The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-01-28; Planning Commission; ; AP 76-01|ZC 0172 - CARLTAS CORPORATIONTO: FROM: CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNJflG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT January 28, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT ON: AP 76-1 APPLICANT: ZC-172 CARLTAS CORPORATION c/o Paul Ecke P.O. Box 488 Encinitas, CA 92024 A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that AP 76-1 be approved based on the following findings: l) General Plan Consistency: The proposed agricultural preserve is consistent with the General Plan because: ; a) The goals and policies of the Open Space Element support the n-n~"""''-.4-.;_""' -+ -:"r"'-"".;,....,,1-1-,.,""a, ,~ ..... d~ +-hV'"llt-h ..... 7"'" ~,..':"'"("',......,,,..._n+ t'il,..;;:Ji,,..I W"'4.'-''"-'•I \.ii 0~1 l\..,,\Al""UI I 1\.A.il -.J t..,11'V\.A~:jl' '-'UA. U..>...>_..>...,.111..._11t.., procedures whereby property is taxed according to the use of the land; and ~ b) The Land Use Element designates the subject property as a "Possible Urban Reserve Area 11 , a criteria ef the City for the establishment of a preserve. 2) Environment: The proposed agricultural preserve is consistent with the Carlsbad Environmental Protecttbn Ordinance of 1972 because: a) The proposed project has been found to have an insignificant environmental impact; and . b) P~ negative declaration has been filed by the Planning Depart- ment. 3) Public Facilities: The proposed agricultural preserve is consis- tent with applicable City Public Faciliti_es Policies and Ordinances because: a) The proposed project would not affect present facilities avail- able to the property; and b) Necessary public improveme~t; that ~~Y t~aver;e this property will .not be affected by this action. \ . B. Staff recommends that ZC-172 be Approved based on the following findings: 1) General Plan Consistency: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan because: a} The E-A zone district is consistent with the 11 NRR11 and 11 R-M 11 designations of the Land Use Element; and · b} The Zone Change will have no adverse impact on any other Element of the General Plan. 2) Environment: The proposed zone change is consistent with the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of:1972 because: a) The proposed project has been found to have an insignificant environmental impact; and b} A negative declaration has been filed by the Planning Depart- ment. · 3) Public Facilities: The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable City Public Facilities, Policies and Ordinances because: a) The proposed project would not affect present facilities avail- able to the property; and b) Necessary pubi-ic improvements that may traverse this property will not be affected by this action. -2- •:· I SECTION II: STAFF BACKGROUND REPORT A. Request: Applicant is requesting the establishment of an agricultural preserve with the intent of entering into a Land Conservation Contract with the City according to 1.he provisions of State law (Williamson Act) and City Council Resolution No. 3810. The City is requesting a zone change from R-A-10 to E-A on subject property per the requirements of said reso1ution. B. Location and Descri tion of Pro ert: East of Paseo del Norte (Car Country and North of Palomar Airport Road. The majority of the 339.81 acres is presently being cultivated for tomato p0oductton. The site has gentle slopes ranging in elevations of 80 feet in the northwest to 265 feet at the east. C. Existing Zoning: Sutj cct PrJp::~t:,·: North: East: South: West: D. Existing Land Use: Subject Property: North: East: South: West: P-U E-1-A & A-1(8) (Couhty) R-A-10 - R-A-10 & C-2 Tomato crops . SDG&E Transmission Easement Agriculture (County) Agriculture (Las Encinas Canyon) Agriculture and Car Country E. Environmental Impact Information: A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Department on this project for the following reasons: 1) The preserve will make economically feasible continued agricultural production on the property; and 2) No change in the present use of the property is anticipated. F. General Plan Information: The Land Use Element designates this area as a 11 Possible Urban Reserve Area 11 • This i.s one criteria necessary before -the City will consider the establishment of an agricultural preserve. Also, the Land Use Element and Open Space Element encourages the contin- uation of agricultural production in all areas of the City. There will be no impact on any of the other Elements. 3. G. Publ~c Facilities: No existing publit facilities or services will be affected by this action. Also, any necessary public improvements {i.e., widening of Palomar Airport Road) are provid~d for in the City's guidelines (Resolution 3810) and would not be affected by this action. H. Major Planning Consideration~: The major consideration in the estab- lishment of any agricultural preserve is: Does the public benefit of preserving the land in long-term agricultural production outweigh the possible tax increases on other property owners? This question is reviewed in-depth in Section III of this report. Another question that should be considered is: Should the initial tenn of the contract be longer than 10 years? I. Incidental Information: All affected City departments and other taxing agencies have been notified of this action and afforded the opportunity to contribute input to the preparation of this report. -4-. ( -SECTJ.ON I I I: TAX IMPACT STUDY {AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 76-l) . A. Background: The adopted guidelines for the establishment and. admin- istration of agricultural preserves (City Council Resolution No. 3810} states: B. "The establishment of the agricultural preserve and sub- sequent reduction in assessed value of land, if any, shall not place an unreasonable tax burden.on other property owners. To assist in determining any possible tax turden, prior to establishment of a preserve, a study of the potential impact of the preserve on local taxing agencies shall be made and a report thereon shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council. It is the intent of this report to provide that information. Existing Conditions: The proposed project involves the following assessor parcels: Parcel # Total Preserve Acreage Tax· Rate Acreage fi.rea 211-010-11 66.96 66.96 .09000 211-021-12 259.45 172. 78 09000 211-021-03 133. l 0 09034 Totals q59_ 51 For the purpose of compa ·son, total acreage will be used in this report. The acreage within t~e prese~ve boundaries was considered when ·computing·values and taxes for all three parcels. The assessed value and taxes fo·r the three parcels are currently as follows:· Assessed Tax Total Parcel # land Value Rate Taxes* 211-010-ll $231,250 X 10.531/100 = $24,352.94 211-021-12 862,500 X 10.531/100 = 90,829.87 211-021-03 360,000 X 10.861/100 = 39,099.60 Totals $1,453,750 $154,282.41 * Based on land value only; improvement vatue not considered in this comparison. -5- 3,$(4, 1,"? .. The following is a list of the different taxing agencies, their total tax rate, and the revenues currently derived fron1 these three parcels: Taxing Agency County of San Diego City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Unified School Dist. Oceanside-Carlsbad Comm. ~all. General Bonds Tri-City Hospital Dist. Misc. Educational Purposes CMWD (09000 only) CMWD (09034 only) CMWD Total Total · 'Rate 2.621 1.930 4.112 .771 .129 .269 • 219 {.480) (.810) · ·Revenue $38,102.79 28,057.37' 59,778.20 11,208.41 1,875.34 3,910.59 . ·3,183.71 {5,250.00) (2,916.00) 8,166.00 $154,282.41 C. Projected Conditions: The following estimates are based on information provided by the County Assessor's Office. When placed under Land Conservation Contract, the assessed value and taxes for the three parcels are estimated as follows: Parcel# Assessed Tax Rate Total Land Value Taxes* ... -·-- 211-010-11 · $ 37,000 X 10.531/100 = $ 3,896-.47 211-021-12 476,517 X 10.531/100 = 50,182.00 211-021-03 197,062. 50 X . 10.861/100 I= 21.402.96 Totals 710,579.50 75,481.43 * Based on estimated land va1ue only. The following is a list of the different taxing agencies, their total tax ratek and the revenues estimated to be derived from these three parcels: Taxing Agency County of San Diego City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Unif. School Dist. Oceanside-Carlsbad Comm. Coll. General Bonds Tri-City Hospital Dist. Misc. Educational Purposes CMWD (09000 only) CMWD (09034 only) CMWD Total Total . Rate 2.621 1.930 4.112 • 771 .129 · .269 • 219 (. 480) {.810.) Revenue $18,624.29 13,714.18 29,219.03 5,478.57 916.65 1,911.46 1,556.17 (1,123.50) (3,859.78) 4,983.28 -$76,403~ D. Comparison: It is expected that there would be total reduction of property taxes of approximately $78,899.93 on these rarcels if the . -6- .. applicant enters into a Land Conservation Contract with the City. The tab1e on the following page estimates the impact of the proposed agri- cultural preserve on each of the affected taxing agencies. It should be noted that the comparisons in this table are based on a static sit- uation. In other words, the decreases to the estimated tax revenues and the increases to the tax rates are based on what would happen if the impact of the preserve was applied to this year's already-approved budgets, assessed valuations, and tax rates. Future increases in assessed valuations and various changes to future budgets and outstanding bonds were not considered. Since the revenues (budgets) of each district in this static situation would have to remain the Si;11;:a., the impact would fall· on other property owners paying tax into the same agency funds. As an example, owners within tax rate area #09000 would realize a 0.38% increase to their taxes and owners within tax rate area #09034 would realize a 0.40% increase to their taxes. As a further example, an owner of a house and land valued at $50,000 in tax rate area #09000 would presently be paying $1,316.37 a year in property taxes with no exemptions. 1·/i th the preserve, the 0 1,mer I s taxes would increase to approximately $1,321.37, a $5.00 increase. In tax rate area #09034, the property taxes for the same example would presently be $1,357.62. With the preserve, they would be $1,363.12, a $5.50 increijse. It should be r.oted that there are some structural improvements on the subject property. Presently, there is-virtually no assessment on these improvements because of their lack of value in relationship _to the potential use of the property; If the area goes• into an agricultural preserve, the value of these improvements would increase because of the limitation of agricultural use~ The assessor estimates that the assessed value of these improvements could increase as much as $50-60,000. Staff suggests that the potential tax impact created by the establishment of this agricultural preserve would be minimal. They further suggest that the benefit of long-term preservation af agricultural and open space uses of this property outweigh the expected ·tax impacts on other property owners. -.7- 1- ' co I COMPAfl30N TABLE*** TOTAL AGENCY VALUATION OF PROPERTY TOTAL ADJUSTED ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE AGENCY NAME ASSESSED VAL. CURRENT RESTRIC1EO AGENCY A.V. CURREN! Rt.STRICll:.D DEC-REASE - COUNTY OF S • .D. 5,313,598,370 1,453,750 710,579.5 5,312,855,199.5 13'9 ,269 ,413. 277 139,249,934.778 19,478.499 CITY OF CARLSBAD 113,786,106 1,453,750 710,579.5 113,044,935.5 2,196,071.846 2,181,728.655 14,343.191 CSBD. UNI. SCH. 133,438,393 1,453,750 710,579.5 1~2,695,222.5 5,486,986.720 5,456,427.549 30,559.171 0-C ·ccHM. COLL. 276,874,354 1,453,750 . 710,579.5 276,131,183.5 2,1_34,701.269 2,128,971.425 5,729.844 GENERAL soi;os NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ------------------------------··---------------------------------------------------------' TRI-CITY HOSP. 393,180,477 ·1,453,750 710,579.5 392,437,306.5 1,057,655.483 1,055,656.354 1,999.129 OTHER EDUC. NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHn'D. 149,077,443 1,453,750 710,579.5 148,334,272.5 i 208,708.420 207,667.981 1,040,439 1-IMP. DIST. #1 151,340,153 1,453,750 710,579.5 150,596,982.5 90,804.092 90,358.190 445.902 · IMP. DIST. #3* 14,388,892 360,000 197,062.5 14,225,954.5 47,483.344 46,945,650 537,694 rn?. DIST. #4·· 148,885,918 1,453,750 710,579.5 148,142,747.5 44,665.775 44,442.824 222.951 1".,,'0-CM',./D 150,502,313 1,453,750 710,579.5 149,759,142.5 210,703.238 209,662.799 1,040.439 - C'n'A-rn,./D 150,234,438 1,453,750 710,579.5 149,491,267.5 165,257.882 164,440.394 817.488 Tar ,~14~,b~ * Imp. 01st. #3 only applies to Tax Rate Area #09034. All other districts apply to both Tax Rate Area #09000 and #09034. -Per $100 assessed valuation. *** Comparisons in this tab1e are based on a static situation, i,e.,no _other possible tax increases were considered. • TAX RAT CUR. Rt:.S. l:-iCR. 2,621 . 2. 621 .. 0 ~ 1.930 1.943 .013 4.112 4. 135 .023 • 771 .773 .002 .129 • 129 0 .269 .269 0 .219 • 219 0 ._140 .14l .001 ~ .060 .• 060 .330 ,334 .030 ,030 0 • 140 , 141 ~001 .110 • 110 0 ( ·s E c r I o N 1 v : Ao o 1 T ~ o. 1 NF o RM AT 1 o N .. During departmental review of this matter, certain questions arose thut are anticipated to arise at the public hearings. Questions and staff 1 s response follow: •· Q: What benefit does the City and its citizens receive from the es- tablishment of an agricultrual preserve?· • A: A1ricultural preserves are specifically encouraged by the City General Plan. The Open Space and Conservation Elements state that tt ts the City 1 s policy 11 to promote the development and preservation of open space and conservation systems by encouraging and supporting tax assessment procedures whereby property is taxed according to the use. of the 1 and. 11. · • Another policy states it is a policy of the City to 11 regard agricul_- t u r a 1 1 a n d an d p r i me s o i l a s ,· a n a t u r a 1 r e s o u r c e a n d a s a s i g n i f i - cant contrasting land use to the urbanized environment of the City." Also, the Land Use Element encourages the use and preservation of agricultural lands throughout the City. Be.cause the General Plan was developed -with extensive input from the citizens, the establishment of agricultural preserves would be consistent with their desi.res. Retention of the "rural" character of the community was a recurring statement made during all of the citizen meettngs. Of course, there is the broader, national benefit of retaining prime agricultural areas for food production. · Q: Will the establishment of a preserve in this location ~reate urban sprawl? · ~ A: Certain· developments (i.e. Altimira, Lakeshore Gardens, La Costa, etc.) have already occurred to thf south of this property. The creation of an agricultural preserve could potentially act as a deterrent to future 11 leap-frog-11 development. At least, this pre- serve would have no affect on development to the south. Q: What impact will this preserve have on the acquisition and construc- tion of Cannon Road (easterly extension) and Macario Road (proposed)? A: There will be no•impact on Macario Road iince the proposed align- ment does not touch this property. The Cannon Road alignment would · cross a small portion of the preserve at the northwest corner. How- ever, there are clear provisions in our guidelines for acquiring (and removing) land from preserves for public improvement purposes. Q: What about tax revenues that will be lost due to the preserve? A: If we a~sume no· increa~e to the assessed valuation (new projects, normal 1ncreases to fa1r market value, and increase in area due to annexations) bet0een the time this preserve 0ould be established and the ~ime that new tax assessments are computed, there could be a slight increase in ~axes due to the establishment of the preserve. However, numerous proJects have been constructed, additional lands have been annexed to the City and it is expected that assessed values have increa~ed in thi~ area during _the ~ast year. It is anticipated that_the~e 1ncreases 1n assessed valuation will by far offset any po- tent1al 1ncrease due to the creation of the preserve. -9- q ( ( . . • .. -. Q~ Does the State offer any reimbursemen~ monies to cities with ag preserves? A: Yes. The Open Space Subvention Act of 1971 provides monies to re i m bu rs e c i t i e s a n d co u n t i e s ( a l s o s c h o ol d i s t r i c t s ) w ft h a g preserves. The City of Carlsbad would qualify for approximately $1020 per year with the establishment of this preserve. Q: Can the City cancel a contract with a property owner if {t desires? A: As_ far as staff can determine, yes. No one at the State or County could answer this question absolutely because no City or County has ever requested cancellation. -10- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 PLANNING-COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~1216 . . . '. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF LOWDER LANE. CASE NO.: AP 76-1 • APPLICANT: CARLTAS CORPORATION WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to wit: A portion of Lot F, G, and Hof the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of said County lying northerly of Road Survey No. 1534 (Palomar Airport Road) on file in the Office of the County Engineer of said County has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commissio and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by City Council Resolution No. 3810; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing to consider this matter was held on January 28, 1976; and WHEREAS, the subject application has complied with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972"; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to this matter and found the following facts and reasons to exist: 1) The proposed agricultural preserve is consistent with the General Plan because: a) The goals and policies of the Open Space Element support the preservation of agricultural lands through tax assessment procedures whereby property is taxed according to the use of the land; and b) The Land Use Element designates the subject property as a "Possible Urban Reserve Area", a criteria of the City for the establishment of a preserve. 2) The proposed agricultural preserve is consistent with the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 because: a) The proposed project has been found to have an insignificant environmental impact; and b) A negative declaration has been filed by the Planning Department. I f I ~ ; ..,_, l 2 3 4 5 3j The proposed agricultural preserve is consistent with applicable City Public Facilities Policies and Ordinance because: a} The proposed project would not affect present facilities avail- able to the property; and b} Necessary public improvements that may traverse this property will not be affected by this action. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plannin~ Commission of the City of 7 Carlsbad as follows: 8 9 10 11 A} That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That the establishment of the Agricultural Preserve is recommended for approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad 12 Planning Commission held on January 28, 1~76?. by the following vote, to wit: 13 AYES: 14 NOES: 15 Ar.SENT: 16 17 18 19 ATTEST: 20 21 Commissioners Jose, Fikes, Packard, L'Heureux, Larson, Cominquez, Watson None None Stephen M. L'Heureux, Chairman 22 23 Donald A. Agatep, Secretary 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -2- i J, I < l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 has 12 and 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1217 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO REZONING PROPERTY FROM R-A-10 to £-A {EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF LOWDER LANE. CASE NO.: ZC-172 APPLICANT: CARLTAS CORPORATION WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to wit: A portion of Lot F, G, and Hof the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof. No. 823 on file in the Office of the County Recorder of said County lying Northerly of Road Survey No. 1534 (Palomar Airport Road) on file in the Office of the County Engineer of said County. been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by 14 Title 21 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code"; and 15 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing to consider this change of zone 16 was held on January 28, 1976; and 17 WHERE/\.S, the subject application has complied with the requirements of the 18 City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972"; and 19 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony 20 and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said Commission 21 considered all factors relating to the Zone Change and found the following 22 facts and reasons to exist: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 l) The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan because: a) The E-A Zone district is consistent v,ith the "NRR" and "R-M" designations of the Land Use Element; and b) The Zone Change will have no. adverse impact on any other Element of the General Plan. 2) The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 because: a) The proposed project has been found to have an insignificant environmental impact; and b) A negative declaration has been filed by the Planning Department. 3) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable City Public Facilities ·Policies and Ordinance because~ I;-' • ,•~: l 2 3 4 a) The proposed project would not affect present facilities available to the property; and b) Necessary public improvements that may traverse this property will not be affected by this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 5 Carlsbad as follows: 6 7 8 9 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) _That the Zone Change from R-A-10,000 to E-A (Exclusive Agriculture) is recommended for approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad 10 Planning Commission held on January_ 2_8, J976 by the following vote, to wit: ~,__..,..._:: __ -~---,--~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Jose, Fikes, Packard, L'Heureux, Larson, Dominguez, Watson None ABSENT: None Stephen M. L'Heureux, Chairman ATTEST: Donald A. Agatep, Secretary -2- . . • ·crTY· 'OF CARLSGAD Initial: .................. DATE.:············ ·!':ebruary 17; 1976 Dept. Hd.~ City Atty VP--l3 DEPARTMENT:· · · · · · · Pl ann·ihg · City ~gr._.-~~---~~.·.·.· .. ·.·.· .... , ...... · ....... . SUFJJECT: Establishment of an Agricultural Preserve, Rezone from R-A-10,000 to E-A Authorization to Enter into Land Conservati6n Contract (AP-76-1 & ZC-172) · · . .APPLlCANT: . .' Car.l.tas. Corporation . . . . . . · ·stateme.n·t •o·f ·the. ·Ma·tter : The applicant, Car1tas Corporation (Pau1 Ecke) is requesting the establishment of an agricultural preserve on 339.81 acres of land O'\ld~ generally located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo del Norte (Lowder z_zq; ~ .. Lane). The Planning Commission heard this request on January 28, 1976, and recommends approval. · .. ·.·Per the requirements of City Council Resolution No. ·3810, rezoning to an appropriate ·zone is to be considered concur'rently .with the establishment of the· preserve. If· apprqved, this rezoning is to be an urgency measure in order.to be effective simultaneously •with establishment of the preserve. · Said Resolution also requires execution of a LartlConservation Contract if the establish- -~ent ~nd rezoning are.approved. The applicant has already signed the contract. To be effective this fiscal year, the above acti9ns must be approved prior to March 1, 1976, and fori•1arded to the County Recorder and Assessor. If not approved by this date, the tax adjustment would not be effective until FY.1977. EXHIBITS: City Council Resolution No.,1(5 /J--(Agriculture Preserve). t( ---: ~«~ _ . City Council Resolution_ No.l&?iL (Zone Change) _ · · City Coun·cil Ordinance No.--'--~-,__.._oC...m,1_'-(Zone Change) City Council Resolution No.3 l 53 . (Land Conservation Contract) Staff report to Planning Com~ission ·dated 1-28-76 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1216 (Agricultural Preserve) Planning ComrnissionResolution No. 1217 (Zone Change) RECOMMENDATION: If the. City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, take the following actions: 1) Approve City Council Resolution No..ffs'J establishing Agricultural Preserve No. 76-1. 2) 3) 4) Approve City Council Resolution No.Jf5..t.announcing findings and decision on Zone Change No. 172. Introduce City Council Ordinance No. 'ft./ SPv to effectuate Zone Change No. 172. Approve City Council Resolution No .Sf 53 authorizing the Mayor to execute the Land Conservation Contract with the applicant. • > ) A\ 1Jr N ---·AGRICULTURAL AGUA HEDIONDA PRESER.VE NO .. 76-1 · LOCATION MAP & ASSESSOR PARCEL NO's. APPLICANT: CARLTAS CO. % PAUL ECKE · P.O. BOX 488 ENCll'JITAS, CA. 92024 LAGOON .\" PALOMAR_ • 4\ ~·ar N AGUA --AGRICULTURAL . . PRESERVE · NO~ 76-1 ·: TAX CODE AREAS & ACREAGE APPLICANT: CARLTAS CO . . . ... . % PAUL ECi<E · P.O. BOX 488, ENCINITAS, CA. 92024 HEDIONDA LAGOON ,cA. 09000 '2. 3 9 . 7 4 0-C • >->-l-..... z 0 => 0 0 0 09 o.C. Io · 33.ll \ o.C 1 \ PALOMAR AIRPORT 1<0P.O -AGRICULTUR!! PRESERVE NO. 76-1 AGUA HEDIONDA . · PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST APPLICANT1 CARLTAS CO . . % PAUL ECKE P.O. BOX 488 ENCINITAS, CA. 92024 LAGOON ® . \ PALOl\jAR AIRPORT 0\J >->-- t-t o':; 0 0 - KEY TO PROPERTY OWNERS MAP fl\ San Diego Gas & Electric ~ 101 Ash St., San Diego, CA ® Japatul Corporation 101 Ash St., San Diego, CA (';;\ Paul Ecke · \::!..) P.O. Box 488, Encinitas_ CA {A\ Carroll R. Kelly ~ P.O. Box 175, Carlsbad, CA ® Carltas Corporation P.O. Box 488, Encinitas, CA 92101 92101 92024 92008 92024 ® Tri-City Auto Dealers (Car Country): David Rorick, Jr., et al . 810 Mission Ave., Oceanside, CA 92054 F2i st, Vett2r, Kn .. :.rf & !..oy 810 Mission_Ave., Oceanside, CA 92054 Robert Brooking .. P.O. ·Box 1548, Oceanside, CA 92b54 Vincent Dixon 5555 Paseo del Norte, Carlsbad, CA 92008 James B. Finney, Jr. 440 Santa Helena, Solana Beach, CA 92075 Feist, Ve_tter, Knauf & Loy P.O. Box 240, Oceanside, CA 92054 Donald D. Sharp 1476 La Habra Dr., San Marcos, CA 92069 - 211-010-22&19 212-010-11 21.2-041-05 212-040-35 211-021-03&12 211-060-02 211-060-06 211-060-07 211-060-09 211-060-l 0& 14 211-060-15 AGUA HEDIONDA ZONE-CHl\~E NO. 172 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 76-1 APPLICANT: CARLTAS % PAUL co. ECKE P.O. BOX 488 ENCINITAS, CA. 92024 LAGOON >-1-z :) 0 0 .. •• . .. HEOIONDA LAGOON AIRPORT ~oti.O Case No. AP7t:,-I Date Rec'd:_+---_.,_..,.. _____ DRC Date:__,.. _ _,___........._ •. > t- 0 >-.... z ::> 0 0 Description of Request :=--Zc--'-....:."/0__.a:::6':::'.-~~~~~--==,...__=-...:.J..LJ.J=:i.......u...u~=;._t_-=-'----~ Al) A G:~IZI Cu LTU t2. fl App 1 i cant: C,£1 RJ..:.T.l}:-5.. Engr. or Arch ._-1..,;i...:C:;;:;.!,, ..... =-o.!./.J=-·~..;;;__~=.;__--=~....::...::..!..U~;.-..i;.;.... ____ ~--------1 Bri ef Legal ·__,_-....., .......... ~..._"""""'-J.__----'=..J-....:;..__._....,_.;"-"'-,,-;J......,_.___.__;;....._1--SJ.~~....s.....~"--"-"~---.......-f Assessor Book: 2, ti Page: ()JO « ~ __, Paree l · c, ~ 4 / Z~ General Plan land Use Description:_~~_..;:.ii..:....J~i.::.....1.::a.....---------------' Existing Zone: R-A-10 Acres: ·:31CJ, ff L No. of. Lots: _ _......_,.___ __ School Oistdct: f!. .:; r,. Water/Sanitation Oistrict:___.;c~·a· ~·--"'--..;_j.,-~ ....... ..!Q,..=.-c-----------------4 Within Coast Plan Arca;_ y'E::S Coast Permit Arca:_..L,'f...-;:.;...:~;.__ __ _.