Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-14; Planning Commission; MinutesNNting of: Date of Meet lng: Tia of. tteeting: Plaoe of Meeting: CALL '10 CRBt=: MINUTES PlNIIIK; CIN«SSIQI ~WIiber 14, 1984 6:00 p.11. City COOncil crumt,e,:-a '!be NNting was called to crder by Outlrmn Rmbotis at 6:00 p.■. Present: O\air.an Rmbotis, ca.issiooers Schlehuber, Slllith, L'Reureux, Marcus ald McPatien. cm.dssioner Farrow arrived 6:04 p.m. Absent: Nooe. Staff M! tiers Present: Bill Hofr,,.:in, Principal Planner Charles Grial, Principal Planner Walter Brown, Civll Er.igineer Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager Bx--Officio Mellbers Present: Dan Bentachke, Assistant City Attorney PL!OOB <:I ALl.lGIAICE was led by Olairman Ralh:>tis. ~ CDIUSSICJil AO:lb.JRFS: Chair-, Rmbotis called attenticn to the Planning ca.issiai Proce&.tres pdnted oo the badt of the Agenda. Chairmn Rmbotis anoounoed Item t4 WCA1ld be oonsidered first. 4. ZC-316 -IOisRl'S GlQJP • Principal Plmner Bill Homan requested a a.o week ocntinumoe for this It•, • there is a, environnenW latter to be dkeesed. 'ftle applicant is in agre-at. Plawdng ca.iuioo a:intinued ZC-316 for a.o weeks. CXJft'D1mD 1'ftllB: 1. D-179 -CITY <:I CAmBBAD -An -dllnt to the acn1iii ciali.iii f.o i-idt autmllbile dealerahipa by oanMtianal uae pm:llit in ,ny ncn-reeidential acme within cne ~ Id.le of an exiating autambile claal..tup ~- Chtlrl• Grillll, Principal Planner, gave the staff report <m thia ita, stating the OWli uia'l cx,ul.d ttm1y the , ldllnt., oontinue it Wlt:11 the City OJuncil giwa direotJon m the cllalenbip en PoinNttia, or~ the dlwat wt of I-5 anly. He atated that ataff NO did dlnial of the applic::atiCJn balled en the fact that the City 00uno-l will giw cllt.ctien in the near futun llltt ~ could pnju&,ie the Council action. lalb>tia ~ Parrow X Schlehuber X L'Bllureull X Saith X Narcua X Nd'dtel, X X MINUTES Nuveibec 14, 1984 Page 2 ca.isaioner Schlehuber stated he vas in favor of staff rP.CXJllllll!n&ltioo for denial. Aaaistant City Attorney Hentschke said all the co.issiooera received a p!ldtet of letters protesting the a•11&1ent. Be recxaended the ca.issioo accept that padtet of •terials • part of the record. 'lbis repreaents those people in qipositioo to the mandaent without the neoeaaity of cping through a loog public hearing. 'lbe protesta are written and part of the record am oonslderatioo. ~rman Rl::.ab>tis opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. am iasued the invitatioo to speak. Kr. Bailey Noble, Terrmar Ansociatioo, addressed the O'Wl1asioo, stating he had petitia,e as well as the letters. He requested the petitia,s be llll!!de a part of the recrxd. Mr. Noble objected strongly to the roving of Car Country to the Terr-.ar. area. 'lbis was ~ country aid agriculture at me time, and he felt this change IICUl.d not be in keeping with the general plan. Re described the ooise and danger froffl car-testing there at the present tiae aid lidded the ooise and light hlpact would be trmendcu8 for the present residents. Mr. John A. Gray, 5451 Loa ~les Drive, spoke against the~ mving of car eountry to the west side of r-s. 'ft1ere ... ~ to be a ruffer mone between Car Country aid this area, aid now the residents are forced to deftnd that ruffer aone. Be felt the caaissioo should do that !tafending for the residents. Si.nae oo one else wished to speak a, this ita, the public tatiaony we ooncluded at 6:16 p.a. ca.iuioo L'Beureux stated his ca10em with this l!IIPlimtioo WI that it ... not the ps:q,er .-..er. A IIUCh largar rea IICUl.d be needed to expa'ld Car COUntry, anl!I thia .,.. is just too -11. 'ltlia IICUl.d not aol ve the PftJbl• at all, but would just create m prob].-. Planning Ccaaiuioo deniea ZCA-179. 2. SllP 84-5 -CAIUBAD GM'llaY Cl!lft'BR -~t for iQiCvNl of a site c1iwlqaint pt., to allow a:inatructioo of a lllad-uN inlbltrial/offioe to amplex at a 16.5 acn ■ite en the .. t aide of Bl Caine Real, north of the Cllblffiaia\ ruilding. Bill IIDl!mn, Principal Planner, gave the pnaentatioo oo tbla ita • cxintairllld in the staff i,apcrt, ming a t.i anlplliency lbcw1ng the site. He stated all iuuee had bean neol'ftd 9X01Pt the acoeu to Bl Caino Real. 'lbe IIIJP.limnt 1a wwilling to relirquiah that acceu, a • a naul.t of. that, ■taff i■ n,o,,.._r11Ung denial. a.botis rarrc. Schlehuber L'Beureux Sllith Maraw Mc!'adcten X I X I X X X X i c II .. v "t..) • . ' October 20, 1984 PETITION TO TRI Ci.l'Y OP CAlLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION AID TRI ctn or CAil.SUD CITY COUNCn We, th• WMleraiped, are ••">er• of the Terra .. r Ho•ovnera Aaeociation and/or reeide in the Terraur Subdivieion ·. the addreaaea liated be1ide our na••• We are property owner• or rentera, and regiatered voter•, in t\e City of Carlabad. We hereby proteat any actic~ by the Planning Co~iaaiou or the City Cowicil in aandin1 the zoning ordinance or by any other ••n• to per.it autoaobile dealer1hip1 by conditional u•• perait to be eatabliahed or operated OD Avaida Bncinaa. We reeide 1-diately to the Weit of Avenid~ lnciua and allowin, autoaobile dealership• to locate on thi1 atreet vtll have a ne1ative and adver•• iapact, both environmentally and econoaically, on ua. Our aipature1 belov Ii ve weight to our concern•, and we aak the PlaDUing Coaa11aion and the City Council to disapprove -.ny change in the city zoning ordiunc•• that would perait autombile agencies to operate on Avenida Encinas. Si~~ il Lr ·5'?L,'2 iQ. A.'6~ ~~1 , Address ~~~tc~ -~~ 5 ·¾0 'c.Q_ Mo~! G::i¼'<\.lc:f J Sipature Addreaa Signature Address Signature Addresa Slpature Address Sipatur• AddreH Sipature Addresa Sipature Addreaa Addrea1 • (!) .. Plautus C~••ion c/o ~hl\:IA.in1 Director Lancl Oeo Plarm.ing Departaent City of Carleb&d Carlsbad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 City of Carlabad Propoaed Ar.'!Jldaent Gentle•n: to Zoning Ordinance to P~nd.t Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Aa you lmow froB our ... ting with your Planning Depart11ent, the residente of the Terra .. r SubcliviaiOll are oppoaed ro any ••ndMnt to the City of Carlabad s0D.1n1 ordinance that vould allow autoaobile dealerships to be eatabliahed on Av~nicla !nciuaa. It 1 ■ the reaidents living nearby ~ho rill be adveraely affected by thia propo■ed aaendMnt, and ve are totally oppo■ed to any change in the cu:dcipal code■ or zoning that would perait the introduction of autoaotive agenci•• OD the Weat aide of Interstate 5. Allowing such auto•obile duler■bipa to operate on Aveuida Encinaa would be extremely detri•ntal and . would have a aajor adverse effect, both auviron•ntally and ecouOllically, on us •• reaident ■ of the Terra .. r Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational congeation, aal•• and aaiutenance auto road testing, the extre• noiae of tire iapact vrenchea, public addr••• ayate•, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ■bould be kept on the !ut aide of Interstate 5. We do not vant can being road teated on our re■idential streets. Our cOllcen■ are geuuiue. The utter we are addrea■ing 1a our right to live our live• in the quiet eujoJIIIID.t of our hoaea undiaturbed. We choH to live in the Terr ... r Subdiviaion in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinance• and alJILiq would create a.d aaintain an envirOD11ent in which ve could live. We uk that tbe City COUllcil and the Carl■bad Planing Coaaiaai011 stand behind that coaaitaent to the Maher• of thia Carlabad co.-mity. R.eapectfully, Strut Add re■■ Plamuq Co..taaion c/o Plamung Dtr•ctor Land Uae Planni ~ Departaent City of Carl1bad C.rl1bad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carl1bad Proposed Aaendaent GentleMn: to Zoniq Ordinance to Pera.it Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Aa you know fro• our aeting vith your Planning Department, the re~idents of the Terraaar Subdiviaion are oppoaed to any a•nd•nt to the City of Carlabad zcmina ordinance that would allow autoaobile dealer1hipa to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It 1• tbe reaidente living nearby vho vill be adveraely affected by thia propoaQd aaend■ent, and ve are totally oppoaed to any cbaqe in the avnicipal cod•• or zoning that would pera.it the introduction of autoaotive agencies OD the Weat aide of Interstate 5. Allowing such auto■obile dealerahipa to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extre•ly detrl•nt al and wou l d have a ujor adver1e effect, both environmentally and econoaically, on ue u reaidenta of the Terra .. r Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational coqeatiOD, ,ale• and ■aintenance auto road testing, the extra• noiae of tira impact wrench••• public addr••• 1yate•, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ahovld be kept on the !aat aide of luteretate 5. We do not want care being road teated OD our reaidantial 1treets. Our cODcerua are genuine. The utter ve are addreaaing 1a our right to Un our live• in the quiet ajoyaent of our hoae• undisturbed. We.choee to live in the Terraaar Subdivieion in tha belief that the City of Carlabad ordinance• and scmiq .muld create cd aaintain an envirODMllt in which we could l~ve. We aek that the City Council and the Carlabad Planing Coaaiaaion 1tand behind that coaait•nt to the M■ber• of tl\ia Carlebad coaamity. leapectfully, TUllAKAI. USIDINT .. Plamdn, Coaa:l.1aion c/o Plamuna Director \ Land Uae Plauniq Department City of Carlabad Carl1bad, CA 92008 . \ October 17, 1984 Subject: City cf Carl1bad Proposed Amendment GentleMn: to Zouiq Ordinance to Penait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas ... you \-.now fro• our •eting with your PlaD.D.ing Depart•nt, the reaidenta of tha Terraaar SubdiviaiOD. are oppoaed to any a•ndllent to the City of Carlabad &OD.in& ordinauce that would allow autoaobile dealerahipe to be established on Aveuida lncinaa. It 1a thll reeidents living nearby vho vill be adveraely affected by thi1 propoaed a1111ndaent, and ve are totally oppoaed to any change in the mmicipal cod•• or zoning that would penait the introduction of autoaotiva agencie1 OD. the Weit aide of Interstate 5. Allowing such auto110bile dealarehipa to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a ujor adverse effect, both envi~onmentally and econoaically, on us u reaident1 of the Terrau~ Subdivision. We believe that auto110tive dealerships, with the general noise and operational cou.pation, 1ale1 and -iutenance auto road testing, the extre• noise of tire iapact wrench••• public addre11 syateu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., abould be kept on the Eaat side of Interstate 5. We do not want car, being road t a1ted on our re1idential streets. Our cC"'Dcern• are geuuine. The aatter we are addreaaing ii our right to live ou live• in the quiet enjoyaent of our hoae1 undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivilion in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinance• and &<mini would create and uiutain an environllellt in which we could live. We aak that the City Council and the Carl1bad Planning Collaiaaion &tand behind that coaaitaet\t to the •llbera of thi1 Carlabad coee•ntt:y. Reap•ctfully, TEIUWWl RES!DENT N ... ./ .,:-44:z .s:t;re L?r Str•t Addr••• • Plamdug Coam.••ion c/o Plannin1 Director Lud U•e Planning Depitrttillt City of Carl•bad Carl•bad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carl•bad Propoaed Aaendaent to Zonin, Ordinance to Perait Auto Dealenhips an Avenida Encinas Aa you know froa our ... ting with your Plama.iug Department, the re•1dents of the Terraaar Subdivi•iOll are oppoaed to any ••nd•nt to the City of Carlsbad zmdn, ordinance that would allov autoaobile dealer•hip• to be ••tabli•hed on Avenida lnciua. It 1■ the reeideuu liviug nearby vbo will be advenely affected by thi• propoeed aaenda91lt, and ve are totally opposed to any ch&uge in the aunicipal. code• or zoniug that would 1)8rait the introduction of autoaotive ageucie• on the Weet •ide of Interetate 5. Allowing such aut0110bile dealerehip• to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extse•ly detri•utal and would haw a Mjor adver•• effect, both environaentally and econOllically, on ue u reaident• of the Terra•r Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational cozap•t1cm, aale• and Mintenance auto road testing, the extre• noiae of tire iapact vrenchea, public addre•• •Y•te•, traffic night floodlighting, etc., abould be kept on the !at aide of Interatate 5. We do not want can being road teated on our ruideutial •treets. Our concerua are ge'DUine. The matter ve are addreaeing 1a our right to live ~ir liva• iu the qui~t enjoy.At of our hoaea Ulldieturbed. We choee to live in tbe Terraur Subdiviaion in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordiD&Dcee ad zOllin1 would create and aAintain an environaent in vbich we could live. We aak that the City Couucil and the Carlsbad Plmmiug Co-1.eaiOll ataud behind that COllld.taent to the ••ber• of thi• Carlabad co rn1 ty. l.eapectfully, TEUAMil l!SIDllff ~-M✓- ,££1.~-£( ,4y/;,/ Street Addre•• October 20, 1984 PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCU We, the undersigned, are members of the Terramar Homeowners Aaeociation and/or re•ide in the Terraaar Subdivision at the addreeees liated beaide our ua••· We are property owners or renters, and registered voter•, in the City of Carlsbad. We hereby protest any action by the Planning Comaiaaion or tbe City Council in ••nding the zoning ordinance or by any other -means to perait autoaobile dealerships by conditional use penait to be established or operated on Avenida Encinas. We reside iiaediately to the West of Avenida !ucin&s and allowing autoaobile dealerships to locate on this street will have a negative and adverse imµact, both envirouaentally and economically, on us. Our aipature• below give weight to our concerns, and we ask the Planning COllaiHion and the City Council to disapprove any change in the city zoning ordiuncea that would perm.it automobile agencies to operate on Avenida Encinas. Sipature Address Sipature Address Signature Address Signature AddreH Signature Addreaa Sipature Addreaa Sipatur e Address Slpatun Addreaa SJ.pa ure Addreu October 20, 1984 PETITION TO THE CITY OF CAllLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY OP CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL We, the underaigned, are ••bers of the Terraur Ho•owners A•eociation and/or reaide 1n the Terraaar Subdivision at the addresses listed be1ide our na•s• We are property owners or renters, and registered voters, in the City of Carlsbad. We hereby protest any ac~ion by the Planning Co-1.asion or the City Council in a•nding the zoning ordinance or by any other means to perait autoaobile dealerships by conditional use pera:it to be established or operated on Avenida Encinas. We reside iaediately to the Weat of Avenida Encina• and allovitll autoaobile dealerships to locate on this street will have a negative and adverse impact, both environmentally and economically, on us. Our signature• below give weight to our concerns, and we ask the Planning Coaaiaaim:i and the City Council to disapprove any change in the city zoning ordinance• th~t would permit autoir.obile agencies to operate on Avenida Encinas. Address Signature Address Signature AddreH Siguature Address Sipature Address Sipature Addreaa Signature Addres11 Sipature Addr••• Planniug Coaaia■ion c/o Planning Director Land U■e Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carlabad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment Gentleaen: to Zoning Ordinance to Perait Auto Dealerships C!l Avenida Encinas Aa you ltnov fro■ our meeting with your Planning Department, the re■idencs of the Terraur Subdivision are opposed to any ••ndMnt to the City of Carlabad zonin& ordinance that would allow automobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It is the reaidents living nearby who will be adversely affected by this propoaed aaendaent, and we are totally oppoaed to any change in the ■unicipal code• or zoning that would perm.it the introduction of aut oaotive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealer■hipa to operate on Avenida Encinas vould be extre•ly detrimental and would have a ujor adverse effect, both environmentally and econo11lically, on ua aa resident• of the Terraur Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational conp■tion, sale• and maintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire impact vrenchea, public addreaa systel!l8, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ahould be kept on the Eaat aide of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teated on our residential streets. Our concern~ are genuine. The aatter we are addressing is our right to live our live• in the quiet enjoyaent of our homes undisturbed. We chose to live in the Te rraur Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinances and zoning would crea te and aaintain an environ•nt in vhich we could live. We ask that the City Council and the Carlsbad Planning Collmission stand behind that coaait-nt to the aeabera of this Carlsbad co11111hlnity. Respectfully, TERRAMAR RESIDENT ~~' s-, 13 CA3?:4&,I.\ b BL\/}> Street Addre•• c-M-L~gM> October 17, 1984 Planning Coaaission c/o Pl.&nning Director Land Uee Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carlebad, CA 92008 Subject: Gentle•n: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to Permit Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas As you know fro■ our aeeting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivision are oppos~d to any amendment to the City of Carlsbad zOlling ordinance that would allow automobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It is the residents living nearby who will be adversely affected by this propoeed amendment, and we are totally opposed to any change in the aunicipal code• or zoning that would permit the introduction of aut0110tive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerehip• to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a ujor adverse effect, both environmentally and economically, on us a• reaidents of the Terraaar Subdivision. We believe that auto110tive dealerships, with the general noise and operational conaeation, sales and uintenance auto road testing, the extre• noise of tire iapact wrenches, public addre.s systema, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ehould be kept on the Eaat aid~ of Interatate 5. We do not want cars being road te■ted on our residential streets. Our concerua are genuine. The 11&tter we are addressing is our right to live our live■ in the quiet enjoyaent of our ho•• undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinances and zoning would create and aaintain an environment in which we could live. We ask that the City Council and the Carlsbad Planning Collllission stand behind that collllitaent to the ••bers of this Carlsbad co11DUDity. Respectfully, TERRAKAR RESIDENT I I I '., .\. X Street Addre•• Planning Coali11ion c/o Planning Director Land Use Planniug Department City of Carlsbad C.rlabad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment GentleMn: to Zoniug Ordinance to Penait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas A• you know from our meeting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terra .. r Subdivision are oppoaed to any amendment to the City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance that vould allow automobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinas. It is the residents living nearby who vill be adversely affe~ted by this proposed aMndaent, and we are totally opposed to any change in the municipal code• or zoniug that would permit the introduction of autoaotive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealership• to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detritlll!ntal and would have a ujor adverse effect, both environmentally and econoaically, on us a• residents of the Terraaar Subdivision. We believe that automotive dealerships, vith the general noise and operational congeation, sale• and maintenance auto ro&d testing, the extreme noise of tire impact wrenches, public addreH systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., should be kept on the Eaat side of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road tested on our residential streets. Our concern• are genuine. The aatter ve are addressing ie our right to live our live• in the quiet enjoyaent of our hoae• undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terra-r Subdiviaion in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinances and zonina would create and aaintain an environment in which we could live. We ask that the City Council and the Carlsbad Planniug Coaaission stand behind that coaaitMnt to the members of this Carlsbad community. Respectfully, TERRAMAR. RBSiDENT Naae ~~~ u ~w ~ Street AdtlreH Planning Coaaission c/o Planning Director Land Use Planning Depart~ent City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment Gentlemen: to Zoning Ordinance to Perait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Aa you know fro• our meeting with your Planning DepartrAent, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivision are opposed to any amendment to the City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance that would allow automobile dealerships co be established on Avenida Encinas. It is the residents living nearby who will be adversely affected by thia proposed amendment, and we are totally opposed to any change in the municipal codes or zoning that would permit the introduction of auto11<>tive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerships to operat~ on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detri :nental and would have a major adverse effect, both environmentally and economically, on us u reeident• of the Terramar Subdivision. We believe that automotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational congestion, sales and maintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire impact vrenches, public address sys ems, traffic night floodlighting, etc., should be kept on the East side of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teated on our residential streets. Our concerua are genuine. The matter we are addressing is our right to live our livea in the quiet enjo~t of our homes undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that th~ City of Carlsbad ordinances and zoning would create and ruintain an environment in which we could live. We ask tha t th• City Council and the Carlsbad Planning Coaaisaion stand behind that cowa:i taent to the aembera of this Carlsbad community. Respectfully, TERRAMAR RESIDE •/. . ;LL)..•'L \, Name l+t<-(5 Street Addreaa Ck~-.x_ ,(~ ~,1._·h£ ~ Planning Co-.ieaion c/o Planning Director Land Oee Planning Oepart~ent City of Carlsbad Carlebad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment Gentle .. n: to Zoniq Ordinance to Permit Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Aa you know fro■ our •eting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivieion are oppoeed to any ••nd•nt to tha City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance that would allow auto110bile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinas. It is the resident• living nearby who will be adveraely affected by thi• propoeed aaendaent, and we are totally opposed to any change in the municipal cod•• or zoning that would permit the introduction of autoaotive agencies on the Weat side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerahip• to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a aajor adverse effect, both environmentally and economically, on ui u reaident• of the Terraaar Subdivision. We believe that automotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational cougeetion, sales and aaintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire impact WTenchee, public addreea systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ehould be kept on the Eaet eide of Interstate 5. We do not want car• being road teeted on our reeidential streets. Our concerna are genuine. The aatter we are addressing is our right to live our lives in the quiet enjoyaent of our ho•• undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivieion in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordiMnced and zoning would create aud aaintain an environment in which we could live. We ask that the City Council and the Carlabad Planning Collllliasion stand behind that co-.tt .. nt to the ••bera of thia Carlabad comunity. Respectfully, £~ 1e E? £lt J.,1 lJ r tY-<.., Street Addre■a Planning Co.n11ion c/o Planning Director Land U1e Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carl1bad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment Gentlemen: to Zoning Ordinance to Pena.it Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Al you know fro■ our meeting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivision are opposed to any amendment to the City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance that would allow autoaobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinas. It is the residents living nearby who will be adversely affected by this proposed amendment, and we are totally opposed to any change in the aunicipal code• or zoning that would permit the introduction of auto110tive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerships to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental ~r.d would have a aajor adverse effect, both environmentally and econoaically, on us a1 residents of the Terramar Subdivision. We believe that auto110tive dealership9, with the general noise and operational conge1t iou, sales and aaintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire iapact wrenches, public address systema, traffic night floodlighting, etc., 1hould be kept on the Eaat aide of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road tested on our residential streets. Our concern• are genuin~. The utter we are addressing is our right to live our live• in the quiet enjoyment of our ho.ea undisturbed. We choae to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinance• and zoning would create and aaintain an environment in which we could live. We a1k that the City Council and the Carlsbad Planning Commission stand behind that collllit-nt to the members of this Carl1bad co11111UDity. Re1per.:tfully, TERB.AMAR RESIDENT Street Addre•• PlalUlin, Colllli••ion c/o PlalUling Director Land U•• Planning Department City of Carlabad Carl•bad, CA 92008 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment October 17, 19R4 to Zoning Ordinance to Penait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas A.a you know fro■ our •eting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivisi011 are opposed to any aaend•nt to the City of Carlsbad zcmina ordinance that vould allow autoaobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It is the r~aidenta living neorby who will be adversely affected by thi• propoaed amendaent, and we are totally opposed to any change in the ■unicipal code• or zoning that would penait the introduction of auto110tive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allow1ng such automobile dealerahip• to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a major adverse effect, both environmentally and economically, on us a• resident• of the Terramar Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational congeaticm, sale• and maintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire impact vrenchea, public address systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ahould be kept on the East side of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teated on our residential streets. Our concerua are genuine. The matter we are addressing is our right to live our lives in the quiet enjoy.ant of our hoaea undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the balief that the City of Carlsbad ordinance• anJ zoning would create and aai,nta4lp environment in which we could live. We aak th&t the City Council and the Carlabad Planning Co-.tsaion stand behind that co■-itMnt .to the members of this Carlsbad coaaunity. Respectfully, TERUMAil RESIDENT )C (IQ ~ I ffrl'L'I Dr Street Addr••• I ( '/) c,.;£..·'t'< '-<.)tl"/S h, .._ - @ Plannilll Coaaieeion c/o Plannilll Director Land Uae Plannilll Department City of Carlsbad Carlebad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment Gentle•n: to Zoning Ordinance to Perait Auto Dealerships 011 Avenida Encinas Aa you know froa our ••ting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivieiou are opposed to any a•nd•nt to the City of Carlsbad zon.1n1 ordinance that would allow autoaobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It la the reaidentl living nearby who vill be adversely affected by this p.opoaed aaendaent, and we are totally opposed to any change in the aunicipal codes or zoning that would permit the introductiou of autoaoti ve agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerahipa to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a aajor adverse effect, both environMntally and econoaically, on us as reaident• of the Terramar Subdivision. We believe that autoaotive dealerships, with the general noise and operational congestion, sales and saintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire iapact vrenchee, public addreu systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., should be ke pt on the East side of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teated on our residential streets. Our concerns are genuine. The satter we are addressing is our right to live our live• in the quiet enjoyaent of our ho.es undisturbed. qe chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinancem and zoning would create and aaintain an environment in which we could live. We ask th.at the City Council and the Carlsbad Planning Collllieaion stand behind that coaait•nt to the ••bers of this Carlsbad coaaunity. Respectfully, S"°Ol(o nErlRA DEL ce.o Street A.ddroas Planning Co-iasion c/o Planning Di rector Land Uee Planniug De partment City of Carlebad Carlebad, CA 92008 October 17, 1984 Subject: Ci t y of Carlabad Proposed Amendment Gentle .. n : t o Zoning Ordinance to Penait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas Aa you know fro■ our meeting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivis ion are opposed to any a•ndaent to the City of Carlsbad 100.ing ordinance t hat would a llow automobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encina~. It is the residents liviug nearby who will be adversely affected by t his pr oposed amendment, and we are totally opposed to any chauge in the aunicipal codes or zoning that would permit the introduct:. on of autoaotive agencies on the West side of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerships t o opera te on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a ujor adverse effect, both environmentally and econollically, on us aa reeidsnts of the Te rramar Subdivision. We believe t hat auto1DOti ve dealerships, with the general noise and operational congeetion, sal es and maintenance auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire iapact wrenches, publi c address systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., should be kept on t he East side of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teated on our resident ial streets. Our concern• are genui ne. The utter we are addressing is our right to live our live• in the quie t enj oy■ent of our homes undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinauces and zoning would create and aaintain an environment in which we could live. We ask that the City Council and the Ca rlsbad Planning Coaaission stand behind that coaait■ent to the ••hers of this Carlsbad community. Respectfully, TERRAMAR RESIDENT , ' October 20, 1984 PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION AND TH! CITY OP CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL We, the underaigned, are •mber1 of the Terramar Homeowners Aaeociation and/or reeide in the Terraur Subdivision at the addresses listed beaid• our na•s• We are property owners or renters, and registered voters, in the City of Carlsbad. We hereby protest any action by the Planning co-iasion or the City Council in a•nding the zoning ordinance or by any other mean• to perait autoaobile dealerships by conditional use penait to be established or o~rated on Avenida Encinaa. We reside i._diately to the West of Avenida lncinaa and allowing autoaobile dealerships to locate on this street will have a ne1ative and adverse impact, both environ-ntally and economically, on us. Our •i~turea belov give weight to our concern•, and we ask the Planning Coaaieaion and the City Council to disapprove any change in the city zoning ordinance• t hat would penait auto110bile agencies to operate on Avenida Encinas. v--/7:zC:-~~~✓--d~ c::; ?4-crd Address Address , > - Signature Address . , Signature Address Signature Address Signature Addreaa Signature Address Slp.ature Addreea Signature A.ddreea .. PlanniD.1 Coaaieeion c/o Planning Director 1.aDd U•• Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carlebad, CA 92008 Subject: City of Carlsbad Proposed Amendment , '\ October 17, 1984 to Zoning Ordinance to Perait Auto Dealerships on Avenida Encinas GentleMn: Aa you ltnov fro■ our meeting with your Planning Department, the residents of the Terraaar Subdivision are oppoeed to any a•ndaent to the City of Carlsbad zcming ordinance that would allow automobile dealerships to be established on Avenida Encinaa. It is the reaidents living nearby vho vill be adversely affected by th11 propoeed aaend■ent, and we are totally opposed to any ch&nge in the municipal code• or zoning that would permit the introduction of auto■otive agencies on the West aide of Interstate 5. Allowing such automobile dealerahips to operate on Avenida Encinas would be extremely detrimental and would have a aajor adverse effect, both environmentally and econoaically, on u, aa resident• of the Terraaar Subdivision. We believe that automotive dealerships, with the gener&l noise and operational co~p•tion, sales and u.inten&nce auto road testing, the extreme noise of tire impact wrenches, public address systeu, traffic night floodlighting, etc., ahould be kept on the East aide of Interstate 5. We do not want cars being road teeted on our reeidential st~eets. Our concern• are genuine. The aatter we are addressing is our right to live our 11 ve1 in the quiet enjoyment of our ho•• undisturbed. We chose to live in the Terraaar Subdivision in the belief that the City of Carlsbad ordinance• and zoning would create and ■aintain an environment in which we could live. We ••k that the City Council and the Carlsbad Ploniug Co-1ssio~ stand behind that co-.i.taent to the me■bers of this Carlsbad coa.unity. Respectfully, TERIAMA.ll RES I D£N'l lln A/e,; /)_ · • J! mfc ml~ N ... St 2.o µ jRIJ'-'t. J/f!- Street Addre•• @ MINUTES Noventler 14, 1984 Marty Bcullan, City Traffic Engineer, explained the policy regarding intersection spacings and accesses as it pert.alned to this classification of roadway. El CMni.no Real is a pria arterial, the highest classification of roadway other than a freeway. A prime arterial is geared, at ecme future date, to carry a capacity of 40,000 vehicles. El caaino Real is projected at a higher capacity. Be stated the pr-ime arterial standard spells out certain reetrictia,s and intersectioo spacing, "'1ich should be 2,600 feet~ me-half mile apart. A transparency was used to indicate intersectioos en El camino Real. Be stated if the standards are rot followed, the ability to carry the full anDUnt of traffic can be lost. Also, there is to be oo access, except at the legal intersectioos with public streets. Mr. Bouman stated ecmetimes it is diffirult to IIBintain that standard because there are situations where it is sinply rot practical. POr instance, in fragmented ownership of prqierty, if you can't have access, it oould well uean a parcel oould be<nll! landlocked. Mr. BomMn stated there was a roadway to the rear of this project, and when the City Engineering Department wrote the justification foc the variance for this partirular aooess, they had another access in mind. Wlerl you try to carry 50,000 or 60,000 cars oo an arterial, and with heavy a:noentratioo at that spot: if, without d::>ing any major hara, you can funnel traffic out with a right turn in and out, it would be a solutioo. 'lhis justificatioo foe a variance was written with that in mind. Be stated this variance was written with a deceleratioo lane of sufficient length to get the traffic out of the Wll.'J of the through traffic. However, this was protested by the applicant, and if Engineering can't have the deceleratioo lane, staff can rot support the justification for the variance. Mr. Bculan stated that secondly, they had been assured, in their minds, that there would be a 8e<Xlndary aooesa to the oorth to connect ~ with the O'Hara project. 'lhis access cnto El Camino Real oould rot be the priary access-only the seoondary access. In IUBll}', Mr. Bouman stated the variance oould be justified provided this Bl Cam.no access point would be a seoJndary access point, and there is a though road to the east and to the rear of this prcperty c::xmnect.ing nearby Mjor streets, together with a deceleration lane to ac,c,-mte the traffic off of the •jor street. In mawer to cpt!!r'j, Mr. Brown used a wall 1111P of the O'llllra project, wii:h an insert shoiring the carlsbad Gateway project. Be stated Palaer Street would be ocnlleCl.ing with El Caino. Pal.Ber would oontinue to College, with a priae interaectia, for southbound and ~. '1be distance fr.an College to the Barbour COnnectim is 2,200 feet and is 400 feet short of the required interaection spacing. It is also too close to the right tum in aid out-only 800 feet. Mr. Bculan reiterated the right turn in and out would be all right if it were mt the prt.ary access. 'l'1e primary acmu should be frat the rear of the project ooto Palar. MINUTES November 14, 1984 Page 4 COMMISSIONERS Coallissia, discussioo at this time pointed out the fact that with the Brq)6 toward El Camino Real, it would seesn that people IIIOU!d mice that the prilllary access, and thP.re would be a prd:>lem with the evening traffic a,to El Caino Real. Mr. lnJman stated there would be conflict, and the alternative '°-lld be to have traffic i;,:, l4) Palmer to College. Cclllnissiooer L'Beureux 00,1111,mted that traffic between future College and the Barro.Jr Ca,nectia, was a short intersectia, and he felt the shortening of distances between intersectia,s was poor planning and he wndered just where it would stq>. He also asked aoout the J,ilysical median m El Camino Real and when it would be built. Mr. Bouman answered at the time of illprovements, a full median is planned m El Cami.no Real. Mr. Fred Walters, 2810 Camino Del Rio south, Suite 202, representing Carlsbad Gateway Center, stated they had worked to solve the drainage problem;; had net with the neighbors m Sumy Creek to address the inpact to them, and had answered all questia,s. He stated the project is reaa,_. to go, the funding is in place, and it is vital that it i;,:, forward. '!he access is a subject that 111JSt be answered, and staff has stated a site of this size nust have a secondary access. He stated that Palmer way does oot exist and they cannot afford to build it. Mr. Wlllters felt the standard nust be caipranised when applied to existing situatioos. Be felt safety was oot cmpranised by this limited access. Mr. Wlllters stated Mr. Fipp had told him there was iVl original driveway m this property at the southwest comer of the property next to the small parcel of land. There is a driveway there, and if that acre were aold, access and easement "IOllld be across their property to service that sma1:.. parcel. He added that half of their access to El Cmnino Real had been given up by limiting the tum; however, they are willing to build the median and the acoeleratim and deceleratia, lanes, if the City feels that is necessary. Mr. Bernie Fipp, Koll Caipany, 7330 Engineer Road, San Diego, stated he was ooe of the partners and Koll had purchased the prq,erty four years ago for devel~t. There was a plan similar to the a,e Mr. Wlllters has, but due to a oonflict in interest with the founder of the Ca.pany, they rould mt legally develop and decided to sell. Mr. Pipp stated when they purchased the property, it was with a reservatia, of a road along the southern boundary at the southwest corner and that reservatia, still exists. There is access to El Camino Real there, but aiother plan was sumitted to staff noving the access further north, a,ay frca Faraday, in ceder to aake a safer tum. 'Ibis would have a deceleratioo and acoeleratioo lane, with restricted parking. If this developer ben't buy this prq,erty, it will be aold to a<meooe else. '!he right to access is there and has not been given aRJ:i, as it does have an effect m the value of the (ll:q)erty. Mrs. BeBe Grosse, 5850 Sunny Creek Ibid, addressed the ca.dssioo, giving oopies of a letter fran her husband, Russell Graise, to the canissiooers. She stated they are in favor of the project and that she was speaking for: Mr. DeLcnl, who also favors the project. • 5850 Avenida E1'tinas, Suite A November 14, 1984 Planning Conwnission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Conwnissioners: Carlsb :l, California 92008 Phone 619/438-3141 Mrs. Grosse and I are 1n full support of the staff recommendations for STP84-5 and are also in full support of the project. We are also authorized to speak on behalf of Mr. Oelornl. Mr. Delorl"f1 h~s executed a letter indicating that he favors a proposal by the developer not to carrv Palmer Way through the Gateway Project and through OelorB's Project on i nto Mr. O'Hara's Project. l'i~ is still in accord with that proposal, howe ver, he wishes to make it clear that should the City dpprove the proposa l Mr. Oelormcould not be called upon 1n the future to make the connect i on at a later date. He feels that the imposition upon his property, a very small parcel of the burden of carrying this street, would be unfair. H further wishes to nake it clear that the committed access to El Camin0 Re t at the northerly boundary of his property should remain intact. It is my understanding from talking to Mr. O'Hara that as a cond i ion of approving his project he has the obligation of carrying the road ,rough Mr. Oelorm's property. Mr. Delorm woul~ like to see the same conoition placed upon the Gateway Project so that he could be assured that whichever project developed first that that developer would have the respon sib ility of paying for the cost of carrying the road across Mr. Delorm's property. Mr. Delorm is prepared to provide the easement to the City without cost if the road were to be developed by one or the other of the ad joini ng property owners. In addition to the foregoing, the developer of the Gateway Proj er• has proposed a drainage plan, copy of which is attached to this lett . We believe this to be a fair proposal and that this drainage plan should be adopted as part of the conditions of the approval of the project. Sincerely yours, /dd Attachment Co ntractors License No. 378383 . . 5850 Avenid~ Encinas, Suite A November 14. 1984 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear COfll111ss1oners: Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 619/438-3141 Mrs. Grosse and I are in full support of the staff recommendations for STP84-5 and are also 1n full support of the project. We are also authorized to speak on behalf of Mr. Delorn. Mr. Delorn has executed a letter indicating that he favors a proposal by the developer not to carry Palmer Way through the Gateway Project and through Delorn's Project on into Mr. O'Hara's Project. He is still in accord w1th that proposal, however, he wishes to make it clear that should the City approve the proposal Mr. Delorn could not be called upon 1n the future to make the connection at a later date. He feels that the imposition upon his property. a very small parcel of the burden of carrying this street. would be unfair. He further wishes to make it clear that the committed access to El Camino Real at the northerly boundary of his property should remain intact. It 1s my understanding from talking to Mr. O'Hara that as a condition of approving his project he has the obligation of carrying the road through Mr. Oelorn's property. Mr. Delorn would like to see the same condition placed upon the Gateway Project so that he could be assured that whichever project developed first that that developer would have the responsib1lity of paying for the cost of carrying the road across Mr. Oelorn's prop~rty. Mr. Oelorn is prepared to ~rovide the easement to the City without cost 1f the road were to be developed by one or the other of the adjoini ng property owners. In a,Jdition to the foregoing. the developer of the Gateway Project has proposed a drainage pl an. copy of which 1s attached to this 1 ette1·. We believe this to be a fair proposal and that this drainage plan should be adopted !Spart of the conditions of the approval of the project. Sincerely yours. a:7 //r0 -t-~ f /f/t' ~ ~~ sell W. Grosse /dd Attachment Conir.ictOr\ License No 378383 ,, •, I • ' V'i ' . -~'---' CONSU L T I N G Mrs. Dorothy Ebright 5855 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Robert DeLorm 2421 Dunstan Oceanside, CA 920.54 Mr. Ralph Wrisley 690 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 \ ~ ~ : , ... ~ ~ C I V I l Dear Affected Property Owners: ~ £ -. ,,.... .... ~ l . ' ... _., . " :"" ""t '~ 110 , _ ~-~. _,, ni \,, "' G I "' E E A S A N 0 LA NO SURVEYORS November 5, 1984 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE FROM GATEWAY CENTER (DAVIS DEVELOP\1ENTS) ONTO YOUR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES; OUR JOB NO. 84136 At our Tuesday, October 30 meeting in Carlsbad we discussed at length the different drainage alternatives available to carry runoff from the Gateway Center development (and from p.-operties to the south) northerly across your properties to Agua Hedionda C reek. The specific concerns expressed by you downstream owners were: 1) your concern about surface runoff being discharged uncontrolled over the north facing slopes; and 2) possible site erosion due to concentration of flows onto unprotected and undeveloped property, causing erosion and subsequent siltation downstream. I believe we mutually decided upon our modified Alternative 1 B, which carries the unretarded 100year developed peak runoff from the sites to the south (including all the flows from the Gateway Center site) into an underground storm drain a?proximately 350 feet northerly across the Delorm site to the northerly Delorm property line, runs another!.. 120 feet northerly underground across the Wrisley site, discharges into a natural rock swale extending down the Wrisley slope to the common Wrisley/Ebright property line some ~ SO feet easterly of their west property line, is again picked up in an underground storm drain extending northerly approximately 140 feet to discharge into Agua Hedionda Creek. We also agreed that this system would be sized to pick up the developed flows from the "upper" portions of the Delorm and Wrisley properties and that a small berm and ditch would be built along the top of the north facing slopes on the Delorm property to intercept any sheet flow which has in the past discharged over the slope. Enclosed is a plan showing this proposed construction. The affected downstream property owners will bear no costs for these improvements. Corporate Office • 17782 Sky Par1l Blvd. • lrvlne, Calltornla 82714 • 71.ne1-2222 Inland Empire Office • 1630 E Francis St , Ste B • Ontario, California 91761 • 714/947-0«7 San Diego County Office • 5375 Aven1da Encinas. Ste. C • Carlsbad, California 92008 • 619/~ ,~ •• Affected Property Owners Our Job No. 141 36 November ,, 1914 / , l .,..:- Page 2 :~·< ~, " //'-f'< >~,,;/ / . ./ .j / ·''--.../-'• .• ,¢......,,./ ..,. ~-• -,✓ • • ;. ~ /( l f"'{..£ C { -~~ / ., • • -./ ~ ,,.. .J_ • , '-· ~A-~--~<-r....s -,-· .,,,.<-, 7 ,; ... 7 . ,.l,,,.,,,,. ~ -..c--;,~.,,. _r ,,, / Our consensus was that this would remain a private drain, with each downstream property owner having the right to relocate it aero" their properties as long as it did not adversely affect the integrity of the drainage system. We, as engineers for Davis Developments, will prepare al! the necessary plans and documents for the construction of this facility and will submit them to each of you for your final review and approval (after our project has been approved by the Planning Commission.) In the meantime, we need to show the City that we have resolved the drainage discharge to the satisfaction of those affected by it. If you are in agreement with our proposed solution (again subject to your final approval of our plans) and agree to accept the concentrated discharge onto your property in the manner delineated above and on the enclosed plan, please sign a copy of this letter and send it to Fred Walters before November 10, 1934. If you have any questions, please contact me or Terry Lutz of our office. jib Enclosures: Copy of Plan ?.~/J~~ f ~~1R. Schs r1/Jt( Corporate Office Copy of letter to be returned cc: Addressed envelope to Fred Walters Ms. June Applegate Mr. Don Schucard Mr. Fred Walters Mr. Walter Brown TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD: I am the legal owner of Assessors Parcel No. _____ in the City of Carlsbad, northeasterly of El Camino Real, and agree to accept the discharge of concentrated drainage runoff from the Gateway Center in the manner described to me in the above letter from flilliamson and Schmid, subject to my final approval of their plans. SIGNED Robert DeLorm SIGNED Dorothy Ebright SIGNED Ralph Wrisley @ MINUTES P~ CDIUSSICN Nove!mer 14, 1984 Mrs. Grosse had a o::,py of a document Mr. DeLorm had signed, in favor of renoving the extension of Palner way through his prq,erty, a."'ld she added they all wanted oo misunderstanding to guarantee that at eane future date, the City would not extend Palner way through the DeIDrm property. She stated if the extension of Palmer were being rem:>Y'ed at this point, she did oot want that to be reinstated at eane future date. Mrs. Grosse stated that it was her understanding that as part of the O 'Bara conditions, the road was to ~ through the DeIDr1ll property and she wanted the same to apply to th.: Gateway Project. Tlllichever Wlr:/, !u-s. Grosse stated the developer woul<" pay the cx:,et of the road across the DeLorm property. He will give an easement if the road is to be µJt in by ooe of the developers. One other statement Mrs. Grosse made, was that Mr. DeLorm wanted a CDllllitted access at the oortherly part of the pr:q:,erty at the ro-called Barbour Connection. Mr. Brown used a wall mp to indicate the Gateway and DeLonn properties and then showed the DeIDrm property oo a transparency. The statement was llll!lde that ooly five acres of the DeLor:m prq>erty is usable, as the area to the east is all hillside, with the ooly portion developable to the west side. Mrs. Grosse cxmnented that now the Palmer extension is being questiooed. She referred to a letter fran her meeting with Mr. Walters and Mr. Fipp regarding the Palmer extension. Mr. Joe Sandy, 2956 Rcx:lRevelt, representing O'Hara properties, stated they were basically oot q,posed to the project, but the access was the problem. His client felt if the Palmer access was required, this developer should have the responsibility to llll!lke that connect.ion. Otherwise, he felt the Palmer Way connect.ion to O'Bara's prq,erty should be deleted. He was asking for fair treatment for the O'Hara developnent and 1{()11 Coq>any. flle Koll Conpany access is tenporary, and at the tine a 52-ft. wide street is dedicated, that ~ld be eliminated. In answer to Camrl.ssion query, Mr. Sandy answered the southerly access to El Camino was the teq,cx-ary access. Mr. Frank Finney, Helix Engineering, gave oopies of the right of access to El C811lino imp to the Camrl.ssiooers (Minutes Clerk did not get oopy) and explained the IIIIP• flle right of access point had not been relirquished and the nap was reoorded May 22, 1980. ec.rl.ssioo discussion followed this presentation with the final answer by Mr. Brown being that the Barbour Connectioo is the very best location as far as spacing is oonoerned. Callaissiooer L'Heureux stated he had net with Mr. Walters today and had a o::,py of the letter of Nollelllber 8, 1984, the former City Engineer and the letter of Novelber 4, 1984 frcn Bel ix Engineering signed by Mr. Finney. (No ~ies supplied to the Minutes Clerk) MINUTES November 14, 1984 Page 6 ca.issiooer Schlehuber and Chairman Rari:x>tis stated they had 111et with Mr. walters. Camdssiooer Farrow added he had rret with Mr. Walters and received the letters referred to by the other Ccmnissiooers. He stated that all the problE!SIS had been addressed, other than the access, and the access a, El Cmni.no was the basis for the denial reoonmendation. He added he aJreed with Engineering that allowing ingress and egress can Ba1Etimes help the traffic flow. If there is a deceleration lane, the traffic flow is not hindered, but if there is a two-lane road and no right turn lane, the two lanes can stack up. In June of 1984, Mr. Beckman approved this, and with all other proble!IE addressed, Carrnissioner Farrow stated he felt the Palmer extension should be addressed at a later time, He CD'lcluded, stating he was in favor of the right turn in and out. Ccmnissioner Marcus stated she was in favor of the right turn in and out as long as it was oot the primary access. Mr. lb.Iman reiterated the primary access should be off of Palmer, but if they oon • t have that access, then the primary access 1'0.lld be the access off of El Camino Real, lilhich would not be desirable. Coamissioner Sd-J.ehuber stated he had a problem with the anount of driveways, but if Mr. Pipp has the access that he says he has, he is entitled to it. He stated he was in favor of allowing no aco?ss with a barrier-type of access for emergency vehicles crily, and felt the City Attorney would have to make the determination abrut the access. Ccmnissioner Smith asked if Palmer were extended to College, it would be the primary access; if extended to the Barbour Connectioo, l"Oii did Engineering feel about that, and Mr. Botmian answered that 11«>Uld not be adequate. Ca!imissioo discussioo followed about Palmer extensioo and whether er not it would~ through, with Chairman Raltx>tis asking staff whether the Safety Center access met the wl-<le-sac policy. Ron Bedcman, City Engineer, A/CM, stated that it did, as the City has a se<Xl'ldary access out the other way south of the Costa Real property. Camisaicner L'Reureux stated he was concerned with the physical design of the project and the access. He felt the traffic policy should be adhered to and minimize the nlai>er of driveways mto El Camino Real. CCllll.issicner Farrow n:,yec1 the Planning Cannission eal(>t a Reeolutioo drawn~ to approve SDP 84-5, based a, the Comissioo findings and the Land Use Office letter, oonditiooed with ingress and egress with deoeleratioo and acoeleratioo lanes with a right turn in and out off of El Camino Real. o:maissiooer Sllitl aeo:nded the motioo. Mot.ion failed. Eomotis X Farrow X X Schlehuber X L'Heureux X Smith X Marcus X McFadden X @ MINUTES Novent>er 14, 1984 Page 7 Planning Camri.ssioo ar:k:Jpted the following Resolutioo: RBSOEOrICll t«:>. 2364, DmYIN3 A SITE DEVEIDPMmr PLAN t«:>. 84-5, 'IO ALUM ~Ql CF A MIXED-USE INIXJSI'RIAL OFFICE o::»IPLEX 16. 5 ACRF.S OF PIOPERTY c»raRALLY LOCATED ON 'lBE ~ SIDE OF EL CAMIID REAL, l'OR'ffi OF 'fflE CABLEVISION B.JIWIN3. DISCUSSICll ITl!M: Camdssiooer L'Reureux stated he would abstain frall the discussioo oo this item. Walter Brown gave the staff report oo this item as contained in the ftelm'andum fran the City Engineer. Planning Ccmnission ~ the Pea Soup Andersen request for standard variance as presented. NBW PUBLIC HEARIN'.iS: 4. This item was taken out of oroer and heard first. This item was oontinued for two weeks. 5. CUP-247 -MARTIN -Request for approval of a residential care facility located oo the south side of Palm Avenue be~ Harding Streeet and the I-5 F'r:ee.llrj. Charles Gri.mn, Principal Planner, gave the presentation on this item as oontained in the staff repol·t, using a transparency to show the site. Chairman Rcatlotis opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. and issued the invitatioo to speak. Mr. ~ard Martin, the applicant, spc.»te for his wife and hiaelf, as owners and managers of the facility. Be stated if he put in the parking lot the City was asking, it would take ant'/ recreatioo area fran the senior: ladies and would also take OYer cne-third of their garden area. Mr. Martin stated there is a o.ll--de- sac to the east where two Cl1I"S can park. Re stated visitors ck> not stay long at the facility and there is never a parking problem. Mr. Mllrtin put a map a, the wall showing the garden and driveway and the changes needed. Charles Gri.na stated the map provided by the applicant was not to scale and the problem was that another adjacent parcel was under Mr. Martin's ownership and that parcel frmts m Harding Stret. Both paroels would have non-<Dlforming uses and to be CDnforming they wou1d have to alter the garage and pave part of the garden. problem was that another paroel was under Mr. Martin's ownership and that parcel frmts oo Harding street. Both parcel.a cb not oonform, and they would have to alter the garage and part of the garden. lbltlotis Farrow Schlehuber L'Reureux SIUth Marcus Md"adden loltlotis Farrow Schlehuber L'Reureux Smith Marcus Mc:¥adden X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MINUTES Novelllber 14, 1984 Page 8 Ccnniasioo discussioo followed with the ~e of the residents being established at 76 to 100 and ocne of thelll driving cars. nte suggestioo was made to oot accept residents owning autarobiles ar.d Mr. Martin stated that they oo oot take any residents with autarobiles. Mr. walt Lessing, hcn!owner, ai:iressed the caanission, stating his Mother is at that heme and is 87 years old. He stated he dlose the Martins because he did oot find any other place with ao nuch loving. He added there was oo need for additiooal parking and there was very little activity there. 'ftle rose garden was certainly preferred to a parking lot. Mr. Bob Holmes, 810 Caminita Rosa, stated his l'bther is also at this facility, and is 96 years old. He stated this is a class operatioo and parking is never a problem there. He asked the Coomission to give consideration to the Martins. Mr. Virginia Boyes. 6717 Clover Court, stated her Mother also lives at the Martin facility, and is 100- years old, but is oot senile. ntis facility gives good love, good food and is a good, clean facility. She stated there is never a parking problem, and she, too, felt a rose garden was better than a parking lot that would oot be used. Since no cne else wished to speak oo this item, the public testiloony was ca1cluded at 7:45 p.m. Planning Camdssioo approved CUP-247, subject to a ,,ariance, and the suanittal of a traffic plan sh<Ming the reduoed parking and the interrelatiooship of this unit with the existing unit. Planning cau.J.ssion asked staff to expedite this matter. 6. ZCA-178 -CITY OF CARLSlW> -A proposed mnerdnent to the zooing c:rdinance to establish an over.lay zone to provide for the developnent of mjor hospital facilities. Charles Gdnn, Principal Planner, gave the presentaticn on t-.his ite1111 as oontained in the staff report, stating there was an amendment that the applicant <'lid oot have koowledge of at this time, and based upon the aamclnent, staff re<Xlllllellded a(JPl"OVal. Chai rman Ralt>otis opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.11. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Ben Clay, Scripps Hospital, 7979 Ivanhoe, spak:e regarding proposed changes in the Ordinance. Re stated he felt Item 1 in 21.23 '11 0 should be deleted. Also he felt ItcaJ 1 and 7 in Section 21.23.030 oould cause oonfusion. -. ... lc:latlotis )I Farrow )I Schlehuber )I L'Beureux )I ) Smith )I Marcus )I McFadden ) \ Novent>er 14, 1984 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Clay felt Section 21.23.040 was unclear as to permitted uses. He did oot find skilled nursing facilities, resident care facilities, restaurant facilities; medical research facility to suwc,rt the hospital: aoother area to to treat alcohol and chemical dependency and a facility such 86 the McDonald House. He asked for these to be added to sub-paragr3J?h ( f). Mr. Clay referred to Section 21.23.050, Site Oevelopnent Plan, and stated they would like to suanit the entire plan showing the master plan and explaining the facilities. Mr. Clay referred to page 3, 1 ine 3, and read the rest of the paragraph. Re stated it lll!!lde sense to build the doctcx and dentist facilities along with the hospital, and oot later-both have to go together. His ooncern was with the word "After• in line 3 of page 3. Assistant City Attorney Dan Hentschke explained that staff had anticipated that it would all be done at cne time, Md that if llfff other c!dditions were needed, such as a larger lab, it IIIOllld not be necessary to go through the process again, with the City Council and Planning Ccmaissio,, having the power t.o a!A)rove any c!dditions. He added that staff was really trying to aC<XllllOOdate the hospital without asking how the City wanted it done. Mr. Clay referred to 21.23.140, Parking -Mini.num, page 4 , 1 ine 26, where there is me space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Re suggested that be changed to 250 square feet. Mr. Clay read Section 21.23.200, and stated he felt it should read "two years• instead of "one year", with a cr,e year extension. 'ftle letter dated Noveat>er 14, 1984, was discussed, with Mr. Clay stating they had no oojection to that. A change was rede to that IEllV fran Dan Rentschke, in the last paragraph, the Section nunt>er should be 21.23.050. Mr. Clay did ask permission to have his ~el check through the Noveat>er 14, 1984, menorandum. Since no cr,e else wished to speak er, this matter, the public teetino,y was ooncluded at 8 :03 p.m. Mr. Griml reepcnded i;:oint to i;:oint to Mr. Clay's ooaient.8: In Section 21.23.020, N\mt>er 7 is the State Code and Nlllt>er 1 is what the City feels is needed. Re stated staff had oo problem with the added uses perllitted, and felt they all fell under Sectioo (f). Any reaeon.ab.le use rould be added. lllr. Gria stated the parking section, 21.23.140, does call for 200 aquare feet, which is the same for all adioal offices in the City. Mr. Clay had tallted with Mr. Grimn about the site dewlopaent plan being au.t:aitted at the same time of the saw change. Re agreed the two years would allow nore flexibility, with acne year extension, eo staff would have no problan with the two year site developnent plan up front. In answer to query, he added that this would be a 6o-acre site. MINUTES Noveffber 14, 1984 Page 10 flle parldng requirement was discussed, and Mr. Cley 's request to change the 200 square feet to 250 square feet, and staff stated that even if they left it at 200, a 151 reducticn oould be utilized if the project was done urder cne develcpnent plan. The discussion CP.ntered around hoopitals in residential zale8, and staff stated that nost of the hospitals in ~ Diego are adjacent to retiidential areas. 'nle ooly problem that oould cause ooncern '-Olld be a life flight helia:,pter. Mike Holzmiller indicated that another reasa, for permitting the H--0 zone over residential zones, was that if a property was rezoned camnercial, but the hospital didn't go in, the City would then be stuck with a ronmercial zone. Planning Camlission lldopted the following Resolution: RBOOLUl'I~ l«>. 2377, RECXMIENl)IN:; APPIOV'AL OF A~ ml! ~, AMEN)IN:; TITLE 21 , OiAPI'ER 21 , OF 'ffiE CARLSBAD fol.JNICIPAL CXDE, BY 'ffiE AOOITIQf OF SECTIQf 21 • 23 REX;ARDIN:; 'IRE lnSPITAL--0/ERU\Y ( H--0) zcm:. With the following changes: Section 040. Permitted Uses. 'nlat the following specific uses be included: residential care facilities; &killed nursing facilities; restaurant facilities as an auxiliary use: medical research facility to euwort the hospital· al<X>hol and chemical dependency care and a facility such as McDcnald Rouse. That there be oo mange to the parking requirement. That the ronditions as recnrmended by the City Attorney be included, 21.23.030, 21.23.040 and 21.23.050. Under the 200 Section, the Section be re-worded to permit subnittal of site develcpnent plan at the time of the mte change, with a two-year time period and a cne- year extension. 7. ZCA -177 -CITY <F CARI.SIW) -An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance restricting re-application after project denial. Charles Grim gave the staff report on this item, stating staff Mllr\ted this in the Ordinance. Chairman Ralbotis q>efled the public hean.ng at 8: 17 p.m. and isaued the invitation to speak. Since oo ooe wished to speak en this item, the public teetinaty portion was concluded. Planning ca.issioo l':R>roved the Negative Declaratioo iuued by the! Land use Planning Manager and aoopted the following Resolution: RBSOlDl'IQf ti). 2378, REO'.M4IH)n«; APPJV.1AL OF A ~ ~n«; TITLE 21, CBAPreR 21.54, Sl!C'l'IQf 21. S4. 130, OF 'l'!IB CARI.SlW> JIIJNICIPAL CIDE, BY 'ftlB AOOITIClf C, SUBS8C'l'I~ 21.54.130 'ID RBS'mICT R!:- APPLICATI~ AP'!'ER !BUAL. ~tis Farror.., Schlehuber L'Heureux Smith Marcus McFadden Ioltx>tis Farrow Schlehuber L'Heureux 91ith Marcus McFadden "' . . . MINUTES Novent>er 14, 1984 Page 11 8. MIND:10R CDIPANY Bill Hofman, Principal Planner, stated this project was approyed a couple of years ago and using a transparency to show the site, he ~lained the 3PPlicant has requested to change the wilding lcyouts of two of the uni ts. '1bere are sane owners 1i ving in the developnent who cppoae this change. 'ftle Comni.ssioo is to determine whether oc oot this is a minot' er mjor revisioo to the tentative map as approved. Since there are people living there who 0R)06e this change, staff ~ this a:me back as an anieudnent. '1'he width of the wilding would be decreased, with a deo.--ease in square footage of 200 square feet. '1'he plan as c!R)roved was 1 , 750 square foot am these would be 1,500. However, the wilding oould be lengthened. Chairman Raltx>tis asked for the consensus of cpinioo of the Caanissioo, and the carmissiooers felt this was a major change and people should be ooticed and the camdssia, sho.lld look at the size. Bill Hofman stated there was a representative of the applicant pr-esent to speak in 11Dre detail about the changes, if the camdssioo desired. Planning Canaissioo oonfirned staff ~atioo for this item to be a:nsidered a major revision. '!he applicant is to proc@ed with all the necessary paperwork for a full hearing. '11le Minutes of the October 1 O, 1 984, meeting were approved as amended to show the date of the oontinuatioo of the Gateway Center item as Noventler 14, 1984. The Minutes of the October 24, 1984, meeting were approved aa amended oo page 8, paragraph 6, to dlange what Wlllter Brawn said to: "The situatioo was less safe than if there was oo transitioo at all.• COl'aiss ialer Schlehuber stated he would like a revi ew of the P{I) Crdinance as he is ooncerned with the densitiee of projects being presented to the Callllissioo. loltlotis X Farro.,, X Schlehuber X X L'Reureux X Smith X Marcus X McFadden X ~tis X Farrow X Schlehuber X L'Beureux X X Smith X Marcus X McFadden X loltlotis X Farrow X Schlehuber X L'Beureux X X Slllith X Marcus X McFadden X MINUTES Novent>er 14, 1984 Page 12 O:.U.ssiooer Schlehuber mde a notion to ask staff to give the Planning Camdssion to review the POD Ordinance and ronsider any changes that lllight be mde. Mike Bolzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, suggested that perhaps the caanission would like to aoopt a policy that 1!fff infoniation subnitted at the meeting, where the COR!rl.ssimers do rot have tiR to review it, would autaMtically result in that item being oontinued. Assistant City Attorney stated if this was to be in the Planning Camdssion procedures, it oould be presented at the next JEeting. 'fflis was to apply to information given by the applicants oc by staff, and uaver all points, and to be discussed by the CoRdssion at the next 111eeting. AnJaJRMIU!Nl': By p:-oper irotion, the meeting of Noveftt>er 14, 1984, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully autaitted, MID IIJl.aD:m.l~ Land Use Planning Manager Harriett Babbitt Minutes Clerk ta'l'DG; ARE Alm 'Il\PED JN> KEPT ~ FILE IB.l'IL 'lBE NDlffl!:S ARE APPHJIJED. lblt>otis X Farrow X Schlehuber X X L'Beureux X Smith X Marcus X McFadden X \ TRAffIC REPOR T ON WESTERN BANIERS PROJECT DAILY TRAF"f"IC GENERATION Traffic generated by t he 70,000 square feet of offices would be 1,400 vehicular tripe• daily. Traffic generated by the 104,000 square feet of Mini Warehouse ~ould be J12 vehiclea daily . Thus, the combined loading of the project on Paseo del Norte would be about 1,700 vehicles daily. PEA~ tllUR TRAfFIC GENERATION Typically, peak hour office traffic generation occurs from 4:JO to ~:JO P.M.+ and constitutes 10!. of daily traffic. There is no definable peak hour from minT warehouses. Traffic is generated evenly over a 12 hour day, thus the peak hour (or any hour ) constitutes about 8~ of daily traffic. Using the above percentages, the office peak hour generation is 140 trips mid mini warehouse generation is 25 tri ps for a total of 165 peak hour trips. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Based on the proximity of the project location to Palomar Airport Road and its connection to 1-5 , as opposed to the more distant and slower route to Poinsettia Lane , it can be assumed that the project traffic distribution will be about 80!. to the north m,d 20~ to the south. Accordingly, the daily project traffic impact would be 1,J60 to and from the north mid J40 to and from the south. The peak hour impact would be 132 trips to and from the north and 33 trips to and from the south. TRAFFIC IMPACT In view of the secondary arterial classification of Paseo del Norte, the above daily and peak hour traffic iinpact is inconsequential. The street will have a capacity of 20,000 vehicles daily, and carries only 11,000 today at its heaviest l ocation (just south of Palomar Airport Road ). There is no capacity problem. • A "trip" ie the single direction movement of a ~ehicle from an origin to a destination. Thus an employee of an office building makes one trip to work in t he l'IOl'ning and another trip home in the evening, for a total of two tripe. TRAFFIC REPOIT ON WESTERN BANU:RS PROJECT (continued) STREET GEOMETR ICS N«> DRIVEWAYS from a traffic engineering standpoint there would be great benefit to having two driveway entrances to the office building project; one off of Paseo del Norte and one off of Camino del Perque. With the latter entrance and exit, the right and left turni ng movements to and from the site would be better distributed, with some of them occurring at the intersection of Paseo del Norte and C•ino del Perque. Intersections are the places whrre turning movements are generally expected by motorists, and art thus safer than mid-block locations. The two mid-block driveways off of Paseo del Norte can best be served with a striped two-way left turn lane in the street. Tnat can be accomplished by proh.~biting parking on both sides of Paseo del Norte. ~hf" street traffic situation, and the project, can also benefit by a street widening flare on the east ~ide of Pasel dPl Norte, beginning at the end of the present curb and gutter, and tapering to meet the existing pavement edge at a point about 300 feet to the south. The widening should be bordered with an asphalt berm on the east side, end surfaced with asphaltic concrete. Such a taper would provide a smoother transition from narrow to wide, and allow the painting of a left turn lane for northbound traffic on Paoeo del Norte turning west on Camino del Perque. SlH4ARY About the only traffic impact that will be felt from this project will be during the morning and late afternoon peek hour. In the morning practically all traffic will be arriving, making right and left tu~ns into the project. In the late afternoon it will be reversed. But -.hen it is considered that total peak hour generation is 165 vehicles, that averages less than three cars per minute. With the s uggestions made above , such traffic can readily be accommodated.