to Applicant. Applicant shall defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees in the Environmental
Litigation, as provided herein, at Applicant's sole cost. Applicant shall be
entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in
interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. In the event that Applicant
also defends the City hereunder, Applicant shall have sole discretion to
determine the appropriate strategies and tactics employed in defense of the
Environmental Litigation; provided, however, that (a) settlement of any
Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial court decision or
request for reviews of any appellate decision m.ay not be effected, taken or
dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and strategies
JAN-19-98 MON 16:58 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P. 03
shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated thereunder
and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the City
reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may
terminate Applicant's defense of the City under this Section 2 and the City
shall be entitled to retain its own counsel at Applicant's cost, and take
whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in
defending the Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right
to defend its own interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own
counsel and, if it also defends the City, to have the City's interests
represented by separate counsel (reasonably acceptable to the City).
Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as defined in Section 3 below). In
the event that Applicant defends and/or pays for the defense of the City in
connection with Environmental Litigation and said defense has not been
terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall fully cooperate with
Applicant in that defense."
2. Section 3 should be changed to read as follows:
"Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Applicant shall pay and
reimburse to the City the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by
City in defense of the Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall
include (i) as to services provided by other counsel in defending the City,
reasonable attorney's fees as charged by that other counsel; and (ii) all
other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in
connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring
Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior w ritten approval of Applicant
as to billing rates of the law form working on such litigation, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant shall endeavor
to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to be incurred.
Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs expected to be
incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within
thirty (3) days of receiving an invoice therefor."
3. Delete section 4 and renumber section 5.
These are my suggested changes to the Agreement.
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
Assistant City Attornay
rmh
January 13,1998
Mr. Timothy Jochem
General Manager
Leucadia Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6810
RE: Proposed Lucky/Sav-On Project
Dear Tim,
This letter is in response to a North County Times article dated January 6, 1998 in
which you were quoted "My Board of Directors wants the developer to make peace
with the community before building this." Assuming this to be a factual statement,
you should be aware that we are not satisfied with the answers (or the lack of
answers) we have had from the developers to date.
Larry Tucker was considerate enough to meet with us at our home, which overlooks
the proposed building site, to discuss our apprehensions. We were told that he would
look into our concerns and provide solutions. Our concerns follow:
• The proposed Lucky building is slated to be 36 feet higher than the existing
parking lot. Why does it need to be so high, especially since it is to be a one story
building? Additionally, we understand that the sides of the store are to be
constructed of 30 foot tall block walls. Our view would be of those block walls.
This is not in keeping with the image of the community and will most certainly
negatively impact property values.
• The roof of this building and all of the proposed structures are currently designed
as flat roofs, with all the heating/cooling/other equipment, etc. on top. This is a
significant departure from the current structures and will certainly impact the views
currently enjoyed by all of us who overlook this property as well as those traveling
west on La Costa Avenue.
Leucadia Water District
01/13/98
• The orientation of the AmPm Minimart in the northwest corner of the site will
increase the level of noise for those of us on the hill. We suggested that the
building be located at the southwest corner of the proposed gas pump site so as
to orient the store door towards the northeast. It is our understanding in speaking
with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department that this is feasible.
Larry Tucker promised he would address these concerns and get back in touch with
us. We have called him since our meeting, but he has not had any answers, nor did
he indicate that he would address these issues in the future.
We do not believe that the proposed plans to use this site for a Lucky/Sav-On and
Arco AmPm gas station is the best use for the property. It will not enhance property
values nor be an attractive gateway to our fine community of La Costa.
If this shopping center must go in, its design, at a minimum, should try to enhance the
community and be less offensive than what is currently planned.
Sincerely,
x^>
Richard and Karin Barnes
7623 Rustico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
CC: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad - Planning Department
Ann Kulchin, City Counsel
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
STEVEN P. GRANT
LARRY TUCKER
Januarys, 1998
Mr. Jeff Gibson
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: La Costa Plaza
Dear Jeff:
We expect to meet early next week with Larry Black to go over the
preliminary landscape plan comments. After that meeting is complete, we
will have the landscape plan revised, making any site plan changes which
are necessary as a result of the landscape plan comments and be in a
position to submit to you our revised plans which should address virtually
every concern described as "issues of concern" attached to Michael
Holzmiller's letter to Grant Tucker Properties of October 15, 1997, with one
exception. That is, we would like the sign program which we have proposed
to be accepted by the City for this project. We will comply with the
monument sign requirements of the City, but as for the building signs, we are
hoping to have a sign program which allows us the amount of signage that
other contemporary centers have in the City (i.e. the center at El Camino
Real and Aviara Parkway).
Also, we would like to have a planning commission hearing date set as soon
as possible.
One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Floor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658
(714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584
Mr. Jeff Gibson
Page Two
Januarys, 1998
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES
Larry Tucker
General Partner
LT:jv
cc: Jim Kilcoyne
Kareem Ali
Ken Quon
Dorian Fortney
Steve Grant