Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-12-17; Planning Commission; ; SDP 02-08|SUP 03-07 - LOS COCHES VILLAGE
~he City of Carlsbad Planning Departme' A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: December 17, 2003 ItemNo.@ Application complete date: July 14, 2003 Project Planner: Christer Westman Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE -Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an 89,200 square foot neighborhood retail shopping center on 7.6 acres of land on property generally located at the southeast comer of Camino de los Coches and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission APPROVE Planning Commission Resolution No. 5527 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVE Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5528 and 5529 APPROVING Site Development Plan SDP 02-08 and Special Use Permit SUP 03-07 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant, C. W. Clark Inc., has requested approval of a site plan and architectural elevations for an 89,200 square foot local retail center. The application includes a Minor Subdivision (MS 02-08) and Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD 02-07) for four lots as well as a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit: Floodplain. Action on the Minor Subdivision and Non-Residential Planned Unit Development are at the discretion of the City Engineer and Planning Director respectively. As conditioned, approvals of the Minor Subdivision and Non- Residential Planned Unit Development are contingent on the approval by the Planning Commission of the Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit. The project plans comply with all applicable City standards and all necessary findings can be made for the approvals being requested. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Background The property is located at the southeast comer of Camino de los Coches and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The site has been previously graded, and there is no significant onsite vegetation. A 50,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center called Tienda de la Esquina was previously approved for this property in June 1991. Tienda de la Esquina included a grocery store, gas station, bank, office, and shop space. The approvals for Tienda de la Esquina expired in June 2000. The applicant is the new owner of the property with a new site plan. -SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE • December 17, 2003 Page2 Project Description The site is 7.6 acres. Access is taken from both Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de los Coches. The project consists of five buildings with a combined total of 89,200 square feet. The anchor building is 45,500 square feet and will be occupied by a grocery store, major retailer and smaller shops. The 23,000 square foot building on Pad 3 at the comer of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de los Coches is proposed as a three-story medical office with parking on the ground level. A two-story 10,000 square foot financial building is proposed on Pad 2 located southwest of the grocery store adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road. The two remaining buildings on Pads 1 and 4, are located on either side of the project entrance at Camino de los Coches and Calle Timeteo and are possibly for shops and restaurant uses. The project architecture is reminiscent of the Craftsman style. Trim stone, wood brackets and trellises, and large roof overhangs are all elements typically found in residential structures of the Craftsman style. A variety of concrete treatments including heavy sandblast, exposed aggregate, acid etch, and broom finished are used for project hardscape. In addition to varying surface treatments, different integrated colors will be used in the concrete that further create visual interest. All of the buildings are interconnected by use of raised sidewalks adjacent to landscape areas or enhanced paving pathways at grade that delineate pedestrian crossings across drive aisles and calm traffic flow. The site is to be fully landscaped. A total of 241 trees are proposed throughout the site. All of the parking lot trees are shown as 24-inch box in size. Lighting will be provided throughout the site for security and decoration. Lighting is shown as concept at this stage. The details of the fixture designs, locations, and intensity will be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director with the goal of enhancing the visual quality of the project as well as protecting nearby residential neighborhoods from unreasonable light intrusion. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: 1. General Plan; 2. La Costa Master Plan; 3. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1) [Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)]; 4. Parking Ordinance [Chapter 21.44 of the CMC]; and 5. Floodplain Management Regulations [ Chapter 21.110 of the CMC]; 6. Growth Management Ordinance 1. General Plan The site is designated as Local Commercial (L) in the General Plan. Commercial designations in the General Plan are established based on community input, General Plan goals, service needs areas, and City Council adoption. The Local Shopping Center designation was established and designated locations evaluated by the City Council in April 2001. The Local Shopping Center -SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE • December 17, 2003 Page3 designation allows shopping centers that include elements of the traditional neighborhood center and, under some circumstances, elements of the traditional community shopping center. Each local center must contain an anchor and secondary tenants that service the daily needs and convenience of the local neighborhoods. The most common anchor is a grocery store. Local centers may also be authorized by approval of a site plan to provide anchor tenants that offer a larger range of goods and services and/or a higher degree of specialization which are more typically found in a community shopping center. The uses proposed in the Los Coches Village project are neighborhood oriented. Local Shopping Centers are generally located within convenient walking and/or bicycling distance from intended customers and linked with surrounding neighborhoods by bicycle paths and sidewalks. The proposed project fits within the General Plan description of a local center. It has a grocery store anchor, is within reasonable walking and bicycling distance from surrounding neighborhoods, and is greater than 60,000 but less than 150,000 square feet of gross lease area. 2. La Costa Master Plan The Master Plan designation for the site is SE-17. This designation was used to identify the location of the property, the method of review for any development projects and reference to the appropriate Carlsbad Municipal Code chapter for development standards. Individual regulations specified for SE-17 are that a Site Development Plan shall be processed for this neighborhood and access to this commercial area should be carefully planned. The applicant has requested a "right-in and right-out" point of access on Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Engineering Department has analyzed the Rancho Santa Fe access and the Camino de los Coches access and has determined that because of the proximity of Camino de los Coches to the access point on Rancho Santa Fe Road, that accessing Rancho Santa Fe Road should remain as ingress only. Full access and turning movement is provided at the signalized driveway at Camino de los Coches and Calle Timeteo. Pursuant to the La Costa Master Plan, the method of review for SE-17 is a Site Development Plan and the development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1) are the appropriate development standards. 3. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1) Permitted uses in the C-1 zone include grocery stores, restaurants, doctors, dentists, and other similar establishments catering directly to the public such as banks and realtors. These uses are allowed provided that they are conducted wholly within an enclosed building. No commercial structure in the C-1 zone shall typically exceed a height of 35 feet or three levels, including protrusions described in CMC Section 21.46.020. However, a height of 45 feet may be approved by the Planning Commission through the approval of a Site Development Plan (21.26.030) for architectural features that do not function to provide usable floor area; do not -SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE December 17, 2003 Page4 accommodate and/or screen building equipment; do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and are necessary to ensure a building's design excellence. All of the buildings except the proposed medical building on Pad 3 are less than 35 feet in height. The medical building has an overall building height of 42 feet because it includes a pitched roof parapet, which softens the building edge and makes the building more residential in character. The parapet is an architectural enhancement and not needed for equipment screening because the mechanical equipment necessary for the building will be ground mounted. Eliminating the pitched roof parapet and leaving the flat roof visible can accomplish a 35-foot height, however, the parapet is an important design element necessary to unify all of the buildings onsite and maintain the "craftsman" residential design connection. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the building as proposed and allow the 42-foot building height. . No setbacks are required in the C-1 zone, however, the project has been designed with 10 foot to 30-foot setbacks from Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de los Coches. Setbacks from the adjacent open space lot vary from 25 feet to 50 feet. 4. Parking Ordinance Parking has been provided according to the standards set forth in the Parking Ordinance (Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The following table illustrates the parking required for each of the identified uses. TABLE I-PARKING Ratio Required Provided Retail 50,200 sq. ft. One space per 300 sq. ft. 168 168 Office 10,000 sq. ft One space per 250 sq. ft. 40 40 Pad2 Medical 23,000 One space per 200 sq. ft 115 115 Pad3 Restaurants 4,500 One space per 100 sq. ft (first 4,000 sq. ft.) (50) 1,500 One space per 50 sq. ft. ( over first 4,000 sq. ft) (15) Pads 1 and4 65 65 Total 89,200 sq. ft. 388 388 In order to accommodate all of the parking required, the ground level underneath the medical building on Pad 3 has been used as well as a two level strncture at the front elevation of the same building. The remainder of the spaces are provided by a typical landscaped parking lot design. -SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE December 17, 2003 Page 5 5. Floodplain Management Regulations A portion of this site is shown as being located within the 100-year flood limit pursuant to the current FIRM maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a result, a Special Use Permit: Floodplain is required to be processed for development of the site. The applicant provided a hydraulic study that reevaluates the actual current flood limits. The study used updated channel characteristics and upstream storm drain infrastructure to predict the flood limits. The information was then compared to the current FIRM maps. The updated study shows that the project is not impacted by 100-year inundation limits and that the FIRM maps have not been updated to reflect the existing graded condition. Based on this new information, this project has been conditioned to apply for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to reflect the updated flood inundation limits. This new information will ultimately be reflected on FIRM maps, as they are updated by FEMA. 6. Growth Management Ordinance The site is an infill project that is surrounded by existing development. Since the use is compliant with the General Plan, it can be adequately serviced consistent with the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). All the facilities and services outlined in the Growth Management Ordinance and Zone 11 LFMP will be available for this project as summarized in the table below. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARDS IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration NIA NIA Library NIA NIA Waste Water Treatment NI A (Leucadia) NIA Parks NIA NIA Drainage 28 cfs Yes Circulation 8,140 ADT Yes Fire Station No.6 Yes Open Space NIA NIA Schools Non-residential NIA Sewer Collection System NI A (Leucadia) NIA Water NIA (Olivenhain) NIA V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Planning Director published a notice of intent to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described as a commercial center of approximately 87,186 square feet on September 10, 2003. -SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 -LOS COCHES VILLAGE December 17, 2003 Page 6 Potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for water quality as it leaves the site and enters the adjacent open space and surrounding storm drains. The developer has agreed to onsite water quality mitigation measures designed to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. A concern was raised during the public review and comment period that construction onsite may adversely impact nesting birds in the adjacent offsite open space if nesting birds are present. The developer has agreed to a precautionary measure that requires a bird survey to be conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit and to adjust the grading period should nesting birds be impacted. Minor changes have been made to the project since the notice was published resulting in a center that is approximately 89,200 square feet in size. The increase in size is insignificant in relation to the CEQA analysis prepared prior to the publication of the notice of intent to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. No formal written comments were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, or other interested parties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5527 (Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5528 (SDP) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5529 (SUP) 4. Location Map 5. Background Data Sheet 6. Disclosure Statement 7. Reduced Exhibits 8. Exhibits "A" -"S" dated December 17, 2003 CW:bd:mh SITE LOS COCHES VILLAGE SOP 02-08/SUP 03-07 --BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SDP 02-08/SUP 03-07 /MS 02-08/PUD 02-07 CASE NAME: LOS COCHES VILLAGE APPLICANT: C. W. CLARK Inc. REQUEST AND LOCATION: The development of an 89,200 square foot neighborhood retail shopping center on 7.6 acres of land on property generally located at the southeast comer of Camino de los Caches and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 13970, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. September 25, 1985 as File No. 85-355261 of Official Records APN: 255-031-20-00 Acres: ...1ii_ Proposed No. of Lots/Units: _4..:......:c,lo:;..:;ts~------- GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Local Shopping Center (L) Density Allowed: NI A Density Proposed: --'N~/ A..cc...-________ _ Existing Zone: Planned Community (PC) Proposed Zone: --'N~/ A..cc...-________ _ Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site PC L VACANT North PC RM RESIDENTIAL South PC OS OPEN SPACE East PC OS OPEN SPACE West PC RLM RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Encinitas Elementary and San Dieguito Unified Water District: Olivenhain Municipal Sewer District: =L...c..eu=c~a=d=ia~-------------------- Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): -=N--"-/=--=A::..__ _____________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~ Mitigated Negative Declaration, Notice to Issue Published September 10, 2003 D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _ D Other, ___________________________ _ 12/09/2003 12: 53 FAX. ~58. 45310 • CW CLARK INC 141003 • City of Carlsbad •Af=ie!•lid·W•JA•i-••isd§,ii DISCLOSURE STAT~ME1"T Applicant's statement or disclosure of cenain ownership interests on all apphcauons which will require j discretionary action on the an of the City Council or aJ1Y appointed Board. Cc,,mmission or Commmec. ; .The following information Mt!ST be disclosed at the time of application submmal. Your proJect c.i.nnm be reviewed. until this information is completed. Please print. · Note: Person is denned as 0 Atly individual, mm, co-pattDerShip, joint venture, association. social c:lub. f ratemal organw.tion, co?poration., estate. uust, receiver, syndicate:, in_ this and any-other c:o~t;·. city and county. dry .mUitieipulity, ·district or other political subdivisioD or any 01:her group or coDJbinatiou acting u a uni1." · Agenu may sigii this document; however, th1 legal WUlle and entity of the applicant and propeny OWilC'r must be provided b~low. · 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) 2. Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ~ persons having a financial interes, in the application. If the applicant includes a cgrn9ration qr pannership. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than I 0% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE 11lAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) lN THE SPACE BELOW If a ;pyblicl>:-owned coworation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Criaq W. Clark Title President Address. ___________ _ OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Corp/Pan c.w. C).a;r~, Inc. Title. ______________ _ Addrcs~lBO La Jolla Village Dr. I 405 La Jolla, california 92037 Provide the COMELE;J.E..LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i,c, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or parmcrship, include the names, title, a.ddrcsses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO ThIDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10¾ OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICAr£ NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) ~ THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned cQtpo,rati,s;,n. include the names, titles;and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ___________ _ Title ___________ _ Addfess. __________ _ [SEE ATTACHED SBEET] Corp/Pan""--~-~-------- Title _____________ _ Address ____________ _ 1635-Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 12/09/2003 12: 54 FAX 858, 453 ~0 CW CLARK INC 3. NON~PROFJT ORG.-.Z,ATION OR TRtTST ~004 .e If any person identified pursuant to ( J) or (2) abo\'e is a nonprofit ort!anization or a trus!. ii~! :lw ·names and addresses of Alil:: person ser\'ing as an officer or director of the non-prllii! organization ot as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profitffrust -----------Non Profit.-Tnm --------------Title ____________ _ Title ______________ _ Address1..-----------Address __________ ~-- 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with anv member of CitY staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelv~ ~12) months'? • 0 Yes. D No If yes, please indicate person(s): _____________ _ NOT~: Attach additional sheets if necessary. is true and c:orre C-D Sc~ipps, LLC Cra:ig w. Clark, Manager Print or type name of owner [SEE 13 ] C.W. Clark, Inc. Jeff Rogers, Print or type n Si Metro center North., LLC ,. 12 09/03 12/09/03 ewe ·ties, General partner b Print or type ·name cf cwner H:AOMIN\COUNTER\DlSCLOSU.RE STATEMENT 5/98 c.W. Clark, Inc. a w. Clark,. PJ.'esident Print or zype name of applicam w. .Clark, Mana er 12/09/03 Flage 2_ of 2 12/09/2003 12: 54 FAX 858 45310 Attachment for Item #2 OWNER: CW CLARK INC City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (a) Person: Craig W. Clark Title: Manager - Corp/Part: C-D Scrigps, LLC1 a California Limited Liability Company Address: c/o C.W. Clark, Inc., 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 Percentage Ownership Share: 15.00'% Other members: Max R. Dykmans, Trustee of the Max R. Dykmans Trust P.O Box 8422 Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 (b) Person: ewe Equities, General Partner By: Craig W. Clark Title: General Partner Corp/Part: Metro Center North, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company Address: c/o C.W. Clark, Inc., 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 Percentage Ownership Share: 85.00% Other members: Robert D. Hamann, Trustee of the Robert D. Hamann Family Trust 475 Bradley Avenue El Cajon1 California 92020 V;\Garlsbad -Los Coches\City Apprvvals.FoITT15,Permits\City of Carlsbad Disclosure of Ownership.doc ~005 Planning Commission Minu4t December 17, 2003 - AYES: NOES: Baker, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and White None Page 9 Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 5 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item. 6. ,S0.P-Cf2708JSUP-~oi,.:07 -:__ LOS· COCHE'S-VILLAGE -Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and approval of a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an 89,200 square foot neighborhood retail shopping center of 7.6 acres of land on property generally located at the southeast corner of Camino de los Caches and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Mr. Neu introduced Item 6 and stated that Senior Planner, Christer Westman, would make the presentation. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 6 and acknowledged receiving a letter from Mary Ellen Nakagawa concerning this project as well as an errata sheet concerning corrections on Resolution No. 5528 for Condition No. 10 which should read " ... debris. The plan shall not include non-native ei= invasive plant species." Resolution No. 5529 has a change to Condition No. 3 that should read "Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of a final map ... ". Chairperson Baker asked the applicant if he wished to continue with only five Commissioners present. The applicant agreed to do so. Senior Planner, Christer Westman, presented the Staff Report stating that the project is located at the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Camino de los Coches. The project site is approximately 7.5 acres. It is vacant and has been previously graded. The site will be re-graded and include a large retaining wall along the eastern edge in order to create a flat buildable area. The proposed project is for a local retail center to include approximately 30,000 sq ft for a grocery store, 13,000 sq ft of specialty retailer, a 10,000 sq ft bank building, 23,000 sq ft of medical office, and approximately 13,000 sq ft with combination of restaurant and smaller shops. The entire center is 89,200 sq ft. The design for the center includes some Craftsman architectural features such as stone bases, tapered columns, wood trellises and brackets, and low-pitched roofs with exaggerated overhangs. All but the medical buildings are less than 35 feet in height. The medical building is 42 feet because of the roof-shaped parapet. The code allows the Planning Commission to approve buildings up to 45 feet in height if the additional height over 35 feet contributes to the architectural integrity of the building design, and in this case, the sloped roof element completes the Craftsman style for the center as well as ties this building to the others on site. The site includes pedestrian walkways. -Required parking is included on site at grade, except at the medical building, which includes parking on a parking deck. Access is taken to the site from Rancho Santa Fe Road from a right-in only driveway. The developer is required to construct a deceleration· lane for this access, which is off of northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road. The other is a full access at a signalized intersection with Calle Timeteo. The site will be fully landscaped. Trees will be planted within the parking lot, along the edges of the site, as well as along most of the base of the easterly retaining wall. The project includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration. There are two measures, one is for water quality to treat water leaving the site so that it has been cleaned through best management practices, and the other is that prior to issuance of a grading permit, there should be a survey for endangered birds in the adjacent open space. It is not expected that there are any endangered birds there, however, as a precautionary measure there is a mitigation requirement to do a survey. The other applications included on the project are a Special Use Permit in order to go through the process for floodplain. The existing FEMA map shows this project as being within a hundred year floodplain, however, the reality is that when the project was previously graded, the site no longer is within that floodplain, so as a formality and as a technical clean-up matter we need to go through the Special Use Permit. The project has been conditioned to go through the process with FEMA to correct those maps. There is also a minor subdivision and a Planned Unit Development associated with the project. Those would be administratively approved by the Planning Director should the Planning Commission approve this project. There is a condition requiring the Planning Director's approval of a minor subdivision and a Planned Unit Development if the Site Development Plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minue December 17, 2003 -Page 10 Commissioner Segall asked what would happen if birds were found on the lot. Mr. Westman stated that if birds were found within the open space and they were nesting birds, then there would be a restriction placed on the timing for the grading so that the grading activities wouldn't disturb birds that were nesting. Commissioner Segall noted that Ms. Nakagawa's letter mentioned raccoons in the area and he asked what mitigation pertained to that. Mr. Westman stated that raccoons were not considered an endangered species and that it would be that property owner's responsibility to contact animal control. Commissioner Segall noted that there were homes above this project site that would be looking down on the center. He asked what kind of mitigation or softening would occur on the roofs of these commercial buildings so that the air conditioning units, pipes and such would be camouflaged. Mr. Westman stated that Staff had discussed that with the applicant who would be able to offer suggestions for mitigation. Commissioner Montgomery observed that there would be a large keystone wall on the project site along the southerly boundary as it goes from the southwest to the east which appears to be landscaped with a 5 to 10-foot wide buffer between the drainage area to the south and the wall. As that wall approaches Rancho Santa Fe Road it jogs slightly to the south to accommodate the new commercial building on Pad 3, and the jog eliminates the landscaping that could screen that wall, yet coming northbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road that is the area that could be the most visible. He asked how the applicant would screen that 27-foot wall area. Mr. Westman replied that with regard to the area that would have landscaping on it, that distance was close to 20 feet in total. He stated that closer to Rancho Santa Fe Road the landscape buffer is narrower. In order to do the kind of landscaping that the applicants have elsewhere on the site, he remarked that they may need to go offsite onto the adjacent property to plant trees to match the rest of the site. He further suggested that it would be possible to landscape a retaining wall that could be planted with pockets so that there were vines covering it. Commissioner Segall stated that the drawing from the applicant indicated that there were two or three lanes of traffic east to west and vice versa on Camino de los Caches. Ms. Nakagawa indicated in her letter that there was only one traffic lane. Commissioner Segall asked if that would be restriped to create additional lanes. Mr. Westman stated that he had spoken with Ms. Nakagawa and her primary concern had to do with the traffic further east on Camino de los Caches closer to the street, which leads to the high school. Mr. Wojcik added that the project Engineer had spoken with Ms. Nakagawa and he confirmed that her concern was with the high school traffic and some of the maneuvers there. She was asked to submit a letter to the Traffic Engineer for that area to be reviewed. Commissioner Segall stated that the Planning Commission was approving a right turn into the center off of Rancho Santa Fe Road for this project, and the City was recommending against a right turn out of the center, which the applicant would like to have. He asked Mr. Wojcik to comment on this. Mr. Wojcik pointed out on the map where the access point in question was. He stated that currently there were no access rights to Rancho Santa Fe Road at all. Staff had several objections to the right turn out of the center. The applicant maintained that the right turn exit was critical to the viability of the project. However, in the Traffic Engineer's report, he stated that there were relatively few cars exiting there. The other concern was that cars exiting in the acceleration lane as proposed would have to go through that lane and merge with through traffic, thereby slowing down the flow of traffic. Also, there would be traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road wanting to make the right-hand turn onto Camino de los Caches that would regard that acceleration lane as their deceleration lane, creating another point of conflict. He added that someone accelerating into traffic would be looking over their shoulder at the oncoming traffic and if someone was slowing down to make a right-hand turn, then that would increase the chance of a rear-end collision. The City Staff believed it would be prudent not to permit an access point there in order to prevent any future problems. Commissioner Segall asked what the speed limit was on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Wojcik stated that it was 55 mph. Commissioner Segall asked if it was an uphill grade. Mr. Wojcik stated that it was slightly uphill. Commissioner Segall clarified that if a right exit was permitted, then if someone wanted to go south, they would have to exit, then go to Camino de los Caches and cut across three lanes of traffic to make the U-turn to go the opposite direction. Mr. Wojcik stated that there was no left-turn pocketing there because there was no additional through traffic on Camino de los Caches, so without a left-hand turn lane, there would be no U-turns allowed and there wouldn't be traffic crossing all three lanes to make a U- turn. Planning Commission Minue December 17, 2003 -Page 11 Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Westman to comment on the proximity of the high school to this shopping center in terms of alcohol being sold there. Mr. Westman stated that the grocery store would likely be selling alcohol. He explained that the grocery store would have to meet the criteria to obtain an ABC license first, which was regulated through the City by the Police Department. He stated that the Planning Commission did not make a determination on issuance of an ABC license. Commissioner White asked for clarification on the Traffic Engineer's report that few cars would be coming out of that exit. Mr. Wojcik read from the traffic consultant's report "due to the low volume of cars turning right out of the proposed project driveway." Chairperson Baker asked about the location of utility boxes and their becoming an eyesore. Mr. Westman stated that there were no rules or regulations regarding those, but that typically through the improvement plans process the different utility companies would identify where they would want to have their various service boxes located. He stated that the Planning Commission could direct Staff to work with the utility companies to place those for the best visual advantage. Chairperson Baker recommended that they do that. Mr. Wojcik stated that the Engineering Development Services would review the improvement plans that the developer would be doing and at that time the utility locations would not be known by City Staff. He stated that the utility companies would not start their plans until after they knew that the City had approved its set of plans. He explained that the first time the Staff would see the locations of those facilities would be when the utilities came in for their right-of-way permits to install their risers and such. If they were installing concurrent with the developer's improvement plans, then the utility companies would be operating under the developer's right-of-way permit, so Staff would not see the plans, rather the inspector in the field would. He pledged to exert whatever oversight possible. Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation. Craig W. Clark, 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 405, La Jolla, stated that he began working on this project a number of years ago. He had a four-month option on the property, then a two-year escrow, and he has owned it for a year and a half. He stated that they had paid a lot of attention to the previous project as to what had been approved and they read all the minutes to determine what the neighborhood did not like about the project and made an effort to design a center that would fit into what the neighborhood wanted. He announced that an agreement had been signed for the market to be Henry's. Jeff Rogers, Vice President of Development, C.W. Clark, 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 405, La Jolla, stated that the architects would discuss the design concepts, followed by the community outreach consultant summarizing the efforts to collect input from the neighborhood. The traffic engineer would explain traffic issues, and there were some-design issues that he would elaborate upon. Steven Kohn, Nadel Architects, 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 165, San Diego, stated that they were giving the center a very residential look by using a Craftsman style architecture. He stated that the utility equipment would be well hidden as they have thought out the architecture on all sides of these buildings. He stated that they would camouflage roof projections. He stated that there would be a concrete tile roof to match the theme. Scott Maloni, 610 West Ash Street, San Diego, stated that he was the community outreach consultant for C.W. Clark on this project. On October 30, 2003, they mailed 1,700 brochures informing the community about the planned shopping center. The brochures were sent to Carlsbad residents in the vicinity of the project. He noted a precinct map in the handout that showed who received the surveys. The brochure included a prepaid response card to solicit input from residents about store preferences, store hours, and asking if they wanted a presentation for more information. As of December 17, 2003, 121 (7%) residents had returned response cards. Of the residents who responded, 119 residents (98%) supported the planned shopping center and its uses; 32% wanted a sit-down or fast-food restaurant; 25% wanted a grocer; 17% wanted retail stores; 10% wanted a coffee shop; 8% asked for a bank or dry cleaner; and the final 8 requested a variety of stores and services. They intend to send a second mailer out in January 2004 to update the community. They contacted the two Home Owners Associations in the area to ask if they could present information on the project. The La Costa Valley HOA declined a presentation and opted instead to approach them in future about any questions or concerns about the project. The On the Park HOA did ask for a meeting and they met first in early October and 4-5 times since. Planning Commission Minu4t December 17, 2003 -Page 12 Arnold Torma, Traffic Engineer, Katsokitsu and Associates, 2251 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, discussed the entry and exit issue that was part of the applicant's request. He said that they appreciated the concession that Staff had made regarding access into the center on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Their estimate of use for the exit was 10% of the daily traffic, but of the total outbound traffic that represented 20%. He emphasized that their report never intended to suggest that that exit was unimportant because of the lower volume of traffic. Regarding the proposed exit point, he said he had to bear in mind that there was not an opportunity to have a U-turn. If there had been a possibility of a left turn or a U-turn, he would have been concerned and would not have recommended that exit be created. Although ttie traffic study demonstrated that there was an adequate amount of service and functioning there, it did help to distribute that traffic. Jeff Rogers shared a committal letter that they composed with the On the Park HOA over the last several weeks outlining a number of issues and their agreement to make certain design changes to the project. He stated that they were continuing to study the layout of the site plan with some slight adjustment in the layout toward the open space side. He stated that they would continue to work with the neighbors and Planning Staff to effectuate consistency determinations. He addressed the roof question stating that they would have screening for close proximity views, and for distant views they would blend the color of the roof, the color of the parapet walls, and paint the equipment for camouflage. In terms of landscaping at the wall, he stated that they have an off-site agreement with the owners of the property that constitutes the open space, so in addition to landscaping on the wall, as part of the sewer extension work that they have to do, they have to return to re-landscape there. It would be consistent with their easement to be able to do off-site landscaping. He stated that there would be some restriping at the signal at Timiteo and Camino de las Caches, but it would extend 200-300 feet up the road and then merge back to the two existing lanes. He stated that they wou.ld be working directly with SDG&E and Pacific Bell to place utility boxes where they could be sc_reened. Commissioner White asked what the exit and entrance on Camino ·de los Caches would be like in the afternoons with the nearby La Costa Canyon High School. Mr. Torma responded that at 40 scale it appeared that there would be 200-250 feet of potential stacking down to the crosswalk area. Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation, explained that there was a high volume of exiting traffic from La Costa Canyon High School in the afternoons. He stated that the queues stacked up quite far east of Rancho Santa Fe Road because of the students leaving school. He stated that there was a long green light for the left turns coming off of Camino de los Caches to turn left onto Rancho Santa Fe Road going south. The long green light cleared out the queues fairly quickly. He stated that the traffic signal that would be constructed with the project at Calle Timiteo would stop the westbound traffic to allow the vehicles to exit the center and approach Rancho Santa Fe Road on a green or a red signal light. Commissioner White asked if the traffic signal could be adjusted if necessary after the center opened. Mr. Johnson stated that the Traffic Division would monitor it to achieve a balance on how the traffic flowed on Camino de los Coches. He stated that another operational issue that occurred because of the high school and the intersection at Calle Acervo, especially in the morning, was the issue of eastbound high school tr~ffic. He stated that that was being addressed with a future traffic signal at that intersection, which was east of the center. He noted that the signal would provide additional breaks for the area and that it would be installed by the end of 2004. He stated that the traffic signals would be coordinated for the best flow of traffic. Chairperson Baker asked how long the afternoon high school traffic lasted. Mr. Johnson stated that the peak lasted 15-20 minutes. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Torma to address the issue of the right turn out of the center onto Rancho Santa Fe Road with regard to the 55 mph traffic having to slow down while approaching Camino de los Caches to turn right, and the cars coming out of a parking lot at a slow speed potentially creating conflicts. Mr. Torma described a similar situation on Friars Road near Qualcomm Stadium. He observed that making any right turn into any traffic would require attention to the oncoming traffic. Commissioner Segall expressed concern about the proliferation of drivers using cell phones, the fast oncoming traffic, and the proximity to the intersection. Mr. Johnson reiterated that the property did not have access rights to Rancho Santa Fe Road, so Staff had to consider all the implications of permitting both a right turn in and a right turn out. In evaluating the entire site, Staff felt that a right turn in was an appropriate request Planning Commission Minue December 17, 2003 9 Page 13 and could ease traffic around the site on Camino de los Coches and it could work with the deceleration lane on Rancho Santa Fe Road. The right turn out, however, would be a concern because pedestrian traffic on that sidewalk included elementary school children. A right turn out would add some hazard for pedestrians there and Staff, therefore, supported a right turn in, but not a right turn out of the center. Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Rogers if there would be landscaping in the corridor ribbon to screen the back wall. Mr. Rogers indicated that the setback of the wall was 20 feet, determined by an existing sewer easement across the back part of the property and as part of the resolution of other issues, they had agreed with Leucadia Waste Water to relocate the sewer line onto their property so that it would be more accessible. With the sewer line relocated, greater use of that area was afforded, and they were suggesting that they use 1 O of the 20 feet and leave 1 O feet for landscape transition to the open space. He added that they could landscape offsite. He explained that the adjustment towards the open space allowed them to transfer that landscaped area to Camino de las Caches and the corner on Rancho Santa Fe Road, increase the landscaping around the office building, make the parking lot more efficient, and lower the height of the office building. He noted that Staff had not had an opportunity to see those plan changes in detail. He asked for an approval of these concepts by the Planning Commission to work with Staff to finalize them. Commissioner Segall asked what other stores would be in the center and what the time frame would be for opening the center. Mr. Clark replied that the opening would be in early 2005. He stated that there likely would be a pet supply store, a bank, a specialty coffee shop, a hair salon, a 6,000 sq ft day spa, and medical and dental offices. He added that he had designed the shopping center on Del Mar Heights Road and Mango Drive that served the Torrey Pines crowd, that included a grammar school down the street, very similar to this situation, and resolutions were found for all of these same issues. He stated that the latest project he finished was Gateway, which won the best project of the year. Commissioner Segall asked if restaurants would be in the center. Mr. Clark said that there would be restaurants but that there was not enough room for a big dinner house. Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Rogers if there would be any restrictions on early morning deliveries that would create noise disturbance for the residents. Mr. Rogers stated that they would be willing to set practical limits on that given the nearby neighborhood. He stated that the public survey indicated that normal grocery hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 pm. would be preferable. RECESS: Chairperson Baker called a brief recess at 8:10 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Chairperson Baker called the meeting back to order at 8:22 p.m. with five Commissioners present. Chairperson Baker informed the Planning Commission that Staff would address how the issues stated in the handout from C.W. Clark would affect their decision, after the public testimony period. Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium. Eric Hitzelberger, 7766 Calle Mejor, Carlsbad, stated that he lived in the On the Park community off of Calle Timiteo. He thanked C.W. Clark et al for making the effort to contact the nearby residents and working through the issues. He expressed concern about the infrastructure around the shopping center in terms of safety. He noted that more residential buildings were being added to that area, and the improvements on Rancho Santa Fe Road would all increase the traffic. He stated that Mission -Estancia School was in that area and that there were many children in the On the Park project as well as in the condominium and apartment complexes along the S-curve of Calle Timiteo. He stated that the speed limit on Rancho Santa Fe Road was 50 mph, not 55, but was still much too fast for the amount of children walking along there to school. He estimated that there were 50 or more kids and pedestrians walking to school on a good day. He stated that there was a guardrail on Rancho Santa Fe Road. He didn't think the sidewalk had been improved since before On the Park was developed. The guardrail squeezes the sidewalk down in places to 33 inches and 42 inches is minimal for a City sidewalk. He stated that there was acacia growing over the sidewalk down the curve toward Calle Barcelona where you make the turn Planning Commission Minue December 17, 2003 -Page 14 to walk up to Mission Estancia. He stated that there was a light pole at the corner of Barcelona and that the largest space a person could pass was 26 inches, which was barely enough space for a stroller. He stated that many pedestrians cross through the dirt path there, but would be passing through the walkways that C.W. Clark provides. A lot of kids will still go up to the corner of Camino de los Coche·s and use the hill to propel themselves down on scooters and such. He asked for help in cleaning up the speed limit there, especially with a school zone sign, or improving the pathway so that it would be wider, or adding a pathway to the school. Tim Snodgrass, 3056 Via Romaza, Carlsbad, stated that he lived in La Costa Valley, west on Rancho Santa Fe Road. He stated that he had a real estate company that developed commercial property and he wasn't opposed to this development. He stated that he used to live at On the Park and was privy to the development there, which had some missteps that created a negative effect on that neighborhood. He stated that he would like to ask C.W. Clark to mitigate some issues. 1) He asked that the roofs be attractive to view from the homes that looked down on them, as his would. 2) He asked that the illumination of the center meet the standards of the neighborhood and not adversely affect it. 3) He asked that the deliveries be kept within reasonable hours. 4) He asked that ingress and egress issues on Rancho Santa Fe Road be addressed. He informed the Commission that a right turn out of the center onto Rancho Santa Fe Road would require drivers to merge left quickly, as the lane forces a right turn into a housing complex if they don't. He commented that speeds along Rancho Santa Fe Road were well in excess of 50 mph and that he saw minimal enforcement of the speed limit. He stated that walking down those streets on either side was too dangerous for young people and asked that the City widen the sidewalks to improve safety. David Hutchison, 7708 Corte Promenade, Carlsbad, stated that he was the Board President of On the Park adjacent to this project. He requested that the commitments stated in the letter given to the Commission by Mr. Rogers be made part of the project since a lot of discussion and meetings went into those proposals. He asked that light caps be put on the overhead parking lights. He expressed concern that if an exit was not permitted on Rancho Santa Fe Road that it would create a major traffic jam on Camino de los Caches. He proposed that the speed limit on Rancho Santa Fe Road be reduced to 35 or 40 mph. Jan Sobel, President and CEO, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, stated that they had waited a long time for a neighborhood shopping center. She stated that they supported this project wholeheartedly because it would provide services locally. She hoped that the neighbors would walk to the center. She commented that there were very few medical and dental offices in Carlsbad and that these would be a welcome addition. She endorsed the project as meeting the needs of the business community and the residential community. Commissioner Segall disclosed that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, but that he had not participated in any of their discussions on this issue. Chairperson Baker asked Staff to address the concerns and questions of the speakers. Mr. Wojcik stated that the surrounding infrastructure was not part of this project, therefore, there was nothing they could condition this project to do that would address Mr. Hitzelberger's safety concerns. Chairperson Baker asked if there was any way to create or if there was a plan to create a trail so that kids could access the back of the school. Mr. Wojcik stated that he was unaware as to whether that would be included in the City's trail system. Chairperson Baker asked what the nature of that open space was. Mr. Wojcik stated that it carried quite a bit of drainage. He explained that when this project was required to do their drainage analysis, originally the property was thought to be in the 100-year flood plain, but the analysis found that it was not. So, there may be a question as to whether a trail could be built outside of the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Westman recalled that he was the project planner for the Tienda de la Esquina project and when it went through public hearings, the question of providing trails arose and the administration for Mission Estancia School preferred not to formalize a trail because it would not be very Planning Commission Minute December 17, 2003 -Page 15 visible from the public streets. He stated that there was a proposal for a trail to connect to the back gate of the school. Mr. Wojcik responded to Mr. Hutchinson's request to allow an exit onto Rancho Santa Fe Road and his question as to why the City approved the entrance and exit at the La Costa Center but not in this project. He stated that the access for that center was approved in 1983 and that Staff felt in retrospect that it may not have been the correct decision. So they were trying to avoid any possibilities of future conflicts. Mr. Johnson addressed the speed limit comments. He stated that if any citizen called the Police Department with a complaint, that the police could go there and use radar and issue speeding tickets. To arbitrarily lower the speed limit would make that road a .speed trap and the police would not be able to enforce the speed limit. The road had to be posted in accordance with an Engineering and Traffic Survey. A speed survey determines the 85th percentile or the critical speed on the roadway. The 85th percentile is the speed at which 85% of the vehicles are traveling at or below, and state law required that the speed limit be posted at the first 5 mph increment bel_ow that critical speed, unless there were extenuating circumstances that might justify an additional 5 mph lowering. Those situations would include a high accident history, or conditions not readily apparent to drivers. Rancho Santa Fe Road did not have conditions that would not be readily apparent to drivers. So the three most persuasive factors in the Engineering and Traffic Survey were the collision history, the critical speed, and conditions not readily apparent to drivers. Commissioner Segall asked if a school zone would cause the speed limit to lower during certain times of the day. Mr. Johnson stated that school zone signs were placed adjacent to schools that were contiguous to the roadway. Mission Estancia was· not contiguous to Rancho Santa Fe Road. There was a parcel between the school boundary and the road, so the "25 mph when children are present" sign could not be placed there. Those signs were placed on Calle Barcelona in the school zone. Commissioner Segall stated that he thought that on major arterials that the state had control over the speed limit. Mr. Johnson replied that in Carlsbad on City streets the City was in control. The state was in control of the freeway, which is a state route. The City was responsible for enforcement, maintenance, and setting speed limits on all surface streets in Carlsbad. Commissioner White asked Mr. Johnson if he was concerned about children crossing the entrance to the center off of Rancho Santa Fe Road after hearing three residents express concern. Mr. Johnson stated that that was one of the issues factored into the analysis of whether there should be a right turn out. He added that any tim'e pedestrians had to cross a street it was a concern and certainly children were of concern. He stated that to absolutely eliminate the conflict the right turn into the site would have to be eliminated. He stated that a very young elementary school age child should not be walking to school from the adjacent housing development as that was a very long distance. Commissioner White stated that she was thinking about the inability of a person under age 16 to correctly judge the speed of an approaching car turning into the site around 2:30 in the afternoon. Mr. Johnson replied that that was a concern. Chairperson Baker asked if there would be striping or markings on the ingress on Rancho Santa Fe Road that would alert drivers to pedestrians. Mr. Johnson replied that the final striping plan for the center had not been submitted, but that it would be reviewed by Staff for safety. He said that placing a striped crosswalk in an uncontrolled location with no stop signs or signal lights for cars could give pedestrians a false sense of safety that cars had to watch out for them. He noted that drivers would not necessarily see the crosswalk and Staff would have to evaluate the appropriateness of putting a crosswalk there. He stated that the driveway would not be as wide as a normal intersection.· He stated that because of the horizontal and vertical geometrics on Ranc·ho Santa Fe Road, a driver's view of a pedestrian on the sidewalk was quite good. Chairperson Baker commented that kids would cut through the center onto Calle Timiteo on their way to school and asked what sidewalks or safety measures were being considered. Mr. Westman stated that the entire site would have delineated pedestrian walkways, either differentiated from the drive aisles by raised curbs or textured and colored concrete. Mr. Westman responded to three other issues raised. Regarding the visibility of the buildings from above, he stated that the applicant had agreed to take measures to treat the roofs of the buildings so that they would be camouflaged. An alternative would be to fully enclose the rooftops, which was typically impractical. He explained that if the builder were to' continue the slope pitch on the buildings as planned Planning Commission Minu-December 17, 2003 -Page 16 to create a real roof to cover the entire building, it would add another 10-15 feet in height and would not comply with the City's codes. Regarding the lighting, he stated that there was a condition on the project, part of which states that lights on site shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. He explained that that was a slightly modified standard condition to further describe the kind of lighting that there should be on site. Regarding delivery times, he stated that the applicant had publicly stated a willingness to create a management plan for their tenants to control the delivery times. Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Westman to address the information presented by the applicant and how that related to the decision the Planning Commission would be making. Mr. Westman addressed the applicant's comments made in their Letter of Agreement. He stated that Staff had not analyzed any of the physical changes that might occur to the site plan with regard to moving the retaining wall closer to the existing open space, but some of the items listed in the letter would be considered acceptable on the surface to City Staff, such as limiting signage, creating some traffic calming measures within the interior to the site, adding trees and increasing the size of trees. He noted that the applicant had stated in a public hearing that they would like to make certain changes and that they had made a commitment to the neighbors to make certain improvements. He added that the applicant would be required to submit a sign program separate from the public hearing and that the applicant could submit the sign program consistent with what they agreed to do with the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant could use the consistency determination process for having Staff review minor changes rather than wait for Staff to do a full analysis of these. If Staff found that certain changes were not consistent, then the applicant would have to return for approval of an Amendment. Chairperson Baker asked the applicant if he wished to address any other issues that were raised. Mr. Clark stated that it seemed that the overriding concern from the neighbors was the traffic flow and safety. He stated that they had the same issues at Del Mar Heights Village and they made special signs to post, and they would do the same for this project. He stated that cars would come up the hill when they turn into the center and then they have to go down, so he expected that drivers above the age of 16 would normally slow down when making that type of maneuver. DISCUSSION Commissioner White stated that the shopping center would be a real asset to the neighborhood, especially with the type of businesses that have been described. As far as access off of Rancho Santa Fe Road, she stated that a shopping center ideally needed two exits and two entrances, but that she would respect the opinion of the Carlsbad Traffic Engineers and support an entrance off of Rancho Santa Fe Road but not an exit. She stated that she hoped that the traffic out of the shopping center would be monitored carefully and particularly in the afternoon when the high school was in session so that it didn't become a problem for people who wanted to use the businesses in the center to get out at a certain time of the day. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he supported the project. He stated that as the City grew and shopping areas became regionalized, it would give residents an opportunity to walk or drive a short distance for many of their needs and would reduce traffic throughout the City overall. He noted that Bressi Ranch had this type of shopping center. He indicated that he would like the record to state that the very large wall behind this project should not get lost in the sense of landscaping and screening between it and the open space. He urged attention be paid to screening that wall. He agreed with Commissioner White's opinions about the traffic. Commissioner Heineman stated that he thought it was a very well planned project. He expressed grave concerns about ingress and egress. He stated that under the circumstances the Planning Commission had little choice but to follow the lead of Mr. Wojcik and Mr. Johnson and leave the traffic situation as it was. He said he hoped that the traffic situation would not render this a nonviable project. Commissioner Segall stated that he supported the project. He stated that it was a much-needed service in the community. He stated that he thought it was well designed and had a good layout. He stated that he strongly supported the medical offices going in there. He commented that in his five years on the Planning Commission Minute December17,2003 -Page 17 Planning Commission, this was the first medical office in Carlsbad that he had an opportunity to vote on. He stated that he would support the Traffic Engineering Department's recommendation of not permitting the right turn out of the center because of the speed of the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. He commended the designer and builder for the level of outreach that his staff had with the community ih trying to work out solutions to mitigate future problems. In terms of conditions on the project, he deferred to Mr. Neu as to whether they needed to stipulate a condition pertaining to• the roof. Chairperson Baker echoed Commissioner Segall's comments about the medical and dental offices and stated that she wished there were more of them in Carlsbad as there was a real lack of such facilities. With regard to the utility boxes, she addressed Mr. Wojcik and asked that the placement of those be monitored henceforth to prevent their becoming eyesores. She agreed that parameters needed to be set on delivery times. She stated that she was convinced by the public testimony and the fact that there is a nearby school that the Planning Commission needed to limit the egress. She suggested that the homeowners in the neighborhood work with the school to create a trail and alternate means for children to get to school to improve the safety issues. Ms. Mobaldi recommended that the hours that deliveries would be permitted be discussed with the applicant. She stated that because this was not a Use Permit that such a restriction would not be a typical condition for a Site Development Plan. · Mr. Rogers stated that their experience with retailers suggested that 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. would be normal delivery hours. Ms. Mobaldi stated that if the applicant had no objection, the Planning Commission could make that a condition. Commissioner Segall suggested that the latest deliveries should be 10:00 p.m. since that was when the shopping center businesses would close and because it was a residential area. Mr. Rogers clarified that the stores would close at 10:00 p.m. and then the employees would shut down the systems and close up which would take up to half an hour. He stated that if 10:00 p.m. was the cutoff time that they would have more enforcement to do. Chairperson Baker asked if this would be an onerous condition. Mr. Clark stated that it was reasonable and that he would expect complaints from neighbors if there were deliveries later than 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Neu if public testimony was sufficient or if they needed a condition regarding the roofs. Mr. Neu suggested adding a condition and noted that they had done something similar on other projects where rooftop equipment and vents were required to be painted to match the color of the roof surface so that they blended better. Mr. Rogers suggested limiting the colors to earthtones compatible with the design of the shopping center. Commissioner Montgomery asked if his concerns regarding the landscaping along the back wall could be addressed by a condition. Mr. Rogers stated that that was the way they were proposing it to be. Chairperson Baker asked for a motion. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 5527 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5528 and 5529 approving Site Development Plan SDP 02-08 and Special Use Permit SUP 03-07 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and containing the following extra conditions, that the hours of delivery shall be limited to after seven in the morning and before ten at night, and that the rooftop equipment will be painted in earthtone colors to match the surface to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, and including the errata sheet. Planning Commission Minu8 December 17, 2003 - VOTE: AYES: NOES: 5-0 Baker, Heineman, Montgomery, Segall and White None Page 18 Chairperson Baker thanked the applicant for the excellent effort to involve the surrounding neighborhoods and the hard work they've done on the project, and also the citizens who spoke at the hearing. She closed the public hearing on Item 6 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next Item. 7. PUD 01-0S(B) -VILLAGES OF LA COSTA-NEIGHBORHOOD 3.9 OF LA COSTA OAKS SOUTH -Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Villages of La Costa Program EIR and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and to recommend approval, pursuant to Section 7.2.7 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, of an amendment to Planned Development Permit, PUD 01-08, for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 90 single-family detached homes located within Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Oaks South Village. The project site is located on the west side of re-aligned Rancho Santa Fe Road, on the east of Neighborhood 3.8 and within Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Mr. Neu intr-oduced Item 7 and stated that Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, would make the presentation. Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Henthorne if he wished to continue with five Commissioners. He stated that he did. Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 7. Associate Planner, Saima Qureshy, presented the Staff Report stating that Item 7 was a project for the approval of building floor plans, elevations, and plotting for Neighborhood 3.9 of La Costa Oaks South of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. This neighborhood is located west of realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road and the lots for this neighborhood were created through Master Tentative Map CT 99-04 and associated PUD 01-08 by the City Council in October of 2001. This neighborhood contains a total of 90 single-family detached homes with a minimum of 6,000 sq ft lots. The applicant is proposing three floor plans and each floor plan has three different elevation styles. There is a total of nine different elevations. Floor plans for this project range from 3,200 to 3,489 sq ft. All the homes proposed are two stories and the project is consistent with architectural standards as contained in the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation. Jack Henthorn, 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, stated that he was representing the applicant, K. Hovnanian, in presenting Neighborhood 3.9 of the La Costa Master Plan. The Neighborhood 3.9 area is a small lot development within the La Costa Oaks South. The project is a small lot development as a result of the fact that it contains more than 50 units and it requires City Council approval. The project complies with all of the design guidelines and standards within Chapter 4 of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. As Ms. Qureshy indicated, the project is comprised of three different plans as well as an X plan that is used in certain fit situations on restricted lots. There are three architectural styles per plan and the project incorporates four out of the six architectural styles that are permitted for use within this area. There are 13 color schemes that are utilized to further add differentiation and interest within the planned development area. The architectural product incorporates a variety of surface and roof materials and textures to enhance the product. The average front yard setbacks exceed the minimums in the Specific Plan at 24.5 feet. None of the building coverages exceed the maximums permitted under the regulations in the Master Plan and they comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance of the City. The project meets or exceeds all of the development criteria contained within the Master Plan that was approved by the City Council. There are four styles in the project including European Country, Spanish Colonial, Craftsman Bungalow, and Italian Tuscan. Each one of the plans incorporates at least three of the four architectural styles. The Master Plan requires that 50% of the units have four separate building planes. They incorporate a minimum of four design elements on the front facades and two for the sides and rears. That requirement is related to units that are viewed from public and private roads. In an effort to address concerns raised at previous Planning Commission hearings, they have attempted to incorporate many of the front architectural elements into the rear elevations to provide enhancement. He demonstrated and discussed a representative s_ample of the architectural quality in the SOP with a t' .. February 9, 2004 Dennis Bowling, PE Rick Engineering 5620 Friars Road • - City of Carlsbad • :rn D • i◄ii·) I oo • §4 "~ 10144 I•,,~, San Diego, CA 92110-2596 SUBJECT: Mr. Bowling: FEMA PROCESSING RELATED TO LOS COCHES VILLAGE, MS 02-08, SUP 03-07 I have received your letter dated January 28, 2004 (attached). Please understand that the City of Carlsbad, as a floodplain administrator, is required to have projects: 1) submit documentation to and 2) receive approval from FEMA when projects propose grading that alters the existing channel's ability to carry the 100-year flood. This threshold is triggered when a project proposes earthen fill within the mapped floodplain as shown on FIRM maps. The Los Coches project proposed fill within the mapped floodplain. As a result this project was issued a Special Use Permit (SUP 03-07) and was specifically conditioned that, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer submit and receive approval of a LOMR (see attached). This letter serves to inform you that the City is unable to waive the processing ofFEMA documentation as part of this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 760-602-2737. Attachment c: Christer Westman, Project Planner MS 02-08, file (#3R) 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 <!) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. • • Prior to recordation of Final Parcel Map for MS 02-08, developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a Letter of Map Revision {LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The LOMR shall document the revised floodplain limits resulting from existing accurate .channel characteristics crossing the property and demonstrated by hydrologic data/calculations. The revised floodplain limits shall be reflected on the non-mapping data sheet of MS 02-08 and on the project grading plans. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/ exactions." You have 90 days from date-of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition . You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PC RESO NO. 5529 -3- ·-,- ■RICK • ENGINEERING © COMPANY San Diego January 28, 2004 Mr. Jeremy Riddle City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 -- • Riverside • Orange • Phoenix . • Tucson Water Reso1-1.rces Division SUBJECT: LOS COCHES VILLAGE, MS 02-08 (RICK ENGINEERING COMP ANY JOB NUMBER 137 46) Dear Mr. Riddle: On November 7, 2003 Rick Engineering Company filed a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) to correct the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM No. 06073C1053F) in order to accurately show the flood inundation limits for the unnamed tributary to Encinitas Creek as it affects the Los Caches Village Project, based on existing conditions. The issuance of the LOMR by FEMA will update the floodplain to reflect · the current limits of inundation in the creek. Current grading plans for the Los Caches Village Project show a retaining wall that encroaches the area of inundation by up to 25 feet. A hydraulic analysis of the creek was performed using HBC-RAS based on the 100-year peak flood of 1,229 cfs, including the additional area of inundation. Results of the analysis show increases in the water surface elevations'as shown on the following table: River Cross Existing Condition Proposed Condition Increase in Section W.S. Elevation W.S. Elevation W.S. Elevation 150 144.1 144.0 -0.01 160 144.7 144.7 -0.01 170 145.4 145.4 0.07 180 146.4 146.6 0.23 190 148.2 148.2 -0.08 200 150.9 151.1 0.24 210 153.3 153.5 0.19 220 156.0 156.2 0.24 230 158.8 158.9 0.12 240 160.5 160.5 0.04 5620FriarsRoad • SanDiego • California • 92110-2596 • (619)291-0707 • FAX: (619)291-4165 • www.rickengineering.com . . Mr. Jeremy Riddle January 28, 2004 Page 2 · • No habitable structures are intended to be placed within the encroachment area on the current grading plans. No adjacent properties or insurable structures will be impacted by the ·change. We believe the change in water surface elevations due to the shift of encroachment area is negligible and the filing of a CLOMR and subsequent LOMR is not necessary. We request your concurrence and ask you to provide us with written authorization to proceed with this project without additional FEMA processing. If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding Los Coches Village Project, please contact Roberta Cronquist or myself at ( 619) 291-0707. Sincerely, RICK ENGINEERING COMP ANY Dennis C. Bowling, R.C.E. #32838, Exp. Principal CB:nd.002 cc: Mr. JeffRogers-C. W. Clark Mr. DustyUcker-C.W. Clark Mr. Tom Hespeler -Rick Engineering Company Mr. Craig Kahlen -Rick Engineering Company EXISTlNG PARK mg ~ ANO PLANNING ---------· -- EXISTlNG RESIDENTIAL C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 4UIOlAJOU.A\UACEOftl\£.SIJO"E'40S lA JCUA. CA 92037-l♦n (858) 452-7170 RESUME ~a-OS:fIE~NID, ~::~ ~~: 8:~ ~I {GROSS AA'£A MINIJS OEDtCATKlN Of' ROADWAY) TOTAi. 8UllOIHG MEA. ISl',200 G,S.F. OOILOINC FOOTPRINT MfA 71,4~ G.5.f. BIJllDltiG COVERAGE (NET' STE) 2t.e" PERCENT U,NOSCN'ING (NET STE) I~ UNOE'vU.OP"81.E M£A HA (PER Z.O. S£C 21~3.230) PARKING REQUIRED MAAl<Er ~1'2(SHOPS) PAO '2' (2 STOR'I') BANK OFFICE PAO '.J' (2 STORY) LOWER l£VEl. CAA>«. PAO '♦' (R£STN.lfWO'/RETAll) SHOPS 'A' (RUAII.) IOOSK (RE!'NL) lOT.11. MINIMUM AISLE WIDTH NINIWU NSlE WIDTH TOTM. LEGEND 100 SPACES (1/300 s.F.) 30,000 C.SF. 13,000 G.S.F. 8,000 G.S.F. 43~ ~~ H~ ~:i 5,000 G,S.F. 5,000 G.S.F. 2J,OOO G.S.F. (10,2~ G,5.F,) ,t..500 G.S.F. 1,500 G,SF, 1,000 G.s.F'. 200 G.5.F. 159,200 G.S.F. 9C1'PAAl<INC .... _ 20 SPACEs !1/250 S.f'.) 20 SPACES 1/250 S.F. t15 SPAC[S 1/200 s.r.J 40 SPACES 10 SPICES (1/50 5.F. 15 SPACES (I~ ; ~:~ 3.3 SPACES (1/JOO S.F.) 1 Sf>N::ES (1/200 S.F.) 305 SPACES 69 SP>as (17.IS") 14-SPACES 3M SPACES """""" ... .,, ..... CRIB WALL RETAINING WM.L """""" PARKING COUNT IN NI AR£A NUMBER Of SPAC£S PER ROW OF' PMKIHG NUMBER Of COMPACT SPACES PER ROW ~·-TRASH ENCLOSURE UGliT POlE HID BA.SE ACCENT UGHT POLE MO BASE WALL PACK UGHTlNG FIREli'IORAl<f '"""'-E RACK CROSS WAU<-10 BE ~WCUT CONCRETE 02040 80 SCALE: 1•-,ro•-0· ALTERNATE SITE PLAN t1 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004.12 0CT08ER 3, 2003 """"'""" I SOf' 02-08 NlllBERS PIJO 02-07 NS 02-0S EAST ELEVATION (SHOPS Ill FRONT/NORTH ELEVATION SCH..E: 1"-16'-0" ra l,l'MS LEI.RY ARCHITECl\JRE AND PLANNING -----.. __ _ --- SHt 2,50 I S.F. RETAIL 13,000 S.F. G) C~ W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SER"1CES 4190 L4 JCUA \'1.1.ACE ORI\{. SUTE 405 LA JOU.A. CA 92037-1♦72 (Mll)ill-7170 WEST ELEVATION (MARKET/DRUG) MARKET 30,000 S.F. MATERIALS LEGEND @ COLOR/FlNISH LEGEND 10 " 12 " ,. ,. , .... ·-"""""ru: UQITR""""' -STONE ... """"'"" A IOflDOl'stmPEM.' 8 IO 1145 ..,_TD! 0£STNtn" ta #Q7'1la1WlD.D' ta IISll 'IO'rtJJC IWE' tafMJ'IAFIMSWlrllOW' F' lafl2IO"IICsm'l49'YllWI£" C la 11504'0WU!Atilt' H laflJOl'tUIIII.LSTREAtt ,csv 20007 'CMNlfl.' C0t.NTKY l!DCanll€ """ ...,_.....,., ""'....,. .. ftCP"'pNJf//£' :sPUTrKX.aooc HARDSCAPE LEOEND @ □~~51.01'1:ATft-s @ □--.. COLOR/MATffilAL 0~ ...... e~....., e 0 FEATURES LEGEND SHOPS AND MAJORS ELEVATIONS AND HARDSCAPE PLAN 5 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004.12 OCT0BER 3, 2003 N'PIJC<TICN I sOP 02-oa HUM8ERS PIJO 02-07 MS 02-0S ~ MATERIALS LEGEND ""'"""""""' 1 [XT'EIIIOltc:a«NTl't.ASTER 2 ·-' """1"'UlS . """'"""""' ' ...... •-""""110HT _,.. METAL"°"' .......... 10 F'ASOA 11 A'MIMO 12 aJWIIC lU 1:S UQtTfOOIJl'IIE 14 lMI ST0ltt 1::1 SPUT l'AI;:[ IUXX @ COLOR/FINISH LEGEND ... """"'""' A IQ ,:ZOOS"sm>P£M.' B IQ 1140 'WATDI afD'ltM" CIQJ+'Z7'0al'llQn' IOflSH'IOlWcl!lllf: I01'9J'IINIM'$ffNJJ:n/ F' IQ 11290 "IIDTDl'I SKY IIIWl" C ta 11'°4 'OWlsWA l!Wt' H IQ ftlOI 'CU .-.t. stMNl fC$V 200(11 'CNWIEI..° COUHlltYLmCCSTON( """ ..... _,,., L ""' ...... N RCP -Pll1f'£" PAD 3 -NORTH ELEVATION (FLATTENED) ra ,.-MS L&IJff ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING ------------- C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 41&0 I.A JCUA WI.AGE DAI~ SUITE 405 l.AJCUA,CA920n-14n (™) 02-7170 PAD 3 -FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCM.C.lt/11"•1'-o" PAD 3 -SECOND FLOOR Pl.AN SCALE: 1/11"•1'..o"' PAD~ omcE (2-ST0RY) 23,000 S.F. PAD~ omcE (2-sroRY) 23,000 S.F. PAD BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS a1 LOSCOCHESVILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004.12 OCl08ER .. 2003 "1'\JCATION I SOP 02-08 NUt.eERS PUO 02-07 NS 02-o8 / // ,,,------------.,__ ~' / / / ' ' /// ,,,,,,,,,,,,✓ ',,,, ~ / / / PAD'3' '- / / // GARAGE PERIMETER '-'-s. '-'- / / (\.,_ ABOVE // ~ / / \ / / / \ I // \ /\ ,... / / \ ,,,,, L __ _J ', I \ ,,,,, ', I \ / ~ j 'v v PAD 3 -eaow DECK PARKING PLAN W/ HARDSCAPE SCM.t: 1/11"•1'-o" ra MMS LEIJ1.Y ARCHl1ECTURE AND PLANNING ----------- C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTAlE SERVICES 4180 LA JW..A Wl.AGE ORI\[. Slffl: 405 LA JOI.LA. CA 920J7-1♦72 (858) ,m-7170 ' / / / / / / / / / / / / / PAD 3 -LOWER LEVEL GARAGE PLAN W/ HARDSCAPE SCM.E. 1/1.--1·-o· HARllSCAPE LEGEND '"'" @ □-@ □""'""' 9 □ ~~Sl01'£ATIWoW'S COl..OR/MATmAL 9~""""' E5 ~--e3 ~ca.011: ~ ---LS. ~ -~ l.NC)$CJf'[ ~ FEATIJRES LEGEND PAD BUILDING 3 PARKING LEVEL PLANS 8 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO ~TA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004,12 ocroeER J, 2003 APPUCA""" I SOP 02-oe HUMBERS PUO 02-07 MS 02--08 PAD 1 • NORTH ELEVATION PAD 1 • SOUTH ELEVATION ~ MATERIALS LEGEND HO. O<SOW'IIOH ' W000""""' . """'"""""' ........ ''"""""""""""" 7 ROa'lU I WIETAL ltOOF' .......... 10 f'ASQ,\ 11 A'fN'IG IZ aJtMIIC tu: 13 UCHTF'OOUIE 14 lMr,ISTCII( 15 SPUT f'W::,C. aDQ( ra MMS LEIRI ARCHl1ECTIJRE ANO PLANNING -------·- @ COLOR/ANISH LEGEND ... """"""" A IClf200t'sm>PENIL" • ICl~'WAlOlotESlllU'I" C ICl1427'0mlno.D' 1011,11'1:J'lWCewt' ICl,st3'1.wtSWNJ.!1tl 10 11290 'WE3mlN SKY -.ut' IClfl504'a-lMl!MA9Ur H IOfl3Cll'OI.DYU.SfftENrt ,csf20007'CAAAlilEL'COU,mn'UD0ESTCIIE . """ ...... ....,., ""' ...... M RCP ... AOl!l'" C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 411!10 LA JCl1A 'AU.ACE ORI\£ SUITE 405 L,\ JaJA CA 92037-1472 (~) 452-7170 ---------------c-~ ----- _ _.... . ..-,------- PAD 1 • CONCEPT Pl.AN W/ HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE LEGEND """" @ □--@ □""'""' 90~~SLOPEKrlloU'S @ □-- FEAlURES LEGEND 0111111 D PAD BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLAN 6 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO OE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004.12 N'PUCATI<>< I SOP OZ-00 NllMEIERS PUO 02-vl MS 02-0S mg lt:;;iii AND PLANNING ----------- L PAD 2 • NORTH ELEVATION PAD 2 • SOUTH ELEVATION PAD 2 • EAST ELEVATION C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SER"1CES 41110 lA JCUA IM.LAC€ DAM. sum: 405 U. JOU.A, CA 92037-14n (~)462-7170 +ll'-e~ ..-.- HARDSCAPE LEGEND @ □~~Sl.Ol"EIIJMW @ □--...,. COLOR/M-'ttRIM.. E9 ~--E9 6 E9 FEATURES LEGEND ~ UQ,fl' ll0U.M0 l"fJI DETMS ~ ACCDITUCl-ffPOU:NCl&IISEPOIClTAU ~ IIDICH PEIi DEl'M.S ~ ,,...,..,"""" ~ ""'"""""" ~ ~PI.N(TJHCPO'l5Pffl --~ ........ et MATERIALS LEGEND ......... a METAL lt00J" . ,.,,.,._ 10 FASCIA 11 A.-0 12 aRAYC:Tt£ 13 LICHT R>mJAE 14 TMI STONE 15 9'1.Jf"Fla.a.00( @ COLOR/FINISH LEGEND A IO f200I 'saD PEML' II IO 1111~ 'WAlDI OESTNUt" C IO fl,V 'llEIJnlJ)' 0 ID fl51a 'IO'IWC 9Wt" E IO l'S3 '&NIN SMJ.0W ID 11290 'M:slDIN SKY auE' IO 11!504 'OWISilA ~ H lafl:Jln'Q.o..i_SlllfMI" ,CSV20007"CMN,IQ.'COUN'IRYUDO£STtHE PAD'Z BANK (GROUND LEVEL) 4960 S.F. PAD 2 • CONCEPT Pl.AN W/ HARDSCAPE PAD'Z UPPER LEVEL 5040 S.F. PAD 2 • CONCEPT Pl.AN • UPPER LEVEL G) G) PAD BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 7 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA OCT00ER 3, 2003 APl'UCATIOH I SOP 02-08 NUMBERS PUO 02-07 MS OZ-DI PAD 4 • FRONT/WEST ELEVATION PAD 4 • SOUTH/SOUTHEAST ELEVATION PAD 4 • NORTH/NORTHEAST ELEVATION rn~ ~ AND PLANNING ----------- C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 411!10 LA JCUA Wl.AGE DAI\£. SOOE 405 lA JQJA CA '2037-1472 (558) 452-7170 HARDSCAPE LEGEND 9 □~~SlDf'£ATMil'S @ □""""'"""'""' COl.llR,,,..lERIH. E9 ~""""' ,E9 €9 E9 FEATIJRES LEGEND ~ MATERIALS LEGEND @ COLOR/FINISH LEGEND ... - _,.. ,. DDCM'llOt A 1Cf20Dl'SEEDP£Nll.' • lct'"5'WA1D10tES1'MJl' C ICf4'l7'DmlFE.D" D IC 11:111 'IO'IUJCIUJl° IClfMJ'INIHSlUUOW' IC l'2IO "flamlN 9CT !IWt' 0 ,a fl:5()4. "OIARSIIA auE" H 1Cf1301"a.Dlill.LslR(.lr,l,f -------------------___... ___..- -✓- --- • W[TM.IIOOI" .......... fCSY 20007 'CMUMEl.' ca.»mrr t.ax.aT0Ht 10 FASOA 11 A-...0 12 CEIWilCTU 13 UGITF1XTUIIE 14 1MI STOIC 1:1 3't.lTF"ACt lll00C KIOSK • EAST ELEV. KIOSK • WEST ELEV. SCM.El1/ll"•l'-o'" KJ08K • NORTH ELEV. KIOSK • SOUTH ELEV. SCH.[: t/1 ...... I'...,. PAD 4 • CONCEPT Pl.AN W/ HARDSCAPE _Q) ~~.;-~ Pl.AN W/ HAROSCAPE CD ""-<ou,c. """"'""""' PAD BUILDING 4 AND KIOSK ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 9 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 200004.12 0CT08ER l, 2003 APPIJCATION I SOP 02-00 HUiEIERS PUO 02--07 MS 02-0S SITE SECTION 'N REFERENCE PLAN ra MMS LEIJty' ARCHITECnJRE AND PLANNING ----------- SCA!£, 1·-100•-o· G) C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 4180 LA JOU.A \4U.ACE ORI~ SUl1E <f05 LA JCUA CA '2037-1472 (1558) 452-7170 SITE SECTION 'B' SCALE: 1•-40•-o· 1! Ii I I SITE SECTIONS 12 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD, & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES 200004,12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER,.2003 N'PUCATK>I I SOP 02-00 HIJM8ERS P\JO 01-07 NS 02--011 8ECllON 'N • PAD 'f ra ..-...s L6(RY ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING ----------- SECTION 'B' • MAJOR 2 SCALE: 1·-,a•-0• = 1·-100·-0· CD C.W. Clark, Inc. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTA TE SER\o1CES 4180 LA JOU.A \IU.ACEDRl'I€. SJ!'{[~ lA JOLLA. CA 92037-1472 (858) 452-7170 SECTION 'D' -PAD 7 SECTION 'F' • PAD ~ SCALE: ,· .. 1s'-o" r"Eat. UH:! h 8ECT10N 'C' • MARKET SCM.E: t••t&'-o• SECTION 'E" • PAD '4' r-1 i i BUILDING SECTIONS 11 LOS COCHES VILLAGE RANCHO SANTA FE RD. & CAMINO DE LOS COCHES 200004.12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 0CT08ER 3, 2003 N'PUCATDI I SOP 02--00 NUMBERS PUD 02-07 MS 02-<)8