Loading...
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.