No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLFMP 06; LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 06; Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)MISION ESTANCIA PARTNERSHIP LTD. a California Limited Partnership 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208-J Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-2241 August 4, 1987 Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: Request To Be Heard By Planning Commission; Minor Zone Boundary Adjustment, From Zone 11 To Zone 6 Dear Michael: Based on our phone conversation today, this letter shall serve as our request to be heard before the Planning Commission con- cerning the request for a minor zone boundary adjustment as expressed to you in my letter dated July 22, 1987, attached. Since it is appropriate for this item to be considered by the Commission before Zone 6 is heard by that body, I would suggest that this item be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting, August 19, 1987. Thank you for your consideration. Michael K. Rye MKR:js Enclosure cc: Mark Cummings, Christopher Homes MISION ESTANCIA PARTNERSHIP, LTD. a California Limited Partnership 6994 El Caraino Real, Suite 208-J Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-2241 July 22, 1987 Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: Request for Minor Zone Boundary Adjustment, Rancho Santa Fe/La Costa Avenue/Mision Estancia "Loop" Area; La Costa Parcels SE-10 and SE-16, Park View East and West Dear Michael: On behalf of Christopher Homes (owners of Park View West, Parcel SE-16) and the Mision Estancia Partnership (owners of Park View East, Parcel SE-10) and as a follow-up to our meeting yesterday, this letter will serve to formally represent our request for a minor zone boundary line adjustment, thereby allowing these two properties to be part of Zone #6, the La Costa in-fill zone. The support reasons for including this now-developed "loop" area (see attached Exhibit) in the in-fill Zone #6 are as follows: - The circulation system serving these two properties; specific- ally, the widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the construction of the extension of La Costa Avenue and the construction of Mision Estancia Avenue are now completed. This completed circulation system includes streets, medians, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights, which now makes these parcels fully improved sites. - Both properties are Tentative Map approved for single family detached development with densities at the extreme low end of the density range (4 units per acre). Additionally, final engineering for the development of these two properties is substantially complete. - With the exception of these two subject properties, this "loop" area is completely built out with the recent completion of Stagecoach Park and with over 700 homes in this area either occupied or under construction. - At the time the original zone boundary lines were established (as well as presently), the property within this "loop" area Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller July 22, 1987 Page 2 was (and is) not owned by BCE Development, the major property owners of land within Zones #10, #11 and #12. Perhaps when Staff drew the boundary lines originally, they believed that the two subject properties were a part of the property owned by BCE Development. - Aside from completed infrastructure, all utilities needed to serve these two properties are presently in place. In fact, last year, in concert with the construction of Stagecoach Park, the Mision Estancia Partnership constructed 1600 lineal feet of 12" sewer line across the Park to service both of these two subject properties. The construction of this line, and its associated timing, was mandated because the City would not allow a pump station nor would they allow or grant a construction easement through Stagecoach Park after the Park had been com- pleted. Consequently, this sewer line had to be installed by us in advance of our actual need. - Both subject properties are small in size; SE-10 being 7 acres, SE-16 being 28 acres with 35 and 129 single family detached units respectively. Consequently, the impacts of development of these parcels are negligible. - Both subject parcels have undergone partial grading and addition- ally have received substantial import (SE-10, 35,000 cubic yards; SE-16, 130,000 cubic yards). This importation of dirt was performed over a year and a half ago to avoid any possible damage to the then future Mision Estancia Avenue. In retrospect, I am sure you will agree that should the zone boundary lines be redrawn today, this "loop" area would definitely be included in the in-fill Zone #6. Also, we all recognize that as these Zone Plans approach completion and eventually adoption, some fine tuning or minor adjustments will (should) take place to more accurately reflect updated information and conditions that exist today. Accordingly, we appreciate your consideration of our request and remain available to further discuss this request with you. Michael K. General Part MKR:js Enclosure cc: Mark Cummings, Christopher Homes Requested Minor Boundary Adjustment Area (From Zone #11 To Zone #6) CMy ol Cartabwf Growth M«wg«m«nt Program LOCATION MAP ZONE 3 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN \ EXHIBIT A REQUESTED AREA TO BE ADDED TO ZONE 6 Clly ol C*r1abi<J ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDRIES EXHIBIT B PROJECTS DEVELOPING APPROVED City of Carlsbad Plannina Department April 11, 1989 Arden Graff 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, California 92009 SUBJECT: PARKING PROPOSAL FOR WEST BLUFF PLAZA Dear Arden: Your conceptual plan for adding parking to the West Bluff Plaza Shopping Center was reviewed by staff at a meeting on Friday, April 7, 1989. There was only one minor comment regarding the proposed design and that was the suggestion that the 8 ft. wide landscaped screening area along the easterly boundary of the parking be increased in width in order to buffer future adjacent residential use. The major comments had to do with the processing requirements for the proposal. As you know, the one acre strip of land for the proposed additional parking is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. Under the City's Growth Management Program, no application or development proposals can be accepted or processed until a Local Facilities Management Plan is approved for the entire zone. It is unknown at this time when the Fieldstone Company will be processing the required Facilities Management Plan. Again, until the Plan is approved, we cannot accept an application to consider your proposal. An alternative might be to amend the Plan for Local Facilities Management Zone 6 of which the existing shopping center is a part to include the additional one acre of land. If you wish to pursue this alternative, you should contact Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, in the City's Growth Management Division. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Arden Graff April 11, 1989 Page 2 Other applications which would be required to be processed in order to consider the proposal would include the following: (1) Zone Change (2) Amendment of the Site Development Plan for the shopping Center (3) Parcel Map Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director arb c: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner b f' Builders/ Developers January 31, 1989 Mr. Phil Carter. Assist. City Manager CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Pal mas Dr. Carlsbad. CA 92009 Re: Viewpoint Subdivision in Carlsbad Dear Mr. Carter, We are developing Our 40 acre piece Quadrant. a 90 lot project on Alga is located in Zone 6 and Road called Viewpoint, is in the Southwest We are aware of the park shortage in our quadrant. We also are aware of the City's recent land acquisition in the Alta Mira area that will take care o-f part o-f the short -fall problem. In order to completely solve the short -fall problem the park land has to be fully improved. We would consider entering into a reimbursement agreement with the City whereby our company would pay up -front -for the improvements o-f 4.2 acres of park land, which is what we understand the short fall amount to be, plus .667 acres which represents our acreage demand based on our 90 unit project. The total amount would be subject to refund from other units in the area as they are built. We would request that reimbursement come to us on a prorated basis as other builders pull permits in the southwest quadrant. It seems to me to be an equitable request, because we would be making up the short fall and the other builders would receive immediate benefit from our payment. I would like to request your analysis of our proposal, for your consideration. Sincerely, WESTANA Builders/Developers By: Mudge Corporation Wesley E. Mudge, WEM:jc cc: Marty Orenyak, Director of Community Development Adrienne Landers, Assoc. Planner Ray Patchett, City Manager Thank you 4241 Jutland Dr., Suite 215, San Diego, CA 92117 Phone (619) 483-4880 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.: VIEWPOINT - CT ZC HDP ^ LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: _6 GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: PROPOSED R-l-7500 DEVELOPER'S NAME: WESTAHS' X/|g.vJ?0 APPRESS: 4241 JUTLANP DRIVE. SUITE 215. SAN PIEGO. CA 92117 PHONE NO.: ^ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-050-03. 04. os QUANTITY OF LANP USE/PEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., PU): 40 90 PUS •tfrnvl A. City Administrative Facilities; Pemand in Square Footage = 333.6 B. Library; Demand in Square Footage = 178 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) D. Parks; Demand in Acreage = .67 E. Drainage; Demand in CFS = 12CFS/33CFS Identify Drainage Basin = DE/DF (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation; Demand in ADTs = 900 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire; Served by Fire Station No. = #2 H. Open Space; Acreage Provided - 13.2 25 Elem. I. Schools; - ..?- Jr.. High, (Demands to be determined by staff) 14 High Sch, J. Sewer; Demand in EDUs - 90 Identify Sub Basin - 6(A) (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water; Demand in GPD - 19.800 GPP PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Carlfibab April 12, 1988 Wes Mudge 4241 Jutland Drive, Suite 215 San Diego, CA 92117 Dear Mr. Mudge: The City Council action of 4/5/88 accepting the Deed of Trust from the La Costa Ranch Company met the park performance standard for the SE quadrant. Your project is located within the SW quadrant. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 identifies a park shortage of 36.93 acres in that quadrant. Until the park shortfall is rectified, your project can not be taken to public hearing per 21.90.130(2)(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. City staff are presently reviewing Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 9, 20 and 22 which are located in the SW quadrant. It is expected that these plans will ensure adequate facilities to allow development to occur, although no hearing dates are established yet. If you have any questions regarding the Growth Management Program do not hesitate to contact me. Questions that are project specific should still be addressed to Ms. Landers. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BHtaf c:Adrienne Landers Phil Carter HOWARD J. BARNHORST II VIRGINIA G. BONAR JOEL L. INCORVAIA LAUREL LEE HYDE CYNTHIA J. CLANCY STEVEN P. MCDONALD MARTHA O. ANDERSON RORY R. WICKS ROBERT J. COLI MICHAEL D. LIUZZI KAREN H.CANOFF CHRISSA N. CORDAY MARK E. STVJTZMAN DAVID S. COHN ROBIN F. LAKE LAURI CROCE STREETER GARY G. ALLEN LAW OFFICES DORAZIO, BARNHORST 6c BONAR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION •438 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE B-223 P.O. BOxjaeoaos SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 93108-0005 (619) 297-89OO TELECOPIER (619) 297-7649 TELEX 697IO3 BARNDOR MICHAEL DORAZIO, JR. ETIBED April 4, 1988 Mr. Martin Orenyak City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Protest of Public Facilities Fees Club at La Costa Our File No.: 12.14 HAND-DELIVERED - Sea Point Tennis Dear Mr. Orenyak: This letter is a protest pursuant to Government Code section 65913.5 of those certain Public Facilities Fees ("Fees") imposed upon our client, La Costa Vale, Ltd. ("La Costa Vale") under City of Carlsbad Invoice Nos. 0840 and 0841. The Fees apply to Phases IV and V of Sea Point Tennis Club at La Costa and are imposed pursuant to two agreements which purportedly obligate our client to pay any fees identified by the City Council as necessary to pay for the cost of providing improvements and facilities required by development under the growth management system. As you may be aware, La Costa Vale is the developer of the planned 336 unit condominium project known as Sea Point Tennis Club at La Costa (the "Project"). The final map for the Project was recorded in 1973 and the condominium plan was presented to and approved by the City of Carlsbad in 1981. In October of 1986, La Costa Vale signed two agreements entitled "Agreement to Pay Fees for Facilities and Improvements as Required by Growth Management Systems" (the "Agreements"). At that time, La Costa Vale paid Public Facilities Fees of 2.5% of the building permit valuation in order to obtain building and other development permits required to begin construction of Phases IV and V of the Project. The City now claims that La Costa Vale is required to pay an additional 1% of the building permit valuation due to an increase in the Public Facilities Fees from 2.5% to 3.5% of the building permit valuation. -»• La Costa Vale contends it is not responsible for the 1% Mr. Martin Orenyak City of Carlsbad April 4, 1988 Page 2 increase in the Fees because it paid the required Fees when the permits were pulled for Phases IV and V of the Project. La Costa Vale relied upon the amount of the Fees paid in 1986 and the conditions imposed on the approval and recording of the final map in making the business decision to proceed with the Project and in forecasting the costs involved in doing so. Any demand for additional Fees is totally inequitable. The Agreements are unenforceable against our client because they do not represent an arm's length transaction between La Costa Vale and the City of Carlsbad. Indeed, the Agreements were signed under economic duress because "without this agreement the developer would be precluded from obtaining building and other development permits..." (Page 2 of the Agreements.) Without the building permits for Phases IV and V of the Project, La Costa Vale and the owner of the Project would have suffered financial ruin. La Costa Vale would not have been required to pay the increased Fees but for the fact La Costa Vale was economically coerced into signing the Agreements. Furthermore, any waiver provision set forth in the Agreements is unenforceable. Waiver requires a voluntary act, knowingly done, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. (Re Marriage of Moore (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 22.) When La Costa Vale signed the Agreements, it was not, nor could it have been, aware of any information whatsoever as to the substantial amount of the increase in the Fees which would later be imposed. La Costa Vale also asserts it is not responsible for the increased Fees according to the terms of the Agreements themselves. Paragraph 2 of the Agreements states: This agreement applies to fees adopted on or before July 20, 1988 or concurrently with the adoption of the appropriate local facilities management plan, whichever occurs first. (Emphasis added.) Permissible fee increases are therefore those adopted 1) on or before July 20, 1988 (assuming no local facilities management plan had been adopted prior to that date) or 2) concurrently upon the adoption of the local facilities management plan, whichever occurs first. Since the local facilities management plan for Zone 6 was Mr. Martin Orenyak City of Carlsbad April 4, 1988 Page 3 adopted prior to July 20, 1988, the date of its adoption is the date that controls. Since the date of its adoption, November 10, 1987, is the controlling date, by the terms of the Agreements, permissible fee increases are those adopted concurrently with the adoption of the local facilities management plan. Since no Public Facilities Fee increases were adopted concurrently with the adoption of the local facilities management plan, the Agreements do not obligate La Costa Vale to pay the 1% increase in the Fees. As required by Government Code section 65913.5, I have enclosed two checks, one in the amount of $49,700.29 for Phase IV Fees and one in the amount of $52,710.08 for Phase V Fees. This payment is tendered under protest. As stated in your January 4th letter which accompanied the invoices, the City will arrange to have the Agreements removed from our client's chain of title upon payment of these Fees and any local facilities management fees that may be imposed. Sincerely, Robin F. Lake DORAZIO, BARNHORST & BONAR RFL/nh 36/12:01 cc: E. Scott Dupree Philip Carter In coBtn nnncH CD. February 22, 1988 CW Mr. Lance Schulte Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: La Costa CC&R's Dear Lance: Per our recent conversation, attached is a list of the lots and subdivision maps which are subject to recorded CC&R's. Each map has a separate document. I hope this information will be useful to you. Very truly yours, RUTH A. BESECKER Project Manager RAB:jb Enclosure 6670 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 9000-266 • Carlsbad • California 92009 • (619)931-8747: La Costa Ranch Company CC&R's Legal Descriptions February 22, 1988 1. Green Valley Knolls Lots 1-227, Green Valley Knolls, Carlsbad Tract No.75-7, Map 8379, filed 9-14-76. 2. La Costa Estates North Lots 1-114, La Costa Estates North, Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4, Map 8302, filed 5-5-75. 3. La Costa Greens Lots 1-10, La Costa Greens, Map 6708, filed 8-18-70, doc. no. 147656 4. La Costa Meadows Unit No. 1 Lots 1-253, La Cost Meadows Unit No. 1, Map 6800, filed 12-9-70. 5. La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2 Lots 254-412, La Costa Meadows Unit No. 2, Map 6905, filed 4-21-71. 6. La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3 Lot 413-584, La Costa Meadows Unit No. 3, Map 7076, filed 10-6-71 7. La Cost Meadows Unit No. 4 Lots 585-749, La Costa Meadows Unit No. 4, Map 7367, filed 7-19-72. 8. La Costa South Unit No. 1 Lots 1-185, La Costa South Unit No. 1, Map 6117, filed 6-3-68. 9. La Costa South Unit No. 2 Lot 186-205, La Costa South Unit No. 2, Map 6462, filed 8-26-69. 10. La Costa South Unit No. 3 Lot 206-259, La Costa South Unit No. 3, Map 6533, filed 11-3-69. 11. La Costa South Unit No. 4 Lots 260-329, La Costa South Unit No. 4, Map 6545, filed 11-24-69. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. La Costa South Unit No. 5 Lots 330-410, La Costa South Unit No. 5, Map 6600, filed 3-10-70. La Costa South Unit No. 6 Lots 411-496, La Costa South Unit No. 6, Map 6604, filed 3-23-70. La Costa South Unit No. 7 Lots 555-571, Lots 582-599, and Lots 627-641, La Costa South Unit No. 7, Map 6612, filed 3-31-70. La Costa Valley Unit No. 1 Lots 44-119, Lots 121-133, La Costa Valley Unit No. 1, Map 5434, filed 7-29-64, doc. no. 136843. La Costa Valley Unit No. 2 Lot 135-140, La Costa Valley Unit No. 2, Map 5486, filed 10-28-64, doc no. 196839. La Costa Valley Unit No. 3 Lots 141-147, La Costa Valley Unit No. 3, Map 5734, filed 5-18-66, doc. no. 83026. La Costa Valley Unit No. 4 Lots 148-224, La Costa Valley Unit No. filed 9-14-66, doc. no. 149101 4, Map 5781, La Costa Valley Unit No. 5 Lots 229-250, La Costa Valley Unit No. 5, Map 6730, filed 9-8-70, doc. no. 162848 Santa Fe Glens Lot 1-190, Carlsbad Tract No. 73-2, Map 8059, filed 1- 22-75. Spanish Village Unit No. 1 Lots 1-107, Carlsbad Tract No. 72-74, Map 7895, filed 3- 13-74. La Costa Vale Unit No. 1 Lots 1-250, La Costa Vale Unit No. 1, Map 7457, filed 10-18-72, n/a to lots 23, 249 and 250. La Costa Vale Unit No. 2 Lots 251-295, Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, Unit No. 2, Map 7779, filed 10-26-73. La Costa Vale Unit No. 3 Lots 396-504, Carlsbad Tract No. 72-30, Unit No. 3, Map 7950, filed 6-3-74. LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 2397 • LEUCADIA. CALIFORNIA 92O24-O954 • (619) 753-O1S5 October 15, 1987 City of Carlsbad PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Attn: Lance Schulte Re: LFMP Zones 6-11-12 Gentlemen: The following comments referenced zones. are in response to the drafts received for the Your data indicates the District's historical use of 238 gpd/EDU. Records over the past four years reveal a more accurate figure would be 210. We are hoping to complete an I & I Study this year to confirm our statistical data. ZONE 6 The boundaries of LFMP Zone 6 effect most of LCWD Zones 10 and 11 and a small portion of LCWD Zones 8 and 9. We performed a detailed comparison of the land uses for LFMP Zone 6 as shown on the attached "Exhibit 77a" to the land uses in the 1985 Planning Study. The land uses were very similar with the following exceptions: LCWD ZONE 10 - A 7-acre site (area #12) was zoned "C-2" for the Planning Study and is now shown as "RMH"; site is presently vacant. A 9-acre site (area #16) was zoned "School" for the Planning study and is now shown as "OS"; site presently has two ball fields and a recreation center. LCWD ZONE U_ - A 4-acre site (area #3) located at the NE corner of Alga and ECR was zoned "C-l-Q" for the Planning Study and is now shown as "RMH"; site is now presently 100% occupied commercial-retail. LCWD ZONE i - A 12-acre site (area #40) was zoned "C" for the Planning Study and is now shown as "RMH"; site is presently undeveloped. DISTRICT OFFICE. I960 LA COSTA AVENUE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA City of Carlsbad PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 16, 1987 Page two The areas with zoning conflicts total 32 acres and represent approxima- tely 1.4% of the 2,300 acres involved. Differences between the commercial and RMH zoning would be small because wastewater generation rates per acre are similar. Some of the conflicting areas, especially the existing commercial development at the NE corner of Alga and El Camino Real may be zoned incorrectly on the LFMP zone 6 exhibit. Regarding the LFMP "Zone 6 Build Out Projections" summary, you show 7,434 ultimate dwelling units. We calculated slightly more, 7,519, according to the Planning Study. We calculated approximately 84 acres commercial compared to your total of 219 acres. We would need a more detailed summary from the City to be able to determine where the difference lies. In any event, the numbers are close. In regards to the letter dated July 17, 1987 from Carlsbad City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs, we have reviewed his assumption of 100,000 gpd annual increase for the LCWD portion of LFMP zone 6. Based on the flow projections of the 1985 Planning Study, the annual increase is approximately 112,000 gpd from 1985 to 1990 but drops dramatically to about 17,000 gpd annual increase from 1990 to 2005 (see attached table). The assumption of 100,000 gpd seems reasonable, however, please inform us how long you plan to continue using that assumption. LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 11 In order to review the Zone 11 ultimate flow projections shown on page 89, we would need a map showing the Zone 11 boundary in detail and a map showing all of the land uses. After a quick review, it appears the ultimate flow for Zone 11 is less than that of the Planning Study. It's stated on page 90 that the "Planning study does not recommend any other major sewer trunk lines" in the area, however, the Planning Study recom- mends paralleling the existing trunk sewer in Rancho Santa Fe with 1,526 feet of 8" and 10" sewer. Table 13 on page 92-B shows sewer impacts on a small section of the trunk line serving the LFMP Zone 11. Why are you showing this table? Our Planning Study shows that the trunk line upstream is more critical than this section. Also, the build out dwelling unit total of 2,765 shown on this table does not total correctly. You also used a constant peak factor of 2.8, the peak factor would change relative to the population. City of Carlsbad PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 16, 1987 Page three If the SE corner of Zone 11 is to be served by LCWD, a pump station will be required. The area is shown on the LAFCO sphere of influence map. In addition, page 16-T of your October 6 letter contains incorrect data in Table I-H. The District's capacity at Encina in 1991 (Phase Phase IV) will be 8.45 mgd. Regarding your letter re Zone 12 dated September 29, 1987, LCWD was requested to determine three things. First, if the information was correct; second, if LCWD could provide facilities to meet the phasing assumptions used; and last, what means of monitoring whether facilities are adequate can be deve- loped. In response to these items, more detailed information is required to check the flow data presented (land use maps and Zone 11 boundary map); second, it appears the district can provide facilities (if the data is correct); last, the sewer facilities are on a computer model and the model can be updated periodically with proposed changes in land use. Yours very truly, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Joan R. Geiselhart Secretary-Manager JRG/bls GENERAL PLAN- Sub Areas \ -.,.. EXHIBIT 77a r •o o>o •NE JANUARY 1987 AL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN SD010. 04 LCWD1.WK1 LEUCODIR COUNTY WflTER DISTRICT FLOWS FOR PORTION OF LOCRL FRCILITIES MRNRGEMENT PLRN - ZONE 6 LCWD ZONE 8 9 10 11 1985 1990 EXIST. FLOW FLOW (5 YERR) (gpd) (gpd) £3, 000 23, 000 106,000 137,000 537, 000 883, 000 53£,000 714,000 1,198,000 1,757,000 YEflRS 1985 - 1930 1930 - 1995 1395 - £000 £000 - £005 1995 £000 FLOW FLOW (10 YERR) (15 YERR) (gpd) (gpd) £3, 000 £3, 000 138, 000 139, 000 913,000 949,000 765,000 817,000 1,839,000 1,9£8,000 RNNUflL INCREASE (gpd) 111, 800 16,400 17,800 17,600 £005 ULT. FLOW (£0 YERR) (gpd) £3, 000 141,000 981,000 871,000 £,016,000 NOTE: Flow data extracted from 1985 LCWD Planning Study. Study area i<. the portion of the Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 6, within the Leucadia County Water District. JAMES H. SCOTT, INC. INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE 1241 ELM AVENUE, SUITE 210 CARLSBAD, CA 920O8 (619)434-6700 September 24, 1987 CITY OF CARLSBAD Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director 2075 Las Pal mas Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Zone 6 Financial Plan Dear Michael: This letter serves as a follow-up to the Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 1987 and its' recommendation of approval of the zone 6 plan. I support approval i ngredi ents: of the plan as long as it includes the following 1. Flexibilty for the financial arrangements to include a base broader than just the immediate zone 6 builders. 2. That there' are no more delays, especially for those few projects with recorded final subdivision maps. To elaborate on point one, it is impractical and financially unfeasible for us to pay $7,000 per unit when building 70O to 900 square foot units. We simply will have extreme difficulty getting the financing. Some smaller units are good for the city to provide needed housing for future residents. These one and two bedroom units will not create the same number of people and cars that will be using the facilities. To base the fee on only those in the pipeline and not future units or units from other zones that would benefit from zone 6 facilities is unfair and arbi trary. Mike, I would sincerely appreciate you re-evaluating your position relative to your comments in response to Commissioner McFadden's questions on this issue. If the exact manner of financing is open for future clarity, all involved will be better served. Also, from the meeting it appears that the fire station construction could create a further delay. Efforts on the City's part to expedite the construction would help everyone, especially, those of us who live in the area. Finally, your supp : -for the phasing in of ur s with -final maps in xone 6 will have the following results: 1. It will allow those few of us with final maps who have been waiting to proceed with construction. Even 8 units (107.) now mean alot to us. This will have little effect on the entire pi an. 2. Provide immediate reserves to the City. 3. Reduce the stop/start of construction and a future "flood gates" affect that could result if everything is held up. I hope you can support these requests. Contact me if you have any questions or comments. 'Jacnes H. Scott JHS:na Phil Carter Mr. Phillip Carter - Planning >as« Reply To: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION E600 La Golondrina Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 4-38-3673 ' SEP 14 1987 . September 11, 198? CITY OF CARLSBAD Ms. Mary Marcus, ChairpefcacBlOP. PROC. SERV DIVPlanning Commission ' City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Re» Local Facilities Management Carlsbad, CA 92009 Plan - Zone 6 Dear Chairperson Marcus: The Ponderosa Country Homeowners Association (Map Index No. 32, Appendix 7. Exhibit 73, Page 215 of reference) has reviewed the subject plan for Zone 6 and submits the following comments and recommendations for your consideration. Our Association wishes to commend the Planning Department staff for the assistance they provided during our review and for their efforts in preparing a very comprehensive and thorough analysis of the facili- ties for the zone in which our members reside. Specific Commentst A. Local Facilities -' ' FIRE - The response standard of 2^ miles in five minutes is, in our opinion, unrealistic and cannot be reliably met over the terrain that dominates our area. From the present Station #2 to the furthest point in our sub- division is 2.6 miles and it is impossible to imagine that heavy fire equipment could negotiate the long and steep Alga Road hill and the winding interior streets at anything close to 30 miles per hour. That is difficult to do even in an automobile. Actual experience has demonstrated that the fire response time will be 10 min- utes or more after a call is first placed through the 9-1-1 emergency number. To portray the current standard as attainable within our tract is to perpetuate a dan- gerous myth and to mislead the public which expects "5 minute response" to mean exactly that. In fact, however, it does not. Recommendations - (1) The response standard definition should be rewritten and it should be recognized that our portion of Zone 6 is not adequately protected. Further, it should be noted, the construction of Station #6 at the announced site on Rancho Santa Fe Road will not solve our problem since it will be even more distant and the terr- ain is just as awkward. (2) Construct a new fire station at some high point near the intersection of El Fuerte and Alga or Corintia, thus allowing emergency vehicles to travel downhill to virtually the entire immediate vicin-ity. As an alternative, relocate Station #2 to this area. Planning Commission - 2 - September 11, 198? TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - There are several errors on most of the intersection drawings: - Pages 110 and 111. Both have same text and drawing with same errors describing northbound and east- bound lanes. - Page 113- Descriptive errors on northbound, south- bound and westbound lanes. Page 114. Descriptive errors on northbound lanes. - Page 115. Is this wishful thinking? When is it anticipated that the west road connection to Leu- oadia will be built? If this intersection is an essential element of the Circulation Plan, then describe the effect of not having this route on all other intersections and roads. We believe the traffic load projections to be grossly understated. Our experience indicates that unless major changes are made to the circulation plans, policies and procedures that traffic service levels of E and F will occur at most of the major intersections within 10 years. The traffic models used in the Barton-Ashman study do not appear to correlate with SANDAG's models or project- ions. Common "accepted" mitigation measures have not been effective elsewhere such as in Concord, Walnut Creek, Santa Monica, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Los Angeles or San Diego. Carlsbad is using the same concepts. New approaches are required if we expect to escape the same fate as these other cities. B. Quadrant Facilities We concur that the lack of park facilities in the SE quad is significant but addressable. Recommendation - Increase park facilities above the recommended standard but with increased emphasis on the passive "green belt" type. C. Citywide Facilities No recommendations. General Comments> We are disappointed that the plan for Zone 6 does not discusst 1. Police protection facilities (vehicles, communications equipment, etc.) required to service in-fill development. Planning Commission - 3 - September 11, 198? 2. Updates to the Environmental Impact Report for the zone as it relates to residential and commercial developments with their consequent increase in traffic. 3« Interfaces and interactions between adjacent zones 10, 11, 17 and 18. Each zone seems to be treated as an entity when, in fact, they are highly interrelated. This is especially true when one considers traffic circulation. 4. Why almost all future in-fill development in Zone 6 is high-density residential. Although the proposed Plan indicates that the zone density at build-out would support yet another 2,000 units, we believe the density is already set at too high a level within our zone while nearby less- developed areas are being promised much lower densities. Thank you for your patience in reviewing the above comments. We expect to be represented at the September 16 Public Hearing on Zone 6 and all subsequent meetings and Hearings related thereto. We also expect to be active participants in future deliberations concerning Zones 10, 11, 17 and 18 as they proceed to the Planning Commission and City Council. If our Task Force or Association can be of any service whatever to the betterment of Carlsbad, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, William D. Daugherty Chairperson PCHA Community Development Task Force CCt Commissioners; Hall, Holmes, McBane, McFadden, Schlehuber, Schrj Planning Staff<; ga,rteF" PCHA/CDTF: Dunlap. Kindle, McFarland, Sara PCHA Board; Fountain, Moore Colibri Groupi O'Callahan COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 5950 El Camino "Real Carlsbad/ California 92008 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Tel. No. (619) 438-3367 LETTER OF THANSMITTAL TO:DATE:. So, PROJECT NO . : DESCRIPTION: -f(O ATTENTION TRANSMITTED ( ) IMPROV. PLNS. ( ( ) TCT. MAP/PLAT & DESC. ( ) ORIG. MYLARS (SHEET OF ) SUBJECT: SHEETS) Of STATUS SENT FOR YOUR:PLEASE NOTE: ) PRELIMINARY' ) RESUBMIT REVISED ) APPROVED PROCESS AS FOLLOWS; USE ( ) FILE ( ) COMMENT ( ) APPROVAL CORRECTIONS ADDITIONS OMISSIONS REMARKS ((((((((( ) RETURN ) SUBMIT ) SUBMIT P.C. AND TCT. MAP PLAT & DESC. SETS OF I.P.'S ) COST ESTIMATE ) SUBMIT ) OBTAIN ) SUBMIT ) SUBMIT ) SUBMIT CURRENT PROOF FIRE MARSHAL ORIGINALS FOR THREE SETS OF OF TITLE SIGNATURE DISTRICT APPROVED APPROVAL IMPROVEMENT ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE 3 MIL MYLAR PLANS REMARKS : FOR INQUIRIES CONTACT: COPIES TO: Jerry Whitlev SINCERELY, CRMWD Robert Gresney - District Engineer WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM a>CD 1.28 M.Q. 'TORAOE ZONE 21 CARLSBAD COSTA REAL / MUNI. WATER DISTRICT ZONE 19 M« EXISTING WATER LINES •m PROPOSED WATER LINES A EXISTING PRESSURE REGULATING STATION ^ PROPOSED PRESSURE REGULATING STATION • ii ZONE BOUNDARY • EXISTING RESERVOIR © PROPOSED RESERVOIR WBSf* WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARY ZONE 6 ,»» »»f»i »«» H \ * «» »» «« MARCOS CO. ATER DISTRICT ""-Btf^f ^.Vi.'ft.V $S3.0M.Q.UA COST All. *«•• •a M.a.8TORAQE (LA COSTA HI) OLIVENHAIN MUNI. WATER DISTRICT JANUARY 1987 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT 70 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN-Zone 6 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUMMARY SHEET BUILDOUT PROJECTION EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE DEMAND *PHASING* • *•* SUPPL Y * * *•* ADEQUACY w/atandwd) YES YES YES MITIGATION N/A N/A N/A FUNDING N/A N/A N/A ** The Costa Real Municipal Water District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District and San Marcos County Water District have capacity to meet the existing demands of Zone 6. Because the future demands from Zone 6 will be minimal, each Water District has indicated that it will be able to provide capacity at all times as the Zone builds out. - 169 - WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM I.PERFORMANCE STANDARD Line capacity to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. A minimum 10^ A minimum 10 day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Water service to Zone 6 is provided by three independent II. agencies, Municipal District shown on 167. Costa Real Municipal Water District (CRMWD), Olivenhain Water District (OMWD), and the San Marcos County Water (SMCWD). The service area for these three agencies is Exhibit 68 "Zone 6 Water Service Districts" on Page These three agencies have adopted Water Master Plans that identify certain facilities which need to be added, upgraded and improved in order to meet the needs of future growth within their service area. The analysis presented in these Master Plans indicates that the existing water distribution system within Zone 6 has adequate capacity to supply the necessary domestic water and fire flow requirements through buildout of this zone. Therefore, the existing water line network conforms to the adopted performance standard. The Master Plans also address the need for adequate water storage facilities. As shown in the chart below, each water agency has separate water storage facilities for their service area within Zone 6. Water District Water Storage Capacity Name of Water Storage Facility CRMWD CRMWD CRMWD OMWD SMCWD SMCWD (Future) 6.0 M.G. 1.5 M.G. 3.0 M.G. 6.0 M.G. 1.25 M.G. 2.5 M.G. La Costa HI La Costa La Costa La Costa Meadowlark Meadowlar k The Master Plans for each water district indicates that the existing and proposed future water storage facilities will provide adequate storage capacity and therefore, conformance with the adopted performance standard will be satisfied through buildout of this zone. Exhibit 69: "Zone 6 Water Distribution System" on Page 168 shows the major water facilities currently in place and servicing Zone 6. 170 Phasing The following chart entitled "Buildout Pro jeetrtons" determines the ultimate buildout projections from management Zone 6 for each water district service area. BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Gross Acres Residential 1,211.38 Cornmercial 206.58 Utility 4.8 School 15.0 RH/0 2.3 Existing (DU or SF/AC) 3,631/879.3 701,828 sq. ft. 4,000/4.8 15.0 ac. 2.3 ac. OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER Gross Acres Residential 733.70 Cotrmercial 21.62 Existing (DU or SF/AC) 2242/637.7 79,790 sq. ft. Developing (DU or SF/AC) 711/165.08 100,000/13.8 0/0 0/0 0/0 DISTRICT Developing (DU or SF/AC) 284/43.22 0/0 Undeveloped Potential (DU or SF/AC) 988/167.0 629,780 sq. ft 58,726/4.8 0/0 30,056/2.3 or 61 DU Undeveloped Potential (DU or SF/AC) 235/47.80 83,580 sq. ft. Ultimate Buildout (DU or SF) 5,330 DU . 1,431,603 sq. ft. 62,726 sq. ft. 15.0 ac. 30,056 sq. ft. or 61 DU/2.3 Ultimate Buildout (DU or SF) 2,761 163,370 sq. ft. Utility School 8.80 8.8 ac. — RH/0 - - SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 8.8 acres Residential Commercial Utility School RH/0 Gross Acres 163.55 — — — — Existing (DU/AC) 553/68.14 — — — — Developing (DU/AC) 504/95.41 — — — — Undeveloped Potential (DU/AC) 0/0 ~ — —— Ultimate Buildout (DU) 1057 — — — — - 171 - Since Zone 6 is primarily developed and only minor improvements are necessary to provide adequate domestic water and fire flow needs as determined by the appropriate water district, no phasing is necessary. These minor improvements and the upgrading of outdated facilities, such as the replacement of inadequate facilities or the extension of a water service to a special project will be required at the time of development. The extent of those improvements cannot be determined until development occurs. Adequacy Findings Currently, water service to Zone 6 conforms with the adopted performance standards. This is evidenced by letters from the three water districts found in Appendix 28. As indicated in the water master plans for the CRMWD, SMCWD and the OMWD, Zone 6 is served by an existing water storage and distribution system. As Zone 6 builds out, additional water demands will be minimal and conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained to the ultimate buildout of this zone. The performance standard also requires a minimum 10 day average water storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. CRMWD and OMWD have indicated that they have adequate storage capacity to conform to the adopted performance standard to buildout of Zone 6. SMCWD has have a 3.2 day storage supply of water service area. Because the Carlsbad service small, it has been determined that their adequate . III. MITIGATION A. Special Condition for Zone 6 All development within Zone 6 shall pay the required water district connection fees. indicated that they for their districts area of SMCWD is so storage capacity is B Financing remainingThe remaining major water facilities and improvements within Zone 6 will be financed by the appropriate water districts capital improvement fund. Revenue for that budget is funded from developer fees to the district. 172 September 1, 1987 John H. Blair Business Manager Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Blair: Thank you for your cooperation in the preparation of this Draft Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission September 2, 1987 and to the City Council approximately a month later. The City of Carlsbad hopes you will use the Local Facility Management Plan as the medium of communication to address school facilities which your district provides to Zone 6. Consequently, after approval, the Plan will be monitored, reviewed and revised annually by the City of Carlsbad as a part of the City's overall Growth Management Program. A key component of the Management Program is the analysis and information your agency can provide in the annual review and update. Please review the Draft Plan. Let us know how it can be improved and updated in the annual review. Staff will begin the formal review and update of the Plan sometime in 1988. We will contact you again at that time. Again, thank you for your input into this plan. Sincerely, LANCE B. SCHULTE Associate Planner LBSraf Encl. KN PARTNERS 401 West "A" Street, Suite 1400 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 239-2466 September 23, 1987 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Dear Michael: I am writing about the Local Facilities Plan for Zone 6 which was approved by the Planning Commission on September 16th. The purpose of this letter is to make sure I am clear about what the Commission approved that night. Before the Commission meeting, it was my understanding, that staff will require the money needed to correct infrastructure deficiencies be in place before permits are issued to anyone. However, that staff's financing proposal on how the money is actually raised is only one alternative offered by staff. Finally, that is primarily up to the developers in Zone 6 (that want to go forward now) to cooperatively figure out how to raise the money. If this is true, I endorse staff's position. However, during the Commission meeting, in response to a question from Commissioner McFadden, you stated that staff recommends an equal fee per unit. That position does not seem to leave it up to affected developers to determine how to raise the money. I hope this issue is still open. I did not speak against this at the meeting because I assumed this is an issue to be determined by the Zone 6 developers. I think it is impractical to charge an apartment the same amount charged to a single family home. But this is only one issue. My point is that I hope the Council will approve the plan with the understanding that the financing mechanism is only one possible alternative. Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 23, 1987 Page 2 I believe it is clear staff intends to keep all financing alternatives open. But your response to Commissioner McFadden confused me. If you disagree with my understanding, please call or write me before the City Council hears this issue. If I do not hear from you I will assume the issue of how to raise the needed money is completely open. Sincerely, HAL G. KUYKENDALL HGK:dk cc: Mr. Phil Carter PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100 SAN MARCOS. CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800 September 23, 1987 Mr. Phil Carter CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 6 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NO. 7933-G Dear Phil: After reviewing the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6, we discovered a few items that we had comments or questions on. These items include, but are not limited to the following: 0 Page 32, Exhibit 10, "Zone 6: Developing Land Uses" indicates that CT 84-41 has tentative map approval for 229 dwelling units. The actual approved tentative map for CT 84-41 shows 299 dwelling units. 0 Page 40 under " Land-Use Phasing Residential" states that, "The phasing schedule for Zone 6 assumes those land uses identified in the developing process will develop beginning in 1987." Exhibit 11 on page 42, however, indicates that residential development will not occur in the southeast quadrant until 1991. This does not appear very realistic, as we are aware that Alga Hills (CT 84- 41) may be in the position to obtain building permits in the later part of 1988. 0 Page 103, Exhibit 40, "Circulation Trip Distribution" indicates that currently the percentage of Zone 6 using the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe is zero. However, the exhibit further indicates that five percent of the existing traffic from Zone 6 travels south on Rancho Santa Fe Road and 6 percent of the existing traffic from Zone 6 travels north on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Phil Carter September 23, 1987 Page Two How can this be when zero percent of the existing traffic from Zone 6 uses the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road to get out onto Rancho Santa Fe Road? We feel that the number zero percent is in error. 0 Page 78 - c., "San Marcos County Water District. The special conditions for Zone 6 indicate that when flows reach 40 MGD no building permits shall be approved. We believe that 40 MGD is in error and should only be 4 MGD. 0 Page 149, Exhibit 60, "Zone 6 School Demand Table - San Marcos Unified School District" shows the student generation rate for the junior high school for the land use labeled RLl-M to be 0.980. The actual student generation rate for the junior high school should be shown as 0.098. This would change the existing junior high school students in RLl-M to 8.43, the undeveloped potential to 9.04, and the estimated build-out to 16.46. This would also change the total number of students for the junior high school. We have attached a copy of the above-mentioned pages out of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan for your reference. Please contact us when you have had a chance to review these items so that we may clarify any questions you might have. Sin CC:st.001 cc: FIELDS-TONE COMPANY Attention: Mr. Jim Hansen BREHM COMMUNITIES, INC. Attention: Mr. Bill Hoover WESTANA Attention: Mr. Wes Mudge RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Attention: Mr. Robert Ladwig EXHIBIT 10, 1 of * ZONE 6: DEVELOPING LAND USES As of Oanuary 1, 1987 DEVELOPIMG STATUS toKI General Plan Land Use Designation Quad RESIIENT1AL: , . RLH Low-Med (0-4) SE RM Medium (4-8) ^ 77/e /4a<^**SSE »pl«) T"03 SE A>teACae>uJGfie2rr ce ) A^A H>LLS SE ) sw SE Acres 9.69 W.O 49.69 2.9 28.0 41.0 12.0 64.0 7.26 4.36 File No. CT 81-29 CT 85-34 2 a 85-16 CT 85-19 a 8^-23 CT 85-8 a 84-41 CT 82-23 SUP tfc-8(/ UUor Sq. ft. 38 101 T39 14 112 220 70 ^^ _ /P r\*$> 60 \) 100 APPRONO) Gradirti/ Existing Application Tentative Final Hiilding as of Submittal* Approval Approval Permit 1/1/87** 38 101 ToT Is m > 112 N Y$ 86 134 ^M^ 70\* 229 60 100 159.52 (a lot in CT 84-23) 7 805 14 411 186 60 These localized circumstances include: 1. The amount and type of developing land uses: - Building/grading permits issued - Final approvals - Tentative approvals - Submitted applications 2. The ultimate type and amount of potential land use. 3. The type and amount of development that can be reasonably absorbed into the market. LAND USE PHASING Residential The specific residential phasing schedule for Zone 6 is shown by Exhibit 11, "Zone 6 Residential Phasing Schedule", on Page 4-2. The schedule assumes the zone will be completely built out by the end of 2013. The phasing schedule assumes those land uses identified in the developing process will develop beginning in 1987 through 1997. The phasing schedule then assumes the zone's vacant or underdeveloped land (with no- submitted applications) will be developed beginning in 1998 and phased through the buildout of the zone. It is recognized that for a variety of potential reasons some land uses with City approvals | may never be developed and that some vacant land with no submitted applications may develop immediately. As stated earlier, the phasing projections are best guesses as to future development activity in Zone 6. Exhibit 10, "Undeveloped Potential Residential Land Use", itemizes the source of undeveloped potential dwelling units in the phasing schedule. In all, it is projected that a total of 9,148 residential dwelling units will exist at the buildout of Zone 6. Th.is dwelling unit total, is in compliance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code as modified by the passage of Proposition E on November, 4, 1986 and incorporated into the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Non-Residential Non-residential land uses in Zone 6 are phased based upon previous growth trends, location and function of land uses, along with submitted applications being considered by the Planning Department. This projected phasing is shown on Exhibit 13, "Zone 6 Non-Residential Phasing Schedule", on Page 4-4. It is projected that non-residential land uses will be completely but-lt out by the year 2013. This assumes a phasing schedule which begins as of 1/1/68 with land use in the developing process. At this time there is a single submitted application for non-residential land use. x Undeveloped potential non-residential development in Zone 6 entails the redevelopment of existing non-residential land EXHIBIT 11 - ZONE 6s RESIDENTIAL PHASING SCHEDULE STATUS Existing Developing Undeveloped Potential Buildout Developing SE QUADRANT AS OF MM RL RLM RM RMH RH RH/0 1987 1987 38- 157 1988 1989 1990 1991 V 86 81 17 1992 100 80 1993 175 71 1994 176 70 1995 60 71 1996 120 1997 14 22 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 & Undeveloped Potential Total Total Buildout APPROX. GROSS TOTAL ACRES 6019 1476 195 * 0 0 0 184 180 246 246 131 120 36 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 2530 8549 2467 DWELLING UNITS SW QUADRANT APPROX . GROSS RLM RM RMH TOTAL ACRES 407 115 0 * 60 60 0 0 51 51 50 50 0 31** 0 0 0 ~192 599 207 ZONE 6 APPROX. GROSS TOTAL ACRES 6426 1592 195 60 0 0 235 230 246 277 131 120 36* 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 2722 9148 2112 * Will be updated annually as part of the Zone 6 Growth Management Monitoring Program ** Includes 31 dwelling units of undeveloped potential 2) When Carlsbad Encina flows reach 5.4-5 MGD, proceed to activation of the Calavera. Hills Reclamation/Treatment Facility. Plant to be activated when more cost .effective treatment measures are no longer feasible and Carlsbad capacity at Encina has been reached. Leucadia County Water District 1) LCWD needs to maximize flow equalization and/or control inflow and infiltration over next 2 years to remain within existing treatment capacity. Leucadia also needs to maintain Gafner WRP at 0.75 MGD during peak wet weather flow (PWWF) periods. San Marcos County Water District 1) Maximize flow equalization by running Meadowlark at 2.0 MGD during PWWF periods. 2) Special condition for Zone 6. When flows reachv^OjMGD no building permits shall be approved in the SMCWD service area in Zone 6 until adequate increased NPDES permit is approved or adequate lease capacity is obtained. PWWF = Peak Wet Weather Flow NPDES = National Pollution Discharge & Eliminations Systems B. • Financing Sewer connection fees provide the primary source of funding for both sewer line upgrades and expansion of treatment plant capacity. The timing of sewer facilities upgrades and the mechanism of financing are critical to analysis of the adequacy of funding for plant expansion. A complete financial and cash flow analysis should be conducted in conjunction with the Citywide Sewer Master Plan update. This analysis will provide a basis to evaluate development phasing within sewer basins and each Growth Management Zone. Priority for funding should be given to wastewater treatment capacity. - 78 - o CO CIRCULATION TRIP 0/5 k ^DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 40 ZONE 6 mm CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAYS I # % of Zone Traffic EX 1STINQ / BU I LO OUT 20/20 JANUARY 1987 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT 60 ZONE 6 SCHOOL FACILITY DEMAND TABLE - SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS OF 1-1-87 GENERAL PLANi Aun liceLAND USt SUB -AREA RESIDENTIAL RL1-N RL1-S P'M4-N 5-N ...06-N RLM7-N RLM4-S RLH5-S RH4-N RMS-N RM6-N RHH3-N RMH4-N RMHS-N RMH6-N RMHA-S NON-RESIDENTIAL N1-N (1) 054 -N OS1-S RES. IN D.U.'S AND NON-RES. IN SQ.FT. EXISTING DEVELOPING UNDEVELOPED ESTIMATED > POTENTIAL ULTIMATE BUILDOUT 86 0 82 168 15 0 5 20 56 0 8 64 0044 530 0 35 565 68 0 9 77 0 38 0 38 10 0 2 12 0 229 0 229 218 14 28 260 553 268 0 847 372 34 0 406 145 0 73 218 118 64 28 210 0 136 0 136 260 154 320 734 4,800 0 82,328 82,328 0000 0000 STUDENT GENERATION RATES E. JH HS .0<?g 0.320 0.980 0.199 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.320 0.098 0.194 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0 0.028 0.057 0 0.028 0.057 0 0.028 0.057 0 0.028, 0.057 0 0.028 0.057 000 000 000 EXISTING E. JH HS 27.52 8>*Z6 17.11 4.80 1.47 2.91 17.92 5.49 10.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.60 51.94 102.82 21.76 6.66 13.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.98 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.49 6.10 12.43 51.98 15.48 31.52 34.97 10.42 21.20 13.63 4.06 8.27 11.09 3.30 6.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.44 7.28 14.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEVELOPING E. JH HS 0.00 tM0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.16 3.72 7.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.53 6,41 13.05 1.32 0.39 0.80 25.19 7.50 15.28 3.20 0.95 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.02 1.79 3.65 12.78 3.81 7.75 14.48 4.31 8.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNDEVELOPED DftTPUTf AlrUI CN 1 IAL E. JH HS 26.24 SKU 16.32 1.60 0.49 0.97 2.56 0.78 1.55 1.28 0.39 0.78 11.20 3.43 6.79 2.88 0.88 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.20 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.78 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.86 2.04 4.16 2.63 0.78 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.08 8.96 18.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ESTIMATED III TIUATPUL 1 1FIA 1 C BUILDOUT E. JH HS 53.76 fek» 33.43 6.40 1.96 3.88 20.48 6.27 12.42 1.28 0.39 0.78 180.80 55.37 109.61 24.64 7.55 14.94 12.16 3.72 7.37 3.84 1.18 2.33 21.53 6.41 13.05 24.44 7.28 14.82 79.62 23.72 48.28 38.16 11.37 23.14 20.49 6.10 12.43 19.74 5.88 11.97 12.78 3.81 7.75 69.00 20.55 41.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO SUMMARY INFORMATION .1 EXISTING DEVELOPING UNDEVELOPED ESTIMATED POTENTIAL ULTIMATE BUILDOUT ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION FROM ZONE 6 EXISTING DEVELOPING UNDEVELOPED POTENTIAL ESTIMATED ULTIMATE BUILDOUT TOTALS D.U.S SQ.FT. 2,431 4,800 937 0 594 82,328 3,988 82,328 ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH SENIOR HIGH 401 244 97 59 89 54 589 358 NOTES: (1) EXISTING 4.800 SQ.FT. IS A CHURCH San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, California 92069-2797 619-744-4776 August 19, I987 Mr. Lance Schulte Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - SCHOOL FACILITIES Dear Mr. Schulte: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft zone 6 local facilities management plan. I have reviewed the school facilities portion of the plan and have the following comments. 1. The map that shows the district boundaries and school sites contains an error. The map shows a new San Marcos Junior High School across from San Marcos High School. Such a site does not exist and should not be depicted on the map. The district does not currently have plans for a new junior high school. 2. I have enclosed a copy of the approved preliminary master plan for the San Marcos Unified School District. The plan provides future enrollment projections and outlines the need, timing and location of future schools to the year 2000. The preliminary master plan evaluates the facilities needs based upon five different grade configurations. The Governing Board in November will approve the final plan and select the grade alternative. The information in the plan will assist you in updating your map and tables for zone 6. 3. Impact on school facilities is cumulative. It is difficult to make adequacy findings based upon a small portion of the district. All of San Marcos Unified District's permanent facilities are at capacity. Therefore the assumption that the District has the capacity to meet demand for zone 6 needs clarification. La Costa Meadows school in Carlsbad opened in September 1986 is full. Since the school opened we haved added four temporary classrooms to the site. Space is very limited and prehaps one more building could be placed on the site. This means that new elementary students generated in zone 6 maybe required to attend an elementary school in San Marcos. In fact this situation occured during the last school year for new kindergarten and 5th grade students. The master plan establishes the need for an additional school site within the City of Carlsbad. This site must either be in zone 6 or zone 11 and should be addressed within this management plan. 4. The District judges adequacy based upon meeting the Governing Board's policy on enrollments (page 4-6 of master plan) and the ability of the District to finance needed improvements to existing schools and new school construction. Capacity under thi$ criteria does not exist to meet existing demands. ^ 5. The District is currently evaluating methods to finance improvements identified in the master plan. Until a finance plan is implemented adequate distict wide school capacity cannot be assured. The successful implementation of a finance plan may involve cooperation of developers within the City of Carlsbad. Therefore it is premature to indicate the performance standard for aedquacy has been met. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the school facilities portion of the local facilities management plan for zone 6. Sincerely, 'Jeffrey A. Okun Facilities Administrator enc. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Cttp of Cartebab September 1, 1987 Mr. Jim Scott 241 Elm, #210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Scott: The Draft Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan is completed. The Plan identifies several public facility constraints within Zone 6 and the south Carlsbad area. To mitigate these constraints the Plan also provides several financing alternatives. As a developer within Zone 6, Staff would like to answer your specific questions and receive your comments. Therefore, a meeting has been scheduled for September 10, 1987 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. in the Planning Department. Please contact Barbara Nedros, of the Planning Department at 438-1161 by 9/08/87 to confirm your attendance. Sincerely yours, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af cc: Zone 6 File Michael Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Bobbie Hoder Lance B. Schulte Phil Carter Lloyd Hubbs David Hauser Steve Jantz PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. .-SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 .PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 ZONE 6 OWNERS Jim Hansen Judy Meyncke THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 250 San Diego, California 92121 Wes Mudge Bill Fontana WESTANA BUILDERS 4241 Jutland Drive Suite 215 San Diego, California 92117 Bill Hoover BREHM COMMUNITIES, INC." 2835 Camino Del Rio South Suite 220 San Diego, California 92108 Steve Ludlow U.S. HOMES 380 Stevens Avenue Suite 212 Solana Beach, California 92075 Ross McDonald LA COSTA RANCH COMPANY P.P. Box 9000-266 Carlsbad, California 92009 Fred Von der Ahe F.T. VON DER AHE COMPANY 1601 Dove Street Suite 242 Newport Beach, California 92660 Fred Morey 7682 El Camino Real Suite Carlsbad, California 92008 Ure Kretowicz SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT 7760F Fay Avenue La Jolla, California 92037 Mitch Brown Gene Spindler II JOHNSON WAX DEVELOPMENT CO. 3150 Briston Street Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Jim Scott 241 Elm, #210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Hal Kuykendall Charter Pacific Capital Corp. 401 W. A St. #1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Greg R. Neville Lincoln La Costa 701 B St. #845 San Diego, CA 92112 Harold Provin MC S D Capital Corp. 9623 Imperial Highway Downey, CA 90241 CSPJV 8K<;«*1 HOMEOWNERS ASSCIATION REPLY TOi 2600 La Golondrina Carlsbad, CA 92009 438-3673 August 24, 1987 Mr. Phillip Carter (j(A/MJa2^ ^^^^JL- Senior Management Analyst iAAtvvl ' // w~~City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Dear Mr. Garten **<*<« Mr. Grant Dunlap, a member of the Community Development Committee of our Association, has suggested that I write to you requesting that the Association be put on your mailing list for data pertinent to the Growth Management Plans for Zones 6, 10, 17 and 18. Our community is within and adjoins these Zones. We are most interested in contributing to the planning and devel- opment efforts impacting upon this area. We would appreciate receiving plans, studies, reports and/or meeting information associated with the Zones noted above. We are also available for informal, early-on discussions with developers, planners, consultants, etc. to give them a feeling for what neighbor- hood attitudes may be for a given project or Plan. Please direct appropriate materials toi Grant Dunlap, 6401 El Pato Court, Carlsbad 92009. Thank you for your interest and cooperation. Yours truly, William D. Da Secretary CCt Committee Members - Dunlap KindleMcFarlandSara C/0 MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.INC 8950 VILLA LA JOLLA DR. SUITE 1212 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 (619) 457-0200 AUGUST 11, 1987 TO: RAY PATCHETT, ACTING CITY MANAGER FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST ZONE 6 - PROCESSING SCHEDULE The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 is being scheduled for the Planning Commission September 2, 1987. It is being delayed to allow staff needed time to explore options which may be available to mitigate facility shortages which have been identified while preparing the plan. Three key facility shortages have been identified at this time and are being analyzed further to allow the City to propose viable mitigation options. These facilities are: 1. Circulation: (Existing non-conforming intersections) - North and Southbound 1-5 at La Costa Avenue - El Camino Real at La Costa Avenue 2. Fire Station No. 6 3. Parks - In both Park Districts 3 and 4 Circulation In terms of overall cost, circulation improvements will be the most costly of all facilities to mitigate. The exact cost estimates are being prepared at this time. There currently are three intersections which fail to meet the adopted standard. Improvements at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are underway, however, the 1-5 interchange at La Costa Avenue may take five to seven years to complete. We are working to find a solution to shorten the time needed to make this improvement or to provide some relief by opening another roadway (Alga to Poinsettia). Fire Presently there are 1,534 dwelling units outside of a five minute response time in Zone 6 alone. With other zones included, this number climbs to over 3,500 dwelling units. In order to meet our performance standard, Fire Station No. 6 must be constructed before any further residential development may occur in Zone 6. Page 2 Parks Zone 6 lies in both the southwest quadrant (Park District 3) and the southeast quadrant (Park District 4) . The City Council adopted the Local Plan for Zone 4 which clearly showed a park shortage in the southwest quadrant. This analysis is also shown in the Zone 6 plan. While there was no solution given in the Zone 4 plan, Zone 6 may be able to provide at least a partial solution. This is currently under review. The surprising analysis in the Zone 6 plan shows that the demand for parks in the southeast quadrant will exceed the supply in 1988. This shortage is based upon a conservative residential phasing scenario. Based upon the phasing schedules received for Zones 11, 12 and 18 in the southeast quadrant, this shortage grows to 16 acres in 1991 and 36 acres by 1995. It is evident that these facility needs can probably not be provided solely from the remaining development in Zone 6, therefore, we are exploring a larger scale approach to providing these needed facilities. It is also apparent from the Local Plans submitted from zones other than those being prepared by the City that the development phasing schedules are assuming a fast rate of growth. The result of these phasing schedules will also require significant up-front financing and facility programing to provide necessary facilities. In closing, it is important to emphasize that while these are major facility shortages, we believe these issues can be resolved. Solutions will take both the development community and City working together to provide these public facilities. We are in the process of identifying these solutions. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. PHILIP O. CARTER POC:bjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charles Grimm Mike Howes / Lance B. Schultev CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Carlsbad, California Zone 6 That portion of Zone 6 of the Local Facilities Management PIanvwrfirtf:':'fal1 s within Carlsbad Unified School District is quite limited. It lies generally in the vicinity of the intersection of Alga Road and El Camino Real. It specifically includes all of Zone 6 to the west of El Camino Real and all of those La Costa Zone 6 properties to the west of the District boundary line which runs up the midline of the north/south extension of La Costa Golf Course. Approximately 135 students from this area are presently attending school in Carlsbad Unified School District. In the immediate future, there are adequate schools facilities to support their needs. Depending upon age and educational level, these students attend: Kelly Elementary School K-6 Valley Jr. High School 7-8 Carlsbad High School 9-12 Capacities of these schools are as follows: Kelly Elementary School, 4885 Kelly Drive 12 permanent classrooms 360 6 relocatables - lease 180 2 trailers 60 TOTAL 600 Valley Jr. High, 1645 Magnolia Avenue 28 permanent classrooms 822 2 Special Ed classrooms 20 TOTAL 842 Carlsbad High School, 3557 Monroe Street 38 permanent 1,140 2 Special Ed classrooms 20 10 overage relocatables 300 7 trailers - temporary 210 TOTAL 1,670 Buildings A, C, J, L, and Q are over 30 years of age. The overage relo's are all over 20 years of age. Buildings should be scheduled for reconstruction and the relo's replaced. Total cost yet to be established. Trailer rentals are approximately $45,000 annually after $5,000 one-time setup costs. Zone 6 Page 2 Future Plans Upon approval of Zone 19 of the Carlsbad Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, anticipated within the next several months, Hunt Properties Incorporated will dedicate a designated school site near the current end of Alga Road. On that site, the Carlsbad Unified School District will construct a proposed K-8 elementary/middle school. Anticipated completion is approximately 2 to 3 years from now. Zone 6 students will attend that school upon completion. 625 North Vulcan Avenue Leucadla, California 92024 619/753-6491 Union High School District August 13, 1987 Mr. Lance B. Schulte Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Dear Mr. Schulte: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1987. You have asked us to review: 1. Draft buildout and phasing assumptions for zone 6. 2. The adopted performance standard for school facilities section for zone 6. The San Dieguito Union High School District presently operates three schools serving the students who live in the city of Carlsbad. 1986-87 DATA Regular Augmented October '86 Grades Capacity Capacity Enrollment Diegueno Jr. High 7-9 887 1003 (1) 912 Oak Crest Jr. High 7-9 988 1139 (2) 933 San Dieguito High 10-12 1835 2039 (3) 1922 (1) 116 student capacity in trailers/emergency classroom (2) 151 student capacity in trailers/emergency classroom (3) 204 student capacity in trailers/emergency classroom Oak Crest Jr. High and San Dieguito High School serve zone 6. Both schools are expected to exceed their regular capacity in 1987-88. In order to handle zone 6 and other district students, trailers/emergency classrooms are being utilized at all three sites. The north-south division as shown on the Zone 6 local facilities management plan map does not -fit the boundaries of the school district. Through interpretation it appears that at least 663 residential units will be added between now and buildout in Zone 6. Considering a district generation factor of 0.37 for grades 7-12 it is probable that an additional 245 students (grades 7-12) will be present at buildout. The San Dieguito Union High School District Master Plan calls for the construction of a new high school 1n zone 11 in the early 1990's. The district does not own the property at this time; however, efforts to acquire the site are currently underway. Letter to Lance B. Schulte 8/14/87 - Page 2 Although the Board has the policy of a high school organized in a 9-12 configura- tion, the specific grade organization will be set at the time of opening. The mas- ter plan calls for an additional junior high site to be located in zone 12 of the city of Carlsbad that will serve zones 6, 11 and 12. Construction of the junior high school is scheduled to follow the first phase of the aforementioned high school . Specifically you have asked us to address the adequacy, mitigation and financing of the school facilities. I . ADEQUACY The schools presently serving zone 6 are over capacity. Trailers/emergency classrooms have been added to handle the increased enrollment from zone 6 and other northern parts of the school district. As stated before, a new senior high school and a new junior high school (both located in the city of Carlsbad) will be required to accommodate the growth in zone 6, 11 and 12 plus northern areas of the school district. II. MITIGATION The city of Carlsbad must work closely with the school district to acquire and develop the senior high site and to identify a junior high site. The district is anxious to cooperate in an effort to assure that the schools are available for the residents of Carlsbad. III. FINANCING Current developer fees available to the district are $0.85 per square foot of residential growth and $0.14 per square foot of commercial /industrial space. It is anticipated that this will fund approximately 10% of site and construc- tion costs of a senior high school. The state of California has and does finance needed schools. The San Diegu- ito District will file applications for funding when eligibility Is deter- mined. Experience has shown the district that this source of funding is tenuous and the legislature changes the rules and regulations annually. This source of funding may or may not be available when needed. Mello-Roos and other public financing mechanisms are also alternatives that merit investigation. In summary, the district has no assurance that funding will be available to finance needed schools to serve zone 6. Present schools are over capacity and additional trailers/emergency classrooms will be used until funding becomes available. Sincerely, William A. Berrler bfs Superintendent ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 (619) 944-4300 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Anthony J. Brandenburg, President Van Riley, Clerk William Carli, Member Mary Jo Nortman, Member Sandra Schultz, Member Donald E. Lindstrom, Superintendent and Board Secretary August 12, 1987 «<* PLANNING DEPARTMEKT °' ,n CTTYOF\c4 CARLSBAD w ^BZO.^- Mr. Lance B. Schulte Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Schulte: The Encinitas Union School District has reviewed the packet received in this office on August 6, 1987. The material was reviewed by the District's master plan consultant and appears to be in alignment with the District growth estimates. I hope this is useful to you. Sincerely yours, Donald E. Lindstrom Superintendent DEL/dl cc: Board of Trustees "Excellence Is Our Goal" PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 August 3, 1987 City of Cartebab Dr. Donald Linstrom, Superintendent Encinintas School District 189 Union Street Encinitas, CA 92024 RE:ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - SCHOOL Dear Dr. Linstrom: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its' Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management zones within the City, As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the information is consistent with your district's planning and programming of school facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for school facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached you will find for your review: 1. Draft buildout and phasing assumptions for Zone 6 2. The adopted performance standard for school facilities and draft school facilities section for Zone 6 3. The school facilities section for Zone 1 Could you please review this information to determine if your district can provide school facilities, according to the phasing assumptions, consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard. Could you also include a list of your facilities serving Zone 6 as was done in the Zone 1 school facilities section. We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings. Your review and comments are part of the overall plan, preparation and review of the Local Facilities Management Plan. If you need further information or assistance please call me at 4-38-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely B. SCHULTE ASSOCIATE PLANNER LBS:af cc Zone 6 File PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 August 3, 1987 Citp of Cartebab Mr. David Allnen, Assistant Superintendent San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, CA 92069 RE:ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - SCHOOL Dear Mr. Allnen: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its' Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management zones within the City As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the information consistent with your district's planning and programming of school facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for school facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached you will find for your review: 1. Draft buildout and phasing assumptions for Zone 6 2. The adopted performance standard for school facilities and draft school facilities section for Zone 6 3. The school facilities section for Zone 1 is Could you please review this information to determine if your district can provide school facilities, according to the phasing assumptions, consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard. Could you also include a list of your facilities serving Zone 6 as was done in the Zone 1 school facilities section. We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings. Your review and comments are part of the overall plan, preparation and review of the Local Facilities Management Plan. If you need further information or assistance please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. LANCE B. SCHULTE ASSOCIATE PLANNER LBS:af cc: Mr. 3eff Okum Zone 6 File PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 August 3, 1987 City of Cartebab Rodney E. Phillips, Ed.D. Coordinator of Special Projects San Dieguito Union High School District 625 North Vulcan Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 RE:ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - SCHOOL FACILITIES Dear Dr. Phillips: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its' Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management zones within the City, As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the information is consistent with your district's planning and programming of school facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for school facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached you will find for your review: 1. Draft buildout and phasing assumptions for Zone 6 2. The adopted performance standard for school facilities and draft school facilities section for Zone 6 3. The school facilities section for Zone 1 Could you please review this information to determine if your district can provide school facilities, according to the phasing assumptions, consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard. Could you also include a list of your facilities serving Zone 6 as was done in the Zone 1 school facilities section. We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings. Your review and comments are part of the overall plan, preparation and review of the Local Facilities Management Plan. If you need further information or assistance please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. LANCE B. SCHULTE ASSOCIATE PLANNER LBS:af cc: Zone 6 File PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 3, 1987 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Citp of Cartebab Mr. 3ohn Blair Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE:ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - SCHOOL FACILITIES Dear Mr. Blair: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its' Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management zones within the City. As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the Information is consistent with your district's planning and programming of school facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for school facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached you will find for your review: 1. Draft buildout and phasing assumptions for Zone 6 2. The adopted performance standard for school facilities and draft school facilities section for Zone 6 3. The school facilities section for Zone 1 Could you please review this information to determine if your district can provide school facilities, according to the phasing assumptions, consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard. Could you also include a list of your facilities serving Zone 6 as was done in the Zone 1 school facilities section. We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings. Your review and comments are part of the overall plan, preparation and review of the Local Facilities Management Plan. If you need further information or assistance please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely LANCE B. SCHULTE ASSOCIATE PLANNER LBS:af cc: Zone 6 File RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 3088 PIO PICO DR. P.O. BOX 1129 . . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 July 29, 1987 Acting City Manager Ray Patchett CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZONE 6 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. Dear Ray: 7933-G A meeting was held on the July 28th in the City Planning con- ference room. Those in attendance were: Ray Patchett Marty Orenyak Charlie Grimm A&a'nce Schulte Phil Carter Mike Holzmiller Bill Fontana Wes Mudge Ross McDonald Jim Hansen Bill Hoover Bob Ladwig CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD WESTANA WESTANA LA COSTA RANCH COMPANY FIELDSTONE COMPANY BREHM COMMUNITIES RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY The purpose of the meeting was to discuss an update on the progress of the Zone 6 Plan and to review, if available, the miti- gation items required for Zone 6. It was pointed out by staff that the Zone 6 Plan will be going to the Planning Commission on August 19th. Mike Holzmiller pointed out that guarantees are needed that improvements are going to be made. Marty Orenyak made it clear that the staff would feel com- fortable recommending to the Council that some development be approved if the I-5/La Costa Avenue intersection and fire station funding are guaranteed along with an acceptable time schedule. Lance Schulte pointed out that there are a number of minor deficiencies that could come up at buildout and would include a potential deficiency of open space within Zone 6. He also pointed out the current park deficiency in the southwest quadrant which affects a small portion of Zone 6. Acting City Manager Ray Patchett July 29, 1987 Page Two Marty confirmed that the staff will process final plans for exist- ing approved projects after the City Council has approved Zone 6. Phil Carter was asked if the staff has prepared the shopping list of improvements that will be required as part of Zone 6. Phil said they have not completed the list, but should have it com- pleted within a week's time. Rick Engineering handed out a $58,000,000 shopping list of items that could be impacted by Zone 6. There was one ommission on Rick Engineering's list which included the fire-station site. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd/064 Copies to all attendees. Suu-to• I ^eujpor4"'13ea.do , RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 ZONE 6 OWNERS Jim Hansen Judy Meyncke THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 250 San Diego, California 92121 Wes Mudge Bill Fontana WESTANA BUILDERS 4241 Jutland Drive Suite 215 San Diego, California 92117 Bill Hoover BREHM COMMUNITIES, INC. 2835 Camino Del Rio South Suite 220 San Diego, California 92108 Steve Ludlow U.S. HOMES 380 Stevens Avenue Suite 212 Solana Beach, California 92075 Ross McDonald LA COSTA RANCH COMPANY P.P. Box 9000-266 Carlsbad, California 92009 Fred Von der Ahe F.T. VON DER AHE COMPANY 1601 Dove Street Suite 242 Newport Beach, California 92660 Fred Morey 7682 El Camino Real Suite Carlsbad, California 92008 Ure Kretowicz SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT 7760F Fay Avenue La Jolla, California 92037 Mitch Brown Gene Spindler II JOHNSON WAX DEVELOPMENT CO. 3150 Briston Street Suite 250 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Jim Scott 2H1 Elm, #210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Hal Kuykendall Charter Pacific Capital Corp. 401 W. A St. #1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Greg R. Neville Lincoln La Costa 701 B St. #845 San Diego, CA 92112 Harold Provin MC £ D Capital Corp. 9623 Imperial Highway Downey, CA 90241 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 3088 PIO PICO DR. P.O. BOX 1129 . . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 May 14, 1987 Mr. Phil Carter Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 RE: ZONE 6 MEETING RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7933-G Dear Mr. Carter: Per our phone conversation yesterday and a letter from Michael Holzmiller, this letter is to inform you of who has been invited to the meeting on Thursday, May 21, at 8:30 a.m. From the City of Carlsbad: Michael Holzmiller Ray Patchett Councilman John Mamaux Marty Orenyak Lance Schulte Lloyd Hubbs Others: Judy Meyncke Jim Hansen Wes Mudge Bill Fontana Bill Hoover Steve Ludlow Ross McDonald Fred Von der Ahe Fred Morey Ure Kretowicz Jim Scott Bob Ladwig Mitch Brown Eugene Spindler II THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY WESTANA WESTANA BREHM COMMUNITIES, INC. U.S. HOMES LA COSTA RANCH COMPANY F.T. VON DER AHE COMPANY SUNLAND DEVELOPMENT RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOHNSON WAX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY JOHNSON WAX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Karen E. Dearborn Administrative Assistant kd/043 AGENDA MAY 21, 1987 Local Facilities Management Zone Meeting - Zone 6 8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. 1. Introduction of Attendees 2. Zone 6 - Status Report and Overview 3. Questions from the Attendees 4. Adjournment RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 11 29 . PHONE . AREA CODE 61 9 • 729-4987 May 1, 1987 Mr. Mike Holzmiller Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Dear Mike: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us to discuss with you and your Staff some questions and concerns we have relating to Local I Facilities Management Zone 6. A suggested agenda for our meeting would be as follows: AGENDA 1. Introduction of Attendees 2. Status of Zone 6 Plan (by City Staff) 3. Status of Citywide Traffic Study (by City Staff) 4. Status of Other Zone Plans Being Prepared by City Staff (Zones 1-6 Inclusive) 5. Status of Zones Being Prepared by Other Than City Staff 6. Other Items 7. Adjournment In addition to the above agenda, we have some specific questions that we would like to discuss with you at the upcoming meeting. Some of these questions are as follows: 1. How will the Zone 6 owners satisfy the major offsite impacts that we feel will be identified as part of the Zone 6 Plan? These major offsite impacts could include: Widening the bridge on La Costa Avenue at Interstate 5; La Costa Avenue widening improvements that are required at El Camino Real; Mr. Michael Holzmiller May 1, 1987 Page Two and, possibly, a secondary access point to the freeway other than La Costa Avenue. Our concern is: How can a small project guarantee multi-million-dollar offsite improvements? 2. Will the City consider phasing the major offsite improvements rather than require all of them to be assured prior to develop- ment? A suggestion may be to: A. Identify all of the offiste improvements for a particular zone; B. Identify that some of the same offsite impacts would apply to other zones; 'C. Possibly assign a particular offsite improvement to a par- ticular zone. Our question is: Can this be done? 3. If the above is true, will any amendment be required to the existing Growth Management Ordinance to accomplish this? 4. Any other questions identified by either the City Staff or the landowners. The above agenda and questions are just an outline and questions to work with. I am sure you will have other comments you would like to pass on to us and possibly questions of us. It is now obvious that the Growth Management Plans are coming together, but we do see some major policy issues that need to be addressed by the Council as they relate to the actual implementa- tion of any phasing or financing plans. Personally, I am con- cerned that in some of the developed zones and for the smaller projects there are going to be such horrendous costs identified as a result of the Growth Management Plan that projects will not be able to proceed, the problems will continue to get worse, and the City will be asked to solve the problems. Obviously, the City is not going to have the money if there is no development and I think this serious potential conflict should be addressed now so that we can all work together for a satisfactory solution. Mr. Michael Holzmiller May 1, 1987 Page Three We look forward to our meeting on Tuesday, May 12, at 8:30 a.m. and thank you again for agreeing to get together with us. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd/077 cc: FIELDSTONE COMPANY Attention: Mr. Jim Hansen Ms. Judy Meyncke WESTANA BUILDERS Attention: Mr. Bill Fontana Mr. Wes Mudge U.S. HOMES Attention: Mr. Steve Ludlow BREHM COMMUNITIES Attention: Mr. Bill Hoover CITY OF CARLSBAD: Attention: Mr. Ray Patchett Councilman John Mamaux Mr. Lance Schulte Mr. Lloyd Hubbs 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT W^L&m (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab NOTICE OF DETERMINATION County Clerk Date: November 13, 1987 County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on November 10. 1987. approved the following project: Project Title: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 Project Address/Location: The developed portions of the La Costa area. Generally described as; 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and 4. The area south of Alga Road betwen El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. Project Description: The project provides for a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted perform- ance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. \ Notice of Determination Page Two 2. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of this project. 3. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. MICHAEL J. HOLZMIIJEER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Op of CarlSbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The developed portions of the La Costa area. Generally Described as: 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and North of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and A-. The area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project provides for a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA., 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 22, 1987 CASE NO: LFMP 87-6 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: July 22, 1987 MICHAEL 0. HOrZMILDi Planning Director ND4 11/85 Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: July 22 19.87 19 19, , |fION: The 19. 19. 3. Th«< Melrose and. North « *•»«•<»; «d » «CJ 3343: Jury 2a,19«4 The area south of Alga Road o Santa ______Planning ]I certify under penalty of perjury tbat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California on The 22nri day of July, 1987 V Clerk of the Printer #202-2M-? 86 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2, 1987, to consider approval of a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan on property generally located in the developed portions of the La Costa area and more particularly described as: The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, the developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of Melrose and North of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and the developed area south of Levante. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: LFMP 87-6 APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH: AUGUST 21, 1987 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION City of Carlsbad Growth Mtrug«m«n1 Program ZONE 6 JANUARY 1987 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDRIES GENERAL PLAN ••mm \ ZONE 6 RH/O RESIDENTIAL HI LOW DENSITY (0-1.5) RLM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (0-4) RM MEDIUM DENSITY(4 8)RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (8-15* RH HIGH DENSITY (15-23) COMMERCIAL RRI INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL RRE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL RS REGIONAL SERVICE C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALTS TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL O PROFESSIONAL RELATED CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PI PLANNED INDUSTRIAL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES U PUBLIC UTILITIES RC RECREATION COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS E ELEMENTARY J JUNIOR HIGH H HIGH SCHOOL P PRIVATE OS OPEN SPACE NRR NON RESIDENTIAL RESERVE City of Carlsbad Growth Mvugwntnl Program 7 ' V \ JANUARY 1987 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ss. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: August 21 1087 19. 19. 19. 19. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California on The 21st .-. day of ^ J. .L-L^ £-1 JL. tJ U •* August . 1987 .// Clerk of the Printer PLANNING DEPARTMENT Citj> of Cartebab NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 I?IllMtrtD.ZMimK.Ctok PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The developed portions of the La Costa area. Generally Described as: 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and North of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and it. The area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project provides for a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA., 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 22, 1987 CASE NO: LFMP 87-6 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: July 22, 1987 MICHAEL 3. HOrZMILDl Planning Director ND4 11/85 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE « mm ^^^ KI CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT W&^ltff (619)438-1161 Cit? of Carhrtmb NOTICE OF DETERMINATION County Clerk Date: November 13, 1987 County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on November 10. 1987. approved the following project: Project Title: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 Project Address/Location: The developed portions of the La Costa area. Generally described as; 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and 4. The area south of Alga Road betwen El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. Project Description: The project provides for a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted perform- ance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Notice of Determination Page Two 2. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of this project. 3. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. MICHAEL J. HOLZMIIiKER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WWlL/M (619)438-1161 €itp of Cartebab NOTICE OF DETERMINATION County Clerk Date: November 13, 1987 County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on November 10. 1987. approved the following project: Project Title: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 Project Address/Location: The developed portions of the La Costa area. Generally described as: 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and 4. The area south of Alga Road betwen El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. Project Description: The project provides for a detailed plan fjor the provision of public facilities to meet adopted perform- ance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Notice of Determination Page Two 2 . 3. Mitigation measures were not made a approval of this project. condition of the A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. MICHAEL J. HOLZMI Planning Director R MJH:LBS/af ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (To Be Completed by the Planning Department) CASE NO. LFMP-87-6 DATE: I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT; City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT; 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations ofall Affirmative Answers are to be Written Under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilit- ies, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transporation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE NO Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant eTffect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy - Will the proposal have signif- icant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. is a phased project is a phased project in more significant environmental impacts a) b) c) d) e) f) g) The N/A N/A N/A The N/A project project Would result -6- YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 11 & 12 The project assures public facilities are adequate prior to allowing development to occur. This requirement may affect the rate of housing and population growth, however, this affect is probably very minor and would not serve to caused environmental harm or impact. -7- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed by the Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date ^ Signature V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -8- MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -9- FEE: $175 — RECEIPT NO: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I (To Be Completed by APPLICANT) CASE NO: LFMP-87-6 DATE: Applicant: City of Carlsbad Planning Department Address of Applicant: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone Number: (619 ) 438-1161 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): City of Carlsbad Planning Department GENERAL INFORMATION; Description of Project: The project provides for a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan Project Location/Address: The developed portions of the La Costa Area. Generally described as; 1. The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road; and 2. The developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue; and 3. The undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and 4-. The area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante; and 5. The developed area south of Levante. Assessor Parcel Number: N/A Zone of Subject Property: See Exhibit 1 Proposed Use of Site: See Exhibit 1 List all other applicable applications related to this project: None Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man- made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. N/A 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. N/A If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. N/A 6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A -2- I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as necessary.) YES NO 1) Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value? 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? 10) Does the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? 11) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life? 12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area? 13) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? 14-) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's beaches? 15) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands? 16) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? -3- YES NO 17) Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? X_ 18) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? X 19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? X_ 20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? X_ 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? X_ 22) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? X_ 23) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? X_ 24) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of noise? X_ 25) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? X_ 26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? X_ 27) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) X_ 28) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? X_ 29) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? X (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards: . (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: . (c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: 30) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? 31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: 3) The plan provides for public facilities consistent with City standards, and helps assure the area will function properly. 10) The plan will be reviewed for consistency with public facilities service district's plans and programs. 31) The plan is the second phase of the City's overll Growth Management Program. III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature // f (PersdTr^Completing Report) Date Signed 7^- ^-°- 87 -5- AGENDA City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Wednesday, September 16, 1987 6:00 P.M.Council chambers 1200 Elm Avenue NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION AS LISTED. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES, UNLESS AN ITEM IS REMOVED BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, PLANNING DIRECTOR, OR BY A REQUEST FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING AN ITEM, A WRITTEN REQUEST FORM MUST BE FILED WITH THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES . IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON- PUBLIC HEARING MATTER, A WRITTEN REQUEST FORM MUST BE FILED WITH THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE ITEM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTION BY A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, DECLINE TO PERMIT SUCH PRESENTATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO- FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS. WHEN YOU ARE CALLED TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME. ADDRESS. AND ITEM NUMBER. CALL TO ORDER OP AT.T.KGIANCE ABS ENT: Schlehuber ROLL CALL COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA Please limit your comments to three minutes. (A total of four speakers will be heard.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1) Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 A detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted perfor- mance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan on property generally located in the developed portions of the La Costa area. RESO NO: ACTION: VOTE: 2670 APPROVED 6-0 EXHIBIT 7 PHASING APKKUVLU DEVELOPMENT File No. SDP 86-11 CT 85-34 85-16 85-19 84-23 85-8 85-7 79-12 85-1 84-43 84-41 81-24 84-10 82-23 83-1 82-26 81-29 79-26 CP 36 1677 DU ayU/\Kt 1- 1 . NUN-KLi>lUtN 1 1/\L UK UWLLL1NU UNI I b 1? > YK U.K 7k 3 YK LIP '> 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93-} Application Tentative Final Grading/ Occupancy Submittal Approval Approval Building Permit Permit Sqft Com 101 DU 14 DU 112 DU 220 DU 70 DU 136 DU 18 DU 22 DU 24 DU 229 DU 10 DU 80 DU 115 DU 921 DU Sqft Com 60 DU 120 DU 70 DU 38 DU 17 DU 336 DU 641 DU Final subcategory (ie AP/TA/FA) subject to 1-1-86 Date and Grace's data. 1/87 . 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM EXISTING FIELDS OF INFORMATION 1. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION — Carlsbad Tract Number (CT), or Site Development Plan (SDP), or Minor Subdivision (MS), or _ Building Permit (BP), or Local Plan - Phasing Projections — </#VC6 /V';) 2. PROJECT NAME 3. MANAGEMENT _ZON_E 1-25 4. TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT Single Family Dwelling Duplex Multi Family Dwelling Apartments Commercial Industrial Hotels Hospitals 5. LOCATION OF PROJECT 6. ACREAGE 7. DEVELOPER 8. EXEMPT STATUS (as per 10/20/86 memo to the City Manager) Can pull building permits. Can process to final map but no building permits can be issued until a Local Facilities Plan is approved. No processing or building permits until a Local Plan is approved. 9. STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT In-Process Tentative Map Approved Final Map Approved Building Permits Issued Finaled for Occupancy Future Growth (from Local Plans) 10. DWELLING UNITS At each stage of development shown above, as appropriate. Growth Management Information System Existing Fields of Information Page 2 11. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL At each stage of development shown above, as appropriate. 12. DATE OF APPLICATION 13. DATE OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL 14. DATE OF FINAL MAP APPROVAL 15. BUILDING ^PERMITS JSSUED BY MONTH 16. FINALED FOR OCCUPANCY BY MONTH 17. FIRE ZONE Example - Outside of current 5-minute response time and within the 5-minute response time of future Fire Station 6. ZONE 6 RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1987 PROJECT ID NAME APPLICATION TENTATIVE PENDING MAP CT 8223 EASTBLUFF FINAL MAP NO ACTIVE PERMITS iPERMITS ^- /o 60 \ei 9 TTTTSI; ^TOTAL FINAL MAP 60 CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT 8501 8516 8534 7912 7926 8441 8443 8507 8508 8519 8528 7220 8129 LA COSTA TOWNHOMES VIEW POINT ALGA HILLS CASA LOMA CONDOS LA COSTA ALTA MEADOWCREST THE MEADOWLANDS LA COSTA TERRACE ^ SEAPOINTE VILLAGE^(3P- ALICANTE HILLS 22 14 101 18 17 229 24 136 70 112 34 8226 JOCKEY CLUB 8301 SHAPELL 8410 SPYGLASS POJtfTE 8423 MEADOWS/PKOOKFIELD 85238 -SSS^T 85654 85679 85689 85694 85712 81 0 -T-1 f. & 0 120 80 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 38n 66 0 0 0 2 1 12 2 2 1 1 ( 172- 0n\j ' 0 -y Q-(^,£34 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 120 80 220 2 1 12 2 2 1 1 \0 ZONE 6 RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1987 PROJECT ID NAME APPLICATION TENTATIVE PENDING MAP FINAL MAP TOTAL NO ACTIVE FINAL FINAL PERMITS PERMITS OCCUPANCY MAP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP Vv BP\~ BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP 85723 85742 86039 86043 86054 86070 86079 86084 86085 86095 86099 86108 86112 86123 86178 86217 86227 86237 86268 86282 86284 86290 86300 86334 86343 86360 86401 86402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 ZONE 6 RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1987 PROJECT ID NAME APPLICATION TENTATIVE PENDING MAP FINAL MAP TOTAL NO ACTIVE FINAL FINAL PERMITS PERMITS OCCUPANCY MAP BP 86477 BP 86478 BP 86508 BP 86516 BP 86518 BP 86552 BP 86567 BP 86581 BP 86629 (Excluding Eastbluff)137 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 483 111111111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 310 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,056 V September 2, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 6 The Zone 6 Plan will not be available for distribution until August 31 or September 1, and will be delivered to the Commissioners. At the Planning Commission meeting on September 2, staff will present an overview of the Zone 6 Plan and recommend that the public hearing be continued to the September 16 meeting to allow the Commission adequate time to review the document. BH:dm STAFF KBPOKT /^"T DATE: MAY 6, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GPA/LU 86-6 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Proposed General Plan Amendment from RMH, Residential Medium High 8-15 du/ac to RM, Residential Medium 4-8 du/ac for a 32.9 acre parcel south of Corte de la Vista and east of Alicante Road. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2583, recommending APPROVAL of GPA/LU 86-6 to the City Council based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PAST HISTORY In 1986, the City Council directed staff to examine properties throughout the City that have an inappropriate land use designation. This direction was based on input from the Citizen's Committee that reviewed the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Members of the committee as well as Council members believed that certain properties within the City were inappropriately designated. At the July 30, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that this site's general plan designation be changed from RMH, 8-15 du/ac to RM, 4-8 du/ac. See the attached staff report of July 30, 1986, for additional background information on this site. When this item was presented to the Commission on July 30, 1986, a representative of the La Costa Ranch Company requested that the Planning Commission delay making a decision on staff's recommendation to: 1. Allow for the completion of the City's review and revision of the La Costa Master Plan. 2. Allow the La Costa Ranch Company to work with staff to come up with an acceptable development plan based on the site's existing density range of 8 - 15 du/ac. A representative of the La Costa Ranch Company recently informed staff that they could support staff's recommendation that this site's General Plan designation be changed to RM. He also presented preliminary plans for development of the site with detached single family units on lots averaging 4500 square feet in size. The proposed project had a density of slightly over 4 du/ac which would be in conformance with the site's proposed RM, 4-8 du/ac designation. This density and product type would appear to be compatible with adjacent existing development. The La Costa Ranch Company has requested that this item be heard during the June General Plan Amendment hearings because the review of the La Costa Master Plan will not be completed until sometime this fall. They have indicated that they would like to formally submit an application for a tentative tract on this site soon after the City Council approves the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. This zone plan is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission review in June. Based on the density control points of the City's Growth Management Program, the recommended change from RMH, 8-15 du/ac to RM, 4-8 du/ac will reduce the allowable number of units on this site from 378 to 195. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve GPA/LU 86-6 for a 32.9 acre parcel located south of Corte de la Vista and east of Alicante Road. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2583 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Environmental Document 5. Staff Report, dated July 30, 1986 MHtdm 4/15/87 EXHIBIT A JULY 8, 1986 A.LGA HILLS/\ \ PARK\ SITE RMH to RM CITY OF CARLSBAD GPA/LU 86-6 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA/LP 86-6 APPLICANT: CITY OP CARLSBAD REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment from RMH, 8-15 du/ac to RM, 4-8 du/ac, on a 32.9 acre parcel s/of Alfil Way(Corte de la Vista)E/of Alicante Rd LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 11722 according to Document No. 81-322184, filed October 9, 1981 APN: Acres 32.9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RMH Density Allowed 8-15 du/ac Density Proposed 4-8 du/ac Existing Zone RD-M Proposed Zone RD-M Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site RD-M Vacant^ North RD-M SP South OS Duplex East PC Vacant West PC Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District San Marcos Water Carlsbad Sewer Leucadia EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Negative Declaration, issued July 12, 1986 E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, DEVELOPMENTAL •^B^B 1200 ELM AVENUE SERVICES W43fjm CARLSBAD. CA 92006-1989 LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE ^Nff^r (819) 43MS91 ^^H^^ul^^ Clip at Cartefrafc NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Alfil Way, east of Alicante Road in La Costa. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment from RMH, Residential Medium High, 8-15 du/ac to RM, Residential Medium, 4-8 du/ac for a vacant 32.9 acre parcel located as described above. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. , 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: July 12, 1996 ( MICHAEL j. HOLZ/WDLER CASE SO: GPA/LU 86-6 Planning Direct&r APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: July 12,1986 ND4 11/85 STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 30, 1986 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GPA/LU 86-5/2C-346 AND GPA/LU 86-6 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Two General Plan Amendments and a Zone Change to revise the General Plan designation and zonina on two properties which have inappropriate designations. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the Negative Declarations issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2581, 2582 and 2583, recommending APPROVAL of GPA/LU 86-5, ZC-346 and GPA/LU 86-6 to the City Council based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Earlier this year the City Council directed staff to examine properties throughout the City that have an inappropriate land use designation. This direction was based on input from the Citizen's Committee that reviewed the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Members of the committee as well as Council members believed that certain properties within the City were inappropriately designated. This report will address two sites that are inappropriately designated on the General Plan and zoning maps. At the present time, a number of special studies, master plan revisions and new master plans are in process. Altogether, these studies and plans that are in process cover approximately 5,712 acres, which is over 20 percent of Carlsbad. These studies and master plans will result in a number of requests for General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes at some future date. This report will not discuss these properties since decisions on land uses within these areas will be made when the studies are completed. At this time, staff recommends General Plan Amendments and a zone change on only two properties: GPA/LU 86-5/ZC-346 - A 4.15 acre vacant parcel at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The General Plan designates this site as RM, Residential Medium density 4-8 du/ac and it has a zoning of RD-M-Q, Residential Density Multiple with a Qualified Overlay. Staff recommends that this site be designated as RLM, Residential Low Medium 0-4 du/ac and have a zoning of R- 1-10, Single Family Residential with a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. This site ha* a number of constraints which staff believes justifies a redesignation and rezoning to a lower density. The site is long and linear with the most buildable portion adjacent to El Camino Real. The site is covered with mature eucalyptus trees and most of the westerly portion of the site consists of steep slopes. The properties to the west and south of the site are zoned R-l-10 and developed with detached single family residences. This site also has access constraints. As mentioned previously, a zone change, tentative tract map and condominium permit was approved on this project in 1983. This project which probably would not meet the City's current development requirements was approved by a split Planning Commission and a split City Council vote. The Commission and Council both had concerns about the proposed access to this site. The project proposed two access points. One was a right turn in and out only on El Camino Real from an existing driveway which it would have shared with six existing single family homes to the south. The other access point was via a steep curving driveway from Chestnut Avenue. Although these accesses were approved, staff was not really comfortable with them, but could not find a better method of accessing the 30 units proposed on this site. Concerns were also raised at the Commission and Council meetings about compatibility with existing single family residences in the area, the projects appearance from El Camino Real and buffering of the project from El Camino Real. The tentative tract map and planned unit development approved on this site expired earlier this year. Due to the above-mentioned concerns staff believes that this site's General Plan designation should be changed from RM, Residential Medium 4-3 du/ac to RLM, Residential Low Medium 0-4 du/ac. Its zoning should be changed from RD-M-Q to R-l-10. Although the proposed zoning, which is in conformance with the RLM designation, requires 10,000 square foot lots, this site will probably be developed with a clustered planned unit development due to the site's constraints. The proposed General Plan designation of RLM and zoning of R-l-10 will allow for development that is more in keeping with the site's constraints. In addition, it will help to ensure that the intensity of development is compatible with existing development in the area. GPA/LU 86-6 - South of Corte de la Vista, east of Alicante Road in La Costa As mentioned in the project description, this site has a General Plan designation of RMH, Residential Medium High, 8-15 du/ac and a zoning of RD-M. The site has an area of approximately 32.9 acres. Under its existing General Plan designation, 263 - 493 dwelling units could be approved on this site. ' -3- Ordinance and Architectural Guidelines being prepared for the City will ensure that any project developed on this site under the RM General Plan designation will be compatible with adjacent development. The recommended General Plan Amendment will not reduce the opportunities for low-moderate income housing in Carlsbad by reducing the allowable density on this site. No matter what density this site is developed at, the units will not be affordable due to the site's location adjacent to the La Costa Golf Course. In conclusion, staff recommends that the 4.15 acre parcel at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue be redesignated on the General Plan to RLM, Residential Low Medium 0-4 du/ac. This site should also be rezoned to R-l-10 which would be the implementing zone for the RLM General Plan designation. Staff also recommends that the 32.9 acre parcel located south of Corte de le Vista and east of Alicante Road be redesignated to RM, Residential Medium 4-8 du/ac on the General Plan. Please see the attached memo dated July 14, 1986, discussing other areas where staff has concerns about the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. Although staff has concerns about these areas they do not have a definite recommendation for any of these other areas at this time. If the Commission believes it is appropriate they can recommend that staff study these areas and return with a recommendation at a later date. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that these projects will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued Negative Declarations on July 12, 1986. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 5681, 5682, and 5683 2. Location Maps/Exhibits "A" - "E", dated July 8, 1986 3. Background Data Sheets 4. Environmental Documents MB: ad 7/9/86 -5- APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE SEPTEMB1 25, 1985 STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 17, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 85-16/POD-85 - LANCASTER TOWNHOMES - Request for approval of a tentative subdivision map and planned unit development to develop 14 units on the south side of Alga Road between Alicante Road and Luciernaga Street in the R-2 zone. This request has been reviewed twice before by the Planning Commission. The first hearing was on January 8, 1986 and at that time it was continued pending completion of the La Costa Traffic Study. The last hearing was on April 23, 1986 with a recommendation of approval by staff. At that time the Commission returned the project for further review. The items of concern were as follows: 1. Storm Drain Location Condition No. 37 asked the developer to design the relocation of the storm drain. The applicant has addressed this issue and has redesigned the project (as shown on the tentative map) so that the proposed development is out of the 2:1 slope influence area. 2. Noise from the SDG&E Substation Prior to the April 23rd meeting, an acoustical analysis was submitted by the applicant which also included an examination of noise emitted by the substation. The noise study indicated that exterior CNEL would not exceed 55 decibels and interior CNEL would not exceed 45 decibels. This falls within the noise standards of the California Noise Insulation Standards (CAC, Title 24). Substation noise was indicated to be unlikely to increase in the future. 3. Fire Hazards During the original review of the proposed project, the Fire Department saw no unusual fire hazards and placed standard fire conditions in the resolution. The Fire Department was questioned recently on whether or not they felt there were any possible fire, safety, or hazardous situations associated with the transformer. Again, they stated that there were no unusual problems. In addition, there are no PCB (polycholorinated biphenols, a suspected carcinogen) materials located on the site. The applicant has addressed the concerns presented by the Planning Commission and at a density of 4.8 (in the new density range of 4-8) is still below the control point of 6.0. Several new ordinances have also been adopted since the proposed project was first reviewed by the Commission. These include the new planned development and hillside ordinances. Staff did not apply these regulations to the project because of its small size and because it was heard by the Commission before these ordinances were adopted. Please see the staff reports of 4/23/86 and 1/8/86 for further design discussion. Overall, staff recommends approval of this project because the applicant's project redesign satisfies all development standards and design criteria of the previous Planned Development Ordinance which was in effect when this project was previously discussed by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2528 2) Location Hap 3) Reduced Exhibits 4) Letter from Residents, dated May 20, 1986 5) Environmental Document 6) Staff Report, dated April 23, 1986 7) Staff Report, dated January 8, 1986 8) Exhibits "A" through "H" dated May 27, 1987 AML:dm 2/11/87 -2- LOCATION MAP WATER TOWER SF-3INGLE FAMILY CT 85-16/PUD-85 LANCASTER TOWNHOMES "* , P ACJCU fell »' •'•** »•'• — ** * LANDSCAPE PLAN ji LANCASTER TOWNEHOMES LANCASTER TOWNHOMES, LTD. 7740 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE H. RANCHO LA COSTA, CA 29008 Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 El Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Lancaster Townhomes, La Costa, CA. Dear Sirs and Mesdames, Please be advised that I have reviewed the development plans of the project known as Lancaster Townhomes which is located contiguous to my home on Luciernaga Street in La Costa, I would like to say that in my opinion the project is very appealing and will enhance the neighborhood. I feel that the Planning Commission will be acting in the interest of the community to approve this development. Sincerely, Address £- 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WWWjFM (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROOECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Alga Road between Alicante Road and Luclernaga Street. PROOECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a tentative subdivision map and planned unit development to construct 14- residential units In the R-2 zone. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Oustification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA., 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: February It,- 1987 MICHAEL 0. HOLlftlLLEf CASE NO: CT 85-16/PUD-85 Planning Director APPLICANT: Lancaster Townhomes PUBLISH DATE: February U, 1987 ND4 11/85 MEMORANDUM DATE: APRIL 23, 1986 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 85-16/PUD-85 - LANCASTER TOWNHOMES - Request for approval of a tentative subdivision map and planned unit development to develop 14 units on the south side of Alga Road between Alicante Road and Luciernaga Street in the R-2 zone. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2528 APPROVING CT 85-16/PUD-85. In addition staff would recommend that any traffic impact conditions established by Council on April 22 be added to the Resolution. DISCUSSION This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 8f 1986. As stated in the attached staff report, staff felt the proposed project satisfied all design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance and that all issues, except traffic, had been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the proposed project, however, due to circulation problems in La Costa, the project was continued until a traffic study for the area could be completed. An executive summary of the La Costa area traffic study is attached. The above referenced project was considered as a "committed" project by the study, meaning that the study assumed possible approval of this project. The study indicates that there will be failing intersections in La Costa at peak hours even after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. These intersections include: - La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real - Alga Road and El Camino Real - Interstate 5 and La Costa Avenue - La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road The traffic report will be reviewed by the City Council on April 22. An oral summary of Council action will be given to the Commissioner at the April 23 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, traffic impact conditions established by Council on April 22 will also be presented to the Commission at that time. The staff recommendation for approval of- this project remains the same as previously recommended. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2528 should be revised to reflect any additional traffic conditions suggested by Council. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2528 2) Staff Report, dated January 8, 1986 3) Traffic Analysis, Executive Summary AML:bn 4/8/86 -2- APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: SEPTEMBE 21, 1985 STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 8, 1986 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 85-16/PUD-85 - LANCASTER TOWNHOMES - Request for approval of a tentative subdivision map and planned unit development to develop 14 units on the south side of Alga Road between Alicante Road and Luciernaga Street in the R-2 zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue this item until an analysis of the problems and potential solutions to the circulation problems in the La Costa area have been completed. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map and planned unit development permit to develop 14 townhomes located as described above. The proposed project will be located on a 2.9 acre site and have a density of 4.8 du's/ac. This is at the low end of the RM (Residential-Medium) General Plan designation for this site, 4-8 du/ac. The site exists as an irregularly shaped lot located on the south side of Alga Road. A steep, 40-50' slope is located on half of the lot. A San Diego Gas & Electric transformer is located to the south and a large, water tank to the west, properties at the top of the eastern slope have been developed with duplexes while other surrounding property on the south side of Alga is vacant. The area to the north is developed with single family dwellings. The proposed project will consist of six duplexes and two single family units clustered around a paved and landscaped courtyard. The units are two stories in height and range in size from 1,268 - 1,440 square feet. None of the buildings will exceed 35 feet in height. III.ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project satisfy all design criteria and development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance? 2) Does the project design justify the density requested? 3) Will the project significantly increase traffic problems in the La Costa area? Discussion Staff believes that the proposed project satisfies all development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. All setbacks have been met and the buildings are all less than 35 feet in height. All units have garages with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. This will provide room for two cars as well as adequate space to meet the storage requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Six onsite guest parking spaces will be provided. Recreation area requirements have been exceeded by a combination of private and common areas. Each unit would have a private patio averaging 300 square feet in size. Two common recreation areas would also be provided. The larger area would feature a cabana, pool, and badminton/volleyball court. The smaller area would feature a tot lot and adjacent lawn area. Total recreation area would approximate 4,500 sq. ft. for an overall ratio of 321 sq. ft. per unit. Staff believes the proposed project satisfies all design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. The site is well-designed with attractive stucco and tile homes featuring a Spanish motif. The manmade steep slope on the eastern portion of the property was graded under county regulations years ago. The southern and western property lines will be heavily landscaped to screen both the water tower and electric transformer. What normally could be considered site constraints have been utilized to create a very private small community. A noise study was performed for Alga Road and mitigation measures required a 4' sound wall to be constructed along this street. This has been provided as well as additional landscaping in this area. TRAFFIC Staff has identified an increasing number of traffic concerns within the City and particularly within the La Costa area. Staff is currently undertaking a study to more clearly identify and resolve them. The proposed project is not a major traffic contributor in itself but will incrementally contribute to the traffic problems in the area. In accordance, the proposed project will be responsible for contributing a proportionate share towards the solution of identified problems. The proposed project does comply with all of the relevant City standards and policies, however, until the aforementioned traffic study is -2- completed and the details of the appropriate solutions are identified, staff is unwilling to recommend approval and is providing three alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider in dealing with the proposed project relative to traffic issues. These include: 1. A continuance of the project until the traffic study has been completed by staff. 2. Approve the proposed project based upon the finding that the project will contribute only incrementally to the existing traffic problems and have staff return with documents. 3. Approve the project/ with the inclusion of a condition requiring that the final map not be approved until the traffic study has beeh completed for the La Costa area and the applicant has agreed to perform or participate in a solution. (There may be some concerns with this alternative in that it may be difficult to make a finding for adequate public facilities). In conclusion, staff is recommending Alternative No. 1, continuance of the project until after the traffic study for the La Costa area has been completed. Staff's recommendation is that it would be more appropriate to delay a decision on this project until the traffic study is completed, letting us know the extent of the existing problems and possible solutions. The study should be completed some time in February 1986. A resolution of approval was provided for this project because the Planning Commission asked for resolutions on three other similar projects in the same area. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2528 2) Location Map 3) Vicinity Map 4) Background Data Sheet 5) Disclosure Form 6) Letter from Traffic Engineer 7) Memo from Engineering 8) Traffic Study 9) Reduced Exhibits 10) Exhibits "A" - "H", dated October 15, 1985 AMLrbn 12/26/85 — 3 — VICINITY MAP 3! Ul RO. R-1 X (RLM) PC (RM) ii (GENERAL PLAN) (RMH) WY <RU R-1-15 PUD-85 LANCASTER TOWNHOMES CT 85-16 D D Dn R-1 SINGLE FAMILY R-2 MULTI FAMLY PC PLANNED COMMUNITY RD-M RESIDENTIAL MULTI I 1 PL-RESIDENTIAL LOW (0-1.5) | | RLM-RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM (O -4) D j RM-RESDENTIAL MEDIUM (4-6) RMH-RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH (8-15) BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 85-16/PUD-85 APPLICANT: LANCASTER TOWNHOMES REQUEST AND LOCATION: A tentative tract map and planned unit development for 14 townhomes on 2.90 acres on the south side of Alga Road between Alicante Road and Luciernaga Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 185, Map No. 6800, recorded December 9, 1970 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California APN; 215-250-40 Acres 2.90 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 14 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RM Density Allowed 4-8 Density Proposed 4.8 Existing Zone R-2 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site R-2 Vacant North R-1 SFD's South R-1-15000 SFD's East R-2 Duplexes West R-2 Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES Carlsbad/ School District San Marcos Water Costa Real Sewer Leucadia EDU's 14 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated September 21, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, the information vou have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined further information^ required, you will be so ad\ »d_ APPLICANT: General Partner MEMBERSt Lancaster Townehomes, Ltd. Nam* (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 535 Encinitas Boulevard. Suite fllO. Encinitas CA 92024 Business Address (619) 436-8590 ' Telephone Number Eric L. Waite, Jr. Name 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite #110, Encinitas CA 92024 Business Address (619) 436-8590J ' • "' . Telephone Number Eric L. Walter Jr. GENERAL PARTNER Name '(individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) 1830 Milbank Rd., Leucadla CA 92024 Home Address 535 Encinitas Boulevard. Suite 1110, Encinitas CA 92024 Business Address (619) 436-8590 (619) 436-9096 Telephone Number Larry and Linda Schow Telephone Number 3104 Lakeridge PI., Boise ID 83706 Borne Address Business Address (208) 383-6792 Telephone Number Telephone Suaber William and Pat Price " 2728 Llama Crt., Carlsbad CA 92008 (619)438-1391 Don and Martha Stockton 999 San Pasqual #3, Pasadena CA 91106 (818) 449-5796 Phillip and Linda Ackerman Oscar and Dorothy Ackerman Mike Birket 11403 NE 2066th St.. Battleground HA 98604 .(206) 687-7449 9615 N. 15th St., Phoenix AZ 85020 (602) 997-9949 . 1510 York Dr., Vista CA 92083 (619) 727-5732(Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will rejpa*n-£rue and correct and may be* relied upon as being true and correct until AppjL4.cant Agent, Ovner, Partner CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING PROCESSING SURVEYING 7750-2H ELCAMINO REAL RANCHO LA COSTA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 PHONE 619/944-1010 October 30, 1985 85-1002 Mr. Clyde Wickham City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Traffic Impacts - Las Casitas Terraza CT 85-16, P.U.D. 85 Dear Clyde: Regarding the above referenced project, it is clear that the project does not impact regional traffic. Alga Road currently has an A.D.T. of 12,009 as of October 3, 1985. As a major arterial its ultimate design capacity is 20,000 to 40,000 A.T.D., and the buildout traffic is estimated to be 15,900 A.D.T. The Las Casitas project with 12 dwelling units will generate 120 trips which will have virtually no impact upon Alga Road traffic. Especially since the only entrance to the project is a right turn only entrance. Please call if you have further questions. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS ) PO/sc cc: Eric Waite Pat p'Day President November 5, 1985 TO: LAND USE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Engineering Department CT 85-16, PUD-85, TRAFFIC IMPACTS The traffic impacts of the above mentioned subdivision are negligible due to project size and the absence of a median opening on Alga Road. The applicant has proposed a right turn in and right turn out on Alga Road. Staff supports this concept. The design capacity of Alga Road is 40,000 vehicles per day, the ultimate volume projected by SANDAG circulation study (1984) is approximately 28,000 vehicles per day. This project produces .3% and .4% respectively of these values. Please incorporate this memorandum into your staff report for this project and schedule it for the next available Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions, please contact this office. -1 ivil Engineer KENT SEARS, Traffic Engineer w Ptiugte tool TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING December 27, 1985 Mr. Pat O'Day O'Day Consultants 7750-2H El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. O'Day: In response to your request, we have reviewed the traffic factors related to the Las Casitas Terranza residential development in the City of Carlsbad. This review was based upon the site plan provided by you and previous studies in the area. This project consists of 14 residential units located on Alga Road westerly of Cazadero Drive in the La Costa area of the City of Carlsbad. Based upon the land use and City Traffic Model trip generation rates, the project would generate 110 daily trip ends. The peak hour trip generation would be a total of 10 trip ends. Recent traffic studies in this area have indicated more than adequate capacity to accommodate trafffc in the near term. This conclusion assumes improvement of the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection. The minimal trip generation from this project would not alter this conclusion. Examination of long term needs has indicated that an adequate circulation system can be achieved. The long term needs are being examined in a current study which is anticipated to be completed in late February, 1986. In summary, the minimal trips that would be generated by this project would not impact the circulation system on either a near-term or long-term basis. We trust that this review will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 &TR565 WSP:bas 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714)871-2931 SECOND FLOOR nmtmmn 7TTV7y7\ ffupww JtaMfr A_ \v A" 7\TV75A"TV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Study by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. April, 1986 Transportation system improvements are needed and will be needed in the future based on development trends in the La Costa area of the City of Carlsbad. The City retained Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to determine the necessary roadway requirements to meet existing and future traffic demand, and to recommend a financing method to implement the improvements. In sequence, the study determined appropriate area boundaries, identified short and long-range developments within the study area, calculated present and future levels of service on the transportation network, determined what improvements would be needed to correct deficiencies, estimated how much money would be needed to fund the improvements, and finally, evaluated alternative funding mechanisms for raising the needed revenues. The geometries of the existing roadway network were taken as the starting point, with all needed improvements to be added to the existing street system. When so considered, some 46 different construction projects were recommended. The projects were placed into two categories: (1) Those needed now or to satisfy already approved or committed projects, and (2) those additionally needed in the future as development proceeds to General Plan buildout. The study determined that projects in the first category total $11.5 million, while those needed ultimately total an additional $22.5 million. Thus, the total street improvement needs, to buildout of the General Plan, will cost $34 million. A dollar assessment per trip generated, to be called a Traffic Impact Pee, is the recommended financing mechanism. It provides the most direct tie between new traffic generated by area development and funds needed to improve roadways to accommodate new traffic demand. The amount of the fee can be calculated by dividing the number of future trips to be generated into the amount of money to be raised. As an example, the $34 million for General Plan buildout could be divided by SANDAG's estimate of 141,242 future trips to be generated, and would result in a per daily trip fee of $240. In setting the per trip fee, the City has several options: 1) The project list might be reduced depending on other funding sources that might be available. 2) There could be a differentiation between residential trips and other trips such as commercial or industrial, due to the phenomenon of "double-counting". 3) The project list might be reduced through the City's willingness to accept a level of service lower than "average". 4) The future needs (and future trips generated) might be reduced through a reduction of allowable density in the General Plan. Because actual development may take place differently than assumed under the General Plan, the analysis of the Traffic Impact Fee should be frequently renewed, no less than once every two years. Finally, this type of analysis could be expanded to determine appropriate roadway improvements and financing mechanisms for other areas in the City of Carlsbad. 5 STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 19, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ITEM ON REQUEST TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 6 DISCUSSION By letter dated August 4, 1987, Michael Ryan of Mision Estancia Partnership is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a boundary adjustment to Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6. This request is being made at this time because the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 will be considered by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1987, and the City Council about a month later. A change to an existing zone boundary requires a public hearing at City Council. Specifically, Mr. Ryan is requesting that the area inside the recently-constructed Mision Estancia Street loop, which includes the property he owns, be removed from the boundaries of Zone 11 and placed within the boundaries of Zone 6. (See attached Location Map, Exhibit "A".) Mr. Ryan's property has an approved 36 unit single family project which is on hold until a Local Facilities Management Plan is approved for Zone 11. The reasons why he believes this request is justified are contained in the attached letter to the Planning Director dated July 22, 1987. The boundaries of the 25 Facilities Zones were formally approved by the City Council in September 1986. The detailed criteria that was used in drawing the boundaries is contained in Section 21.90.100 of the Growth Management Ordinance. The major criteria included the following: 1) Physical criteria such as roads and topography, 2) level of existing development, 3) Master Plan boundaries, and 4) ownership. At the time the boundaries were being developed, the Mision Estancia loop was not included in Zone 6 based upon the major criteria. Rancho Santa Fe Road was a good boundary line. The area was and is still part of the La Costa Master Plan. (None of existing Zone 6 is part of the Master Plan). All of the properties were originally owned by one property owner (DAON) . None of the properties in the loop area were built-out. August 19, 1987 Boundary Amendment - Zone 6 Page 2 Mr. Ryan's letter contains some good points in terms of how conditions have changed in the loop and, perhaps, if the boundaries were being developed today, staff would have included this area in Zone 6. Staff concern, however, regards precedence in this area, and where do you draw the line? As shown on Exhibit "B", there are other approved and developing projects in Zone 11. These projects could make similar arguments if Mr. Ryan's request is approved. Soon the boundaries of Zone 11 would not make any sense. Staff believes that the boundary between Zone 6 and 11 should remain at Rancho Santa Fe Road and be consistent with the boundaries of the existing La Costa Master Plan. Recommendat ion For the above reasons, staff does not support the request to modify the boundaries of Local Facilities Mangement Plan Zone 6 to include the properties within the Mision Estancia loop. Attachments 1. Letter from Mike Ryan 2. Location Map - Exhibit "A" 3. Zone 11 Developing and Approved Projects - Exhibit "B" DATE: November 30. 1988 /A/ A p 577?^ STAFF REPORT DATE: April 19, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDP 88-19 VIEWPOINT - Zone Change from LC to R-l- 7500-Q/Open Space and tentative tract map for subdivision of 40.5 acres into 90 buildable lots and 1 open space lot and a Hillside Development Permit for property located approximately 1000 feet northwest of the intersection of Alga Road and El Camino Real in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2834 recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Resolutions 2831, 2832, and 2833 recommending APPROVAL of ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDP 88-19, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained herein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a tentative tract map to subdivide the subject site into 90 single family lots and one open space lot. The proposed open space lot would retain approximately 13.2 acres in natural open space in the western portion of the site, with approximately 3 additional acres of open space easements placed on the slopes throughout the project. The project, located within the Coastal Zone, will also require approval of a zone change from Limited Control (LC) to R-l-7500(Q)/Open Space (OS) as well as approval of a Hillside Development Permit. The site has a General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM 0-4) which will continue to be in effect. The proposed project was originally submitted in September 1985; however, during review of the project a number of changes in City policy occurred which contributed to revisions of the project as well as delays in processing. Some of these changes included the La Costa Traffic Study, the Growth Management Ordinance, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6, the Hillside Ordinance, the City Noise Policy, and the southwest quadrant park dedication. The applicant has addressed these policy changes and has redesigned the project several times to accommodate each change as it occurred. The average proposed lot size is 8,800 square feet, resulting in a development density of approximately 3.1 du/acre. The project connects with Mimosa Street to the south and provides for a connection with the future extension of Dove Lane to the north. ZC-341/CT 85-34/HL 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 2 The topography of the site is dominated by a north-south trending ridge, which is cut by numerous gullies, particularly to the west. The eastern side of the ridge is relatively level. The site vegetation consists primarily of native chaparral, with small areas of oak woodland in the northwestern and southwestern corners of the site, and scrub vegetation in the eastern portion of the site. The entire site drains to the south toward Batiquitos Lagoon. The project site is essentially undeveloped at this time. A portion of the grading for the Alga Road extension has recently been completed along the southern boundary of the site, extending into the Pacific Rim development. Improvements onsite include a number of dirt roads that traverse the property and a San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) service easement that contains a high voltage overhead transmission line across the southwestern quarter of the site. Adjacent to the property to the north are agricultural lands and single-family residences; to the south are single-family homes; to the east is the recently approved Von Der Ahe commercial site; and to the west is an undeveloped elementary school site. The preliminary grading plan proposes 251,063 cubic yards of cut, 205,232 cubic yards of fill, with 45,831 cubic yards of export material. Manufactured slopes of a 2 to 1 gradient would be created in a number of areas onsite, with a maximum slope height of 30 feet. Slopes along the northeast corner would reach a maximum of 54 feet when combined with approved slopes to the east. The proposed grading plan would result in the majority of the development concentrated in the eastern and central portions of the site, with the open space lot situated to the west of the residences. The southwestern boundary of residential development would be the SDG&E easement. Some grading would occur in the southwestern corner of the site along Alga Road to accommodate the construction of Alga Road. Due to the complex nature of the proposed project, all discretionary actions and related planning issues are discussed individually below. III. ANALYSIS A. ENVIRONMENTAL Planning Issues 1. Does the design of the proposed subdivision address the environmental sensitivities of the site? DISCUSSION When the project was submitted in 1985, staff completed an Environmental Impact Assessment Part II (Initial Study) which determined that there was a potential for limited environmental impacts. The project planner at that time made the decision to require environmental studies which included biology, traffic, noise, and archaeology. These studies identified potential impacts and mitigation measures which would reduce the environmental impacts to a level of non-significance. These were prepared as a comprehensive environmental analysis (Exhibit "X") and included proposed mitigation measures. Staff refined these ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDr 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 3 measures and included them as conditions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The applicant agreed to comply with the conditions and signed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Major areas of environmental concern are discussed below: 1. Circulation The proposed development will generate additional vehicular traffic of an estimated 900 ADTs. The area between the project and Dove Lane has the potential to develop with approximately 40 additional single family dwellings. This area, in addition to the project site, would generate a total of 1,330 ADTs which can be accommodated by the proposed circulation design. The project has been conditioned to design and bond for a traffic signal at the intersection of Mimosa Street and Alga Road. In addition, the project will be responsible for 100% of the cost of a signal at this intersection when traffic signal warrants are met. This project has also been conditioned to provide mitigation for Alga Road and El Camino Real as identified in the Zone 6 plan (Exhibit "F"). 2. Biology The proposed project would develop 27.3 of the 40.5 acres within the project site. There were no rare or endangered plant species observed on the property. Identified on the subject site were four sensitive plants species which will be affected by the proposed development. This represents an incremental but insignificant impact to the regional populations of these plant species. The project site contains 6.2 acres of land with slopes of 25% or greater which contain mixed chaparral, oak woodland, and disturbed areas. Of this 6.2 acres, 1.9 acres would be impacted, however, 0.4 acres are already disturbed and .6 acres in developable areas consist of isolated pockets of land. This loss is offset by the retention of a much larger 13.2 acre open space system onsite (Exhibit "X", page 17). Three-tenths of an acre of oak woodland has already been removed by the construction of Alga Road; however, the proposed development will not encroach or disturb the remainder of the oak woodland. A landscaping plan has been proposed for all manufactured slopes on the project. The exterior slopes which are contiguous to the open space area will provide a transitional appearance from the existing natural habitat to semi-natural species along the bottom of the slope and ornamental species from the middle to the top of the slope. The slopes on the interior of the development will be primarily planted with a mixture of ornamental species. 3. Archaeology Development of the proposed project would result in the direct disturbance of an archaeological site located on the north-south ridge running through the middle of the property (Exhibit "X", page .5). The City has traditionally required the developer to perform excavation and data recovery on archaeology sites. This form of mitigation was included as a condition in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and agreed to by the applicant. Additionally, the proposal was reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission and found to be acceptable. Excavation and data recovery is also in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC-341/CT 85-34/HL. 38-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 4 4. Noise The City has recently approved a Noise Policy which, requires that the projected buildout noise level be mitigated to a maximum of 60 dba CNEL at: A. Five feet inside the proposed project's property line at six feet above finished grade level, and B. Immediately above the highest window or door opening in a dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed mitigation to comply with these requirements. The proposed project will be impacted by noise from Alga Road. Bu-ildout traffic volumes along this road are projected to be approximately 24,400 ADT. Several lots will be impacted by noise and will require sound attenuation through the use of walls/berms (4' - 6.5' in height, Exhibit "X", page 4-29). Second-story windows and doors will also be impacted by noise from Alga Road. To reduce noise levels immediately above the highest window or door opening to 60 dB(A) CNEL, a 7' foot balcony barrier has been required on second story windows or doors on the impacted lots. This mitigation is illustrated on Exhibit "X", page 4-30. B. ZONE CHANGE fZC-3411 Planning Issues 1. Are the proposed zone changes consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designations on the property? 2. Are the proposed zone changes consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning? DISCUSSION The proposed zone change from Limited Control (LC) to R-l-7500-Q/Open Space is consistent with the subject property's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designations of RLM, Residential Low - Medium (0-4 du/acre). R-1-7500-Q is an implementing zone for property designated as RLM. The rationale for the additional requirement of a Q - Overlay (site development plan) is discussed under Section E, Hillside Development Permit. The open space zoning designation will serve as an additional protection of Lot 91 by legally excluding development in this area. Both the open space zone and the proposed R-l-7500- Q zone as well as the uses permitted within these zones will be consistent with the surrounding land uses. Property to the south is already developed with R- 1-7500 lots. Property to the north has the same General Plan designation and is likely to be developed similarly. Land to the west is designated in the Pacific Rim Master Plan as an elementary school site and consistent with ZC-341/CT 85-34/Hbr 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 5 residential uses. Land to the east is proposed to be developed with a public library and post office; however, these uses will be separated from the proposed residences by a heavily landscaped, intervening slope. The proposed zoning and average lot size of 8,800 square feet will create development compatible with existing and potential single family development in the area. C. COASTAL Planning Issues 1. Does the proposed project implement the policies of the Hello II segment of the Local Coastal Plan? DISCUSSION The proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II segments of the Local Coastal Plan. These policies include the preservation of natural vegetation on steep slopes (25% or greater) and the adoption of erosion control standards. Slopes of 25% or greater with native vegetation are required to be preserved in permanent open space easements unless they would preclude reasonable use of the site. The purpose of the open space easement is to reduce the potential for erosion, prohibit the removal of natural vegetation, and to protect visual resources. Development of the subject site has been designed to concentrate the units on the flatter eastern portion to protect the steep slopes and sensitive vegetation located in the southern and western portions of the site. Seventy percent of all slopes in excess of a 25 percent gradient would be preserved (Exhibits "X", page 4-23). Because the steep slope areas proposed for development are not part of a major corridor and are such small areas, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated. In addition, the project has been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff on a preliminary basis. It was their opinion that preservation of the western portion of the site would sufficiently mitigate removal of the isolated pockets of steep slope areas. D. TENTATIVE TRACT HAP (CT 85-34) Planning Issues 1. Does the proposed tentative map satisfy all requirements of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and the State Map Act? As proposed, this subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Carlsbad Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. The proposed map and improvements are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed by the applicant. With an average lot size of approximately 8,800 square feet, the proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size for an R-l-7500 zone. Except on the cul-de-sacs, all lots have a minimum street frontage of 60 feet and an average ZC-341/CT 85-34/HD, 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 6 buildable pad depth of approximately 100 feet. Even the smaller pads are still large enough to accommodate single-story homes of as much as 2400 square feet. Overall, the proposed project complies with the Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act. In addition, the project helps to fulfill a General Plan goal of providing a variety of housing types. In the last three years, this is the first project of this size requesting approval of R-l-7500 square foot lots. E. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (HDP 88-19) Planning Issues 1. Does the proposed project implement the development standards established by the Hillside Ordinance? DISCUSSION The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Ordinance and also complies with the specified development standards. Generally, the ordinance addresses the following issues: density calculation, grading amounts, grading contours, and hillside design. These are discussed below. Both the Hillside Ordinance and the Growth Management Ordinance consider certain lands to be undevelopable and excluded from density calculations. For this project, these include power easements, woodland habitats, half of 25-40% slopes, and 40% or greater slopes. With these deleted, the proposed density of 3.1 du/acre is below the growth control point of 3.2 du/acre (Exhibit "G"). Approximately 8,778 cubic yards of grading per acre is proposed. The grading plan for the site proposes approximately 251,063 cubic yards of cut and 205,232 cubic yards of fill with 45,831 cubic yards of export (Exhibit "H"). The site, after grading, would still follow the north-south tending slope of the land with level building pads terraced up the slope (Exhibit "I"). This is consistent with the Hillside Ordinance by preserving the general slope of the existing topography. It should be noted that normally grading amounts are usually larger for single family lot subdivisions (as opposed to PUD or condominium subdivisions) because each single family lot must have a minimum 60 foot street frontage. In addition, the vertical and horizontal alignments of streets to serve such a subdivision require reduced gradients and therefore, larger amounts of grading. Slopes and streets of the proposed project are designed to follow or emulate the natural land contours. Curvilinear slopes vary in height from 20 feet to 30 feet. All perimeter project slopes are conditioned as open space easements. The applicant will be required to landscape these slopes for fire protection as well as open space maintenance as required by the City's Landscape Guidelines Manual (Pages 29-36), The applicant has also been conditioned to construct a stuccoed slump block and wrought iron wall at the top of all perimeter slopes to protect the open space areas. ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDi- 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 7 The developer is not proposing building elevations or floor plans at the present time. This is permissible under the Subdivision Map Act and Zoning Ordinance for single family dwelling projects not developed as planned unit developments. To ensure that the building designs are consistent with the Hillside Ordinance, staff required the accompanying zone change to include a Q-overlay. This overlay will require a site development plan to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The site development plan will address building height, distances from tops of slopes, distances between structures, elevations of buildings, and slopes of roofs. This additional level of review creates the opportunity to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with both surrounding development as well as surrounding land forms. F. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Planning Issues 1. Is the proposed project consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance? Discussion The subject property is located within Local Facility Management Zone 6, Southwest Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by the proposed project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized below: FACILITY COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD City Administrative Facilities - Yes Library - Yes Wastewater Treatment - Yes Parks .- See discussion below. Drainage - See discussion below. Circulation - See discussion below. Fire - Yes Open Space - See discussion below. Schools - Yes Sewer Service - See discussion below. Water Service - Yes ZC-341/CT 85-34/HL, 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19, 1989 PAGE 8 1. Parks At the present time, there exists a park shortage of 4.2 acres in the southwest quadrant, or Park District 3. This project has been conditioned to bring parks into conformance with the adopted performance standard by financing the construction of 4.2 acres to make up the current shortfall as well as the acreage required for 90 additional units within Park District 3. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer will be required to enter into a parks agreement with the City to fund necessary park land to bring parks into conformance with the standard. 2. Drainage This project meets the guidelines with respect to drainage as identified in the current Master Drainage Plan. The City is currently revising this Plan, therefore, the project has been conditioned whereby the applicant agrees to sign an agreement which requires him to pay any fees or construct new facilities as determined by the revised Plan. 3. Circulation The LFMP for Zone 6 indicated that intersection improvements would be necessary at Alga Road and El Camino Real within one to three years (1988-1990). The proposed project directly impacts this intersection. Even though the impact is minimal, the Growth Management Ordinance requires that as development occurs the performance standards must be maintained, therefore prior to recordation of the final map, a mitigation plan must be approved by the City Engineer to provide the needed facilities. The Pacific Rim and Von Der Ahe properties which are further along in processing, also impact this intersection and were also required to provide mitigation as deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. 4. Open Space The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan determined that Zone 6, as an infill zone and substantially developed, met or exceeded the open space requirements. The proposed project, therefore did not need to address this facility; however, the applicant has agreed to dedicate 13.2 acres as permanent open space and an additional 3 acres of open space easements on the perimeter slopes. (Exhibit "J") 5. Sewer This project will sewer utilizing the South Batiquitos pump station and force main. The Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan, along with the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan, identified a need to upgrade the pump station and corresponding force main when 200 additional EDUs utilize that line. The proposed project has been conditioned to provide necessary financing to ensure that this line can be upgraded and, prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will be required to provide pro rata share of funds to make this improvement. As proposed and conditioned, the project meets the adopted performance standard for all public facilities. ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDP 88-19 VIEWPOINT April 19', 1989 PAGE 9 G. SUMMARY The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan, the Zoning ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Hillside Ordinance, and the State Map Act. It has also addressed the environmental sensitivities of the site and has met or exceeded the adopted performance standards for all public facilities. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZC-341, CT 85-34, and HDP 88-19. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2834 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2831 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2833 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2832 5. Location Map 6. Zone Change Map 7. Background Data Sheet 8. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form 9. Reduced Exhibits "F" - "K", dated April 19, 1989 10. Reduced Tentative Map 11. Letter from Historical Preservation Commission, dated January 17, 1989 12. Exhibit "X", dated April 19, 1989 (Previously distributed) 13. Full size Exhibits "A" - "E", dated April 19, 1989 AL:lh January 26, 1989 ~" Exhibit "ND" ^9f ^flH^^ ^B^^ 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009-4859 W£l*5^ {B^f-ia"^^ \^ flf PLANNING DEPARTMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road, approximately 600 feet west of El Camino Real. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Change from Limited Control to R-l-7500 and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 40.5 acres into 90 single family lots with 13.2 acres reserved as permanent open space. Project also includes a Hillside Development Permit. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of Issuance. DATED: January 6, 1989 . _ MICHAEL J. HOLZfilLLER< CASE NO: CT 85-34/ZC-341/HDP 88-19 Planning Director APPLICANT: Viewpoint PUBLISH DATE: January 6, 1989 AML:af Mail, to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, 9m. 121, Sacramento, CA 95P~ - - 916/445-0613 Ik CE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM See NOTE Below:sen •.21 QUICK 1. Project Title Viewpoint 2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Adrienne Landers 3a. Street Address: 2075 las Palmas Drive 3c. County: San Diego Carlsbad 3d. Zip: 3b. City: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Community: Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-03. 04. 05 5a. Cross streets: Alga Road and El Camino Real 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 4c. Section: For Rural, 5b. Nearest Community: Twp.Range Carlsbad b. Airports Palomar c. Waterways CEQA 01 NOP 02 Early Cons 03 X Neg Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (if so, prior SCH HI NEPA 06 Notice of Intent 07 Envir. Assessment/ FONSI 08 Draft E1S OTHER 09 Information Only 10 .Final Document 11 Other: 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 01 General Plan Update 02 New Element 03 General Plan Amendment 04 Master Plan 05 Annexation 06 Specific Plan 07 Redevelopment 08 X Rezone 09 X Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. •Tract Map, etc.) 10 Use Permi t 11 Cancel Ag Preserve 12 Other 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 X Residential: Units 02 Office: Sq. Ft. 90 Acres 40 Acres Employees 03 Shopping/Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 04 Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres 05 Sewer: MGD 06 Water: MGD Employees 07 Transportation: Type 08 Mineral Extraction: Mineral 09 Power Generation: Wattage Type: 10 Other: 9 TOTAL ACRES;40 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 X Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 X Air Quality 04 X Archaeological/Historical/ Paleontological 05 X Coastal 06 Fire Hazard 07 X Flooding/Drainage .12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal J. 08 Geologic/Seismic 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 10 Minerals 11 X Noise 12 X Public Services 13 Schools 14 Septic Systems 15 X Sewer Capacity 16 X Soil Erosion 17 Solid Waste 18 Toxic/Hazardous 22 Water Supply 23 Wetland/Riparian 24 _X_ Wildlife 25 Growth Inducing 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 Incompatible Landuse 20 X Vegetation 27 _X_ Cumulative Effects 21 X Water Quality 28 Other State *Total $ 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Vacant - LC (Limited Control) 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS; 90 lot subdivision on 40 acres. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:LiL , ,(..-Date:12/21/88 NOTE; Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects if a SCH Number already exists for a project (e.g from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. REVIEWING AGENCIFS Resources Agency Air Resources Board Conservation Fish and Game _X Coastal Commission Caltrans District Caltrans - Planning Caltrans - Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Boating and Waterways Forestry State Water Resoruces Control Board - Headquarters Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region .Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) .Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) .Department of Water Resources .Reclamation Board .Solid Waste Management Board Colorado River Board . CTRPA (CalTRPA) . TRPA (Tahoe RPA) . Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm Parks and Recreation , Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Comm State Lands Comm Public Utilities Comm Energy Comm Food and Agriculture Health Services Statewide Health Planning (hospitals) Housing and Community Dev't Corrections General Services Office of Local Assistance Public Works Board Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR) Local Government Unit (OPR) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Other Date Received at SCH. Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: FOR SCH USE ONLY Catalog Number Proponent _ Consultant _ Contact Address Phone LOCATION MAP SWALLOW LN SITE VIEWPOINT City of Carlsbad ZC-341 CT 85-34 HDP 88-19 FEE: SL75.00 RECEIPT NO: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I (To Be Completed by APPLICANT) CASE NO: CT DATE : 3/28/88 Applicant: _ WESTANA _ ____^_ _ ___ Address of Applicant: 4241 JUTLAND DRIVE SUITE 215 _ __ _ _ _ SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 _ Phone Number: ( 619 ) 483-4880 _ Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Appl icant ) : DANIEL E. REHM. HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES _ GENERAL INFORMATION; Description of Project: VIEWPOINT-REVISED CARLSBAD TRACT 85-34: THR PROPOSFH SUBDIVISION OF APPROX. 40.5 ACRES TO CREATE A q4-HNFT ( <UNCl.F-FAMr > v SUBDIVISION. Project Location/Address: CURRENTLY VACANT PROPER ry LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALGA ROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF MIMOSA DRIVE. _ Assessor Parcel Number: 215 _ 050 - 3.4 AND 5. Zone of Subject Property: EXISTING ZONE: LC/PROI'OSF1:!) ZONE;R1 _ Proposed Use of Site: _ 93 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION. _ List all other applicable applications related to this project: REVISED CARLSBAD TRACT 85-34; ZONE CHANGE 341. Describe the acciviu/ area, including dist igui-.,ing natural and man- made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. THE PROJECT SIT~ is A CURRENTLY VACANT PROPERTY OF APPROX. AO.S ACREAS, CHARACTERIZED BY VARIABLE SLOPE STEEPNESS AND TOPOGRAPHIC FORMS. NEARLY 85% OF THE SITE HAS SLOPES 25% OR LESS IN STEEPNESS. OF THE REMAINING AREA, APPROX. 8.6% OF THE AREA IS BETWEEN 25-40% SLOPE AND 6.6% OF THE SITE EXCEEDS 40? STEEPNESS. EXISTING SLOPES FALL EITHER WEST TO SOUTHWEST OR EAST TO SOUTHEAST AWAY FROM THE HIGH POINT OF THE SITE WHICH IS LOCATED SLIGHTLY NORTHEAST FROM THE CENTER OF THE SITE. A 100 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT CONTAINING SDG&E HIGH VOLTAGE LINES CROSSES THE SITE IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION CROSSING THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE SITE. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. 1) SUBDIVISION DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE SOUTHERLY ORIENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS FOR OPTIMUM SOLAR ACCESS. 2) CUT AND FILL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BALANCE ONSITE THUS CONSERVING ENERGY OTHERWISE NECESSARY FOR TRANSPORT OF IMPORT OR EXPORT. 3) THE 'IRCULATION DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION IS THE MOST EFFICIENT PATTERN POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE, THUS MINIMIZING THE LENGTH OF VEHICULAR TRIPS WITHIN THE PROJECT.1C residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. APPROX. NO. OF UNITS APPROX. UNIT SIZE APPROX. SALE PRICE APPROX. HOUSEHOLD 93 L500-2000 SF. $ 130,000-$ 160,000 2.7 5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. N/A 6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A -2- I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMP^T ANALYSIS Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets ; necessary.} YES NO I) Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value? 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? YES 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? 16) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-YES ment of already developed areas? -3- NQ 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? Nn 6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? Nn 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other N0 parts of the county, state or nation? 10) Does the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a NO scarce natural resource? 11) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life? NO 12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area? NO. 13) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? NO 14) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's beaches? NO 15) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands? NO YES 17) Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? ——____ N0 18) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? YES NO 19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? N0 20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? NO 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? . 22) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? N0 23) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? 24) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of noise? YES 25) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? YES 26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? 27) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) _ NO 28) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? _ NO 29) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? YES (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards: 243600 CUT/237600 FILL. (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: 76.3 z . (c) Maximum height of cut orfill slopes: 30 FEET , 30) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? 31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? -4- II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature Person Completing Report Date Signed -5- -~ ~ Exhibit "Pli" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CT 85-34/ZC-341 DATE: 12/19/88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Westana Builders 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4242 Jutland Drive. Suite 215 San Dieao. CA 92117 (6191 483-4880 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: 9/5/85 (See attached memo) II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? NO 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- MAYBE NO 4- Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- YES NO 9. Natural Resources - will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? . X_ b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 2L 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X_ 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X_ 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X_ 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X_ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X_ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X_ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? , X_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X_ -4- YES MAYBE NQ 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? X_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 2L 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X_ b. Communications systems? X_ c. Water? X_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? X_ e. Storm water drainage? X. f. Solid waste and disposal? X_ 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X_ -5- YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontoloqical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed prolect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) Due to the hilly terrain of the subject site, the proposed project would be difficult to develop in a phased manner. Grading done in one area would impact another area. Additionally, phasing the development would not appreciably alter the environmental impacts. b) Other site designs for the proposed development are limited due to the existing site constraints - open space easement, steep slopes, and connection with existing roadways. Clustered development with small lots is an alternate site design; however, the biological impacts would not be any different. The negative visual impacts would most likely be much greater. Larger pads would be required and thus more grading. Such a project would also present a very dense appearance and be incompatible with approved development to the west. -6- VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (Continued) c) This alternative would involve a change in the density of the project and would result in a reduction of the number of residential units. As a consequence, the project would generate slightly less traffic, air quality emissions and noise. Effects associated with development onsite and the conversion of vacant land to urbanized uses would be essentially the same under this option. Adoption of this alternative could reduce effects on biological and visual resources by reducing the encroachment of the project into steep slopes and sensitive biological habitats. The current project has already been designed to avoid these areas as much as possible. A project redesign would not eliminate any significant environmental effects. Given the current zoning, General Plan designation, and open space dedication, a reduced project is not feasible. d) Alternative uses are not appropriate for this constrained site. Single family residential is the most flexible and site sensitive type of land use for this location. Single family residential is also consistent with the General Plan and LCP designation for this site. e) The proposed project is consistent with development occurring in the vicinity. This includes residential units to the south and west. The project, therefore, will be consistent with surrounding land uses. Due to existing or approved development, public facilities will be available to serve this site. f) Development on another site could possibly reduce the number of impacts created by the project; however, these impacts have been addressed in the attached mitigation measures. The site would still be designated for residential uses so that construction elsewhere would in effect only delay development of the site. g) The "no project" alternative would retain the site in its undeveloped state. The changes in land use, visual quality, biology, cultural resources and noise as well as incremental increases in traffic and air quality would not occur. Implementation of this alternative would not necessarily eliminate future development and associated environmental effects since the property is designated by the City for residential development and is surrounded by existing and future residential development. Given the continued growth in the City of Carlsbad, as well as in the entire region, the demand for new residential development will continue. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and as conditioned would not have any significant, adverse environmental effects. Therefore this alternative would result only in a delay of development of the site. -7- MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory findings of significance - a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. j< b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x c. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The applicant proposes the development of a 40.5 acre site with 90 single-family residential dwelling units. A proposed open space lot, including the SDG&E easement, would retain approximately 13.2 acres (of the total 40.5 acres) in natural open space in the western portion of the site, with approximately 3 additional acres of open space easements placed on the slopes throughout the proposed development. The average proposed lot size is 8,800 square feet, resulting in a development density of approximately 3.1 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre of land. Access to the site would be from Alga Road to the south and from the -8- DTfCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) future southern extension of Mimosa Street to the site's northern boundary. Internal circulation would include the project's extension of Mimosa Street south to Alga Road, an internal loop road with two connections to Mimosa Street,, and three small cul-de-sacs. A landscaping plan has been proposed for all manufactured slopes of the project. The exterior slopes which are contiguous to the open space area will provide a transitional appearance from the existing natural habitat to semi-natural species along the bottom of the slope and ornamental species from the middle to the top of the slope. The slopes on the interior of the development will be primarily planted with a mixture of ornamental species. The preliminary grading plan proposes 213, 000 cubic yards of cut and fill, resulting in no export material. Manufactured slopes of a 2 to 1 gradient would be created in a number of areas onsite, with a maximum slope height of 30 feet. The proposed grading plan would result in the majority of the development concentrated in the eastern and central portions of the site, with the open space lot situated to the west of the residences. The southwestern boundary of residential development would be the SDG&E easement. Some grading would occur in the southwestern corner of the site along Alga Road to accommodate the construction of Alga Road. 1. Earth The proposed development will regrade the existing north-south ridge by lowering it approximately 20 feet. The design typically proposes terraced pads following the general terrain. This is consistent with the City's grading and hillside ordinances which have been implemented in the project. Any increase in runoff will be desilted by way of temporary basins and erosion control practices. No unstable earth conditions or unique geologic structures are located on the project site or general vicinity. 2. Air The project would contribute to the incremental increase in local and regional emissions; however, the residential buildout of this site is planned for in the City's General Plan. It has also been included in the residential buildout of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. The emissions generated by this development have been anticipated and would not adversely affect the attainment of regional air quality standards. Construction emissions are considered short-term and insignificant. -9- DISCUSSTQN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 3. Water Development of the project would create impervious surfaces onsite which would reduce absorption rates and increase surface runoff and runoff velocities. To accommodate this runoff, when development occurs the project will be conditioned to install drainage facilities, and slope erosion control measures. As identified in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6, all existing drainage systems within this zone are adequate to serve the residents and protect property in this area. The subject site will connect with an underground pipe system and empty into an existing master planned desiltation basin which discharges into Batiquitos Lagoon. 4. Plant Life The proposed project would develop 27.3 of the 40.5 acres within the project site. There are no rare or endangered plant species observed on the property. Identified on the subject site are four sensitive plants species which will be affected by the proposed development. This represents an incremental but insignificant impact to the regional populations of these plant species. The project site contains 6.2 acres of land with slopes of 25% or greater which contain mixed chaparral, oak woodland, and disturbed areas. Of this 6.2 acres, 1.9 acres would be impacted, however, 0.4 acres are already disturbed. This loss is offset by the retention of a much larger 13.2 acre open space system onsite. Three-tenths of an acre of oak woodland has already been removed by the construction of Alga Road. The proposed landscape plan would introduce ornamental species onto a site currently containing native vegetation. The plan would place native species directly adjacent to all open space areas. The planted native species would transition into mixed species and then into purely ornamental species. This gradual transition would serve as a buffer between native and non-native plant life, reducing any potential impacts to below a level of significance. 5. Animal Life Development of the site would remove some animal habitat; however, retention of the open space onsite would serve as a functional habitat for species in the project vicinity. In addition, reduced numbers would be expected as larger predators are excluded and urban influences take effect. Therefore, the reduction of the animal life onsite does not represent a significant impact. -10- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) Although development of the project would reduce some of the wildlife habitat onsite, the retention of the 13.2 acre open space lot would serve as a functional habitat, thus reducing the adverse impacts to a level of insignificance. 6. Noise The traffic generated by the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the community noise levels along Alga Road and in the project vicinity. Community buildout would increase noise levels over the 60 dB(A) CNEL standard in those areas onsite immediately adjacent to Alga Road. The incorporation of noise walls and balconies along those areas affected by the significant traffic noise would reduce onsite noise levels to below a level of significance. 7. Light and Glare The development of the Viewpoint site would introduce street and residential lighting and reflective surfaces (windows) on a site that is currently undeveloped. However, residential homes exist directly south of the site, the Pacific Rim project is being developed adjacent to the site to the west, and a commercial/post office/city library complex is proposed directly to the east. Because there are some street lights in the area, there will be more light and glare in the future once the adjacent complex and Pacific Rim are built out. The project would incrementally, and insignificantly, contribute to light and glare in the project vicinity. 8. Land Use The proposed project will develop a currently vacant site with 90 single-family dwelling units and an open space lot. Although, this is an alteration of the existing land use, residential development of the site at a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre is in conformance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The rezone of the site would place the zoning of the site in conformance with the General Plan designation, therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur. 9. Natural Resources Implementation of the proposed project will incrementally contribute to the depletion of fossil fuel and other natural resources required for construction of the project. This is not regarded as a significant impact in view of the limited scale of the project. 10. Risk of Upset The proposed project, due to its residential nature, does not present a significant increase in the use of chemicals, pesticides, or other hazardous materials. -11- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 11. Population The proposed project will incrementally increase the population in the region. However, such a development is planned for the site, and the proposed density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre is below the site's growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The additional population is below that which has been anticipated and would not represent a significant impact on population and growth in the region. 12. Housing This project would create an incremental demand for additional housing. The City's Growth Management Program ensures that as additional housing is developed, all required public facilities and services are provided concurrent with need. In accordance, no impacts are anticipated. 13. Transportation/Circulation The proposed development will generate additional vehicular traffic but the estimated 900 ADTs is not considered to be significant. This generation was included in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zones 6 and 19 to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. The direct impacts of this development on adjacent circulation systems will be minimal. Mimosa Street will be extended or improved through this project to the north to eventually connect to Dove Lane. This connection will improve circulation in the general vicinity. 14. Public Services The proposed project was included in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. The public facility fees/conditions imposed in this plan area will be used to mitigate any impacts upon public services within the project vicinity. 16. Utilities The public facility fees required to be paid by this project will be used to adequately mitigate any impacts upon public utilities within the project vicinity. 17. Human Health The proposed residential project will not create any health hazards as a result of development of the subject site. 18. Aesthetics The proposed grading plan for the project would create manufactured slopes which would range up to 30 feet in height. In the eastern -12- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) portion of the property, these slopes would be above existing manufactured slopes of up to 20 feet in height, resulting in a 50 foot artificial slope along the eastern site boundary that would be visible from El Camino Real to the east. However, buildout of the commercial complex between the road and the Viewpoint property and the proposed landscaping of the slope would ultimately obstruct the view of this slope. Views of the site from the south would not be significantly altered, although the 30 foot manufactured slope would be visible to motorists along Alga Road and Mimosa Street. Views from the Pacific Rim project to the west would not change appreciably. No significant impacts are anticipated. 19. Recreation The project will be required to pay park-in-lieu fees' as a means of contributing towards the fulfillment of park requirements in the southwest quadrant of the City. 20. Archaeological/Historical/Paleontoloqical Development of the Viewpoint project would result in the direct disturbance of prehistoric site SDi-4358 (W-108) and indirectly affect the portion of SDi-4358 (W-108) located to the north of the property. This disturbance is considered a potentially significant impact to cultural resources. A data recovery program will be initiated for the sites, and these significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a) The biological resource mitigation program that is proposed as part of this project will set aside 13.2 acres as permanent open space as a means of preserving the quality of the environment and the more sensitive plant species located on the subject site. b) The project helps implement one of the long term goals of the General Plan by providing an "urban low-medium density residential area characterized by single-family homes - 0-4 dwelling units an acre." c) The impacts created by the proposed project are not significant and will be mitigated through the conditions of approval imposed on the project as well as those listed in Section V of this document. d) The project should have both direct and indirect positive effects on humans by implementing the City's residential and open space goals. -13- w IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: .1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. _I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Date V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) All submittals to the City of Carlsbad to fulfill the conditions of this mitigated Negative Declaration shall reference: a) the project file number; b) this Negative Declaration's State Clearinghouse number and c) the specific mitigation number listed below. Conditions; 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate "coastal sage scrub" type plant materials in the landscape palette along the site's easterly slope. The intent of this planting is to design a corridor of "naturalized" biological habitat which is aesthetically pleasing, controls soil erosion, and is not a fire hazard. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will enter into a common maintenance agreement with the adjacent property owner to the east for maintenance of the slope between the two properties. The applicant will also agree to install an irrigation system inside the subject site and provide a stub-out for the irrigation system of the easterly property owner. -14- MITIGATING MEASURES (continued) 3. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant will agree to designate the westerly 13.2 acres as permanent open space. 4. Noise To mitigate the exterior first and second floor impacts the following measures would be required on Lots 44-47, and Lot 1: a) A 4-foot wall or berm located along the top of the slope at the rear of Lot 47. b) A 5-foot wall or berm located along the top of the slope at the rear of Lot 46. c) A 6-foot wall or berm located along the top of the slope at the rear of Lots 44 and 45. d) A 6.5-foot wall or berm located along the top of the slope in the side yard of Lot 1. e) A 7-foot balcony barrier would be required on Lots 1, 45, 46, and 47. 5. Paleontology a) Prior to any grading at the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact portions of the Santiago Formation. b) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the Santiago Formation, it may be necessary to collect large samples of matrix for laboratory processing through fine screens.. c) The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. d) All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. e) Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director. -15- MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) 6. Archaeology a) Prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever comes first, the applicant shall perform archaeological mitigation on the subject site as detailed in the Data Recovery Plan prepared by Westec Services and dated July, 1988. b) All archaeological material recovered during the project shall be described in a professional report which receives sufficient distribution to insure its availability to future researchers. A copy of this report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the occupancy of any units. c) All archaeological material recovered during the project shall be donated to a local institution which has proper facilities for curation, display, and use by interest scholars and the general public. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall process a Site Development Plan. This plan shall address building elevations, building height, and distance of buildings from tops of slopes. 8. Prior to approval of any grading or clearing permit, the applicant shall fence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director, all areas to be preserved. The preservation areas and fence details shal-1 be delineated on the grading plan. VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature/ -16- Page 1 of 3 PROJECT NAME: APPROVAL DATE: Viewpoint FILE NUMBERS: ZC-341 /CT 85-34 1-4-89 EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.:PC RESO 2834 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to Mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that thla mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3160 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Type Monitoring Dept.Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks •yoo Landscape Plan Open space maintenance program submitted to Planning Director. Designate westerly 13.2 acres as open space All perimeter slopes landscaped. 4 ft. wall/berm Lot 47; 5 ft. Lot 46; 6 ft. Lots 44 6 45; and 6.5 ft. Lot 1 respectively. 7 ft. balcony barrier Lots 1, 45, 46 & 47. Planning Planning • Prior to issuance of grading permit. Prior to issuance of grading permit Prior to approval of final map. Immediately following grading activity. Prior to occupancy of units on designated lots. cr> —« O o o30 c o o 7*. Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans * Mhen mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation - When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation meaaure, or for other information. m vo C" RD-AppendxP Page 2 of 3 PROJECT NAME: APPROVAL DATE: Viewpoint FILE NUMBERS: ZC-341/CT 85-34 1-4-89 EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: PC RESO 2834 The following environmental mitigation measures were Incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to Mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3160 (Public Resources Code Section 21061.6). Mitigation Measure Type Monitoring Dept.Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 70o Retain paleontologist - determine impact on Santiago Formation. Paleontologist - in- spections 6 salvage fossils Archeological mitigation per Data Recovery Plan Report describing archeological material recovered. Planning Planning Planning Planning Prior to any grading. Periodic reports to Planning Director Prior to approval of final map or issuance of grading permit. To Planning Director prior occupancy of any units. cr> o o70 ft Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. * Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other Information. CO10 RD-AppendxP Page 3 of 3 PROJECT NAME: ^ APPROVAL DATE: Viewpoint FILE NUMBERS:ZC-341/CT 85-34 1-4-89 EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.:PC RESO 2834 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21061.6). Monitoring Verified Mitigation Measure Type Dept. Shown on Plans Implementation Remarks Fence all areas to be preserved. Prior to approval of grading/clearing permit and delineate on grading plan. •joO V ) O:r o Explanation of Headings Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing statue of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-AppendxP CO MEMORANDUM DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1988 TO: FILE FROM: PROJECT PLANNER, ADRIENNE LANDERS SUBJECT: CT 85-34, VIEWPOINT, EIA PART II When the Viewpoint project was submitted, an Environmental Assessment Form Part II was completed by staff. Since that time a number of changes in City policy occurred which necessitated a revision and updating of the responses in the Part II form. These changes contributed to revisions of the project as well as delays in processing. Some of these changes included the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the Zone 6 Plan, the Hillside Ordinance, the proposed noise standards, and the Zone 19 park dedication. For these reasons, staff determined it would be appropriate to revise and update the previously prepared Part II. AML:af ct8534.mem LOCATION (RLM) LC (RLM) SITE City of Carted R- 1 (RMH) R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RLM) 0-4 RD-M MULT) RESIDENTIAL (RM) 4-8 (RMH) 8-15 () GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS VIEWPOINT D C-1.C-2 COMMERCIAL (C) CO. COUNTY ZC-341 CT 85-34 HDP 88-19 "ONE CHANGE MAP i'i'«*^^<H4'444*"*i"^t» """•"•"• *•"«"•"•">"•"• ~f't~t*t','tit ..>!•• .«•.'. ALGA fID SITE City of Carlsbad DR-t SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RLM) 0-4 C-1.C-2 COMMERCIAL (C) RD-M MULTI RESIDENTIAL (RM) 4-8 (RMM) 8- IB COUNTY () GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS VIEWPOINT ZC-341 CT 85-34 HDP 88-19 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 341/CT 85-34/HDP 88-19 APPLICANT: VIEWPOINT REQUEST AND LOCATION: ZONE CHANGE FROM LC TO R-1-7500-Q AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 40.5 ACRES INTO 90 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. ALSO A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ALGA ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL APPROX. 1000' FROM EL CAHINO REAL. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Soathwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26. Township 12 South. Range 4 West, San Bernadino Meridian. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APN: 215-050-03. 04. 05 Acres 40.5 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 90 SFD lots and 1 Open Space Lot. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 3.2 GROWTH CONTROL POINT Density Proposed 3.1 Existing Zone LC Proposed Zone R-1-7500-Q Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site LC VACANT North LC RANCH/SFD South R-l-7500 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS East RP-Q/C-2 VACANT COMMERCIAL SITE West PC VACANT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PUBLIC FACILITIES CARLSBAD/ School District CARLSBAD Water COSTA REAL Sewer CARLSBAD EDUs 90 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date 3/29/88 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DATED JANUARY 6. 1989 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.: VIEWPOINT - ZC-341/CT 85-34/HDP 88-10 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: _6 GENERAL PLAN: RLM ZONING: PROPOSED R-1-7500-Q DEVELOPER'S NAME: WES MUDGE ADDRESS: 4241 JUTLAND DRIVE. SUITE 215. SAN DIEGO. CA 92117 PHONE NO.: 438-4880 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-050-03. 04. 05 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 40.5 ACRES 90 PUS A. City Administrative Facilities; Demand in Square Footage = 333.6 B. Library; Demand in Square Footage = 178 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) D. Parks; Demand in Acreage = .67 E. Drainage; Demand in CFS = 12CFS/33CFS Identify Drainage Basin = DE/DF (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation; Demand in ADTs = 900 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire; Served by Fire Station No. = 12 _ H. Open Space; Acreage Provided - 13.2 25 Elem. I. Schools; (Demands to be determined by staff) 25 Elem. 7 Jr. High 14 High Sch J. Sewer; Demand in EDUs - 90 Identify Sub Basin - 6(A) (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water; Demand in GPD - 19.800 GPP s • 1 an u 4 _l < 01 \" \O \ z ip ^((J _J01 If lit 1 I EL CAMINO REAL LANE CONFIGURATION EXHIBIT FOR PLAZA PASEO REAL CARLSBAD RETAIL ASSOC. mXI3 -n EXHIBIT G 4/19/89 .//••" -.y - •• " - ;-,. I J•':.-; - .-.-»: I *-tjm*±-• j. {.. -r-r • • M ' •• - r ;-i \..*• i,-1 Undevelopable Acreage AcresLEGEND 0 • 25% SLOPi 2.7 HOt slopes or greater 3.5 1/2 of 25-itOI slopes 3.1 Power easement 2.0 Woodland habitat 7T 10.5 Gross acres 11.3 Undeveloped acreage 29.2 Net Acres25 • 40% SLOPE 40% 4 GREATER SLOPE 90 units r 29.2 = 3.1 DUs/Ac FIGURE Slope Analysis of the Existing Topography of the Viewpoint Site WESTEC Services, Inc. CUT & FILL MAP VIEWPOINT V VICINITY MAP MLCMAM AlH^fMT HOAO F1LI_ 41.4*4 C.». TOTALS CUT : 251.063 C.r. FILL : 205.232 C.Y. EXPORT : 45,831 C.V. FILL: 71 C.T. GENERAL NOTES L TOTAL AMEA WlTHJN THE SUBDunSKM HUNOMIT M •« I A.C. *. I- CUt AMI FU. SLOPtft WKV « il UNLtM DIMCA-flU bOwN. i ACMAL rowxyu^Mt BE ZCMTM ACMM. DATED «-»-•* coMicim At 2 FOOT INTERVALS. . OfUUNMO SHOWN rCMON IS mCLMMAAV AM) SU«>WCT TD MCVWOM (XMMQ THE INM. OiMH moCESS. , AU. CUWl «UJ» IHOMM *ME AmtUlMATC. , AU. LOT OMtMtKJMB AMD A WAS •HOWH *M A » C.T. c.v. • TOTAL rnaarn OF SCHVICES AMD aunwcrt: M-IN1 SCWtM Of» STOMu C OAS AMO ELEC1MC COUNTY OF MM CHCOO FLOOD CCMTMX C SOG.I E. rYmr*" i«**o SCHOOL CKSTWCT LEGAL DESCRIPTION a SOUTH NAMQE • W«ST, SAM aCPNMMO l*JtfW<. H T>« COUXTV OF SAM acca run OF C LEGEND **opcsa> fiOMCMwM wo smjcn*cs atwiwi nomoHAM mnu CUT & FILL MAP VIEWPOINT WESTANA imnrt^**Mf 4241 JUTLAND ORIVe. STE. 2U UN OICOO. CALIFOflNIA 121" SCAL«> f »0 27JAMUAHT 1M> V.O.* «4*-1 SOUTH NORTH 200 I a "•T.-*>• "*'••'T SECTION -A-A- 300 200 EAST 300 200 WEST '. j e ** 5 __ * ^^-~~ — "~ I Jf^ff ^5 < *: I i ^ --!»,.-.« ^««0 5 « ••«./' _ f - ' " . -— _o»«Tf ^-^ ^--m-Jl ' ~ i«i"«j,~- — - — ^| I -i I L--' « • S "^^ SECTION "B-B" 200 3OO 200 WEST -4-^ EAST 3OO •- 200 SECTION -C-C' CD«D CROSS SECTION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT VIEWPOINT V VICINITY MAP X I1 • iK— \LA C01TA AWE. \ GENERAL NOTES l TOTAL AACA WITMM THt SUMMVtMM BOlMMJlT a M » A.C. > J. CUT AND FILL SLOFC3 WU. flt XI IM.CM OT>«lltMK CNCMM. 1 AEftAL TOrOOAAFwv M ZEMTH ACMAL DATED O-«-«X COMTDIMS AT * FOOT WTf H SJ-. DATUM. * CMACNNO SHOWM WON IS FWLMMAftV AM) SUBJECT TO MVlVQN OkMlG TMC FVMt OCMM MOCESS. * AU. CUtVC flAM IMCMTN AAC AfMOtWArC. * ALL LOT OMCNSIQNft AMD AM AS Sr*O««H AW VFNOBMATC, cuT-nio** c.f. Fu.-mru C.T. CKKWT'MMf C.T. * f\mX U*VCCk AMI CMTMCTt. •«»-4**-f«l KMffM Om OF CANLMAO •«»-«>*-fr» MATfH OtT OF CAIUM0 •f»~tM~r»M STOM4 GMAMAOC O^MTV OF (AM OEOO FLOOD CON D •W-H)-4Ilt OA» ANO Et-CCTMC SA (Li L CABLE TCLEVI9HX ' M C**-£ IrtW" FWE PNOTECTKW Qtr O* CAHLSAAO SCHOOLS CAKiAAO l**f*0 iOKJO. QISI(WCT a* LiFt i MM roc* it 19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION »• Kiun«Acr OUMMTOI OF TV* MOHTMMUT KMW»«* O SOUTH MMK 4 WCSI. Wl MJX V OF SAMOttflO, SUIE OF CALVOMA LEGEND ITAI««» • * | r i •AMtAw.. .T MM /MmflUL «U HAtBTAIMIB •* MLLMAM HOI»f ATTIHUATlOM WALL m =^;CD OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT VIEWPOINT % o>co WESTKNA ~~* <*"•*'• n\ juriAj.0 omvt. >« '" SAM OlfCO. CAUK»«IA •»"' JAN. 27, !••• W.O.» »«4 1 Typical Section Western Edge Key Map **• VCWPOMT. CT 96-34 P1«nl Mnwiai on O* * apMmwM. «•• not* 0. Plant Patette Typical Section, Crib Walt ix.t Notes: <D Western Slope Treatment CARLSBAD RETAIL ASSOCIATESim^,^^[^\m^m TENTATIVE TRACT WAP VIEWPOINT XV VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES I TOrAL AMIA WTTMM TH* 1, CUT AMD Fix KOKf •OUMMMV • **.» JLC.* E tSMTH A1MAL 0*T*0 V-«-«X GOMTOlM AT I *OOT *- ALL CUMVC MAM »*O»»»« AM A • AU LOT OBKNMMf AMD AJKA* »«OWN AM AW^OKMAH t. ^u«uc icmnc*! AMD ounwrn MWW . CITTOr MATED CITT w ITOMH OKAMAIM COtMTT QA» AND CLCCTMC U <U t OF •** OCOO AOOO COvTKK. LEGAL DESCRIPTION XW1KACT CUHtTBI OF «*^ V IQLfm MMX * ««ST. tSN HPVWCMO MBHMM M IM »WiaBaa C«IK ff CALfOMA. LEGEND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VIEWPOINT •»TAN* »».>/.•••«»«/ 4241 JUTVANO OfttVC, •AM OIIOO, C1UFOM JANUARY 17, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION VIEWPOINT - ARCHEOLOGICAL MITIGATION ,,„ »';'. i i |'l ' I The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the archeological site mitigation required by the City for the Viewpoint project. The mitigation required complies with what we believe to be adequate preservation in archeology. 'JU ROY BLACKFORD Chairperson RB:PC:ec INFORMATION ITEM DATE: JANUARY 20, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO CT 84-41/PUD-77 - ALGA HILLS I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission APPROVE the revisions as being substantial conformance with the original approval. II. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On April 23, 1986, the Planning Commission approved CT 84- 41/PUD-77 (Alga Hills) located at the southeast corner of Alga Road and Alicante Street. As shown on Exhibit "A", the project included a total of 299 detached units (267 minimum 3500 square foot small lots and 32 larger custom lots) . The project also included 41,000 square feet of common recreation area, distributed throughout, and a circulation system composed of private streets. The project applicant is proposing the following revisions. (See Exhibit "B".) (1) Reducing the number of dwelling units from 299 to 242. This will reduce the project density from 4.67 dvi/acre to 3.78 du/acre. (2) Increasing the lot sizes from a minimum of 3500 square feet to a minimum of 3825 square feet. With this increase in lot size, the applicant is also proposing an increase in floor area, per residential product. (3) Reducing the total common recreation area from 41,000 square feet to 38,000 square feet. However, even though the total common recreation area will be reduced, the actual common recreation area per lot will be increased from 137 square feet per lot to 158 square feet per lot in that the number of dwelling units has been reduced. In addition, because the residential lots have been increased in size, the amount of private recreation area (rear or side yard) per lot will be increased with the proposed revision. ALGA HILLS JANUARY 20, 1988 PAGE 2 ___ (4) Widening the internal private streets from 26 feet (curb to curb) to 32 feet in compliance with the revised Planned Unit Development Standards. In addition, with this requested redesign, the applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis, evaluating traffic noise impacts along Alga Road. (See Exhibit "C".) The project applicant has agreed to incorporate the following noise mitigation measures into the project in order to mitigate potential traffic noise impacts along Alga Road: (D (2) (3) Construct a continuous five foot high masonry wall along the northern boundary of the project. Implement appropriate construction techniques mitigate second story noise impacts, and to Increase specimen landscaping along Alga and Alicante Roads. (See Exhibit "D") In addition, all future buyers of lots or units located along Alga Road will be required to sign a letter (See Exhibit "E") acknowledging potential traffic noise impacts from Alga Road, and that the City has no future responsibility to mitigate these potential impacts. Overall, the project is essentially the same but reduced in intensity. Since this proposed redesign will: (1) reduce the number of dwelling units, (2) increase lot sizes, (3) increase common and private recreation area per unit, (4) widen internal streets, and (5) mitigate traffic noise impacts, (6) provide greater compatibility with existing homes in the area, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find the changes in substantial conformance with the original project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit "A" (Approved Site Plan) 2. Exhibit "B" (Proposed Redesigned Site Plan) 3. Exhibit "C" (Acoustical Analysis) 4. Exhibit "D" (Revised Landscaping Plan) 5. Exhibit "E" (Acknowledgement RE: Alga Road Traffic Noise) 6. Staff Report, dated April 23, 1986 CDD:dm 12/10/87 The Fieldstone Company, 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121, (619) 546-8081 December 29, 1987 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 To whom it nay concern: Ihe Fieldstone Company hereby agrees to abide by the noise study done by RBCON on August 3, 1987 for Alga Hills. The Fieldstone Company will install a five foot solid masonry wall in place of the two foot walls where designated at Fieldstone's expense. Sincerely, Jim Hansen Regional Manager