Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-05; Planning Commission; MinutesP 9 MINUTES Meeting of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: October 5, 1988 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS CALL To ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Holmes. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Holmes, Marcus, Schlehuber, and Schramm Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: Dolores Welte, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that she has recently purchased property in Carlsbad. On June 14, 1988 she requested the City Council to notice her on any action to be taken concerning the Sammis project. She provided 20 self-addressed stamped envelopes for their convenience with a promise to pay any additional expense which might be incurred as a result of the noticing to her. She was not noticed about the proposed Master Plan Amendment on tonight's agenda but did receive a notice regarding a project in the downtown redevelopment zone which she did not request. Since Ms. Welte did not receive an announcement of the Planning Director's Negative Declaration, she contends that the noticing was inadequate according to California Law and CEQA regulations and therefore requests that the City of Carlsbad reopen the appeal period for the Negative Declaration regarding the Sammis project so that she can appeal it. Chairman McFadden announced to the gallery that no action would be taken tonight on this item; said item will be referred to staff, who will communicate with Ms. Welte. Commissioner Schlehuber requested that at the proper time Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, be given time to speak to Ms. Welte's charge of noticing problems regarding the Sammis project. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) MP 175(A) BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARR - Request for approval of an Amendment to Master Plan 175 (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park) to allow minor accessory structures within rear yards of all Phase I single family lots (Planning Area "C") located on the west and south sides of Navigator Circle along the south facing Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge and overlooking the desiltation basin. \ . P ? MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Master Plan 175, Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park, to allow accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family bluff-edged lots located along Navigator Circle within Planning Area C of the Master Plan. Specifically, the existing Master Plan 175 requires that all bluff-edged structures within Planning Area C be set back a minimum of between 45 and 50 feet from the south, facing the Batiquitos Lagoon bluff edge. Using wall graphics and an overhead, Mr. DeCerbo illustrated the 45-50 ft. setback area which applies specifically to Lots 6-35. The setback standard was originally negotiated by staff in order to mitigate visual impacts of development along this natural scenic bluff edge and to preserve a buffer between development and the sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat located along the lagoon bluffs. This setback provision of MP 175 would prohibit the construction of any typical minor accessory structures, including spa's, spa equipment enclosures, decks, barbecues, trellises, above-grade planters, and other minor uses which are typically allowed within other rear yards in Carlsbad. Staff believes that this prohibition of common property rights could ultimately result in a significant code enforcement problem for the City as homeowners move into the development. With this Master Plan Amendment, staff has established guidelines detailing exactly what accessory structures may be permitted within the setback area, where said structures may be located, and design guidelines relative to permitted heights and dimensions (Exhibit "C" of the staff report). With the exception of a landscape trellis which may be constructed within Area A, no other accessory structure greater than 36 inches in height, including spas, barbecues, planter boxes, and spa equipment enclosures are permitted to extend more than 15 ft. into this 45 ft. structural setback area. All other accessory structures permitted to encroach more than 15 ft. into the setback area (Area C) could not extend above a height of 10 inches above ground. Staff believes that these specific use limitations will not cause biological or visual impact to the Batiquitos Lagoon, thereby ensuring compliance with the original purpose and intent of the 45 ft. setback requirement of MP 175. As part of the negotiations with the applicant, Sammis dedicated to the City of Carlsbad on August 9, 1988 a grant deed establishing this 45 ft. setback open space easement over the rear yards of these Phase I dwelling units. This easement will allow the City to clearly regulate that any accessory structures proposed within this 45 ft. structural setback area are in strict compliance with the uses permitted in design criteria established in the Master Plan Amendment. Staff recommends approval of MP 175(A). It should be noted, however, that the applicant is not in total agreement with two aspects of this amendment proposal. Specifically, Sammis Properties proposes the following revisions to the Master Plan Amendment request: (1) allow swimming pools within the 45 ft. setback area, up to 5 ft. from.the.bluff edge, and (2) allow rear yard fencing to be constructed at the lagoon side property line (top of natural bluff edge) instead of at the top of the manufactured lagoon bluff edge. Staff believes that these revision requests would not be consistent with the original intent of the 45 ft. Master Plan setback requirement. In discussions with the Coastal Commission staff, they are also not supportive of these revision requests. Since this Master Plan Amendment MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS y will also require a separate Coastal Permit, staff does not recommend support of the applicant's proposed revisions. However, staff does recommend a minor change to paragraph (D) of Exhibit "B" to read as follows: "Uniform wrought iron fences (maximum 5' high with two rows of concrete block) shall be permitted....' Commissioner Erwin would like to see paragraph (D) "...shall be permitted..." read "...shall be constructed..." so that it cannot be interpreted as being optional. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if there was a written staff recommendation to amend paragraph (D). Mr. DeCerbo replied there was not. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the City Attorney could address the noticing issue. Mr. Ball replied that written notice must be given to anyone affected by the project or anyone who has requested notice. If a person requesting notice was notified of the hearing, the hearing must be continued until a date certain to enable that person to be given notice and an opportunity to appeal. He noted that requests for notice should not be made to the City Clerk but to the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Chairman McFadden inquired if notice could be waived since that person is present at this meeting. Mr. Ball replied that the law requires that written notice must be sent to all persons entitled to receive notice even though that person may appear in person. He recommended that no action be taken on this item tonight and that the public hearing be continued. Chairman McFadden inquired how much time would be necessary for sufficient notice. Mr. Ball replied that 10 days is required after notice has been given. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, announced that notice could be sent out tomorrow and that the public hearing could be continued to the next meeting on October 19, 1988 which would be 14 days. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he would prefer to receive.public testimony at one meeting rather than two. Mr. Ball replied that it was not necessary to listen to redundant or repetitive public comment. Chairman McFadden polled the other commissioners and all concurred to hear those persons who would be unable to return to the next meeting. Chairman McFadden would like to hear from the applicant. Commissioner Hall inquired how many sites in the development have been sold. Mr. Grimm replied that staff had heard that at least five homes have closed escrow; he is not sure which ones. Commissioner Erwin inquired why it would be easier to enforce with structures than without structures. Mr. DeCerbo replied that staff generally feels it is unfair to deny a property owner some leeway within his own back yard. Mr. Grimm replied that enforcement would be easier if residents are permitted to build something (rather than nothing). Staff feels that if some reasonable uses are allowed, residents will take advantage of them rather than defy the regulation. P (‘7 MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 Chairman McFadden inquired if building permits would be required. Mr. Grimm replied that building permits would be required and the CC&R's would also contain provisions. Chairman McFadden inquired if it is possible for an open space easement to be revoked. Mr. Ball replied that if the open space easement is going to be modified, he recommends that Exhibits "B" and "C" be included in the CC&R's so that each property owner clearly knows what is allowed. With regard to revocation of the open space easement, it can only be revoked by Quit Claim from the City Council. Chairman McFadden inquired how many lots drain toward the lagoon. Mr. DeCerbo, replied that there the homes drain to the street. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, added that once the houses are completed, they will all drain toward the street. Commissioner Hall would like to have some discussion before a date to continue is determined. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue MP 175(A) to November 2, 1988 subject to allowing any person present to speak to the issue this evening. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak to any person who cannot return on November 2, 1988. Cindy Ward, 937 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that development standards for view preservation recommended by the Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan have been ignored by the developer. Several citizen groups have met with representatives of Sammis to mitigate this and other problems regarding habitat preservation. The citizens felt that fencing was important to provide safety from the lagoon bluffs but were concerned about homeowners placing inconsistent, illegal fencing along the view corridor. To prevent these problems and make it difficult for homeowners to change the drainage patterns, it was determined that the developer should provide a 3 ft. wrought iron on 2 ft. block fence along the bluffs. It was generally felt that the fence should be placed 3 ft. in from the lagoon edge, natural or manufactured; however, alignment and placement of fencing at this location is inconsistent with the Coastal Development Permit which requires a 10 ft. wide easement within the 45 ft. setback at the bluff top for a public access trail. There is a great deal of public interest in the proposed trail which will run from El Camino Real to the Pacific Ocean and Ms. Ward is concerned about the inattention given to the trail through the Sammis property. She urged Commissioners to give consideration to the conditions of the Coastal Permit so that an adequate study of the trail alignment can be made. In addition, she is concerned about Planning Area H which has the same development standards as Planning Area C and feels that some action needs to be taken on Area H to prevent development problems in the future. Ms. Ward is against private pools because the lots are small and there are community pools within the development. COMMISSIONERS Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm !- T MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS v Commissioner Holmes inquired about the composition of the fence and if Ms. Ward actually meant two rows of block; also, if the block was to be constructed above or below grade. Ms. Ward replied that she did, in fact, mean 2 ft. of block which would be above grade but that some additional block would have to be underground. This is to provide permanency of the fence, protect the habitat from domestic animals that are inclined to dig, and catch water runoff which might erode the bluffs. Commissioner Schramm inquired again about the desire for block below the ground and Ms. Ward replied that the block should begin below the ground and extend 2 ft. above the ground. Tina Dawson Sankey, 2621 Acuna Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she and Cindy Ward met with Mr. Sammis and many of his associates to discuss the raising of the lot pads in this development. She has the entire meeting recorded on tape and was surprised to receive a memo two days later from Sammis with different understandings. She feels that fencing is an important issue and the lagoon bluff is at stake. She feels a permanent fence, placed away from the drainage ditch, would protect the lagoon from erosion caused by drainage from homeowners within the development. Commissioner Hall inquired if Ms. Sankey would clarify the type of fence she wants to see placed there. She replied that she would like to see a fence with concrete footing and block on top. She is unhappy with the current wrought iron fence because it is low quality and the posts are hollow; since the wrought iron is now placed at soil level, it will be constantly wet and will rust, she feels, within two years. Pat O'Day, 7585 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he resides on Lot 34 of the Sammis development. He has no objection with the Master Plan Amendment as negotiated except that he would like to install a lap pool and can't see much difference between that and a jacuzzi. His major concern is that he wants his fence on his property line, at the natural bluff line, and not at the top of the manufactured bluff. If the fence is installed along the manufactured bluff, he foresees residents installing go&es so that they can use the additional 30 ft. of property. He feels that homeowners have purchased the property and are entitled to use it, otherwise it could be considered a taking. He believes that a nature trail cannot go on his property without his permission. He believes the CC&H's protect the natural habitat and view along the bluffs. If the fence is constructed along the property line, it will be invisible from the outside the subdivision since it will be obscured by the background of the slope. If it is constructed along the manufactured bluff, he does not feel it will contain small domestic pets. In addition, a fence located on the higher ground will be very obvious to outsiders. He is especially concerned about being able to use his entire property. Chairman McFadden inquired if he was aware of the open space easement when he purchased his home. Mr. O'Day replied that he was aware of the open space easement. Commissioner Holmes inquired about the comment that a fence will not contain small domestic pets. Mr. O'Day replied that a gate could easily be installed and the homeowner can use P q MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS the additional footage, which he owns, as long as it is consistent with the Master Plan and the CC&R's. Wendell Van Adams, 7583 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has no objection to the Master Plan Amendment but would like to see the fence located at the bottom of the manufactured slope. If the fence is up high, it will obstruct his view. In addition, he feels he should be able to utilize the property he purchased. He believes that no type of fence will contain his cat. He believes the fence along the property line will be much less offensive to observers because it will be hidden by the slope and foliage. Chairman McFadden inquired if he was aware of the 45 ft. open space easement when he purchased his home. Mr. Van Adams replied that he was aware of the open space easement but does not feel that the City should have total control of the footage past the manufactured bluff unless they want to buy it from him. Chairman McFadden inquired if he knew what an open space easement meant. Mr. Van Adams replied that he did not know exactly what it meant. Mona Van Adams, 7585 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she understood the open space easement to be a view corridor for the citizenry but did not understand that it would restrict their use or their own view. Commissioner Schlehuber was concerned that the people speaking tonight would return on November 2nd and repeat the same testimony. Chairman McFadden feels she has made that very clear to all speakers and if they do return, it would be necessary for them to speak to different'material. Inez Yoder, 7738 Madrilena, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is an environmental activist and recently participated in a Batiquitos Lagoon nature walk where five biologists discussed the problems of development encroachment on the sensitive wetlands. Some of the problems are lagoon shrinkage, traffic noise, litter, dumping, off-road vehicle use, habitat destruction, wildlife destruction by domestic pets, and electric light invasion to nocturnal animals. She urged Commissioners to consider converting the open space easement along the bluffs to a buffer zone. Dolores Welte, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, with property in escrow in Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about Mr. O'Day's comments since he drew the engineering design for the Sammis project and this design is the cause of many problems. She sympathizes with the fact that he is-now living in the project and must not have been aware at the time he drew the engineering plans that the 45 ft. setback was a view setback not intended to be used for private yards or private space. Part B of the Master plan specifically prohibits any structures within the setback area. It is her contention that if any structures are allowed in the setback zone, that this amendment is a request for a substantial change in the project and signifies a substantial change in the circumstances under which the project was approved. She feels the amendment should not be granted. October 5, 1988 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COM Pam Abney, 7587 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she resides on Lot 35. She agrees with her neighbors and would like to see the fence located along the property line. She has had a pet dog for 16 years and is very cautious about wildlife because she is aware that coyotes roam the bluff area. She would like to put a spa in her backyard and would never dream of draining the spa over the bluff. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony temporarily closed and continued the public hearing to November 2, 1988. Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, announced to the Commission-and the gallery that it is not necessary for all persons to be renoticed, only those who did not receive notices the first time. Chairman McFadden would like to see notice again in the newspaper. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:16 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2) Extension of CUP 234 WOOLWORTH'S - Request approval of an extension period of up to five years to allow a 2,000 square foot Video Arcade within the lower level of Plaza Camino Real. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on September 14, 1983 the Planning Commission approved CUP-234 to allow a 2,000 sq. ft. video arcade (fun center) within the lower level of Plaza Camino Real. Condition i/4 of that resolution stated that the CUP was for a five year period and allows a five year extension to be granted by the Planning Commission. Originally there were some-problems with the arcade at the mall but shortly after the CUP was issued, a change in management took place. Since that time, there have been no nuisance instances and both the police department and the mall management have no problem granting the extension. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the five year extension. Commissioner Hall inquired if all the surrounding business are noticed on an action such as this. Mr. Grimm replied that he was not sure whether residents were noticed and wou check. As far as he knew, only the mall management was noticed. Id Tom Wood, 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that under the new management there have been no problems or complaints on the arcade. There is constant security and all requirements have been met for posting of hours for school age children. Chairman McFadden asked Mr. Wood to speak to the noticing question which was asked by Commissioner Hall. Mr. Wood was unable to answer. Mr. Grimm then stated that this application did not require a notice and that it could be extended by the Planning Commission without a notice if they choose to do so. MISS10 T MINUTES October 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page a COMMISSIONERS Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Holmes stated that he has passed the arcade many times and has never seen any problems; he believes it is well run. Commissioner Erwin stated that the only negative thing he has seen is the poor ventilation; he would like to see the ventilation improved. He believes the arcade and well managed and this type of business is needed in the community for the young people. Commissioner Marcus stated that she has seen a big improvement over years past. She is happy to know that the police are satisfied. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2779 approving the extension of CUP-234 based on the findings and subject to the conditions thereof, with the added request that ventilation be improved. 3) Extension of SDP 87-4 LIN - Request approval of a three month extension of Site Development Plan to allow a motel at the southeast corner of Pio Pica Drive and Magnolia Avenue in the CT-Q Zone, Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this is a request for a three month extension of SDP 87-4 at the southeast corner of Pio Pica Drive and Magnolia Avenue in the CT-Q Zone. This was approved on September 16, 1987 by the Planning Commission. The project is a 4%unit motel. The applicant is requesting a three month extension because the grading plans were just approved on September 2, 1988 and all of the grading must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits, which would put them past the expiration date of September 16th. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Holmes inquired if the applicant will be able to grade in October, November and December. Mr. Grimm replied that the grading is currently in process and should be completed by October which would be just past the current deadline. Mr. Hauser added that this site is able to grade into the winter period and is not restricted by Coastal Commission prohibition because the location is not within the coastal zone. The applicant was not present to speak. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm : October 5, 1988 r‘ ‘7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSION Commissioner Hall would prefer to grant a six month extension to make sure there is plenty of time to complete everything that is required. Mr. Grimm replied that staff has no problem with six months. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2777 approving the extension of SDP 87-4 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and changing the extension period from three months to six months. 4) Extension of SDP 87-5 GALLUCCI - Request approval of a one year extension of Site Development Plan to build to condominiums located on the east side of Garfield Street north of Chinquapin Avenue, Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, stated that some questions arose today on this application regarding PFF agreements and a change in ownership of the property. Staff, at the applicant's request, is recommending a continuance until October 19, 1988. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue SDP 87-5 t0 October 19, 1988. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Commissioner Schlehuber requested that when staff has a recommendation to change wording, he would like to see it in writing. In addition, he would like to see the Minutes Clerk time each speaker's comments from the recorded tape and note it in the written minutes. Since speakers are limited to five minutes, he feels they should only be given a total of five minutes when a public hearing is carried to a second meeting. Otherwise, he feels that speakers will take five minutes at each meeting which is a violation of the rules. Chairman McFadden stated that one of the Commissioners has requested a comment from the City Attorney regarding the Proposition E decision. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Appellate Court has upheld the City's decision not to implement Proposition G because of a conflict in the two initiatives. Under Elections Code Section 4016, the initiative with the higher votes prevails. This has been a State law for sixty years but has never before interpreted by any court. Now, this decision has been reported and a precedence has been set. The decision cannot be overruled except by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Court found that there was a factual conflict between the two systems in dealing with growth and that they could not both be harmonized or implemented together. Therefore, it would disfranchise those voters who voted in favor of one or both initiatives, assuming that the one with the highest number of votes would be implemented. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about footnote i/l on page 7 of the decision, commonly referred to as "dicta" meaning Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . L *’ .’ October 5, 1988 r‘ -, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 extra connnents beyond the decision. The footnote states that the Legislature has said that a annual cap would reduce affordable housing but it does not state where that came from. He would like to know where that came from. Mr. Ball replied that this was heavily argued by the Building Industry Association and the PLF. This probably came from a reading of the Health and Safety Code and Fair Share Housing numbers which are published by SANDAG. He feels that the current Oceanside litigation may shed some light on this topic. The Appellate Court deferred to the legislative wisdom to determine if a conflict existed. That means that a legislative body can determine that a conflict exists and that decision can only be overturned by a court if there is an abuse of discretion because there is no rational basis for the finding. Mr. Grimm reminded Commissioners that Design Review Board appointments will be on the October 19th agenda. Commissioner Hall is now in his third year. Mr. Grimm announced that the Project Quality Control subcommittee would meet on Friday, at 7:00 a.m. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of September 21, 1988 as presented. Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of October 5, 1988 was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION August 10, 1988 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 7 : ,’ Dear Commissioners, Re: North Shore Public Trails System, Batiquitos Lagoon, Sammis Properties segment The Foundation has worked closely over the past years with both developers on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon to develop a public trails system. In the case of the Hillman properties, the trail system will be in place by October of this year with attendant security and liability protections. The Sammis Property system is still conceptual although construction on Phase 1 has begun. On July 15, 1988, the Foundation Board's Trail Committee walked the Sammis property with Chris DeCerbo and Gary Wayne of the Carlsbad Planning Department in order to accurately identify property lines and possible trail configurations. It is our Board's request that the following trail configuration be adopted by the City of Carlsbad and made a condition of further construction by Sammis Properties. We believe that the public deserves a complete trail system from the east end of the' property to the west end along the edge of Batiquitos Lagoon. This was and is the required dedication from Sammis Properties. This trail should follow the upper edge of the bluff in order to provide the public access to the spectacular views available from this vantage. No other part of the trail system presents such high viewpoints. In addition, protection of habitat along the foot of the bluff, an important consideration, will result from the trail alignment along the bluff 'op. Because of existing constraints, we would certainly consider a >wing the eastern part of the trail system to be at the foot of the ti,clff if unavoidable. However, we feel strongly that the trail system west of the siltation basin should under no circumstances be at the foot of the bluff. In addition, we would like to see a pedestrian bridge ;, oss the railroad tracks. Possible funding sources for this include the: Coastal Conservancy, creators of the Enhancement Plan, and use of agricultural fees for lands adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon, in addition to the developer. Finally, as is the case with the trail on the Hillman property, construction, security, maintenance, and liability insurance should be the responsibility, in perpetuity, of the property owners. P.0. Box 3103 Carlsbad, CA 92008 We would appreciate your attention to this matter. If YOU have any questions, please feel free to call me at 438-3223. In addition, our congratulations to the city for having such helpful and pleasant staff. We deeply appreciate their assistance in aiding us correctly understand the Sammis property situation. Sincerely, Seena Trigas President A.’ C ” jjp,‘j’~ :,.;= ,- .: :-., - f 1 _, : -, yz :;I, -. 7:; . . ., - ..- -. --. .-. _ _ .~_ __ _ ..__ ‘2. .1_ . I ;‘:, iii i,;;;: 1’ ‘7’ T ;,,i 1: 7 ‘1 ~ir;::~~i.:““f’ .-. .., j :-: :’ ! i:T , i-; _ ,_,:_ l~,,~:.!~~I’! I ‘“iy “:“fiz: l-!r’hi(‘.::’ ” -, : ,; ,,.., :-. _ . . . . . -. .-. ..-..,\ *, .-A..-: -... .i,_.i .A,.... i._ I . . ._i I ,-. j pJ .:’ .-; ;” i I ‘.... . “i , i- ii} iii c L. i”‘< ;; ; 3 E 3 i” ..-. - ; i;; i.‘;fj .(. J .: ,.” z,T .., ; ,7c”&,.iL-I,\(,+ $ ;;,-; -.“-” ;- ;. 1 ;. . . ----. --. ,-, : pi., ._ . . . . . ?_ *-; :. ;. ;‘z.ii : r-i I” :y i :+gEjEi<y’ ;j-- 1’iAE ‘jY).j;ES z :-I 0 ii, CL r; 5 ;: y-‘d E ;q 7’ ;-Ii: 7:; $, fij i( - . <,’ 1 ‘r ‘; r-d ‘, ,a., . l... .,, - j .*. .-.: .y F.,’ 1 .n‘ I. v “.I L , ,- ,\.I t : ‘i; -La-.....;. - A5 1 !-) jyj-; y ‘E;’ )-1)-y ‘y~j:~: 1 I_” d 4 1 i .,.. j.. .., i ‘31Ei.J [;F -fgE ~[jME~[&$ER~, IF $--E;;[v;~-~ ARE ,$ gE;Jpl-;;E~EqT, ,- ,_.L, 1 t-’ r f v I g c E i! E i;! f . . . i -_ ..- .gj FE&j FEE:?’ !-J’mJEF: J’i”f; ED!;!: i+).gJ-. i::il’;:‘i’$f;pN!-‘y ..& .I j_:~~‘i’i’:A~.J~;;E:P!--.~;LiE-. !-.~~G.Cj~!~,J_..a~J.i- ~. ,,i ! ‘.. - :..: i. . . . . ;. 7’ :-., :,, j .- .- ..- .,. . . ,, I. .:.%ii.- : _.,I Y ..:i i-!L:.Q.i. 2.;: .f: ;..; ;; +::;:i:c .:.:,.;-:i,-.; ~~i~.~:~. _._. ;:i: ,+ #‘., iy. ..- i:., I::.,‘.. ..‘y: . . . . x: , L _&,i -::> ,,,;.;:i ‘7 i-i E A F jl’ g f; t’ E j-j y;c!g g . ..,.. i ; \ ‘- -’ ‘.-I -;t L .;,. . . .y ?’ .;-, , ‘; _..a .Li’k.- 7’ f-J .’ ‘; : -’ I~ ‘J r’! ~,i ‘~ .-. :. .^ 1 \ i 1; ‘.. L >.“. ..-,m 2 -, 7.: I-. .T. ! :.“a, ii, -, / ,,.a ii-i’\tjcii:i..-.:.-: L-*-I I.-L- yr--"':l r y-. r.: 'i. 3,; .r l.,,! i" j L’i !. ‘, ,:_ j ., D,= QN f ‘-- 3 “< :, . . . ..“-I.. L) i. ;< g c ‘I;“ f E : !-I ~~:--,,;i’:- :’ I I... I Y L. c &.i :~ji”ii :t~; - -. iic.; ;I. . i ..-. -~. .7”i- . .-.. - .- --- - . _____ ._ ___ -_-.-._---.-. -_ -.- .- ..--- ~.----------. -.-. :..: _..___.-._-_-.---.- ____ -... - I ..‘, :: ..; ( i *; ;: g: y r ‘dh.\.i I I-. 1) .J (2, t; 1: 3 {bi i..j 47-2 I \,t 1 _ i-v AS c 0 ;j y -~;;;:og~- ._ ; . E$-T~~~.f~~ ‘ CALIF’ * y;!Qxq ii. ,T 3 - 7? 4 <ii - 2 “j ;1 !(:a -a. _. .- _-___~- _ i -. -- 631 ‘:) ;‘A ;., .i i .i; 2T -,~ i, ?i I:- i- i; 1-\ .:. -; t- “.. T... i. r’ -#- ;.; ?> . _.:I j ;‘,.; ;;; s fq j :: &‘. 1 ,A‘ .--LX. s / , t. “. ,?) ~~~- - .. ---. -.-- .--..<- ._- . ..--- ------__. ‘I, . . . . i . “,a, .’ I” ~ ’ ; - . \ : . ‘. a. .‘.. ____ -- ----- &. - i “. . .: ‘., . : .t ,.