HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 93-06; Green Valley; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (5)P.C. AGENDA OF December 13, 1995
Application complete date: March 12,1993
Project Planaer: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECX EIR 93-02/MP 9241WK~~F'MP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-O8/HDP 92-15f
SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for a
recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
recommendation of approval for a Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan, and approval of a Tentative
Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to allow for the future development of 300,000 square feet of community commercial retail
and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or attached residential units
on property generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of La
Costa Avenue and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission A) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
recommending CERTIFICATION of the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02; ADOPTION of the CEQA Findings of Fact,(Exhibit A);and ADOPTION of the Mitigation
Monitoring Report, (Exhibit B); and B) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856,
3857, and 3858 recommending APPROVAL of Master Plan MP 92-01, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 93-06, and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 87-23 and
C) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3859, 3860, and 3861 APPROVING
Tentative Tract Map CI' 92-08, Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-15, and Special Use
Permit: Floodplain SUP 92-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The Green Valley Master Plan was submitted to the City in November 1992 and was first reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The Planning Commission received
public testimony regarding the project environmental impact report and the Master Plan and
deliberated regarding the merits and detriments of the proposal. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended that the City Council wrtirjl the EIR and approve the Master
Plan with modifications. One such modification was the designation of the proposed retail planning area at the comer of El Camino Real and La costa Avenue as Unplanned. The
Planning Commission, under their own authority approved the associated tentative map,
hillside development permit and special use permit subject to City Council approval of the
Master Plan and related legislative actions.
-
EIR 93- 92-01/LCk A 93-06/ WMP ZONE 87-23/c;T92-L, iiDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
City Council was dissatisfied with the scope of analysis in the EIR as it related to the
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and therefore took no action on certification of the EIR or
the master plan. The City Council referred the EIR back to staff for expanded
environmental analysis and the master plan for reconsideration of the master plan
development program.
The Environmental Impact Report has been supplemented and recirculated for public
review and the master plan has been modified to reflect a Reduced Project Alternative to
the original proposal. The applicant has proposed the Reduced Project Alternative as their
preferred project in response to community and City Council issues. The focus of staffs
review has been on the Reduced Project Alternative and staffs recommendation to the
Planning Commission is for action on the Reduced Project Alternative.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is a Master Plan as required by the Planned Community Zone and East
Batiquitos LagoodHunt Properties segment of the Local Coastal Program. The Master Plan
is divided into five subareas and will serve as the zoning for a 281 acre parcel of land southwest of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue and as the
implementing ordinance for the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the
Local Coastal Program. Approximately 184 acres of the total land area is considered to be
developable as illustrated in the following TABLE I.
I
TABLE I
PLANNINGAREA GROSS CONSTRAINED NET DEVELOPABLE and LAND USE 1 ACREAGE 1 ACREAGE I ACREAGE
PA 2 Community 18.3 0.0 18.3
Commercial
PA 3 Residential 55.8 0.0 55.8
PAS 1,4 &5 207.1 97.4 109.7
Open Space
TOTAL I 281.2 1 97.4
The project proposes preservation and restoration of significant constrained natural open
space areas as well as the inclusion of developable areas as open space. Nearly 73% of the
total land area is within the three open space planning areas.
Per the.Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, 15% of the total unconstrained land
area within the zone must be set aside as open space. As shown in the following TABLE
I1 the project will provide nearly three (3) times the minimum open space requirement.
- h
EIR 93-02/MP 92-0l/LCk. A 9349 LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92&, ADP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995 PAGE 3
The actual Open Space areawithin the Master Plan is approximately 194 acres (281.2 acres
less planning areas and road improvements) which includes the upland blufh, riparian
corridor, and mitigation areas. All of these acres are within Planning Areas 1, 4 and 5.
II OPEN SPACE
ACRES AREA DESCRIPTION:
LFMP 15% 2757 76.2s
required proposed
I1 SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE CALCULATION
11 TOTAL Gross Acreage I I 281.2
Less Required Mitigation Acreage 19.45 - 19.45
Less Development Constrained Acreage 97.40 -97.40
Less Development Acreage + 88.1 -88.1
Public Street Right-of-way
TOTAL Remaining Unconstrained Open Space
The open space planning areas prohde a substantial north-south habitat link through the
riparian corridor and upland blufh. A significant connection between the upland bluff and
the riparian corridor is located at the northerly end of the master plan which parallels La
Costa Avenue. The majority of the open space planning areas will be habitat conservation,
however, a portion of Planning Area 1 will be used for trails consistent with the Open Space
Resource Conservation Management Plan.
Development within each of the planning areas will be subject to the development standards
of the Zoning Ordinance except for the modifications as described in the master plan. As stated in the Master Plan text, "It is the intent of the Master Plan to serve as the
development and presenration policy and design guideline for the Green Valley property.
A Master Plan is an instrument under which development occurs in an orderly and positive
manner without creating significant impacts to the existing and projected infrastructure and
setting. A Master Plan document establishes land uses, delineates development areas,
assigns density, considers differing land use interrelationships, delineates specific design
criteria, outlines phasing, and provides implementation methodology. It is also the basis for
future, more detailed, project reviews, such as individual tentative maps, and Site
Development Plans."
The project site can be characterized by three different land forms. The western portion
is vegetated upland hillside with slopes generally greater than 15%, the central portion is
vacant gently sloping land previously used for agriculture and the eastern portion is a
EIR 93-ouMP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
densely vegetakd riparian comdor. Near the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue is the Red Barn which is currently being used by San Diego Cellular as an
administrative servicing center. No other commercial or residential uses exist on the
Property.
Associated with the Master Plan and necessary for the creation of the Master Plan are:
A. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report addressing all of the
potential impacts to the environment created by the implementation of the
Master Plan;
B. A Local Coastal Program Amendment to the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segment identi~g the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and a text amendment requiring
that the master plan be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994;
C. A Tentative Map which will subdivide the property into 11 parcels;
D. A Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 which assesses and identifies all of the infrastructural needs associated with development within the zone;
E. A Hillside Development Permit required by Title 21 because the subject
property has an overall slope greater than 15% and an elevation differential
greater than 15 feet; and
F. A Special Use Permit which allows the alteration to land form within a
floodplain.
Iv. ANALYSIS
To a great degree, the Reduced Project Alternative master plan text is similar to the master
plan which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The most significant
differences between the two are the reductions in allowable commercial square footage within Planning Area 2 from 600,000 to 300,000 and land area from 56.2 acres to 18.3 acres,
the increase of land area dedicated to single family residential uses in Planning Area 3 from
17.9 acres to 55.8 acres while maintaining the same number of residential units (400), and
additions to the development standards for the residential Planning Area 3. Although the
residential planning area has been increased by more than 200%, the maximum number of
units allowed has been set at 400. The restriction on the number of dwelling units allowed
within the planning area translates to an average density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre.
Figure 1 illustrates the Reduced Project Alternative land use distribution.
FIGURE 1
EIR 93-03MP 92-01/Zci-ri 93-06/ LFMP ZONJ3 87-23/CI'92-00/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The General Plan land use designations for the project site are a combination district of
Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High and Open Space (C/O/RMH and
OS). The property is zoned Planned Community (PC). Uses proposed within the master
plan (community commercial, single family residential and open space) are consistent with
those General Plan designations. Zoning consistency is created through the master plan which is in conformance with the Planned Community Zone standards and the identification
of compatible zoning designations for each of the planning areas.
Planning Areas 1,4 & 5
These planning areas are designated as Open Space and C/O/RMH in the General Plan and
as Open Space, for the purposes of Zoning, within the Master Plan. The Master Plan does not grant any development rights within any of these planning areas. However, within
Planning Area 5, the "Red Barn" will remain as a legal non-conforming use, which means
that it may not be expanded or modified.
The open space zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan designation of Open
Space and is broadly consistent with the other General Plan land uses because open space
is typically a part of any use.
These planning areas play a significant role in shaping the character of the master plan
because they create a natural buffer which surrounds the developable planning areas of the plan.
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 2 (PA2) is designated as General Commercial (a), for the purposes of
zoning in the master plan and is completely within lands designated as combination district
C/O/RMH in the General Plan. Community Commercial (C) isdescribed in the General
Plan as:
"...centen that offer a greater depth and range of merchandise in shopping
and specialty goods than the neighborhood center although this category may
include some of the uses also found in a neighborhood center. Often a
supermarket, large variety store, cinema, or discount department store
functions as the anchor tenant. The emergence of new anchor tenants( i.e., high volume specialty or warehouse stores) has resulted in new, special forms
of community commercial centers. As an example, this type of center may
have a grouping of special tenants, who operate a retailhholesale business dealing with home improvement items.
Sometimes a community commercial center is located next to or across the road from a regional center because the two types of centers offer different
ranges of merchandise . . . "
h
EIR 93-0- 92-01/LG - 93-06/ LFWP ZONE 87-23/ClY2-Cb,rIDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASIXR PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
The General Plan also demis Community Commercial centers as being on approximately
10 to 30 acres with a range of 100,000 to 300,000 square feet of building. The Reduced
Project Alternative is a maximum of 300,000 square feet of building on 18.3 acres.
Planning Area 2 is adjacent to the City of Encinitas at the south end of the project site.
Because of the development of commercial uses to the south and the natural buffers of the
bluffs to the west and the riparian corridor to the east, PA2 has a great degree of
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Permitted uses are per Chapter 21.28, the General Commercial zone, and Chapter 21.42,
Conditional Uses, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Development within PA2 is subject to the standards of 21.28, General Commercial zone, plus the additional standards and design guidelines required by the master plan.
Planning Area 3
Typical of land designated as Residential Medium-High in the General Plan, Planning Area
3 (PA3) has been designated for zoning purposes as Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M).
The General Plan describes Residential Medium-High as:
"Urban multiple residential areas characterized by two and three story
condominium and apartment developments - 8-15 dwelling units per acre."
However, the General Plan continues to state that in order to meet goals and objectives,
including population and environmental considerations, the actual yield of approved development within each land use category may be less than the density range (8-15 units
per acre) and it will still be considered to be consistent with the General Plan. The intent
of the RD-M zone, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, is to provide means of development
in the low-medium density range as well as the high density range.
The master plan implements the General Plan clause regarding development less than the
density range and addresses a community interest to maintain a single family residential
character within PA3 by restricting development to a maximum of 400 units over 55.8 acres
which is equal to 7.2 units per acre. In addition the master plan limits structures to two
stories (30 feet) which is typical of single family development.
The community forums identified a strong desire to retain this area a a single family, ownership residential neighborhood. Restricting the density and building height helps to
achieve that goal.
Development of PA3 will be subject to the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
except as modified in the Master Plan (see later discussion).
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LC1 a 93-061 LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-~, HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
B. bOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY:
EAST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/”T PROPERTIES SEGMENT
Text Amendment
The land uses designated for the Green Valley portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
segment are identified as ..“a combination of uses as follows:
1. Riparian Corridor of Encinitas Creek (approximately 40 acres designated as
Open Space (OS) with a Special Treatment Overlay.
a) Steep Slopes - Slopes 40% or greater are designated as Open Space
(OS) and constrained from development. Slopes 25% to 40% may also
be constrained from development. (See Grading Section.)
2. Upland (approximately 240 acres) is designated for a combination of
Residential (Medium High Density - RMH-9-15 du/ac), Commercial (C), and
Office (0) uses. The maximum height of new development shall be limited
to 35 feet consistent with the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Additionally, the
intensity of development shall be compatible with the currently planned road
capacities of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Approval of these land
uses shall not be considered precedent for increasing the road capacity of these two corridors. Development of the entire 280 acres of Green Valley
shall be pursuant to a Master Plan which is consistent with the uses allowed
by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted as of March 1, 1988.“
.
A Local Coastal Program Amendment is required for the adoption of the Green Valley
Master Plan as the implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and includes an update
to the language regarding consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan. The updated
language requires a master plan to be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994 versus March 1988. The land uses have not changed. They are Community
Commercial, Office, Residential Medium High and Open Space (c/o/RMH/OS), however,
for the sake of clarity the amended language is being pursued.
Master Plan Consistency with the LCP
Local Coastal Program (LCP) requirements included in the segment follow along with a
description of how the master plan complies with the requirement
1. Development of the Green Valley shall be pursuant to a Master Plan that
complies with the policies of the LCP - The project is a Master Plan which
has been designed in compliance with the LCP.
2. Twenty-five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) slopes may be constrained
from development - The intent of the LCP is to preserve and enhance slopes
EIR 93-OuMp 92-01/LCk~ 934/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CIp2-W/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
with significant native vegetation that are greater than 25% (Dual criteria
slopes). Planning areas proposed for development within the Green Valley
Master Plan are primarily confined to disturbed areas with slopes less than
15% and will therefore not affect such slopes.
3. A 50 foot wide buffer area shall be preserved in open space upland of the
boundaries of the riparian corridor. Development within the buffer area shall
be limited to the construction of a pedestrian path with fencing and other
improvements necessary to protect the riparian habitat in the upper (upland)
half of the buffer area - A minimum 50 foot varying width buffer is proposed
along the western upland side of the riparian corridor which will include a
pedestrian path and basins for the protection of the riparian corridor and the
Batiquitos Lagoon from urban runoff.
4. The maximum height of new development shall be limited to thirty-five (35)
feet - Commercial buildings are limited to a height of 35 feet or less, with an
allowance for the encroachment of non-habitable architectural elements and
residential development is limited to a maximum height of 30 feet.
5. Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands to urban uses pursuant to the
approved master plan shall be consistent with the Coastal Act (Section
30171.5 Public Resources Code) which requires a mitigation fee - At the time
of discretionary development approvals, the conversion mitigation fee will be required.
6. Alteration of the riparian corridor shall be limited to access and flood and
sediment control projects and shall require Carlsbad approval, a Coastal
Development Permit, Stream Alteration Agreement, and COE permit:
a. A maximum of two crossings shall be permitted to provide access to
the developable portions of the Green Valley - Access was designed with the inclusion of a minimum 36 foot bridge structure over the
centerline of the creek. The creation and maintenance of new riparian
habitat onsite at a ratio of 3:l has been proposed as mitigation for the
impacts to the riparian habitat in association with the construction of
the accessways.
b. Flood and sediment control projects shall be allowed adjacent to the
riparian corridor - Hood control has been proposed adjacent to the
riparian corridor which does not involve removal of riparian habitat or
diversion of non-flood water flows upon which the habitat is
dependant.
7. The viewshed to the lagoon and from the lagoon shoreline are important resources - Development within the master plan is restricted to an area that
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LLL i 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-te/HDP 92-15/sUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
is set at the base of the bluffs at the western edge of the property and east
and south of an extensive riparian corridor with mature riparian vegetation. Development within the identified areas of the master plan will not affect
views of the lagoon nor will it significantly alter the views from the lagoon
shoreline.
8. A Coastal Development Permit will be required for any development with the
Green Valley Master Plan.
The Master Plan incorporates the specific criteria listed above. The amendment to the Local Coastal Program segment designates the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance and the land uses described therein as the approved land uses for
the Green Valley.
C. PLANNING AREA 5
As the master plan was originally submitted, there were four (4) planning areas proposed.
Land uses within those planning areas were designated as: Riparian Corridor, Retail Center,
Multi-Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. During early staff review the
applicant was directed to separate the upland blu& from the retail and residential planning
areas into a separate open space planning area thereby creating five (5) planning areas.
Planning Area 5 was thereby created as a commercial site at the southwest comer of La
Costa and El Camino Real.
However, after further review of the applicant’s proposal staff directed the master plan to
designate Planning Area 5 as open space. Staffs reasons for an open space designation at
the corner include:
Intersection Spacing - The standards for City improvements require a minimum intersection
spacing distance of 1200 feet for a major arterial and 2600 feet for a prime arterial unless
no other access to the site can be obtained. In such a case, driveways can be established at
one-half the distance of the required intersection spacing provided that acceptable levels of service can be maintained. PA5 cannot be designed for commercial uses per the required
vehicular access standards.
Intersection Congestion - Intensification of the commercial nature of the site will
significantly increase the turning movements and thereby reduce the capacity of the
intersection. This, along with inadequate intersection spacing will negatively impact the
traffic movement at the intersection.
Visual Impact - Development at this corner would lessen the sense of the natural setting
created by the adjacent riparian corridor and Batiquitos Lagoon to the north.
Opem Space Resource Conservation Management Plan (OSCRMP) - A primary action
priority of the OSCRMP is the protection of open space alongside El Camino Real.
EIR 93-02-/MP 92-01/LC~- A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-Gcl,tIDP 92-15/!X.JP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASI’ER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 10
Preservation of the comer as open space would achieve that action priority. In addition to
the previously stated reason, development of the 1.7 acre site requires the approval of .6
acres of fill within the floodplain through the Special Use Permit. Approval of the SUP to
increase the area of developable land east of the riparian corridor would also be inconsistent
with the primary action priority.
The site is also constrained by the development standards of the El Camino Real Corridor
Overlay and the proposed Green Valley Master Plan as well as the 100 year floodway. Per the El Camino Real Corridor Overlay and the master plan, a thirty (30) foot setback is
required for buildings along El Camino Real. This setback along with the floodway
constraint further reduces the viability of the site for the requested extent of commercial development.
The applicant’s proposed Reduced Project Alternative proposal included a maximum commercial square footage of 6,000 versus the originally proposed 12,000 and a limited
number of commercial uses. Those uses are:
e Art Store and Gallery
e Bank (with or without drive up windows)
e Florist
e Office
e Restaurant
The applicant has prepared a letter to the Planning Commission, see attached, outlining
their reasons why the Planning Commission should recommend approval of Planning Area
5 as commercial.
However, there are three options regarding action on Planning Area 5 that the Planning
Commission may wish to consider. The first 1) is to approve the planning area as proposed
by the applicant. The second 2) is to designate the Planning area as open space as
presented by staff. And the third 3) is to designate the planning ‘area as Unplanned Area.
Each of the options is discussed below.
As discussed above, designation of this comer property as commercial (Option 1) is
inconsistent with priorities of the Open Space Resource Conservation Management Plan. A primary action priority is to retain all constrained lands and to designate constrained land
and unconstrained strips of land east of the riparian corridor and west of El Camino Real
as open space. This inconsistency has been identified in the EIR as a significant impact.
In addition, development of the comer with commercial uses as proposed by the applicant
will increase friction at the intersection because the uses proposed are higher traffic
generators than the existing use and it will require .6 acres of fill within the floodway.
Mitigation of the inconsistency with the OSCRMP and avoidance of the impacts to the
intersection and floodway is to either designate the property as open space (Option 2) or
as an alternative as unplanned (Option 3). An unplanned designation satisfies the goal of
EIR 93-ouMp 92-01/LG n 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-bo/HDP 92-15/St.JP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
the OSCRMP in the short term of maintaining strips of land between El Camino Real and
the riparian corridor as undeveloped and also defers impact to the floodway and
intersection. However, designation of the PA as Unplanned will require a subsequent
General Plan Amendment.
For these reasons staff recommends that the Planning Area be designated as open space.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT LOCAL FACILITlES MANAGEMENT PLAN:
ZONE 23
The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) does not designate land uses as a General
Plan or Master Plan, but makes land use assumptions for the sake of facilities planning.
Because the LFMP analysis assumes a greater scope of development than the Reduced
Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative is considered to be consistent with the
analysis within the LFMP.
As indicated in Table UI, all Public Facilities will comply with the adopted performance
standards through buildout for either the original master plan or the Reduced Project
Alternative. A summary of the Zone 23 facilities needs analysis follows:
II LFMP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Reduced Proiect FACILITY Original Project
1390 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1)' City Administrative
Facilities
741 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1) Library 741 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1)
Wastewater Treatment 733.3 EDUS Yes
Capacity
Parks 278 acres Yes (park fees)
Dramage Basm D Yes
Circulation 33,400 ADT Yes
Fire station 2 Yes
563.3 Yes
278 acres Yes (park fees)
Yes Basm D
25,300 ADT Yes
Station 2
795 acres YeS Open Space 67.9 acres Yes
schools 212 students Yes
(see discussion)
~~
212 students
5633 YeS
11 Water Distribution System I 303,376 GPD I Yes 123,926 GPD Yes
EIR 93-OmP 92-01/LL A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92+0/HDP 92-15/sUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
1.
2. See Community Facilities District discussion under following heading.
See Traffic/Circulation discussion under following heading.
The LFMP analyzes the public facility impacts of a project and recommends appropriate mitigation, including a financing plan for the construction of required infrastructure. The
land uses used for determining Zone 23 facilities impacts are reflective of the originally
submitted Master Plan; i.e. Extensive Regional Retail, Open Space, Residential Medium
High and Neighborhood Commercial. Although the LFMP analysis assumed the
development program outlined in the original master plan, the findings of the analysis are
still valid for use with the Reduced Project Alternative. As seen in TABLE I11 above several of the facilities impacts, those based exclusively on population, remain the same.
Those facilities which are affected by commercial type and building size have been reduced.
As a condition of approval, the project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation
measures which are required as part of the Zone 23 LFMP and any amendments made to
that plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Significant conditions required of the Local Facilities Management Plan are improvements
to El Camino Real and La costa Avenue along the project frontage as well as improvements
to the El Camino Real and Olivenhain intersection and the El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue intersection.
The maximum number of units allowed within the master plan, 400, is proposed by the
applicant as a carry over from the original master plan proposal of 34.8 developable
residential acres. 400 units is 241 units less than could be allowed within an RMH
designated property of 55.8 acres.
Community Facilities District No. 1
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 was formed by City Council in 1986 in order to
fund improvements of specific public facilities throughout the City of Carlsbad. All property which is not located within Local Facilities Management Zones 1,2,3,4, & 6 must be made
part of (CFD) No. 1 with the first discretionary approval with the exception of master plans
and specific plans.
Zone 23 must be annexed into CFD No.1 because a tentative map has been proposed. The
project has been conditioned within the tentative map resolution conditions of approval to
annex into CFD No.1.
The project is proposed to obtain access from El Camino Real, a six lane Prime Arterial roadway, on the east and Leucadia Boulevard, a four lane Major Arterial roadway, on the
south. Access onto the site is proposed to be via Calle Barcelona, a four lane Secondary
Arterial roadway and Levante Street, a two lane Collector street.
EIR 93-mP 92-01U~ A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-tm/HDP 92-15EUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MAS"ER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Three circulation alternatives were analyzed with this Reduced Project Alternative. The
components of the on site circulation analysis include proposed Street "A", proposed
Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions west of El Camino Real.
Alternative 1 is the proposed Reduced Project Alternative. It includes all three of the
circulation components with Calle Barcelona connecting to Leucadia Boulevard. Alternative
2 is the same as Alternative 1 minus the westerly extension of Levante Street from El
Camino Real. Alternative 3 has the westerly Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions
without the southerly connection of Calle Barcelona to Leucadia Boulevard.
The traffic analysis consists of all approved and planned projects in the area including
Encinitas Ranch, Home Depot, Arroyo La Costa and La Costa Southeast. This analysis
determined that both Alternatives "1" and "2", with the recommended improvements, can
comply with the Growth Management Ordinance requirements. Neither alternative was
technically superior to the other.
However, staff recommends Alternative "1" as proposed because retaining both crossings
maintains the advantage of separating residential traffic from commercial traffic; provides
a secondary access to the residential portion of the master plan from the City of Carlsbad
should Calle Barcelona be blocked; provides better access to the residential portion of the
master plan from Fire Station Number 2 for fire protection and from the Safety Center for
police selvices; and generally maintains greater opportunity for efficient circulation design.
Additionally, the EIR concludes that all biological impacts associated with the Reduced
Project Alternative can be mitigated to below a level of significance.
E. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN STANDARDS
The Master Plan contains a full range of design and development standards and guidelines.
A focus of the guidelines is on architecture with the goal of creating development which is
rich in detailing and is reflective of the surrounding natural setting.
Standards have been established with the intention of limiting the intensity of development
and preserving a quality relationship between structures, parking, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation areas and natural open space.
Adoption of the Master Plan will establish the zoning and development standards for each
of the planning areas. Following is a description of the planning area standards:
Planning Areas 1,4 and 5 - Open Space:
Development within these open space planning areas is limited to roadways, trails, flood
control structures, limited signage and habitat enhancement. No commercial, residential or
private recreation facilities are permitted. The exception is the allowance of the "Red Barn"
to continue as a legal non-conforming use within Planning Area 5.
EIR 9342/MP 9241/LCA - i 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/Cl92-te,HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
Because the development of inhabitable buildings is not allowed within these planning areas,
there are very limited setback and/or height standards.
Planning Area 2 - Retail Center:
- Uses:
Retail buildings are limited to a maximum of 300,OOO combined square feet and uses are
typical of a C2, General Commercial zone.
Building Height:
Building height is limited to 35 feet with an exception for non-habitable architectural
features allowed up to 45 feet which is consistent with Chapter 21.28 General Commercial
Zone.
Lot Coverage:
Lot coverage is regulated by the maximum allowed combined square footage of buildings,
which is 38% of the 18.3 acre site. Coverage is further regulated by the parking to building area ratio (one space per 200 gross square feet of building), landscape requirements and
setbacks. Setback standards proposed within the Master Plan are more extensive than what
is found within Chapter 21.28 of the Municipal Code (C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL). Specifically, Chapter 21.28 only addresses building height and rear lot lines. The Master
Plan includes height and setback regulations as well as architectural guidelines.
Process:
All development proposals will require review and approval of a Site Development Plan.
Uses within a proposed development may also require a Conditional Use Permit and
subsequent subdivision of the commercial planning area will require a tentative map and
may require a Planned Unit Development. Each of these development processes requires
the review of the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Planning Area 3 - Residential:
Planning Area 3 contains the greatest extent of development standards in the master plan
because of the variety of development scenarios possible.
- uses:
Planning Area 3 may be developed with detached and attached single family residential units
and associated uses such as recreation buildings and recreational vehicle storage. The maximum number of units allowed is 400. The Master Plan requires that 15% of those units
be made available to lower income households. Therefore, if 400 units are approved by
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCk ri 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/cIP2-Go/KDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
future discretionary action, 60 onsite units will be designated as affordable. However, all
of the units approved for the site may be market rate if a housing agreement can be
approved which provides for the appropriate ratio of affordable units ofkite. In that case,
if 400 market rate units were approved onsite, 70.59 units will be the required ofkite.
Develo~men t St and ards:
Development standards for the residential Planning Area 3 are based on three sections of
the Zoning Ordinance, 21.10 One-Family Residential Zone (R-1); 21.24 Residential Density-
Multiple Zone (RD-M); and 21.45 the Planned Development Ordinance, except as modified
by the Green Valley Master Plan. Both R-1 and RD-M are residential zones which limit
uses and identify development standards for the uses within the zone. The Planned
Development Ordinance establishes a process and development standards, in addition to the
zone standards, which may be applied to any residential development.
Because of the variety of single family product type that could be approved within the master plan, the development standards were broken into three categories. The first 1)
category covers individual lots, greater than 7,500 square feet, with a detached or attached product (duplex divided by a lot line); the second 2) addresses detached or attached product
(duplex divided by a lot line) on individual lots less than 7,500 square feet but greater than
3,500 square feet; and the third 3) covers attached product on a common lot greater than
10,OOO square feet.
The following TABLES IV, V, VI, VI1 and VIII are summaries of the basic standards
proposed in the master plan for "typical" single family development and attached single family development. Some standards are highlighted ~~j, some are underlined - , and
others are plain. Those standards that are highlighted are in some way are more lenient
than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone (R1 or RD-M) or the Planned
Development Ordinance (PD). Those standards that are underlined are an addition to or
more restrictive than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned
Development Ordinance. Those standards that are neither highlighted nor underlined, are equivalent to the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned Development
Ordinance.
II Standard subdivision 7300 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = R-1
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Dimension:
7300 square feet
Width 60 fwt
Depth 65 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 40%
r
EIR 93-OuMp 92-01fi- - i 9W/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/cT92-~d/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
II Standard subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = R-1
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum . 1 rear property line
~~ I u)% lot width / IO feet minimum / 20 feet maximum 1 side property line I center plot I 10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
zero lot I I 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
1 street - public I
structure I II garage: front loading I 20 feet minimum
II side loading
11 Building Separation:' I
[ 1StOry/2stOry I 15 feet
11 Building Height 30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch I 24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches m height.
II Standard Subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Dimensk
7500 sauare feet
Width 60 feet
[Depth
Maximum Lot Coverage - 40%
Building separation is baaed on 1 story and 2 story elements defined ea follows:
1 story element -
2 story element -
Maximum tirst floor late he 15 feet 5 feet from 8e tirst &r building ha.
Fifft floor plate he 15 feet 5 feet from% E floor building &a.
t of 12 feet. and/or a maximum building height of
ter than 12 feet. and/or a building height greater than
EIR 93-P 92-01/LC~ A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI'92-b0/HDP 92-15/sI.JP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
1 TABLE
Standard Subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
rear property line 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
side property line I
center plot
zero lot
street - private:
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
driveway: I
structure
garage: front loading
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average side loading
3uilding Separation:
1 story 1 1 story
1 story 1 2 story
10 feet
15 feet
20 feet 2 story 1 2 story
3uildmg Height @ 3:12 roof pitch
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof uitch
This setback is applicable to all str~ct~m~ and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Reduced Lot Subdivision 3,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD.
EIR 93-P 92-01/Lc, .% 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CL92-bd/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
II Reduced Lot Subdivision 3,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
rear property line
side property line:
15 feet minimum
center plot
zero lot
street - publidprivate:
structure
garage: front loading
10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
side loading I 15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
driveway:
structure: ground floor 5 feet minimum
second floor 15 feet minimum
garage: front loading 5 feet minimum
side loading 10 feet minimum
Building Separation:
1 story I 1 story
1 story I 2 story
2 story I 2 story
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
20 feet minimum
Building Height 30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch or greater
1243:12I:12lmf Ditch
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Attached Unit No Subdivision 1 Basis = RD-M I
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Lot Coverage
Setbacks
l0,OOO square feet
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
I -
EIR 93-0uMp 92-01LC~ - 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/cIp2-C,, dDP 92-15/sI.JP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
II Attached Unit No Subdivision I Basis = RD-M
subdivision / project boundaries:
structure: front of dwelling 10 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
side of dwelling
rear of dwelling
I 11 street - publidprivate:
dwelling
garage: front loading
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average side loading
driveway:
dwelling: first floor 10 feet minimum
second floor 15 feet minimum
@;f.$&&m garage: front loading .* ..,. >..,< .,...,. ~<:~.:.~~.~:<.~~.~.:.:~.:<..~.:.: 1 side loading I 10 feet minimum
Building Separation:
This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
d
II Attached Unit With Subdivision / Basis = PD 1 Mmkum Lot Size uare feet I lo~oOosa 11 Maximum Lot Coverage
setback
Me Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
subdivision / project boundaries:
StNdUre: front of dwelling 10 feet minimum *
.c
EIR 93-02JMP 9241/LCk~ 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/092-b/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 20
II Attached Unit With Subdivision / Bask = PD
side of dwelling 10 feet minimum
side loading 10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
..-.. ~~~...~. :~~.~.:.:~.~~~~.~.:.~.~.:.~.~~.~~ dwelling: first floor $$&M;g.Ry!g
second floor 15 feet minimum
garage: front loading 5 feet minimum
side loading 10 feet minimum
Building Separation:
1 story I1 story 10 feet
15 feet 1 story 12 story 11 2 story I 2 story 20 feet
* This setback is applicable to all st~dums and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Parking:
Two (2) enclosed spaces is required for each residential unit and one (1) guest space is
required for each four residential units developed as a Planned Unit Development per 21.45.090(c)(d). Parking may be permitted on-street if street width allows. Parking for a
senior housing development shall be consistent with 21.44.020, Parking.
Recreational ODen SDace Area:
AU projects which require approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to provide
common recreational open space areas at a ratio of 200 square feet per unit. A minimum
of 25% of that requirement is to be improved as active recreational open space area. At
the discretion of the approving body, a credit up to 10% of the required recreational open
space area may be granted for the provision of an onsite interior exercise facility that is
determined to be proportionately equal in recreational value as the open space.
EIR 93- 92-01/LL .i 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-t,o/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Recreational Vehicle Storage:
AU projects which require the approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to
provide recreational vehicle storage within the Master Plan at a ratio of 20 square feet for
every unit consistent with 21.45.090(k).
Streetddrivewavs:
The Master Plan identifies a hierarchy for private streets and driveways. Private residential
streets may have a minimum width of 30 feet with no parking, a width of 32 feet with
parking on one side and a width of 36 feet with parking on both sides.
Internal private common driveways may have a minimum width of 24 feet but may not serve
more than 4 units. The common driveway has been used on other projects within the City
as part of a "cluster" design for groups of 4 detached single family homes on either
individually owned lots or on common lots with exclusive use yard areas. The advantage of a common private driveway is the reduction in the total number of driveway cuts onto a
circulation street which in turn benefits the overall streetscape. Private common driveways
less than 30 feet in width are subject to the discretionary approval of either the Planning Commission or City Council, whichever has decision making authority over the project
application. No parking is permitted on private driveways.
F. TENTATIVEMAP
An 11 parcel subdivision map has been submitted in conjunction with the Master Plan.
Subdivision of the planning areas into independent legal lots allows for separate ownership
and development of each parcel. Lots 4 and 5 are Planning Area 2 (Retail Center) and lots
6, 7, 8, and 9 are Planning Area 3 (Residential). Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 are designated as
open space.
All lots proposed are of adequate size and shape to allow for the future development of a
retail center and residential community.
The tentative map resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning Commission's
prior action on this tentative map. This has been done to eliminate the potential confusion
of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
G. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The project site has varying terrain which includes 40% slopes and a general topography
which has an elevational difference greater than 15 feet. Information has been provided as
required by the Hillside Development Regulations identijring hillside conditions and areas
of proposed development and undevelopable areas identified.
The intent of the Hillside Development Regulations is to visually preserve and enhance the
natural contours of Carlsbad's hillsides. The project proposes preservation of the upland
EIR 93-P 92-01/LCl A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92&/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
bluffs which contain slopes greater than 40%, 25% to 40% slopes and nearly all of the
slopes greater than 15%. Development is confined primarily to the disturbed agricultural areas of less than 15%. Total grading quantities are approximately a balanced cut and fill
of 729,000 cubic yards Over 124 acres of disturbance, including mitigation areas, which is
approximately 5,900 cubic yards per graded acre. Up to 10,OOO cubic yards per acre within
non-residential developments and 7,999 cubic yards within residential developments is
termed acceptable by the Hillside Regulations. The proposed project grading falls within those limits.
Any nonresidential project proposing slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall be justified to the satisfaction of the decision making body. The Retail Center portion of the proposed
Master Plan includes cut and fill grading creating a 2:l slope within lot 5 of the subdivision
of 48 feet. The proposed slope is located along the western edge of Planning Area 2 at the
base of the upland bluffs. However, development of the retail center at the base of the
bluffh will screen the majority of the slope from public view. Therefore, the view of the
bluffs by the public will not be greatly affected. There is also the need for a crib wall along
the Calle Barcelona extension as it curves south to meet Leucadia Boulevard in Encinitas.
The crib wall is the result of the need to align the Calle Barcelona extension with the
designated point in Encinitas.
The grading involves slopes generally under 15% and without natural vegetation (Le. the
need for the crib wall is resulting from the grading of steep slopes or natural areas).
Therefore, the proposed grading meets the intent of the Hillside Ordinance and the
restrictions of the LCP.
The Hillside Development Permit (HDP) resolution includes a condition which voids the
Planning Commission’s prior action on this HDP. This has been done because there have
been some modifications to the HDP which reduce grading impacts and to eliminate the
potential confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
H. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area having special flood or flood related
erosion hazard potential. Encroachment into an SFHA requires analysis and issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP).
The project is located in the Encinitas Creek Basin of the Batiquitos watershed and
encroaches into a documented SFHA as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
An integral part of the discretionary review process was the analysis of the potential impacts
to Encinitas Creek floodplain caused by the proposed development. Development of the
proposed project will cause significant but mitigable increases in the water surface elevation
of Encinitas Creek during a 100 year storm because of the proposed fill required to achieve
the crossings at Calle Barcelona and Levante Street as well as .6 acres of fill required to
achieve 1.7 buildable acres within Planning Area 5.
EIR 93-ouMp 9241/LL A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/Cl92-tm/HDP 92-15/sl.JP 92-05 GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Staff is recommending that the Special Use Permit be approved for only those areas necessary to accomplish the crossings at Levante Street and Me Barcelona. Fill of the
floodplain at the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue for the purpose of
acquiring more developable land area will be inconsistent with the primary action priorities of the OSCRMP, as discussed earlier in this report. Therefore, the project has been
conditioned to remove the proposed fill associated with the Planning Area 5 from the project exhibits.
The Special Use Permit (SUP) resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning
Commission's prior action on this SUP. This has been done to eliminate the potential confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Potential environmental impacts have been reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-02) which was circulated for public review and comment. Significant new
information was added to the Draft EIR prior to certification which included a Reduced
Project Alternative, a revised traffic analysis which assessed both the project and the recently
approved Encinitas Ranch project in the City of Encinitas, a revised Land Use section, a revised Executive Summary, and revisions to CEQA Mandated Sections. The Draft EIR
was therefore recirculated for review and comment. Action on the Final EIR will be
certification that all of the documents have completely and adequately analyzed all potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Master Plan.
Sections of discussion in the EIR are:
1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
10.
11.
12.
Land Use Visual Quality/Landform Alteration
Agriculture
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality Traffic
Noise
Air Quality
Public Facilities and SeMces
Geology/soih
The conclusion reached on the 12 areas of potential environmental impact fell into two
categories. Either the significant impact can be avoided or mitigated or the impact was considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant.
Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated
Mitigation measures aE proposed or have been incorporated into the project for the
following environmental impact areas to mitigate significant environmental impacts:
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCP~ 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-Ob,ADP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 24
(1) Land Use; (2) Visual Quality/Landform Alteration; (3) Biological Resources; (4)
Cultural Resources; (5) Paleontological Resources; (6) Geology/Soils; (7) hydrologyWater
Quality; (8) Circulation; (9) Noise; (10) Air Quality. The mitigation measures are contained
in the EIR as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to the
EIR Resolution.
Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant
The following environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR but found to have impacts
which are less than significant: (1) Agriculture; and (2) Public Facilities and Service.
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3857
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3858
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3859
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3860
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3861 Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Green Valley Master Plan (previously distributed)
Green Valley Master Plan Final Program EIR (previously distributed)
Exhibits "E-I", dated December 13, 1995.
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
MP 92-01 /CT 92-08/EIR 93-O2/LCPA 93-06/
HDP 92-1 5/SUP 92-05/LFMP 87-23
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASENO: EIR 93-02M 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 9248/HDP
92-151SUP 92-05
CASE NAME: Green Valley Master Plan
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners LTD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Apxoval of a Master Plan south of La Costa Avenue and
west of El Camino Real for the future development of 300.000 same feet of community
commercial and 400 residential units
LEGAL DESCRETION: A Dortion of Section 2 towns hi^ 13 South. Range 4 West: and a
portion of Section 35, towns hi^ 12 south. Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, City of
Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California
APN:216-122-24,36.37: 255-01 1-8.9.10.1 1.12: 255-021-5.6.7.8 Acres 281.2
Proposed No. of Lots/Units 11
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation CIOIRMHIOS
Density Allowed 11.5 Density Proposed 7.2
Existing Zone PC ProposedZone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Requirements)
(See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
zoning Land Use
Site Pc Vacant; C/O/RMH/OS
North Pc vacant; os
south Encinitas Developing (Encinitas)
East PC/Cl-Q Residential & Commercial
West Encinitas Ranch S.P. Developing (Encinitas)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Encinitas Union Elementrv & San Diemito HiPh School
Water District Olivenhain MuniciDan Sewer District Leucadia County Water
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 563.3
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 6. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT * - Negative Declaration, issued -~ - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
krt the names and addresses 3f all persons having a linancal interest in L~O aoplicauon.
Owner -
Lsi ;Re names and addresses of all persona having any ownersnip interest in the OrcOem mcrvec
Carlsoad ?artners. Ltd.
P.O. Box 210129
Dallas, Tx. 75211
if any person idenfled pursuant to (1) or (2) abovo is a csrporation or purnershtp. iist the names ax
ac=1:asses o? all indivrduaks ovmmg mor0 man 10% of mo mar- in mo cemratlon or owning any Fanners:::
Interest in me pmnomhtp.
Z;SH Liquidating Trust
dTB Liquidacing Trust
Tabor investments mrD.
?.O.Box 210129. Dallas. Tx. 75211
212fSan Jacinto St., Suite 1010. Callas,T:
2121 San Jacinto St., Suite 1010, Dallas,T:
75201
'. a
Discfosufs Statement
3. Have you had more than SZSO worn of business transacted with any memael of City SiaH, 3oarcs,
Commissions, Cornmraees and Council within the past twelve monrhs?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate penon(s)
Carter Pate;Trustet of tSa
NBH Liquidating Trust and not
Ind iv idd I v
'nm oc vyp1 ma d -nor
.
3.M 13 4/91 .?age 2 of 2 ¶
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Green Valley Master Plan ER 93-02/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23/CT
92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 23 GENERAL PLAN: C/O/RMH/OS
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPERS NAME: Carlsbad Partners LTD
ADDRESS: PO Box 210129. Dallas. TX 75211
PHONE NO.: (214) 331-1396 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 216-122-24.36.37: 255-01 1-8.9.10.1 1.12:
255-02 1-5.6.7.8
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 281.2
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Undetermined
A. city A- strative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 1390
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 74 1
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 563.3
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 2.78
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 302.9
Identify Drainage Basin = ’ID”
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 25.300
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
1 G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - 79.5
I. Schools: 212
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 563.3
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line@) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: DemandinGPD - 123.926
L. The project is 241 units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance.