The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLFMP 87-18; Zone 18; Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)LFMP 87-18 ZONE 18 FINANCE PLAN (GUARANTEES ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES) APNNos.: 221-012-10-00 Status: APPROVED Application date: August 31,1987 ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD ^ 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5621 .DATE.T >r:/ ACCOUNT MO.DESGRIPTIQN AMOU0007 08/31 0101 OSHisc. J RECEIPT NO.TOTAL 7 me City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: August 21,1996 Application complete date: July 16, 1996 Project Planner: Brian Hunter Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik SUBJECT: LFMP 87-18(A) ZONE 18 FINANCE PLAN - Request for approval of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan and a Finance Plan for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3973, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an amendment to Local Facilities Management Zone 18, to update the plan and to add a facility financing plan based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is being amended to make it current, so as to reflect changes in facility demand, supply, and financing, that have occurred since its adoption in 1991. In addition, a Finance Plan is being added to provide the funding mechanisms to meet City requirements for all of the needed facilities identified within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND A Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18 was adopted by the City Council on March 5, 1991 without a financing plan. As specified in the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 212.90.110), "Contents of Local Facilities Management Plans," a facility financing plan establishing the methodology for funding the facilities and improvements identified within the LFMP shall be prepared. Since the adoption of the Zone 18 LFMP in 1991, a number of changes have occurred that will impact the required facilities for Circulation, Sewer, Drainage, and Water facilities. These changes can be discriminated by changes that affect facility demand and changes that affect facility supply and financing. There are three changes that affect facility demand; a new population generation rate, a new residential phasing schedule, and the adoption of a revision to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The 1990 Census figures for the San Diego area indicate that the population generation rate has decreased locally from 2.471 to 2.3178 persons per dwelling unit. This reduction will result in less existing demand for city administrative, library, and park facilities which are population LFMP 87-18(A) ZONE 18 FINANCE PLAN August 21,1996 PAGE 2 based performance standards. As city administrative and library facilities were found to be adequate using the higher figures, no further analysis is required at this time. The Citywide residential phasing approved in the Zone 18 LFMP assumed build out of the zone in the year 1996. Since the need for facilities in the LFMP was based on unrealized development schedules, some facilities identified in that plan are no longer needed by Zone 18 as had been originally projected. Although the revised phasing schedule impacts the analyses for city administration, library, and wastewater treatment capacity, the change does not impact the conclusions, for these facilities since they were found to be adequate under the previous accelerated development schedule. Although no further discussion of these facilities is presented, it should be noted that public facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards and will be provided concurrent with demand.. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment was approved on July 27, 1993. Due to the increased level of detail proposed within the master plan, many of the facility requirements of the original zone plan projections were revised to facilities actually needed to serve the proposed development. This finance plan addresses all the facility and phasing requirements as proposed within the master plan document. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) associated with the approval of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan changed the land uses originally analyzed by the Zone 18 LFMP. The GPA decreased the proposed dwelling unit count for the zone from 2,091 to 1,982. This finance plan is based on the current General Plan land use designations. The following changes have affected the facility supply and financing and are reflected within the Finance Plan; the formation of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1, the approval of the revised Master Drainage Master Plan, the adoption of the revised Potable Water Master Plan and the Reclaimed Water Master Plan for the Carlsbad Municipal Water Districts, and the approval of the Rancho Carrillo Parks Agreement. Community Facilities District No. 1 was formed in June of 1991. In the Zone 18 LFMP, the financing of the facilities identified within the Community Facilities District were attributed to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) or Traffic Impact Fee program. The Zone 18 properties will annex into the Community Facilities District No. 1 as a condition of approval of any entitlement. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed Finance Plan reflects the amended sections which update the Plan since its adoption in 1991. It is in conformance with the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and related policies, standards, and guidelines because the Finance Plan provides acceptable financial guarantees for all required public facilities, assuring that the facilities will be in place at time of need. The complete Financing Plan is provided as Exhibit "A". The financing provisions for the various facilities are outlined below: Facility City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Financing Mechanism CFD No. 1 and PFF CFD No. land PFF Sewer Connection Fees LFMP 87-18(A) ZONE 18 riNANCE PLAN August 21, 1996 PAGE 3 Facility Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Financing Mechanism Rancho Carrillo Parks Agreement Assessment District and Developer Funding Assessment District and Developer Funding No Financing Mechanism Required Property Owners Funded Acceptance of school site and approval of school finance plan Developer Funding Assessment District and Developer Funding V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the approval of the LFMP financing plan does not constitute a project pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, the Planning Director has determined that the environmental effects of the LFMP update have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3973 2. Zone 18 LFMP Amendment (LFMP 87-18(A)) Preface 3. Exhibit "A", Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Finance Plan, dated July 16, 1996 (previously distributed). EH:kr APPLI^-ION SUBMITTAL DATE OCTOBbit 5. 1990 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION SUBJECT: LFMP 18-LOCAL FACIUTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3175 recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution 3176 recommending APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan 18. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND As shown on Exhibit "A" Zone 18 is located in the southeastern and northeastern quadrants of the City adjacent to the Cities of Vista and San Marcos. As shown on Exhibit "B" Zone 18 is primarily residential. Of the Plan's 906 total acres 504 are residential. General Plan residential densities range from low-medium (0-4 du/ac) to high-medium (8-15 du/ac). Nonresidential General Plan land uses include 138 acres of Open Space, 145 acres of mixed use planned industrial/office, 23 acres of commercial, and 71 acres of industrial. III. ANALYSIS 1. Does the proposed Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 fulfill the purpose, intent, and specific requirements of Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management Program)? 2. Is the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 consistent with and does it implement the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan? LOCAL FACILITIES MI AGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 DECEMBER 19, 1990 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION The Growth Management Program requires that a Local Facilities Management Plan be prepared for each Management Zone in order to show how compliance will be maintained with the City's adopted public facility performance standards as development occurs. The first step in this process requires determining the buildout development potential in the zone. The buildout projection for this zone is consistent with the methodology contained in the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the provisions of Proposition E which was approved by the citizens of Carlsbad on November 4, 1986. The plan phases the buildout development of the zone based on estimates of yearly development activity. The phasing estimate is consistent with generalized phasing assumptions used in the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan. From these buildout and phased development projections, yearly phased demands for public facilities may be projected and buildout demands identified. The plan analyzes eleven (11) public facilities. This analysis compares the projected public facility demands with the available and planned supply of public facilities to ensure compliance with the adopted performance standards. Where demands for facilities exceed supply, the plan proposes the necessary mitigation to maintain conformance with the standard. This analysis is consistent with both the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan and the Growth Management Program. The Open Space Advisory Committee has reviewed the plan for conformance with the adopted Open Space program. The following chart provides a brief summary of the eleven public facilities analyzed in the plan. LOCAL FACILITIES NL AGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 DECEMBER 19, 1990 PAGES ZONE 18 BUILDOUT PUBLIC FACnJTffiS SUMMARY CHART FACILITY City Administrative Facilities Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection Water Distribution LFMP 18 CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED PERFORMANCE STANDARD Existing and planned facilities will meet the adopted performance standard through buildout. Existing and planned facilities will meet the adopted performance standard through buildout. Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard through the year 2000. Park Facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures through buildout. Drainage facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation through buildout. Circulation facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation through buildout. Fire facilities meet the adopted performance standard through buildout. Existing open space meets the adopted performance standard for existing and approved projects. An ongoing work program will assure the open space performance standard through buildout. Existing and planned school facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation through buildout. Sewer facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation through buildout. Water facilities meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation through buildout. LOCAL FACILITIES M/"XGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 DECEMBER 19, 1990 PAGE 4 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a public facilities planning document. The plan establishes parameters that ensure Carlsbad's public facility performance standards are met and public facilities inadequacies mitigated to accomplish this goal. The plan for informational purposes occasionally estimates locations and costs of public facility improvements. The plan fully recognizes that complete environmental review will be necessary once specific public facility improvements are established. Therefore, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on October 4, 1990. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3175 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3176 3. Exhibits - "A" - Citywide Map of Local Facility Management Zones "B" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 18 General Plan Land Use Map "C" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 18 Zoning Map BH:km November 20, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 18 DATE: September 27. 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LFMP 18 2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2386 Faraday Avenue. #120 Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619)438-1465 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 30. 1987 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES (sig) YES NO (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? X 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (rig) (imig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES YES (insig) NO 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X X JL-. -4- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 33. 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. X 34. 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.) 35. 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. Traditionally, the developer in maximizing their capital return passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the La Costa Area. It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. -6- ANALYSIS OF 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. a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities. b) The project is a public facility information and planning study. c) The project is a public facility information and planning study. d) Uses for the area covered by the plan are based on the existing General Plan. e) The plan considers phased development. f) The project is a public facility information and planning study. g) As the project is a public facility information and planning study, the no project alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The no project alternative would therefore cause the most detriment. -7- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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. Signature Date Planning Director BH:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE") ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -8- ZONE 18 EXHIBIT "A"A"City of Carlsbad LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN LOCATION MAP LEGEND RESIDENTIAL RLM Low-Medum Density (0-4 DU/Ac.) RM Medum Density (4-8 DU/Ac.) RMH Medum-tfgh Density (8-15 DU/Ac.) NON-RESDENTIAL RC Recreation Commercial C Community Commercial O Professional and Related PI Planned Industrial E Elementary School OS Open Space ORCULATION •• •• ™ Prime Arterial •••••• Major Arterial ••••• Cotector Street fMJT Special Treatment Area ZONE 18 EXHIBIT "B'City of Ciriskid LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN LEGEND P-M Planned Industrial P-C Planned Community (Master Plan #139) "•• Proposed Road ZONE 18 EXHIBIT "C" LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Cirislud ZONING 910158 Notice of Determination To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk Comity of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 From: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Robert D. Zumw*!t(c MA 138-1161 n 0 8 1991 Project No.: LFMP 18 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 Project Title 88082415 Brian Hunter (619)438-1161x4468 State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Lead Agency Contact Person Area Code/Telephone/Extension Palomar Airport Road at eastern boundary of City (Carrillo Ranch & Carlsbad Raceway). San Diego County Project Location (include county) Project Description:The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on March 5,1991 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project. 1. The project wfll not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project 5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval are available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. PLANNING DIRECTOR MICHAEL J. HO Date received for filing BH:km FILF.3 IN THE OI?PtCE ,-F TIES OO^iTTY OL8&K, MAR 0 8 199!£$fiRmSCG OOtnjTY 0¥ U ° „?;'.„-.. ., . ?osTBt)MARJJJ99i.__M?Hovsj? APR 0 8 1991 KETTJRHBD TO AQB3TGT i DEPUTY / /> v. ^ Revisdki October 1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue intersection and surrounding 906 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. 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, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Placing Department within 21 days of date of issuance. DATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 1990 CASE NO: LFMP 18 APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIAT PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1990 J. HOLZMtLLER ijfg Director BH:km 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 JRNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AN~ GAME PO BOX 944209 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090 CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include county): Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 - LFMP 18. 900 acres at eastern border of City of Carlsbad (Carrillo Ranch and Carlsbad Raceway) surrounding Palomar Airport Road, San Diego County. Project Description: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): 1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an Environmental Initial Study for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed project's potential for adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 2. Based on the completed Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department finds that the proposed project will not encroach upon wildlife habitat area, will have no potential adverse individual or cumulative effects on wildlife resources, and requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project which would affect fish or wildlife. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. MICHAEL J. Title: Planning Director Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad Date: March 6. 1991 BH:km Section 711.4, Fish and Game Code DFG-.12/90 STATE OF CALIFORN1A-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ..Q , noonf! DE( FMENT OF FISH AND GAME ^ _ ( -1 ^- ^ U U ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION/FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: County/State Agency: Project Title: Project Applicant: CHECK ONE: ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Progams (DFG & CDF Only) $850.00 $ j ( ) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ TOTAL RECEIVED $ Signature oterson receiving payment Ad~*/<J-K ^ ff-DFG/CEAB yrHF1RST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/CEAB yrHIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 18 DATE: September 27. 1990 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LFMP 18 2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2386 Faraday Avenue. #120 Carlsbad. CA 92008 (619M38-1465 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 30. 1987 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES (sig) YES NO (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X X X X X -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? x 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? x 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:YES Csig) YES (insig) NO 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X X X X X X X X X -4- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. 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. 34. 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.) 35. 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES (sig) YES (insig) NO X X -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. Traditionally, the developer in maximizing their capital return passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the La Costa Area. It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. -6- ANALYSIS OF 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. a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities. b) The project is a public facility information and planning study. c) The project is a public facility information and planning study. d) Uses for the area covered by the plan are based on the existing General Plan. e) The plan considers phased development. f) The project is a public facility information and planning study. g) As the project is a public facility information and planning study, the no project alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The no project alternative would therefore cause the most detriment. -7- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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. , mo Signature Date Planning Director BH:km LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE") ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE") -8- 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 BH:km -9- Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to N.C.C.N. Inc. 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 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 NEGATIVE preceding the date of publication of the DECLARATION notice hereinafter referred to; and that the TioN^olrX^oad0^ notice of which the annexed is a. printed furro°unedfn vge^eacn rle s rsection and COPY/ nas been published in each regular ™d e^Te issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the follow- ing datCS, t The City of Carlsbad has con-ducted an environmental review of the above described project pur- nrTncPB /, 1Qsuant to the Guidelines for Imple- UU1U.DC.K q- iy_mentation of the California En- ~~ ~ ~~vironmental Quality Act and the 'JQ Environmental Protection Ordi- — -nance of the City of Carlsbad. As a ._.-. result of said review, a Negative l-7_ Declaration (declaration that the • ~—•project will not have a significant -I Q impact on the environment) is ^_ - i7-bereby issued for the subject pro- ject Justification for this action is -, Q on file in the Planning Department. . —A copy of the Negative Declare- I certify under penalty of perjury that the 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad' r • • . j ^.T- .. j ^California 92009. Comments from foregoing IS tTUC and COlTeCt. Executed at the public are invited. Please sub- /-IILJ/-I ro rx- o r r* i-mit comments in writing to the Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Cali- Planning Department within 21 ,. . TH1T / Tudays of date of issuance. I OlTlia On 1HC. 4irt Dated: September 27, 1990 Case No: LFMP18 daV of OCTOBER, 1990 Applicant: Hofman Planning Asso-ciates GARY S. WAYNE for MICHAEL }. HOLZM1LLER /Planning DirectorCJ 5515: October 4, 1990 " .••£ />/' -' - ' f C .. D f fD,ui fi/onxiTM A Clerk of the PrinterProof of Publication 6/90 NDLA Hail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- 916/445-0613 NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM See NOTE BeIOH: | SCH * j 1. Project Title Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas 3c. County:San Diego 3. Contact Person: Brian Hunter 3b. City: Carlsbad 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Community: Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 4c. Section: Twp. For Rural, 5a. Cross Streets: Mel rose/Pa Iomar Airport Rd. 5b. Nearest Community: 6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 78 b. Airports Range c. Waterways 7. DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA 01 NOP 02 Early Cons 03 X Neg Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (if so, prior SCH # ) NEPA 06 Notice of Intent 07 Envir. Assessment/ FONSI 08 Draft EIS OTHER 09 Information Only 10 Final Document 11 Other: 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 General Plan Update 01 02 New Element 02 03 General Plan Amendment 04 Master Plan 03 05 Annexation Residential: Units Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Acres Employees Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft. Acres Employees 06 Specific Plan 07 Redevelopment 08 Rezone 09 Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 10 Use Permit 04 Industrial: Sq. Ft. 05 06 07 08 Acres Sewer: MGD Water: MGD Employees Transportation: Type Mineral Extraction: Mineral 11 Cancel Ag Preserve 09 Power Generation: Wattage 12 X Other Local Facilities Type: Management Plan 10 X Other: Local Facilities Management Plan 9 TOTAL ACRES: 906 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 Air Quality 10 Minerals 04 Archaeological/Historical/ 11 Noise Paleontological 12 X Public Services 05 Coastal 13 X Schools 06 Fire Hazard 14 Septic Systems 07 X Flooding/Drainage 08 Geologic/Seismic 15 X Sewer Capacity 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 16 Soil Erosion 17 Solid Waste 18 Toxic/Hazardous 22 X Water Supply 23 Wetland/Riparian 24 Wildlife 25 Growth Inducing 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 Incompatible Landuse 20 Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects 21 Water Quality 28 Other 12 FUNDING (approx.)Federal $-0-State $-0-Total $-0- 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Present land use is commercial, open space, residential and planned industrial. Zoning is planned community, open space, and planned industrial. 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project is a Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. Facilities include City Administration, libraries, fire, parks, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage, and circulation. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • ^^. • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 W*$JM (6^)438° 161 (Ettg 0f PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue intersection and surrounding 906 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. 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. The Local Facilities Management Plan is being processed concurrent with an application for a master plan amendment for which an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. 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, California 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: August 24, 1988 MICHAEL J. HOLZMI'CLER CASE NO: LFMP 18 Planning Director APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates PUBLISH DATE: August 24, 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 18 DATE: August 15. 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 6994 El Camino Real. Suite 208. Carlsbad. California 92008 (619) 438-1465 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: August 8. 1988 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? X_ d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unigue geologic or physical features? X_ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X. 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? X_ 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? X_ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X_ 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? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X_ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X_ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X_ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X_ 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? X_ -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)? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X_ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X_ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X_ 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)? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X_ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X_ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X_ 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? X_ 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X. -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? X b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X_ 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 NO 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? X_ b. Police protection? X_ 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? 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? 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. Archeological/Historical/Paleontological - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? . X. 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) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities. b) The project is a public facility information and planning study. c) The project is a public facility information and planning study. d) Uses for the area covered by the plan are based on the existing General Plan. e) The plan considers phased development. f) The project is a public facility information and planning study. g) As the project is a public facility information and planning study, the no project alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The no project alternative would therefore cause the most detriment. -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? 3 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.) 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 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. These estimates may result in increased development fees. Traditionally, the developer in maximizing their capital return passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the La Costa Area. -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) It is not the development fee that will force low and moderate income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. -9- 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. August 15. 1988 Date Date Planning Director V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -10- 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 S ignature -11- 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 principa 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 news pa per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bo na fide subscript ion 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 Ca ifornia, 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 andenti re issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCA- TION: Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue intersection and surrounding 906 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted perfor- mance standards. The City of Carlsbad has con- ducted an environmental review of the above described project pur- suant to the Guidelines for Imple- mentation of the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act and the En- vironmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declara- tion (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. The Local Facilities Management Plan is being processed concurrent with an application for a master plan amendment for which an Environ- mental Impact Report has been prepared. Justification for this ac- tion is on (lie in the Planning De-' partment A copy of the Negative Declara- tion with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please sub-mit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. Dated: August 24,1988 Case No: LFMP 18 Applicant: Hofman Planning AssociatesMICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director CJ 4049: August 24,1988 August 24 i 9 og. 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 24tb day of Clerk of the Printer #202-2M-12<'87 Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to N.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, * NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ., J IS HEREBY GIVEN UMt the^Running Commission of the City (if Carl** il»d Will hold a public hearing at the Safe* " r*Bd Service Center, 2560 Orion, C*rti- b»d, California, at 6-00 p m. on Wednes- fa»y, fteeember 19, 1990, to consider ipprovnl of a Local Facilities Muntge- Blient Plan 18 on property generally lo- CTted at the eastern boundary of the City |d]«c«nt to Palomar Airport Rold fflore " -Wculirly described as- _'hoi« portions of Township II Wuth, kntte11 .west and Township iVionth, n«e*w««t(Cafl8bad Raceway, C*fMllo neh), ho«e persons wishing to speatecn-tllll Dial ire cordially invited W «ft(Srl(ll ublie hearing. Copies of the rtHfTr*- i Will be available on and *IUf D«- nber 13, 1990. If you have «nf ijuel- on«, please call Brian Hunter lit the 'limning department at 438-n«l, »xt If you challenge the Local Ftellltlei itunagetnent Plan in court, you m«y M limited to raising only those is ricone else raised at the publl |w«ribed in this notice or in pondence delivered to th* rlibad at or prior to the public " e;LPMP18 tlicant: Hofrftan Planning-f Cilv OF CARLSBAD^ PLANNING COMMISSH fA«i:temiwr»,l«W 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 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 follow- ing dates, to-wit: Cit] LOCATION MAP DECEMBER 6 19 9° 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 Cali- fornia on_ day of THE 6TH DECEMBER, 1990 Clerk of the Printer 1959 Palomar Oaks Way Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619)431-8200 FAX: (619)931-1551 RICK ENGINEERING COMP March 28, 1991 Mayor Claude Lewis Mayor Pro Tern Ann Kulchin Councilmember Eric Larson Councilmember Julie Nygaard Councilmember Margaret Stanton SUBJECT: ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 11185 Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: On March sixth, the City Council approved the Zone 18 Plan. During the testimony by staff, there was an inaccurate statement presented to the Council relating to the airport. Mr. Brian Hunter stated that the airport influence area did not extend south of Palomar Airport Road. This is not true based on the latest Airport Land Use Plan. For your information, I have attached a copy of the old Carlsbad General Plan and the most recent amendment highlighting the change in the location of the airport influence area as it affects the Carrillo Ranch. As you can see on the second exhibit, the flight activity area does extend south of Palomar Airport Road in the area of Zone 18. This amendment occurred in 1985 and has been recently added to the General Plan map. Because there are residential designations on the General Plan south of Palomar Airport Road within the airport influence area, I felt it was important to bring this to your attention for your information. I have been discussing this with Mr. Brian Hunter and he concurs with what I have discussed in this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch. Sincerely, RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd.002/Attachments (See attached page for list of cc's.) cc: Mr. Vince Biondo, City of Carlsbad Mr. Mike Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad Mr. Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Mr. Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad Mr. Marty Orenyak, City of Carlsbad Mr. Ray Patchett, City of Carlsbad Mr. Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Mr. Don Woodward, Woodward/Merrill Lynch Mr. Bernie May, Woodward/Merrill Lynch Mr. Jon Werner, Pacific Scene, Inc. Mr. Jim Omsberg, UDC Homes Mr. Al Ziskin, Carrillo Partnership Property Mr. Byron White, Carrillo Partnership Property Mr. Kurt von Puttkammer, James Leary Architecture & Planning for Scripps Hospital Ms. Nancy Hane, George Wimpey, Inc. March 22, 1991 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, GROWTH MANAGEMENT VIA: Parks and Recreation Director ' FROM: Senior Management Analyst CARRILLO RANCH This memo is meant to clarify any misunderstanding which may still exist after discussions with you and your staff regarding the future use of the Carrillo Ranch. Several months ago, after review of the preliminary Zone 18 LFMP, it was brought to the Growth Management division's attention that the Carrillo Ranch was designated as an active park site within the parks section of the zone plan. As communicated to you at that time, our department's position regarding future use of the Carrillo Ranch should have been noted as one of a more passive development concept. The intent of this passive use concept would insure the historical significance associated with the Ranch property. I understand that recently the Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation Inc. expressed concern and dissatisfaction over the issue of the Carrillo Ranch being classified as an active park site in the Zone 18 LFMP. The attached memo to Catherine Daugherty of the Arboretum Foundation may clarify the situation as it relates to this department and our Commission's intent for future development of the Carrillo Ranch. In particular, the second to last paragraph reflects the intent of the future development of both Carrillo Ranch and Alga Norte Park in the southeast quadrant of the City. If I can be of furthetassistance regarding this issue, please contact me at extension 2827. c: Assistant City Manager Community Development Director Carlsbad Arboretum Society MARCH 6, 1991 TO: DEE LANDERS, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ZONE 18 AND CARRILLO RANCH MASTER PLAN At the City Council meeting of March 6, 1991 the Council directed staff to consider the comments of the Buena Vista Audobon Society and the Friends of Carrillo Ranch during the environmental review period for discretionary permits within Zone 18. I am therefore forwarding their comments to you. We were also reminded of the necessity of land use review by Palomar Airport authorities. BRIAN HUNTER Attachments. c: Gary Wayne BH:km ZonelS.mem MEMORANDUM DATE: November 26, 1990 TO: MARTY ORENYAK FROM: STEVEN JANTZ-GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: MELROSE ALIGNMENT CONDITION As a follow-up to our meeting with Lloyd Hubbs and David Hauser, Growth Management staff contacted Shiela Donovan of Hoffman Planning and notified them of the proposed condition regarding studying alternative alignments of Melrose Avenue. Hoffman Planning then contacted the property owners in Zone 18 to get their consensus on the additional condition. The Property owners indicated they do not oppose the requirement to study alternative alignments of Melrose Avenue with the first discretionary approval. Therefore, the following condition is recommended to be added to Zone 18: PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST DISCRETIONARY PERMIT FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN ZONE 18, THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT OF MELROSE AVENUE FROM THE NORTHERN CITY LIMITS TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF ZONE 18 MUST BE ESTABLISHED. THE ALIGNMENT STUDY MUST EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS AND INCLUDE THE NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. This condition has been forwarded to Hoffman Planning to included in the final Zone 18 document. The zone plan is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on December 19, 1990. If you have any questions or further input, please contact me. TO: Mayor Bud Lewis, Councilmembers Ann Kulchin, Eric Larson, Margaret Stanton, and Julie Nygaard FROM: PROJECT FUTURE DATE: March 5, 1991 RE: AB #11,057*- ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN & NEGATIVE DECLARATION Please enter the following into the record of the public hearing on this matter. Future respectfully requests that the City Council postpone further consideration of the above-captioned until the following actions have been taken: 1. A legally adequate general plan is adopted; 2. An environmental impact report is prepared for the project. Submitted by Anne Mauch, Secretary, Project Future *Item #13 on 3/5/91 Council Agenda We, the owners within Zone 18, agree to the wording for the Palomar Airport Road East General Condition and the Citywide CFD Condition as per the letter to Jim Elliott, Finance Director, City of Carlsbad, dated October 26, 1990, from Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates. Irl Robinson, Rancho Carrillo Partnership Don Woodward, Merrill Lynch and Company, Inc. Nancy kiane, George Wimpey, Inc. Lauren Blag' Scripps Menu Joft Wetfner, Pacific Scene, Inc. City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 5, 1991 Mr. Herb Williams, President Buena Vista Audubon Society P.O. Box 480 Oceanside, CA 92049-0480 Dear Mr. Williams, Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1991, regarding the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Your points are well taken and have been entered into the record by the City Clerk's office. The City shares your concern for the preservation of wildlife habitat, especially habitat which supports endangered or sensitive species such as the Least Bell's Vireo. The Local Facilities Management Plan does not really address how such areas will be treated when development occurs in Zone 18. As you may know, the primary purpose of such plans is to identify the potential public facility impacts of future private development in the zone. In order to estimate the amount of development that may be allowed, the City requires the preparation of the Constraints Map which is based on existing environmental documents. This process typically understates the amount of constrained land, but it yields a conservative or "worst case" projection of facility impacts. While this method works well for facility planning purposes, it should not be considered definitive in terms of analyzing potential environmental impacts. After approval of the Zone Plan, more specific planning will take place, and further environmental analysis will be required for both the private development and the public facilities, including Melrose Avenue. At that time, if there are any proposed impacts to riparian areas, those impacts must be addressed in the environmental documents. Buena Vista Audubon may wish to restate its concerns as part of the public review of that environmental analysis. Of course, the appropriate state and federal wildlife agencies would also become involved in that process. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 (619) 438-1161 Mr. Herb Williams, President March 5, 1991 Page 2 Again, thank you for your comments. The City looks forward to working with Buena Vista Audubon in the cooperative effort to reconcile the needs of wildlife with urban development. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c: Don Rideout* PUENAV SOCIETY P.O. BOX 480 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049-0480 February 27, 1991 Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Dir. Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Reference: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 18 Dear Mr. Holzmiller, The Conservation Committee of the Buena Vista Audubon Society has reviewed referenced plan and has the following comments which we would like to have entered into the record. 1. Alignment Study - Melrose Ave., Sheet 5 of 8, prepared 8/26/88 (Preliminary), and Zone 18 Constraints Map. Please note the area just below the Profile arid directly below APN 222-011-06, and relate to Zone 18 Constraints Map depicting the Riparian Woodland east of the Proposed Melrose alignment. The Alignment Study shows the fill required to raise the road to match the slope of the terrain. The fill would destroy over 90% of this riparian habitat and preclude a trail system from traversing the valley. By dividing the habitats by a road, elevated 40 feet, the Cal. Fish and Game representative has stated that the wildlife "strike" due to the cars would be excessive. In a survey conducted in 1988 by John and Jane Griffith, biologists, they defined the grove east of the breached dam at the upper end of the "Los Quiotes Valley" as being comprised of Arroyo Willows with hedges of Seep Willow as an understory. They characterized the grove as prime Least Bell's Vireo nesting habitat. According to the report, the valley, between the lower dam and the willow grove should be able to sustain up to five (5) breeding pairs of the vireos. This is considered as critical habitat! Recommendation:Bridge the area in lieu of fill, or relocate the road further east, or terminate the road 100 ft, on either side of valley and utilize each segment as collectors for Zone 18 development traffic only. Buena Vista Audubon, Page 2 2. Zone 18 Constraints Map The extent of the riparian woodland on the elementary school site is in error. Mature oaks line the stream bed up to the wooden bridge at about the point where the Caretaker Cottage is located. We hope that these comments will be of value in your evalu- ations of this initial plan. If you have any questions concerning our views, please contact me through the Chapter Office. Sincere'ly, Herb Williams, President cc: Carlsbad City Council City of Carlsbad Community Development January 31, 1991 Mr. Jon Werner, Pacific Scene Mr. Jim Omsberg, UDC Homes Mr. Don Woodward, Woodward-Merrill Lynch c/o Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Sirs: I am responding to your letter of January 30, 1991, regarding the processing of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. I have concluded that the plan can proceed with the existing wording of conditions. However, we also wish to make it very clear that it will still be necessary to make the finding of consistency with the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan as part of any future discretionary action in Zone 18. Before we will take your first tentative map to the Planning Commission, it will be necessary for you to show evidence of how you plan to finance those facilities that are beyond simple conditions of approval of your project. This evidence must be sufficiently strong to enable the Planning Commission and City Council to make the required finding that all public facilities necessary to serve the project will be provided. Whether or not an expressed condition for a financing plan prior to tentative map approval is included in the zone plan, the City must be satisfied that the public facilities problems in the zone can and will be solved in order to approve tentative maps. The guarantees of these facilities required by Growth Management would be necessary with the Final Map. Based upon this understanding, we will schedule the Zone 18 plan for the earliest available City Council public hearing date. MARTINOREM Community Development Director MO:DR:bjn c: City Attorney City Manager Planning Director Financial Management Director 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9 • (619) 438-1161 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis January 30, 1991 Vince Biondo City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Additional Conditions for the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Vince: This letter is in response to the City's request for additional language in the Zone 18 - LFMP which would require a comprehensive financing plan prior to Tentative Map approval. This condition has not been imposed on any of the 17 previously approved zone plans. In addition, this condition was not discussed until six weeks after the Planning Commission Hearing. The Zone 18 property owners feel the newly proposed language is unfair and inconsistent with the City's Growth Management approval process. We respectfully request that you approve the City Council Agenda Bill as submitted and allow this long delayed zone plan to be transmitted to the City Council for public hearing. jrisbaa • CA 'J20C3 • -'61 ON> 438- 1 465 • Fax (619)438-2443 Sincerely, inK'dmsberg//Ul51C Homes /?/ Date Dati / Don Woodward, Woodward-Merrill Lynch Date City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION December 27, 1990 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC 2386 Faraday Suite 120 Carlsbad CA 92008 RE: Ifffl* n - LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE'18 At the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 1990, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 to Approve your request Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:km Enclosure: Planning Commission Resolution No.s 3175, 3176 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 FRIENDS OK OARRILLO RANCH 2622 EL AGUILA LANE O CARLSBAD, CA 92009 O 619/438-1C December 4, 1990 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 18 Sirs: We have been advised by Brian Hunter that the subject Plan will be coming before the Planning Commission on December 19. To avoid any possible miscommunication or failure on our part to attend the Public Hearings, we offer these comments for the record. We hope you will take the following recommendations into consideration to the extent they specifically impact on the Carrillo Ranch Historic Park: »» A densely planted buffer, with a surveillance and security fence installed on its outer perimeter, should be required. A buffer depth of 100 feet or more would be desirable. The relatively high density RMH zoning proposed so close to the Park's southern boundary is unfortunate and makes the buffer issue all the more crucial; »» The original entranceway and the bridge across the stream on the north side are historically significant, should be preserved, restored and used as the public's sole access to the Park. This road and crossing should also be an integral part of the "acceptable access plan" required under Special Conditions For Zone 18 (EXHIBIT 5 - Parks A.2.); »» The original entrance pillars displaying the "Flying LC" brand are presently positioned only a few feet south of the Palomar Airport Road right-of-way. Both should be relocated to the Park or some other protected site well before the widening of PAR begins. A permanent disposition can be determined later. One pillar is in relatively good condition; one has been virtually demolished but is restorable; »» It appears the alignment of Melrose Avenue will obliterate or effectively isolate "Conquistador's Grave" from the Park and make public access dangerous, impractical and/or Messrs. Holzmiller/Hubbs - 2 - December 4, 1990 impossible. We recommend the grave contents, cross and adobe base be moved to an appropriate place within the Park preceding any preliminary grading for Melrose. We urge that this requirement be included as a Special Condition For Zone 18; and, »» The 10.5 acre city-owned Park should be shown as "passive," not "active" as currently published in the Plan. It is our interpretation of the Zone 18 Plan that EIR's will be necessary for the parcels surrounding the Park. We would appreciate confirmation or clarification of this point. We want to restate that we wish to be included in any opportunities for discussions, meetings or public hearings concerning Carrillo Ranch Historic Park and/or any directly relevant matters. You can be assured of our cooperation and constructive demeanor. Thank you. Yours truly, NOVEMBER 2, 1990 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER DON RIDEOUT, SENIOR PLANNE FROM: Planning Director ZONE 18 LFMP Please note attached letter regarding Zone 18. Friends of Carrillo Ranch have previously-requested notification of any items considered by the City regarding Zone 18. They should be provided with an opportunity to review the Zone Plan as soon as it is ready for public review. Also, we need to discuss the involvement of the Open Space Advisory Committee in review of the Open Space Section of the Plan. The Committee's adopted duties (see attached) include reviewing the Plan. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director arb c: Terri Woods Attachment FRIENDS O» CARRILLO RANCH 2622 EL AGUILA LANE Q CARLSBAD, CA 92009 Q 619/438- ^ c^efo?-^ November 1, 1990 11 » *' •& «•, • Planning Director e> rv City of Carlsbad c%> ,.-sox 2075 Las Palmas c' "U.l^ ' ' Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 18 We have previously requested an early opportunity to comment on the subject Plan as it progressed. We understand it is now "Under Technical Review" and will proceed to the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future. We are hopeful that it has not moved along beyond the point that input from our organization could be included. For your information and consideration, attached is an excerpt from a recent edition of the Carrillo Ranch Quarterly which generally reflects our position. We might wish to fine tune it if we were more aware of the Planning staff's thrust. The courtesy of some pre-Public Notice information relative to the Planning Commission schedule would be appreciated. We would prefer to be able to support the principles of the initial Zone Plan and not find ourselves - reluctantly - in an adversarial posture simply because we did not have a reasonable time to review the underlying concepts. We urge you to include us in the loop wherein we may be of more effective service to the project and the City. Thank you. Yours truly, Alan K. Kindle Enclosure: Excerpt from Carrillo Ranch Quarterly Spring/1990 issue Excerptfrom Carrillo Ranch Quarterly (Spring/1990 Edition) Copyright 1990. All Rights Reserved. A PLAN OF ACTION FOR CARRILLO RANCH (Revised 3/15/90): » Encourage accelerated planning, development and opening of the Ranch to the public. .,•• . » Hire an experienced, academically qualified Historian-Curator to oversee Carrillo Ranch, Magee House and the Depot. Assigned to Parks and Recreation staff. Provide liaison between City staff, Commissions, school districts and citizen groups. (Carlsbad Historical Society, Friends of Carrillo Ranch, etc.)- Responsible for educational and passive recreational programs, . scheduling and acquisition of artifacts; Aggressively pursues private and public grants for Carrillo Ranch Trust Fund. ,••.:••• ••••* ,-, ... , •'•".' • '•' :''<•..'.• :• -: •''O-.'UJ ,'j: ;•:'•. •.••>•.; ';;":.>*:,'• ,;' --/fl •;•'••'•.;•' . v '.':V;,,. • >- >••••; <•• ':••:. . -..-VV; , » Vacate hacienda as soon as surrounding property development begins. Install high-tech security system for entire park1 area. ,:;--; ; : ; . » Restore hacienda and furnish with original or period artifacts throughout. Rooms may be viewed from niches created by waist-high ornamental grillwork in doorways. » Construct modest, simple Visitor Center designed in appropriate Old California style. Will accommodate museum, small theatre, gift shop, restrooms and supervisor's office. Locate on site of old hay barn or near water tank. » Fully restore Deedie's House and Cantina, furnish sparsely or not at all. Make available as crafting, meeting or classroom space. Available for rental on limited basis. » Convert buildings adjoining Cantina for art displays, storage and additional restrooms (option). Preserve windmills and keep in operating condition for demonstration /educational purposes. » Restore Cabana and sand beach. Convert swimming area to shallow, safe reflective pool. Rent for weddings, parties, rallies, etc. » Restore and furnish Gatehouse. Make available as short-term quarters for Artist-ln-Residence participants. Must include cooking and bathroom facilities. » Restore stable and bunkhouse for touring purposes only. » Require that developers donate acreage around park perimeter for fencing and dense plantings that will conceal encroachment. » Provide gentle trails for passive use as well as cross-country links with City-wide trail system. » Move Conquistador gravesite, adobe brickwork and cross to park location. (continued overleaf) ACTION PLAN (continued) » Exterior grounds should be available for rental. No after-dark functions. Beer and wine permitted when individual servings are controlled by bonded caterer. Interior of hacienda must never be accessible during such activities but courtyard use may be allowed. » No commercial food service, camping or overnight accommodations available to the public anywhere in the park at any time. Designated picnic areas provided on perimeter adjoining greenbelt. ' • • • • » Metered parking provided in suitably screened location. » Park open daily (major holidays excepted) from 10 AM to 4 PM. Self-guided tours include window and doorway viewing of hacienda rooms. Docent tours available weekends by reservation and other days by appointment, always depending upon availability of docents. '••-••' i - ,,,.,•. i i '• • . . » Actively endorse the Carlsbad Arboretum and work toward jointly conceived, sponsored;and administered events upon its completion. OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DUTIES 1. The Committee shall provide input and make advisory "recommendations to the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, other commissions, boards and committees as deemed necessary, and the city staff on the implementation of the Report of the Citizens Committee to Study Open Space. This will include completing tasks 2 and 3 of Phase I and all of Phase II of the Work Plan for implementing the Report which was approved by the City Council on December 19, 1989. 2. Staff shall forward to the Committee for review and comment staff reports dealing with the open space section of Local Facilities Management Zone Plans, Master Plans and Specific Plans. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the plans are meeting the open space use, maintenance and acquisition priorities fojr that particular portion of the City and that criteria lste established for the subsequent review of development projects. The committee's duties shall not include, however, the review of individual development projects. 3. The Committee shall provide input and recommendations on other open space matters when requested by the City Council. Other matters may include recommendations for acquisition, use and financing strategies. 4. All matters brought before the Committee shall be handled in a timely manner. 5. Staff shall prepare an annual report to be reviewed and approved by the Committee which will then be forwarded to the City Council and which will address the status of committee activities and actions and the monitoring of open space protection in the City. The annual report period shall run July 1st - June 30th. 6. The Committee shall act in an advisory role regarding decisions affecting open space. Actions of the Committee are advisory only and do not bind, restrict or substitute for any of the discretionary or legislative authority of the City Council or it's appointed Commissions. 7. The Committee shall remain in effect for three years from July 26, 1990. At any time before the end of the three year period, the City Council may extend the tenure of the Committee or may establish a permanent Open Space Committee. Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis October 26, 1990 Jim Elliott Finance Director City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Zone 18 Citywide and PAR Mello-Roos Conditions. Dear Jim: This letter summarizes the property owners understanding of the wording for the Citywide and Palomar Airport Road General Conditions to be included in the Zone 18 - LFMP. The wording for the Palomar Airport Road East General Condition is per your letter of October 23, 1990, to Ron Rouse of Luce, Forward, Hamilton, and Scripps. The general condition for Palomar Airport Road would read as follows: Prior to the first discretionary action, approval of the first development permit or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for any project within Zone 18, the property owners(s) shall provide a financial guarantee for the construction of Palomar Airport Road East. This guarantee may be in the form of participation in any existing Assessment District or Mello-Roos Community Facility District formed to finance the construction of the road segment, participation hi the existing forward funding agreement as applied to Zone 5 property owners, or an alternate financing plan acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney. The following activities are exempt from this: grading, minor planning entitlements, or minor construction as part of ongoing agricultural operations; minor subdivisions and lot line adjustments for financing purposes. Any exemption is solely at the City's discretion. Based on a telephone conversation with Don Rideout on Thursday, October 26, 1990, the Zone 18 - LFMP General Condition for participation in the Citywide Mello-Roos District would read as follows: !3S6 -oraday Avenue • Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 Prior to the first discretionary action, approval of the first development permit or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for any project within Zone 18, the property owners(s) is required to participate in any current citywide community facilities district or provide an alternative financial guarantee to the satisfaction of the Finance Director for the construction of the improvements included in the citywide community facilities district. Our understanding is that the "first discretionary action" does not refer to the approval of the Zone 18 - LFMP. This plan may now be scheduled at the very earliest date available for Planning Commission and City Council approval. The first discretionary action will likely be approval of a revised master plan for Carrillo Ranch or approval of a tentative map for the non-residential areas north of Palomar Airport Road. The Zone 18 property owners agree to the wording of the general conditions as outlined above and understand these will be incorporated into the text of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Please give me a call if you have any questions with the conditions as outlined above. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Marty Orenyak Don Rideout Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig City of Carlsbad Finance Department October 23, 1990 Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps Attn: Ron Rouse 4250 Executive Square, Suite 700 La Jolla, CA 92037 RE: PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD EAST (PAR EAST) I have reviewed your letter dated October 9,1990 regarding the Palomar Airport Road East forward funding agreement and believe there are several points that require further clarification. The first deals with the question of the reimbursement program that will be implemented to assure that the Zone 5 property owners are treated equitably with relation to other developers in the PAR East area. The City and the Zone 5 Contributing Owners are both concerned with the creation of an equitable system although the issue of equity may be viewed slightly differently by the two groups. The following discussion may help you and your clients understand the City's position on the implementation of section 5 of the forward funding agreement. The city staff intends to ask Council to approve the creation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) to support the funding of PAR East. The exact boundaries and taxing plan for the district have not yet been defined. In addition, the City Council is considering imposing the following condition on the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP): Palomar Airport Road East Prior to the first discretionary action, approval of the first development permit or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for any project within Zone 18, the property owner(s) shall provide a financial guarantee for the construction of Palomar Airport Road East. This guarantee may be in the form of participation in any existing Assessment District or Mello-Roos Community Facility District formed to finance the construction of the road segment, participation in the existing forward funding agreement as applied to Zone 5 property owners, or an alternate financing plan acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney. The following activities are exempt from this: grading, minor planning entitlements, or minor construction as part of ongoing agricultural operations; minor subdivisions and lot line adjustments for financing purposes. Any exemption is solely at the City's discretion. 12OO Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (619)434-2867 Ron Rouse October 23, 1990 Page No. 2 Depending on the timing and tax structure of the proposed CFD and/or the needs to call bonds currently held by the City provided by the Contributing Owners, there may be no need for a reimbursement system. Also, the above condition will require participation from Zone 18 property owners as soon as development activity begins within the zone. We understand your concern about fair and equitable reimbursement but believe our energy should be focused on accomplishing the CFD as the funding vehicle rather than on using the existing forward funding agreement and bond system as the financing mechanism for this project. Under Section 5.1 of the Forward Funding Agreement the City has acknowledged the need to equitably allocate the costs of construction and to allow the Contributing Owners to proportionately reduce the amounts of their surety bonds as other Contributing Owners enter into the agreement. This section also indicates the City's intent to implement a condition on zones within the benefit area that will assure their participation in the funding of PAR East and provide reimbursement to the original Contributing Owners to the extent that they have funded the construction of the road. Section 5.2 further clarifies this intent by stating that the City will impose conditions on future development to require their participation in the project based on their proportionate share. The City intends to comply with this section of the agreement by including either the above condition or a similar condition in the Zone 18 LFMP. Future benefiting LFMPs would include a condition substantially in the form of the final condition placed on Zone 18. We will be in touch with the Contributing owners as we proceed with the CFD formation process. Their understanding of the structure and participation in the formation process will be important-ta>the projects final success. JAMES F. ELtOTT Finance Director cc: City Attorney Community Development Director Senior Management Analyst, Growth Management Senior Planner, Growth Management Senior Management Analyst, Community Development Associate Civil Engineer, Growth Management Doug Ford Bob Ladwig Bill Hoffman San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, California 92069-2797 619- 744-4776 October 15, 1990 Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Zone 18 Dear Mr. Hunter: I have reviewed the Draft copy of Zone 18, Local Facilities Master Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. I have the following comments: 1. The District has adopted new generation factors which include middle schools. I have enclosed a copy of those generation factors for your utilization. 2. On page 140, under buildout projections, the San Marcos Unified School District has adopted a long range master plan to the year 2000, and is undertaking updates to year 2015. That plan indicates the need for two additional school sites within the La Costa portion of our school district. 3. On page 141, under (c) Phasing, the statement that I have indicated that the site within Zone 18 may not be needed is incorrect. The District will need that site and any negotiations underway for an additional site within Zone 11 will not affect the necessity for this site. 4. I/ concur with your statements under Mitigation, however, it would appear that the statement under Financing, "that no financing is required for school facilities" could be viewed as a conflict with the special condition under mitigation. Thank you for the cooperation that the District has had with the planning process within the City of Carlsbad. Should you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please feel free to contact me. I would also appreciate a time table on when Zone 18 can be expected to be proceeding forward within the planning process. rely, frey A. Okun Facilities Administrator OAO/jr Enclosure Hofman Planning Associates October 5, 1990 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for Resubmittal of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Don: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectfully requesting a resubmittal of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. It is our understanding that with the withdrawal and resubmittal of our application, no processing time has been lost. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad Zone 18 Property Owners TABLE 3 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS GRADE LEVEL SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY Elementary .375 .275 Middle .091 .071 Junior High .1 .052 High School .151 .04 (Note: These generation factors were adopted by the Governing Board on September 24, I990. October 2, 1990 TO: STEVE JANTZ FROM: City Engineer ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN I have completed review of the subject Zone Plan, and would offer the follow- ing comments relative to the circulation conditions: 1. No further processing should occur within the zone until proposed projects have posted their fair share of the project costs involved in the current widening of Palomar Airport Road. This project will provide full grading, four travel lanes, median curbs and improvement of the PAR/ECR intersection to ultimate width. The project phasing should reflect this construction. Ultimate widening will likely be a condition of the first subdivision or development proposed along the frontage. 2. A condition should be added requiring adoption of alignments of Mel rose Avenue and Carrillo Way prior to the first final map, grading permit or building permit. 3. Melrose Avenue, Carrillo Way and El Fuerte phasing are not required to service other than local or regional traffic. Phasing will likely be dictated by development phasing, cul-de-sac policies and other issues that will be conditons of approval. Refined phasing discussion on the Zone Plan may just serve to confuse future development review. Unless a roadway is required to insure levels of service on the existing system, I would delete discussion. 4. Where new intersections are constructed, they should be to the ultimate configuration unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 5. Phasing of development City wide now anticipates nearly 3,000 units per year from 1991 to 1994. Staffing has not been developed to accommodate these levels of development. LLOVWB. HUBBS City ^engineer LBH/pmj c: D. Mauser R.T. Johnson October 2, 1990 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST - GROWTH MANAGEMENT SENIOR PLANNER ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER FROM: Finance Director ZONE 18 - CONDITION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY-WIDE MELLO-ROOS DISTRICT We will be meeting with representatives of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan on Thursday, October 4th to discuss the proposed condition within the zone plan requiring landowners to vote in favor of the creation of a city-wide Mello-Roos district or to annex to the district at the first opportunity. I believe the condition ultimately included in the Zone 18 plan will lay the ground work for the conditions placed in future plans as well as for those inserted into existing plans. It is therefore important to understand the basis for the City's condition and the effect of non-compliance or inadequate enforcement of the condition. First, let's examine the basis of the City-wide Mello-Roos district. The district was created on the assumption that eventually all undeveloped land within the City of Carlsbad excluding Zones 1, 2, and 3 would annex to the district. These annexations were expected to take place early in the development process. The cash flow necessary to pay debt service on bonds issued to construct improvements will depend heavily upon vacant land taxes. If insufficient revenue is available from vacant land taxes, the City Council cannot find that the improvements to be built by the Mello-Roos district have been adequately guaranteed. It is my understanding that every discretionary action approved by the City Council requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan. One segment of that Plan is the public facilities element of the General Plan. In order to be found in compliance or consistent with the public facilities element of the General Plan, the City must be able to find that growth management standards will be met and that adequate public facilities will be available. If the Mello-Roos district has inadequate revenues streams from undeveloped or vacant land taxes, the City Council will be unable to make this finding. In the event that the Council cannot make a finding of consistency with the General Plan, no discretionary actions can be approved. Although it appears that the City can not specifically condition a landowner to vote in favor of the Mello-Roos district, the City can withhold discretionary actions due to inconsistency with the public facilities element of the General Plan. Under this condition, the landowner is not be required to vote in favor of the creation of the district, but may find it impossible to accomplish a zone change or other discretionary action without having first annexed to the Mello-Roos district. If no district is in place, that landowner is forced to either participate in the formation of the CFD or offer acceptable alternate financing options to the City of Carlsbad. Zone 18 - Condition to Participate in the City-Wide Mello-Roos District October 2, 1990 Page No. 2 I suggest that we consider modifying the condition to be included in the Zone 18 plan and future plans to require participation in or annexation to the CFD prior to any discretionary action on the part of the City Council. Perhaps we should discuss this condition as a group prior to meeting with the Zone 18 representatives on October 4th. JAM JFE:tl cc: City Attorney August 31, 1990 TO: CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM: DON RIDEOUT, SR. MANAGEMENT ANALYST ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN The Zone 18 LFMP is now ready for Department Head review. Please provide us with your comments by Monday, September 17. There will be no formal Department Head meeting to go over the comments, but if you would like to meet to discuss any issue, please contact me at extension 4212. Also, please return your copy of the plan to me when you are finished with it. You will be given an updated version at the time it is scheduled for Planning Commission. Thank you. Distribution: City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Finance Director Planning Director Assistant Planning Director City Engineer Assistant City Engineer Library Director Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Community Development Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 16, 1990 Jeffrey Okun Facilities Administrator SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 San Marcos Boulevard San Marcos, CA 92069-2797 Dear Mr. Okun; Enclosed is the current "draft" copy of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan as it relates to the provision of school facilities within the San Marcos Unified School District. Due to development uncertainty over the Scripps Hospital property within the zone, processing was suspended until recently. The substantive changes requested in your correspondence of August 29, 1988 have been made with the exception of obvious temporal adjustments. Please review the documents and edit at will. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:km City of Carlsbad Planninc* Department June 13, 1990 Sheila Donovan HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES 2386 faraday, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: ZONE 18 REVIEW MEETING - JUNE 12, 1990 Dear Ms. Donovan; This letter will serve as a synopsis of our Zone 18 review meeting of June 12, 1990. The following comments need to be addressed: 1. Provide circulation section including SANDAG buildout analysis and JHK Palomar Airport Road analysis. 2. Provide AB 10578 (dated April 10, 1990) as requested April 19, 1990 (Library). See Zone 12 amendment (dated May 16, 1990) for all other changes to Library section. 3. We now require net acres by parcel number and land use for the citywide community facilities district. Please provide. 4. Exhibit 33 (Parks) - change 1990 and 1989 dates to 1991. Change BCED to Fieldstone. 5. Exhibit 15 - update Zone 12 number. SE quadrant number for Zone 6 = 6999. 6. City Administrative Facilities: Change Public Safety Center (II) references to Central Maintenance and Warehouse facility. Label same on Exhibit 20. 7. Exhibit 15's errors skew parks demand (p. 76). 8. Page 78; explain transfer of agreement to Fieldstone. Delete reference to one year. 9. Exhibit 32; correct Zone 12 total and correct addition. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 - (619) 438-1161 Sheila Donovan June 13, 1990 Page 2 10. Page 118 - format "unit - limit". 11. Exhibit 44, Fire; clarify and enhance response time boundaries. 12. Change all references to Mision Estancia to Camino De Los Coches. If you have any questions regarding the specificity required to complete the plan, do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:kd Don Rideout, Senior Management Analyst Steven Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis August 8, 1990 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for 90 Day Extension For Completion of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Don: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectfully requesting an extension of 90 days to complete the processing of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Please call me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619] 438-1465 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis May 14, 1990 Mr. Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Resubmittal of Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Mr. Hunter: Attached please find three copies of the Zone 18 - LFMP. The zone plan incorporates comments received in your letter of April 19, 1990. Per our last meeting, the circulation section is not included in the resubmittal. Resubmittal of the traffic report is dependent on the SANDAG build out analysis currently being prepared for the City. Upon receipt of the SANDAG analysis, Weston Pringle and Associates will utilize SANDAG data in their final traffic report. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Don Rideout Steve Jantz 2386 Faraday. Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619)438-1465 1? City of Carlsbad April 19, 1990 Engineering Department Sheila Donovan Hoffman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Donovan; This letter will serve as a synopsis of our Zone 18 review meeting of April 12,1990. The following comments need to be addressed: 1. Include Mr. Orenyak under City of Carlsbad responsible individuals. 2. Parks, Page 8, change "existing" to "proposed". 3. Page 27, both northeast and southeast quadrants. 4. Exhibit 6; note "based on planimeter" 5. Exhibit 10; RM total partial constraints = 17.55. Please be aware that EIR (p. 31) show "Areas of preserved natural vegetation." 6. Exhibit 14, 15 and 17; correct Zone 12 and footnote 12. 7. City Administration Page 53; Zone 18 buildout performance standard demand = 7751. 8. Library, Page 62; Provide AB 10578 (4/10/90) which increase S. Carlsbad Library to 64,000 sq. ft. Make all other corresponding changes. 9. Parks Agreement to be updated so that financing matrix timing makes sense. City will provide this information with next review. 10. Fire, Page 116; change "above" to consistent with". 11. Open Space, Page 125; At bottom of page add, "on 1/2/90 the City Council adopted the work plan for considering recommendations from the Citizens' Committee to Study Open Space. Task 2 of those recommendations includes considering modifications to the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan regarding types of open space which qualify toward meeting the 15% open space standard. Development projects will be analyzed per the existing polices in effect at the time of discretionary review. 12. Drainage (Northerly) - The analysis weights heavily on a hydrology study prepared by Dr. Chang. Rather than limit the mitigation to an extensive offsite requirement, a hydrology analysis should look at flood attenuation downstream (through Zones 16 and 15). Reducing runoff flows may reduce downstream impacts. 13. Drainage (southerly) - Propose a major desilt/detention basin (size and type) at the northern boundary of the La Costa Golf Course. A condition should also be included which would require a flood attenuation action plan to be adopted prior to the approval of any future development in the zone. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Sheila Donovan April 19, 1990 Page: 2 14. Circulation - The minor comments were written in the traffic study which was returned to you. The issue still needing resolution is the projected ADT on the arterial roadways. As you are aware, Carlsbad is currently updating the SANDAG Transportation model. It is suggested that the revised traffic study refer to the ADT projections in the forthcoming traffic model runs. 15. Sewer (Northerly) - A flow transfer agreement between the cities of Carlsbad and Vista must be adopted prior to the approval of future development in the raceway basin. This must be included as a condition in the Zone plan. 16. Sewer (southerly) - The sewer system to facilitate development must be financed prior to final map and constructed prior to issuance of any building permit. Also, include that portion of the Carlsbad sewer district which is in Zone 6 (La Golondrina). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Growth Management Team at 438-1161. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer c: Don Rideout Brian Hunter 195^ PaloinarOak-,\Va\ Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA ^200^ RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY April 5, 1990 Mr. Mike Holzmiller Mr. Marty Orenyak CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 SUBJECT: CARRILLO MASTER PLAN RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 11185 Dear Mike and Marty: We met yesterday with the Zone 18 owners to discuss the status of the project. It was agreed at our meeting that it is time to discuss with City staff the procedures and issues involved with the necessary update of the Carrillo Master Plan. Anita has confirmed that we will be able to meet with you on Monday, April 9, at 10:00 a.m., in your Planning conference room. An agenda for the meeting would be as follows: 1. Opening/Introductions 2. Review of the Current Master Plan Status 3. Discussion of Portions of the Master Plan to be Amended Phasing and Density Amendments Based on the Growth Management Ordinance and Slope Criteria Circulation Open Space Deletion of Certain Land Uses Keying the Master Plan to the Overall Growth Management Plan Other 4. Other Items Pertaining to the Master Plan Amendment 5. Discussion of Proposed Palomar Airport Road Assessment District Current Status Right-of-Way Dedications 6. Discussion of Timing for Above Items 7. Other 8. Adjourn DISTRIBUTION LIST Zone 18 Herb Palmtag UDC HOMES Jim Omsberg UDC HOMES Byron White WHITE & ROBINSON Jim Leary JAMES LEARY ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING Al Ziskin Jon Werner PACIFIC SCENE, INC. Nancy Hane GEORGE WIMPEY, INC. Mr. Mike Holzmiller Mr. Marty Orenyak Re: Carrillo Master Plan April 5, 1990 Page 2 We feel it would also be appropriate for you to assign a staff person who we could deal with for the day-to-day procedures required to update the Master Plan. We look forward to meeting with you on the ninth. Please call if you have any questions in the meantime. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd.009 cc: Zone 18 Property Owners (Per Distribution List) Mr. Bill Hofman HPA HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis March 22, 1990 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for Zone 18 - LFMP Meeting with Property Owners. Dear Don: Per our telephone conversation yesterday, March 21, 1990, I would like to request a meeting between the Growth Management Team and the Zone 18 property owners. As you know, the zone plan was resubmitted to the city on Monday, March 19, 1990. The revised text addressed staffs comments presented in you February 7, 1990 letter and includes a new traffic report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates. The traffic report was revised in two respects: 1) it assumed Scripps Hospital as residential land use and 2) it analyzed road segments based on a peak hour analysis per Steve Jantz's direction. Except for the circulation section, we believe, most of the public facility issues in Zone 18 have been resolved. We understand that since this is the initial traffic report submittal, some remaining traffic issues may need to be resolved. The Zone 18 property owners would like the opportunity to meet with the Growth Management Team to discuss any staff concerns with the circulation section and any other remaining issues. We would also like to discuss with you a likely timetable for approval of the Zone 18 - LFMP. For your information, I have attached a list of the Zone 18 property owners and representations that would like to meet with you. Please give me a 2386 Faraday, Suite 190 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 call when you have had a chance to review this letter with the Growth Management Team. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig ZONE 18 PROPERTY OWNERS Jim Omsberg UDC 438 Camino del Rio South Suite 112B San Diego, CA 92108 Nancy O. Hane George Wimpey, INC. 3565 Seventh Avenue P.O. Box 33608 San Diego, CA 92103 Jon Werner Pacific Scene 3900 Harney Street San Diego, CA 92110 Al Ziskin P.O. Box 9261 Rancho Santa Fe Carlsbad, CA 92067 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Panning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Resubmittal of Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Dear Mr. Hunter: Attached please find three copies of the revised Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. The zone plan includes a new circulation section as well as the staff comments presented in your letter of February 7, 1990. Per Steve Jantz's direction to Weston Pringle and Associates, the traffic report is based on a peak hour analysis for both road segments and intersections. A copy of the traffic report and park agreements are provided for inclusion into the appendices. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Don Rideout Steve Jantz 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619] 438-1465 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis February 2, 1990 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad ^^~— • — /!y e / O ^^ l» &*k JssVs* "'% o 1* ^ > fif.to 1 JJsi$y SUBJECT: Request for Resubmittal of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Don: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectfully requesting a resubmittal of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. It is our understanding that with the withdrawal and resubmittal of our application, no processing time has been lost. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619)438-1465 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis January 25, 1990 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for Withdrawal of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Don: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectfully requesting a withdrawal of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Although we are withdrawing the Zone 18 - LFMP at this time, it is our understanding that with resubmittal of our application, no processing time will be lost. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad Jon Werner, Pacific Scene Tony Griffin, George Wimpey, Inc. Jeff Smith, UDC Homes Al Ziskin Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Rscal Analysis November 28, 1989 Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for 90 Day Extension For Completion of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Don: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectfully requesting an extension of 90 days to complete the processing of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Please call me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Sheila Donovan cc: Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig 2386 Faraday. Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 City of Carlsbad Community Development November 16, 1989 Sheila Donovan Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 Dear Sheila: The State-mandated six month processing time for the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan will expire on December 1, 1989. The law allows a 90 day extension, however, the present status of the Plan is such that it cannot be completed within that time frame. Therefore, it is recommended that the Plan be withdrawn now, and resubmitted at a later date. Your letter of withdrawal must be received by Wednesday, November 22, 1989 or staff will have no alternative but to schedule the Plan for denial. Sincerely, DON HIDEOUT Senior Management Analyst DR:bjn c: City Manager Assistant to the City Manager Community Development Director Property Owners Zone 18 2O75 Las Palmas Drive*Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859»(619) 438-1161 CARLSBAD OAKS EAST, LTD. TELEPHONE (619) 223-1663 3575 KENYON STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 80036 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92138 November 2, 1989 Mr. Philip O. Carter, Assistant to the City Manager City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 RE: ZONE 16 Dear Mr. Carter: We represent all the owners of the land in Zone 16. As you know, for the past 2^ years, we have been working on a Specific Plan on Zone 16, and had submitted it recently to the City. We have expended a considerable amount of money and effort on this matter. I am sure you will agree with us that in view of the effort and money already spent, it will be impossible for us to agree to additional inclusion of other owners in this zone. We thought we should write you this letter to be sure you understand our position. Very truly yours, CARLSBAD OAKS EAST, LTD. By: Tech Construction Corp. PKT:js Byr Paul $. ^Tchang, President City of Carlsbad Planninci Department September 12, 1989 George Gentry Wimpey Gentry Inc. 7084 Miramar Road, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92121 Dear Mr. Gentry: Staff has reviewed your request to be removed from Zone 18 and annexed to Zone 5. For the reasons reviewed with you at our meeting, staff could not recommend that your property be annexed to Zone 5. The resolution of land use and facility impact issues in Zone 18 will not be hastened by your annexation to another zone. However, it is reasonable to pursue annexation to Zone 16 based on facility impacts (sewer, drainage, circulation) that relate to your property. Please provide me with a letter from the property owner in Zone 16, addressed to the City Council that indicates their willingness to have your property annexed to this zone and to work together towards the completion of a facility and financing plan. A letter from yourself requesting the annexation that reiterates your rationale is also required. Once reviewed, your request will then be scheduled for City Council action. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager POC:BH/af c: R. Patchett, City Manager M. Orenyak, Community Development Director B. Hunter, Senior Planner v' B. Ladwig, Rick Engineering 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 WIMPEY GENTRY INC. 7084 MIRAMAR ROAD, SUITE 400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 (619) 271-8333 August 3, 1989 Mr. Philip 0. Carter Assistant to the City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Dear Mr. Carter: Thank you for the time you and Brian Hunter gave R. L. Weiser, Bob Ladwig and myself this morning to discuss the possibility of annexing the Wimpey Gentry Inc. parcel presently included in the Zone 18 management zone to Zone 5. Notwithstanding your negative letter to me dated July 24, 1989, we still feel we have compelling reasons to be allowed annexation to Zone 5, not the least of which is our inability to resolve the land use and impact problems inherent in the remaining portion of Zone 18 and the consequent extremely long time delays these problems cause us. All of this is caused by the happenstance of our association by geography and not land use with the other owners in Zone 18. We have made it clear that we would fairly mitigate any reasonable impact created by our annexation to Zone 5 and any reasonable void left in Zone 18. Our priorities, for all the reasons we covered with you and Brian, are: 1. annex to Zone 5, 2. combine with Zone 16 supported with all our reasoning to join Zone 5, 3. remain in Zone 18. I am looking forward to further discussing this perplexing situation. Very truly you/i) A/I /Trs, H. President /jd cc:B. Hunter R. L. Weiser City of Carlsbad Plannfna Department September 12, 1989 George Gentry Wimpey Gentry Inc. 7084 Miramar Road, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92121 Dear Mr. Gentry: Staff has reviewed your request to be removed from Zone 18 and annexed to Zone 5. For the reasons reviewed with you at our meeting, staff could not recommend that your property be annexed to Zone 5. The resolution of land use and facility impact issues in Zone 18 will not be hastened by your annexation to another zone. However, it is reasonable to pursue annexation to Zone 16 based on facility impacts (sewer, drainage, circulation) that relate to your property. Please provide me with a letter from the property owner in Zone 16, addressed to the City Council that indicates their willingness to have your property annexed to this zone and to work together towards the completion of a facility and financing plan. A letter from yourself requesting the annexation that reiterates your rationale is also required. Once reviewed, your request will then be scheduled for City Council action. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager POC:BH/af c: R. Patchett, City Manager M. Orenyak, Community Development Director B. Hunter, Senior Planner B. Ladwig, Rick Engineering 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 WIMPEY GENTRY INC. 7084 MIRAMAR ROAD, SUITE 400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 (619) 271-8333 August 3, 1989 Mr. Philip 0. Carter Assistant to the City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Dear Mr. Carter: Thank you for the time you and Brian Hunter gave R. L. Weiser, Bob Ladwig and myself this morning to discuss the possibility of annexing the Wimpey Gentry Inc. parcel presently included in the Zone 18 management zone to Zone 5. Notwithstanding your negative letter to me dated July 24, 1989, we still feel we have compelling reasons to be allowed annexation to Zone 5, not the least of which is our inability to resolve the land use and impact problems inherent in the remaining portion of Zone 18 and the consequent extremely long time delays these problems cause us. All of this is caused by the happenstance of our association by geography and not land use with the other owners in Zone 18. We have made it clear that we would fairly mitigate any reasonable impact created by our annexation to Zone 5 and any reasonable void left in Zone 18. Our priorities, for all the reasons we covered with you and Brian, are: 1. annex to Zone 5, 2. combine with Zone 16 supported with all our reasoning to join Zone 5, 3. remain in Zone 18. I am looking forward to further discussing this perplexing situation. Very truly yours, cc: B. Hunter R. L. Weiser M'iVfeli^^; MAJOR CIRCULATION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA. Prepared By: RICK ENGINEERING CO. SAN MARCOS, CA. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 Office of the City Manager Jl/L 2 6 TELEPHONE (619) 434-2821 of Olarlabafc July 24, 1989 Mr. George Gentry President Wimpey Gentry Inc. 7084 Miramar Road, Suite 400 San Diego, Ca. 92121 Dear Mr. Gentry: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request to have your property moved from Local Facility Management Zone 18 to Zone 5. Staff has taken a great deal of time to review your request. At the present, we can not recommend that your property be allowed into Local Facility Management Zone 5. The Local Facility Management Zone boundaries were established during the formation of the City's Growth Management—Program in 1986. The Zone 5 boundary stopped short of your property because it contained a final map — project with infrastructure in place and development occurring. Your property has no entitlements, no applications pending, and no environmental review. Therefore, it was not made a part of Zone 5. You provide numerous reasons why you believe your property should be removed from Zone 18 and priced into Zone 5. However, your request doesn't completely addresW:he facilities impacts this would create or propose the appropriate mitigation. The inclusion of your property would require reanalyzing the overall facility impacts in Zone 5 and would also effect the processing of other applications in the Zone. In addition, the development of your property may require the completion of Palomar Airport Road to prime arterial standards from El Camino Real to the" easterly City boundary^It will also have additional circulation impacts which will need to be addressed as well as other specific facility impacts. Again, based on the information reviewed, we can not recommend that your property be moved into Zone 5. We would recommend that you continue to work Owith the Zone 18 propexty owners to process the Local Facilities Management, for that zone.e-P July 25, 1989 Mr. George Wimpey Page 2 If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please call me at 434-2819. Sincerely, Philip Of Carter Assistant to the City Manager c: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner ZONES NOT TO SCALE FINANCING PLAN LOCATION MAP FOR EXHBIT 1 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN ZONE 5 City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 11, 1989 Mr. Todd Fagen Weston Pringle and Associates 2651 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 110 Fuller-ton, CA 92631 RE: LFMP Zone 18 - Traffic Study This letter is intended to summarize the meeting regarding the review of the traffic study for Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 18 and to clarify assumptions necessary to complete the analysis of circulation impacts generated by future development within Zone 18. The major points of discussion were as follows: 1. The "marked up" traffic study, which was given to you at the meeting, included existing traffic counts conducted by City staff on various road links impacted by Zone 18 traffic. It is recommended that you use these counts in lieu of those as shown on the SANDAG "1987 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes North San Diego County Area." These counts were conducted recently and were higher than those presented in the original traffic study. Additional counts can be provided by City staff, if necessary, upon request. 2. It is suggested that you use the most recent circulation computer model which utilized the Scripps Hospital land use assumption. This model was also used to confirm the 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2010 directional distribution percentages. Computer model runs prepared by SANDAG can be used as reference to determine estimated future ADT on the circulation facilities impacted by Zone 18 traffic. 3. In a conversation with Sheila Donovan of Hofman Planning Associates, the phasing of development in Zone 18 is being revised. Amend the traffic analysis accordingly to be consistent with the proposed phasing. 4. The timing of the proposed mitigation should be reviewed. The City's Circulation Guidelines Manual requires that you assume the completion of various circulation facilities adjacent to Zone 18. However, if there is no funding source which guarantees the construction of those facilities and the traffic analysis included those facilities to determine the 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Todd Fagen July 11, 1989 Page 2 operating Level of Service (L.O.S.) of certain road links or intersections, then those facilities must be constructed by development in the zone in order to comply with the performance standards. The intent of the traffic study is to determine specifically when certain circulation facilities are necessary so that the performance standard is maintained as development occurs in Zone 18. It is suggested that a traffic study be prepared which performs a year to year analysis of the yearly impacts of future development on the circulation network at the time of development. This would include all existing facilities and those which would be requirements of development within Zone 18 (i.e. Melrose Avenue, El Fuerte and Scripps Way). At the point when the analysis indicates that the L.O.S. of any circulation facility falls below the performance standard, then appropriate mitigation must be proposed. Possible mitigation can include up-grading a deficient facility or construction of an offsite facility which may relieve congestion at the failing circulation facility (i.e. construction at Carrillo Way). This method of analysis is based on thresholds and will more accurately determine when and what facilities are required to accommodate future development within Zone 18. 5. With regards to the timing of construction of Melrose Avenue north of Palomar Airport Road, this road link will most likely be a condition to the approval of any future development in the raceway basin area. Please contact Sheila Donovan to confirm the proposed yearly phasing of development for the raceway basin. Ms. Donovan indicated that this area is projected to be developed between 1991 and 1995. The construction of Melrose Avenue will be in conjunction with future development in that area. 6. We also discussed at length the proposed future intersection geometries. The traffic study proposes intersections configurations which include: As you are aware, the City is in the process of preparing a policy which would set guidelines for design of certain intersections. Even though the policy is not yet adopted, the guidelines, thresholds and recommendations should be maintained. A copy of these guidelines is attached. The intersection geometries proposed in the traffic study do not meet these guidelines. It was then suggested that alternative intersection configurations be investigated. The City would be very interested in reviewing various alternatives to include but not be limited to an urban interchange. Todd Fagen July 11, 1989 Page 3 The final agreement to the intersection geometries will then allow for the completion of the traffic study but also contribute to the computations of estimated construction costs. As soon as you are ready to present alternatives, please contact me to set a meeting. 7. With regards to Scripps Way, due to the amount of traffic projected to use Scripps Way and as was also recommended in the Scripps Hospital E.I.R., Scripps Way should be constructed to major arterial standards. To increase the working Level of Service of Scripps Way between Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue, the proposed median break should be limited to the entrance of the Scripps Hospital site. Mr. Bob Ladwig has submitted a request to cul-de-sac Scripps Way to prohibit through traffic. This request is currently being reviewed by City staff. The final result will be incorporated into the revised traffic study. We will contact you as soon as this review is complete. I believe the above is a complete summary of the issues affecting circulation in Zone 18. If I can clarify any point or answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 438-1161. STEVEN ^ Associate-^Tvil Engineer SCJ:af Attachment c: Phil Carter Brian Hunter Don Rideout Oavid Hauser Clyde Wickham Dee Landers June 14, 1988 GRADE-SEPARATED INTERCHANGE STANDARD A grade-separated interchange (sometimes referred to as an urban interchange) shall be required under any of the following circumstances, provided that existing land development and/or geometric configuration does not make it physically impractical. I. At any four-legged intersection of two prime arterials. II. At any other intersection where the combined entering traffic volume on all approach legs would be in excess of 60,000 ADT, AND where, in order to meet City of Carlsbad Growth Management standards any one of the following conditions could not be met: A. The level of service for a signalized intersection, as calculated in accordance with City Growth Management Guidelines*, shall be no worse than C during off-peak hours, nor D during the peak hour. B. The maximum number of turn lanes abreast on any intersection approach leg shall be two left turns and one right turn. C. The maximum number of lanes approaching an intersection in one direction shall be two on a collector street, three on a secondary arterial, four on a major arterial, and five on a prime arterial. The lanes may be a combination of through, left or right turns. D. Through lanes shall be no less than 12 feet wide; turn lanes no less than ten feet wide. E. The maximum crossing distance for pedestrians shall be 108 feet (the curb to curb width of a prime arterial) plus the added width created by curb returns. Signal timing shall be such that a pedestrian will be given enough time to cross the entire street in a single crossing (no waiting in the median or on an island). F. On streets with raised medians such as major and prime arterials, the minimum width of the median nose at the intersection shall be four feet. III. In those instances where a developer cannot, or does not wish to conform to the City's standards 'for public or private street intersection spacing driveway location, or access restriction. * City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program - Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Transportation Impact Studies - Carlsbad Engineering and Planning Department, February 9, 1988 (or any subsequent revision) -2- City of Carlsbad June 1, 1989 Shelia Donovan Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Dear Ms. Donovan: Thank you for the resubmittal of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan on May 2, 1989. Although the plan meets the minimum criteria for initiating the technical review process, a number of issues need to be addressed. These include: 1. General Comment - Format for technical review is inadequate and inconsistent with last four adopted plans. Information is not being carried forward from previous plans. 2. Executive Summary - Financing summary is contradictory; it identifies two facilities that fail, then speaks only to circulation in the discussion. There is no discussion of Scripps applications and concurrent processing. 3. Introduction - Text shows raceway property PM-Q, graphics show C-2. Neither correct. Plan also needs to show Hospital Overlay Zone. 4. Buildout - Constraints analysis shows Hospital as General Plan Designation. Hospital General Plan is RM. 5. Phasing is overly optimistic. EIR on Scripps indicates need for offsite mitigation which will require additional environmental review, as well as, permits from other agencies, EIR on Carrillo Master Plan is essentially 10 years old and needs updating. No environmental review on raceway property. There are no entitlements in zone. With maximum effort Scripps may build in 1990. I see no potential for residential or non-residential (other than Scripps) prior to 1991. 6. City Admin. - Needs to add water district offices. 7. Library - Performance standard incorrect. 2O75 Las Paimas Drive • Carlsbad, California 9POO9 /I859 • (OH)) 13R-1IO1 Shelia Donovan June 1, 1989 Page 2 8. Wastewater - 1) Minor wordage revisions 2) Must up-date financing matrix 9. Parks - Performance standard incorrect. Existing demand incorrect. Existing facilities number incorrect. Adequacy analysis incorrect. Need to discuss non-residential impact fees similar to the Zone 5 requirements. 10. Circulation - 1) Inconsistencies with phasing of development in traffic study as compared with phasing in zone plan. 2) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 3) Construction schedule for improvements for 1990 is unrealistic. 4) First source of funding proposes public financing. 5) Does not address urban interchange 6) Traffic study assumes construction of various road improvements which do not have current funding source to ensure their construction. 7) Phasing is not consistent with that shown in zone plan. 8) Existing traffic counts are lower than actual counts performed by City staff. 9) Various assumptions used to prepare traffic study are not acceptable, therefore, entire traffic study must be revised. 10) Intersection I.C.U. calcs must be revised. 11. Drainage - 1) In wrong order - drainage is before circulation. 2) Does not address downstream impacts after full development: a) S'ly impact thru La Costa Golf Course b) N'ly impact thru Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park 3) Not consistent with recommendation in Scripps E.I.R. 4) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 5) Does not tie into improvements which may be identified in forthcoming revised Drainage Master Plan. 12. Fire - Standard is not analyzed correctly. Fire Station #5 is shown as proposed, however, it is operational. 13. Open Space - Counts unimproved slopes of 25-40% as existing performance standard open space. This is not consistent with the performance standard. 14. Schools - Current enrollment is shown as of 6-11-87. District has completed Master Plan. SMUSD does need school site in Zone 18. Adequacy findings and mitigation state financing necessary, while financing section states no financing necessary. District requests Mello-Roos. Shelia Donovan June 1, 1989 Page 3 15. Sewer - 1) Text does not follow proper format. 2) Phasing not consistent with that shown in phasing section. 3) Flow transfer agreement should be discussed more thoroughly. 4) Proposing to pump sewage from one basin to another. 5) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 6) Proposes sewer fees as first funding option. 7) Still using statement "...projections are for planning purposes only..." which was deleted (at the request of the Planning Commission) many zone plans ago. 16. Water - 1) Text does not follow proper format. 2) Phasing not consistent with that shown in phasing section. 3) Using "...projections are for planning purposes only..." statement. 4) May possibly require revision to service area boundaries. 5) Needs up-dated reclaimed water statement (conform to upcoming Reclaimed Water Master Plan). 6) Does not indicate Vista's 10 day storage capacity requirement. 7) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. The issues listed above need to be resolved and corrections made prior to resubmitting the plan for additional review. If you have any questions regarding staff's comments, do not hesitate to contact Don Rideout at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af Zone 18 Property Owners Phil Carter - Assistant to City Manager Don Rideout - Senior Management Analyst Steven C. Jantz - Associate Civil Engineer MEMORANDUM MAY 23, 1989 TO: PHILIP 0. CARTER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FROM: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner RE: ZONE 18 LFMP COMPLETENESS REVIEW 1. General Comment - Format for technical review is inadequate and inconsistent with last four adopted plans. Information is not being carried forward from previous plans. 2. Executive Summary - Financing summary is contradictory; it identifies two facilities that fail, then speaks only to circulation in the discussion. There is no discussion of Scripps applications and concurrent processing. 3. Introduction - Text shows raceway property PM-Q, graphics show C-2. Neither correct. Plan also needs to show Hospital Overlay Zone. 4. Buildout - Constraints analysis shows Hospital as General Plan Designation. Hospital General Plan is RM. 5. Phasing is overly optimistic. EIR on Scripps indicates need for offsite mitigation which will require additional environmental review, as well as, permits from other agencies. EIR on Carrillo Master Plan is essentially 10 years old and needs updating. No environmental review on raceway property. There are no entitlements in zone. With maximum effort Scripps may build in 1990. I see no potential for residential or non-residential other than Scripps commercial/industrial prior to 1991. 6. City Admin. - Needs to add water district offices. 7. Library - Performance standard incorrect. 8. Wastewater - 1) Minor wordage revisions 2) Must up-date financing matrix 9. Parks - Performance standard incorrect. Existing demand incorrect. Existing facilities number incorrect. Adequacy analysis incorrect. Need to discuss non-residential impact fees similar to the Zone 5 requirements. 10. Circulation - 1) Inconsistencies with phasing of development in traffic study as compared with phasing in zone plan. 2) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 3) Construction schedule for improvements for 1990 is unrealistic. 4) First source of funding proposes public financing. 5) Does not address urban interchange 6) Traffic study assumes construction of various road improvements which do not have current funding source to ensure their construction. 7) Phasing is not consistent with that shown in zone plan. 8) Existing traffic counts are lower than actual counts performed by City staff. 9) Various assumptions used to prepare traffic study are not acceptable, therefore, entire traffic study must be revised. 10) Intersection I.C.U. calcs must be revised. 11. Drainage - 1) In wrong order - drainage is before circulation. 2) Does not address downstream impacts after full development: a) S'ly impact thru La Costa Golf Course b) N'ly impact thru Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park 3) Not consistent with recommendation in Scripps E.I.R. 4) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 5) Does not tie into improvements which may be identified in forthcoming revised Drainage Master Plan. 12. Fire - Standard is not analyzed correctly. Fire Station #5 is shown as proposed, however, it is operational. 13. Open Space - Counts unimproved slopes of 25-40% as existing performance standard open space. This is not consistent with the performance standard. 14. Schools - Current enrollment is shown as of 6-11-87. District has completed Master Plan. SMUSD does need school site in Zone 18. Adequacy findings and mitigation state financing necessary, while financing section states no financing necessary. District requests Mello-Roos. 15. Sewer - 1) Text does not follow proper format. 2) Phasing not consistent with that shown in phasing section. 3) Flow transfer agreement should be discussed more thoroughly. 4) Proposing to pump sewage from one basin to another. 5) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. 6) Proposes sewer fees as first funding option. -2- 7) Still using statement "...projections are for planning purposes only..." which was deleted (at the request of the Planning Commission) many zone plans ago. 16. Water - 1) Text does not follow proper format. 2) Phasing not consistent with that shown in phasing section. 3) Using "...projections are for planning purposes only..." statement. 4) May possibly require revision to service area boundaries. 5) Needs up-dated reclaimed water statement (conform to upcoming Reclaimed Water Master Plan). 6) Does not indicate Vista's 10 day storage capacity requirement. 7) Wordage of mitigation is not consistent with acceptable format adopted in latest approved zone plans. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 has numerous errors and format inconsistencies. The plan does not incorporate updates to the latest approved plans. BH:kd Zone 18.mem -3- MEMORANDUM MAY 17, 1989 TO: PHILIP 0. CARTER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FROM: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner RE: ZONE 18 LFMP COMPLETENESS REVIEW 1. General Comment - Format for technical inadequate and inconsistent with last four adopted plans. Information is not being carried forward to subsequent plans. 2. Executive Summary - Financing contradictory; identifies two facilities that fail, then speaks only to circulation. 3. Introduction - Text shows raceway property PM-Q, graphics show C-2. Neither correct. Plan also needs to show Hospital Overlay Zone. ' 4. Buildout - Constraints analysis shows Hospital as General Plan Designation. Hospital General Plan is RM. 5. Phasing is overly optimistic. EIR on Scripps indicates need for offsite mitigation which will require additional environmental review, as well as, permits from other agencies. EIR on Carrillo Master Plan is essentially 10 years old and needs updating. No environmental review on raceway property. There are no entitlements in zone. With maximum effortScripps ma.y build in 1990. I see no potential for residential or other than Scripps commercial/industrial prior to 1991. 6. City Admin. - Needs to add water district offices. 7. Library - Performance standard incorrect. 8. Wastewater - Needs to be updated. 9. Parks - Performance standard incorrect. Existing demand incorrect. Existing facilities number incorrect. Adequacy analysis incorrect. Need to add .40/sq. ft. non res. condition. 10. Circulation - Being reviewed by M. Bouman. Meeting scheduled 5/22/89. Revising traffic study. 11. Drainage - Included after circulation. Does not conform with drainage improvements in Scripps EIR. Needs to analyze ultimate impact downstream at golf course and conform with forthcoming drainage master plan. 12. Fire - Standard is not analyzed correctly, fire Station #5 is shown as proposed. 13. Open Space - Counts unimproved slopes of 25-40% as existing performance standard open space. 14. Schools - Current enrollment is shown as of 6-11-87. District has completed Master Plan. SMUSD does need school site in Zone 18. Adequacy findings and mitigation state financing necessary, while financing section states no financing necessary. District requests Mello-Roos. 15. Sewer - Format and technical corrections necessary 16. Water - Requires format and technical corrections prior to review by water district. Its a long way to discretionary review BH:kd ZonelS.mem HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis May 8, 1989 Don Hideout City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Dear Don: Request for Withdrawal of the Zone 15 - Local Facilities Management Plan. As per the request in your letter dated May 5, 1989, on behalf of the property owners in Zone 15, we are respectfully requesting a withdrawal of the Zone 15 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Although we are withdrawing the Zone 15 - LFMP at this time, it is our understanding that with resubmittal of our application, no processing time will be lost. Sincerely, ( J/U^^t^Vi&r-rt-c*^*—-^ Lisa Thomas cc: Phil Carter Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 15 Property Owners 2386 Faraday, Suite 190 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619] 438-1465 Richard L. Weiser 401 West "A" Street Suite 500 San Diego CA 92101 June 26, 1989 Mr. Philip O. Carter Assistant to the City Manager City of Carlsbad, California 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Dear Mr. Carter: This is a follow up to George Gentry's letter of May 2, to you requesting your approval to move the Wimpey-Gentry property from Local Facilities Management Zone 18 into Local Facilities Manage- ment Zone 5. Since late last year I have, at the invitation of Zone 5 owners, represented Wimpey-Gentry at the Zone 5 owners meetings to become familiar with their deliberations leading to the development of and ultimate submission of the Zone 5 financing plan designed to meet their management plan and city wide infrastructure require- ments. The Zone 5 owners are aware of the Wimpey-Gentry request to annex to their zone and welcome the addition. Our mutual concern at this time is that the finance plan for Zone 5 is near submission to the City and the Wimpey-Gentry acreage and the planned square footage of industrial development of the Wimpey- Gentry property is not now in their finance plan numbers. The acreage and square footage numbers are known to the Zone 5 owners and their consultant and can be easily included at this time if the annexation request is approved. I understand that there is some concern that by annexing to Zone 5 the Wimpey-Gentry property will carry over with it some infra- structure obligations to the owners of Zone 5. Our proposal does not foresee this at all. As noted in George Gentry's May 2nd letter to you the Wimpey-Gentry obligation to the local facilities management plan of Zone 18 is limited by the juxsta position of their property in relation to the rest of Zone 18 ie: different drainage basin, different sewer system, different water system and different land use. Recent changes to the traffic section of the Zone 18 management plan has been made, where Scripps Way south of Palomar Airport Way June 26, 1989 Page 2 is redesigned to eliminate the possibility of regional traffic using Scripps Way as a short cut through the Zone 18 residential area on to El Camino Real and beyond. This also alters the traffic generation assignment of the industrial traffic created by the Wimpey-Gentry property. The industrial traffic now impacts only Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Avenue North and south of Palomar Airport Road and Business Park in San Marcos and Vista. Palomar Airport Road is a subdivision obligation of the Wimpey-Gentry property along with established construction obligations of the Proposition "A" Program and Management Plan obligations of Zone 5. Melrose Avenue north of Palomar Airport Road is also a subdivision obligation of Wimpey-Gentry leaving only the share of traffic impact on Melrose Avenue south of Palomar Airport Road as an obligation of Wimpey-Gentry in the Management Plan of Zone 18. Some financial arrangement with the other owners within Zone 18 can be made to satisfy the traffic impact obligation of Wimpey-Gentry property on Melrose Avenue south on Palomar Airport Road within Zone 18. Therefore, the Wimpey-Gentry property would be obligation free to annex to Zone 5 and assume its part of the Zone 5 Finance Plan. I hope this helps to clarify the Wimpey-Gentry proposal of annex- ation to Zone 5 and will make such approval forthcoming soon in order that their property can be included in the pending Zone 5 Financing Plan submittal. Sincerely, Richard L. Weiser RLW/bs cc: George Gentry John Mamaux/City Council Office WIMPEY GENTRY INC. 7084 MIRAMAR ROAD, SUITE 400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 (619) 271-8333 May 2, 1989 Mr. Phil Carter Assistant to the City Manager Growth Management Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Carter: I would like you to consider our request to annex our property situated north of Palomar Airport Road commencing at the proposed Melrose Avenue intersection with Palomar Airport Road and extending east to the city limits of San Marcos, to Zone 5 for development purposes. The logic and reasoning behind the request for annexation is that this 218 +/- acres has many characteristics and relationships with Zone 5. 1. Our land use is light industrial as is all of Zone 5. The development motives, procedures, infrastructure needs, and requirements for Zone 5 and our property are the same. Our relationship to the other land uses within Zone 18 (hospital, residential, etc.) is considerably different. 2. We are in a separate drainage area from the rest of Zone 18. Our entire drainage system is in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon drainage basin, as is Zone 5, and the rest of Zone 18 is in the Batiquitos Lagoon drainage basin. All of our growth management drainage responsibilities are taken care of with the improvement requirements of our subdivision. 3. We use an entirely separate sewer outfall and we are in a separate assessment district from the rest of Zone 18. Our sewer service is provided by the City of Vista sewer assessment district. The facilities are presently installed and we will connect by subdivision map process. Mr. Phil Carter May 2, 1989 Page 2 4. Our water service is separate from the rest of Zone 18. The Vista irrigation district serves our area and is at present installing facilities to serve the ultimate build-out. The rest of Zone 18 is served by Costa Real Municipal water district. 5. Our grading plan and requirements are entirely separate and independent of the remaining Zone 18 grading. 6. Our primary access is from Palomar Airport Road which is also the major Zone 5 arterial. 7. Our mapping improvement requirements will install our portion of the infrastructure needs of Zone 18; i.e., one-half of Palomar Airport Road, along the entire width of Zone 18 and full width improvement of Melrose Avenue north of Palomar Airport Road to the city limits of Vista. It would be our intention to remain a part of Zone 18 as far as their financing plan is concerned and contribute as required. For the reasons outlined above and because of our position in the northeast quadrant along with Zone 5 and Zone 16, we would request annexation to Zone 5 for development purposes. Very truly yours, '( ^i ', .jy~, vv )tivGeorge H. ^Gentry \ President \ /jd Attachment CITY OF OCEAN8IDE CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS ADOPTED PLANS UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW INITIAL PLANNING NO ACTIVITY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BEING REVISED WITH MASTER PLAN City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Ranning • Project Management • Fiscal Analysis May 2, 1989 Phil Carter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Resubmittal of Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan for Staff Review. Dear Phil: Attached please find 3 copies of the revised Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). The revised LFMP includes a new traffic report prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates. The traffic report is based on a SANDAG build out distribution for Zone 18 that includes the Scripps Hospital overlay. The distributions were agreed to at a meeting held on February 23, 1989, with Marty Bouman, Steve Jantz, Bob Ladwig, Todd Pagan, Bill Hofman and myself. In addition to staff comments previously provided to us, the revised LFMP includes updating facility analysis to January 1, 1989, and to include impact of recently adopted Zone Plans. Per our letter of withdrawal on October 4, 1988, it is our understanding that with resubmittal of our application, no processing time will be lost. It is also our understanding that an additional $10,000 submittal fee is not required at this time since funds are still available from the original submittal fee. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ^jt+^tE Sheila Donovan cc: Don Rideout Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Bob Ladwig Zone 18 Property Owners 2386 Faraday. Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619)438-1465 —e 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE BJ^FjB / f!^ ^ ' TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 Wf^J^M ^ (619)438-1161 ofMarch 23, 1989 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim Leary Brown Leary 10201 Wateridge Circle San Diego, CA 92121 RE: SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Dear Jim: I recently reviewed your letter of March 13 to Dee Landers regarding possible revisions to the Hospital Overlay Zone by utilizing a Site Master Plan/Site Development Plan process for the review of Scripps Hospital. I discussed this concept with members of staff and as a group we do not believe this method of review is what was intended when the hospital overlay zone was adopted. The City Council has stated in a general way that a hospital mav be appropriate at the proposed location; however, this was based on the premise that all specific development standards and growth management policies were met. A master plan would not provide the level of detailed information determined by the City Council to be necessary to make an informed decision. Certain basic information must be provided to enable staff to make a recommendation to the City Council. Some of this data is relevant to the Zone 18 plan and some of it is specific to Scripps; however, much of this information has previously been requested by staff. It is possible that as the zone plan proceeds, new facilities issues that have not already been identified may come up. Several known issues that need to be resolved include the following: ZONE 18 A schematic design, horizontal and vertical alignment, and financing plan must be approved for the urban interchange. A financing plan to guarantee the construction of: a) Mel rose Avenue from Alga Road to the Vista City limits. b) Widening of Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real easterly to provide adequate capacity. A financing plan to guarantee construction of a major water transmission line in Palomar Airport Road. The length of line and extent of improvements will be determined by Costa Real Municipal Water District. The requirement for site dedication and financing for both a school and a park will be evaluated with the processing of the zone plan. 5. An open space area of the same acreage and of the same or better environmental value must be provided within Zone 18 to compensate for the loss of open space on the Scripps site. This figure may be calculated after subtracting the loss due to grading necessitated by Mel rose Avenue improvements. 6. Environmental assessment will be required as part of the Zone 18 plan. This assessment should address the environmental impacts of required facility improvements including Carrillo Way and the Carrillo Interceptor. SCRIPPS 7. Prior to the first occupancy of Scripps. installation of full street improvements, inclusive of the urban interchange, must be completed on roadways adjacent to the hospital site. This also includes four lanes on Palomar Airport from El Camino Real easterly. 8. Guarantee the financing of the Carrillo Way Interceptor (including pump station) from Scripps Way to El Camino Real consistent with Zone 18 requirements. As I mentioned, these issues have been previously identified by staff and still must be resolved. I sympathize with your frustration on the processing of the Scripps application; however, development in an area of the City without a supporting infrastructure is always more complicated. This is particularly true for the first developer, such as yourself, who assumes the burden of providing detailed information for analysis, and also subsequent construction of facilities. I understand your reluctance to invest the money to do detailed plans when you don't know whether or not you will receive Council approval. However, staff has determined that although the review process for Zone 18 and Scripps may be lengthy, both the review and the provision of public facilities must be done in an orderly method to be consistent with the Hospital Overlay Zone and Growth Management. We will defer the decision on temporary solutions to the above issues until after the Zone 18 plan has been submitted and analyzed. I hope this letter clearly addresses your request and identifies the major project issues. After you have had a chance to review the letter, please call me to discuss the issues personally. Sincerely, \RTIN ORENY; Community Development Director MO:AML/lh Scripps.Itr c: Ray Patchett Michael Holzmiller Lloyd Hubbs 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • ^r^jB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 m^RM-Jr^ (619)438-1161 (Uttu iif (Barluluifc PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 27, 1989 Rick Engineering White & Robinson Cal Fed Enterprises Scripps Hospital Anson Tone The Woodward Companies Bennett Properties The Gentry Company Meister Development Group SUBJECT: PROPOSED GRADING FOR CARRILLO WAY The Planning and Engineering Departments have spent considerable time analyzing your proposal to do the mass grading required for the installation of street improvements on Carrillo Way. Your proposal does have merit, but before we could consider approving such a request there are a number of steps you must complete before any approval could occur. These are as follows: ZONE 18 The Zone 18 plan needs to be submitted for formal staff review, so a complete analysis and assessment of facility impacts can be completed. Until such time as the plan is reviewed by staff, no specific mitigation requirements can be provided. It should be understood that the Zone 18 Plan will be conditioned in a similar fashion to Zones 8, 22 and 24 to provide off-site road improvements. Installation of Carrillo Way to El Camino Real will be dependent upon the occurrence of development within Zone 18. Off-site sewer improvements to El Camino Real will be required concurrent with initial development. Based upon the Scripps EIR, there is inadequate capacity within the Buena Sanitation Outfall located at Palomar Airport Road. Sewer demands from Zone 18 will not be allowed to sewer temporarily into any other trunk!ines. We would be willing to consider an interim solution but not without a detailed program to finance the ultimate system. Specific solutions to this facility therefore will be defined in the Zone 18 Plan. Property owners in Zones 10 and 17 must provide conceptual approval for horizontal and vertical alignments of Carrillo Way. GRADING In Zones 10 and 17, grading for Carrillo Way street improvements will occur as determined by the Zone 18 Plan. However, mass grading in Zones 10 and 17, for other than Carrillo Way improvements may not occur until tentative maps are submitted on property adjacent to Carrillo Way. Of course, this would also require the prior approval of local facility management plans for Zones 10 and 17. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact report will be required for the extension of Carrillo Way to El Camino Real. This should be completed prior to approval of a precise vertical and horizontal alignment. The EIR should address impacts related to biology, archaeology, paleontology, hydrology, grading, hillside, drainage, circulation, utilities, noise, air quality and growth inducement. In conclusion, the mass grading concept does have some merit but realistically, the development of this proposal is a few years away. To expedite the process, however, there are a number of items we recommend that you begin working on. These include: 1. Precise alignment studies for Carrillo Way. 2. Conceptual approval by property owners from Zones 10 and 17. 3. Environmental impact report for Carrillo Way precise alignment including alternatives. 4. Submittal of zone plans for 10 and 17. The Engineering staff is currently attempting to develop policies and procedures for the implementation of precise alignment studies. If you have any suggestions please discuss them with the City Engineer. I hope this letter establishes the staff's position for mass grading on Carrillo Way and identifies potential preliminary work. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, MARTY ORENYAK Community Development Director c: Lloyd Hubbs Michael HolzmillerCity Manager MO:AL/lh zonelS.ltr CARRILLO RANCH ALLOCAT COSTS 1. Palomar Airport Road $1,674,000 (Includes costs to construct the initial portion of Palomar Airport Road as outlined in the revision to the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan, Item 13, Palomar Airport Road, Page V-15, as approved by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2223, December 28, 1983, and Ordinance No. 9706 as Passed and Adopted by the City Council on February 7, 1984, consisting of grading, street lights, storm drain and two 14' lanes each way, plus bonding for median.) Allocated to adjacent property owners by frontage. Woodward/Meister 2,200 feet of 9,400 feet total 23% $ 385,020 Woodward/Aetna 700 feet of 9,400 feet total 71 $ 117,180 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 6,500 feet of 9,400 feet total 70% $1,171,800 Note: Remaining Palomar Airport Road Improvements will be required with each project based on the frontage of a project as it adjoins Palomar Airport Road. 2. Proposed Access Road and Temporary Sewer . $ 592,950 (Includes development of full intersection as may be approved by the City, of Palomar Airport Road to serve first 500 units, and the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.) Allocated on a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 basis. Hoodward/Meister 33-1/3% $ 197,650 Woodward/Aetna 33-1/3% $ 197,650 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 33-1/3% $ 197,650 Note: To be requested of City when first Tentative Haps are filed. 3. Retention Basins $ 413,000 Allocated on an acreage basis by ownership south of Palomar Airport Road. Woodward/Meister 141 acres of. 678 acres 21% $ 86,730 Woodward/Aetna 112 acres of 678 acres 16% $ 66,080 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 425 acres of 678 acres 63% $ 260,190 4. Relocation of Existing Force Mains S 150,000 Allocated on the basis of units per ownership south of Palomar Airport Road. Woodward/Meister 691 OU of 2,998 DU 23% $ 34,500 Woodward/Aetna 729 DU of 2,998 DU 24% $ 36,000 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 1,578 DU of 2,998 DU 53% S 79,500 EXHIBIT "D" 5. Me> -.se Avenue $8,878,000 Allocated to adjacent property owners by length within ownership. Improvements shall be constructed as per the schedule on Page V-14 of the Amended Carrillo Ranch master plan. Woodward/Meiater 2,600 feet of 6,800 feet total 381 $3,373,640 Woodward/Aetna 800 feet of 6,800 feet total 12% $1,065,360 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 3,400 feet of 6,800 feet total 50% $4,439,000 Note: Melrose Avenue north of Palomar Airport road is not included. 6. Trunk Sewer to City Main, Just East of El Camino Real $1,400,000 (Include lift station and force main.) Allocated on the basis of units per ownership south of Palomar Airport Road. Woodward/Meister 691 OU of 2,998 OU 23% $ 322,000 Woodward/Aetna 729 DU of 2,998 DU 24% $ 336,000 Carrillo Ranch Partnership 1,578 DU of 2,998 DU 53% $ 742,000 Note: Allocation could change slightly in final computation due to additions or deletions to participating offsite ownerships. The above calculations were based on the following figures: Total DU 2,998 Total Acres 678* Woodward/Meister 691 - 23% 141 - 21% Woodward/Aetna 729 - 24% 112 - 16% Carrillo Ranch 1,578 - 53% **425 - 63% Partnership * Total Ranch is 745 acres. •* Carrillo Ranch Partnership owns 492 acres of which 67 is north of Palomar Airport Road and 425 south. The 425 acres was used for calculation* as the 67 acres did not enter into any acreage allocation. EXHIBIT "D" - Page 2 / 2 DRAN18 7495Y MASTER PLAN MAJOR NO. FACILITY 1 30-INCH 2 36-INCH 42-INCH 3 48-INCH COST ESTIMATE MAJOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES FOR ZONE 18 STORM DRAIN FACILITIES WITHIN ZONE 18 QUANITITY STORM STORM SRORM STORM DRAIN DRAIN DRAIN DRAIN 4 EARTH DITCH CLEANOUTS, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC MASTER PLAN MAJOR STORM DRAIN BY THE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM NO. FACILITY 1000 1000 500 1500 LF LF LF LF 1000 LF SUBTOTAL 20% OF SUBTOTAL TOTAL FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF ZONE 18. QUANITITY 5 EARTH DITCH 6 30-INCH STORM DRAIN 42-INCH STORM DRAIN 48-INCH STORM DRAIN 54-INCH STORM DRAIN 60-INCH STORM DRAIN 66-INCH STORM DRAIN CLEANOUTS, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC 1000 LF 1000 LF 500 LF 500 LF 500 LF 500 LF 1000 LF SUBTOTAL 20% OF SUBTOTAL TOTAL UNIT COST $80 $100 $120 $130 $11 ZONE 18 /LF /LF /LF /LF /LF BUT UNIT COST $11 $30 $120 $130 $150 $180 $200 /LF /LF /LF /LF /LF /LF /LF 10-29-87 TOTAL 80 100 60 195 11 $446 89 $535 COST ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,200 ,200 UTILIZED TOTAL 11 80 60 65 75 90 200 $581 116 $697 COST ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,200 ,200 In costn RnncH CD. February 2, 1989 Mr, Marty Orenyak Director of Community Development City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Carrillo Road Dear Marty: We have recently been contacted by and met with Bob Ladwig and Ed Domingue of Rick Engineering concerning the alignment of Carrillo Road as it relates to Rick's preparation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. It is our understanding that for discussion purposes, the City has been previously provided with an exhibit entitled "Carrillo Way Valley - Park Study (Alternative 2)." It is our further understanding that it has been made clear to the City that this exhibit does not necessarily reflect the preferred alignment or park site designation in Zone 10, and that we have only very recently had an opportunity to review the Zone 18 owners' proposal. The purpose of this letter is to let you know we will be reviewing these issues, and, although our internal planning for Zone 10 is not as advanced as the Zone 18 owners, within the next two weeks we hope to be in a position to again meet with Bob Ladwig with the objective that the Zone 18 LFMP can proceed with the full concurrence of Fieldstone/La Costa Associates concerning the Carrillo Road alignment. Sincerely, )UGLAS M. AVIS DMA:jb cc: Robert C. Ladwig, Rick Engineering 6670 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 9000-266 • Carlsbad • California 92009 • (619)931-8747: 3088 Pio Pico Drive Suite 202 Carlsbad CA 92008-1965 (619) 729-4987 FAX: (619) 729-1030 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TO: File/Job No. 7495-Y FROM: Bob Ladwig DATE: January 31, 1989 SUBJECT: CARRILLO RANCH/ZONE 18 MEETING HELD JANUARY 27, 1989 AT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT The meeting was attended by: Ray Patchett, City Manager Phil Carter, Assist, to City Manager Dave Hauser, Assist. Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Marty Orenyak, Comm. Dev. Dir. Dee Landers, Assoc. Planner Jon Werner Don Woodward Dick Weiser Herb Palmtag Tom Parsons Jim Leary Pete Templeton Barry Bender Bob Ladwig CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD PACIFIC SCENE WIMPEY/GENTRY (REP.) U.D.C. HOMES U.D.C. HOMES SCRIPPS HOSP. (REP.) THE PLANNING CENTER RICK ENGINEERING CO. RICK ENGINEERING CO. The purpose of the meeting was for the owners to discuss with the City staff the proposed development of the Carrillo Ranch and to request conceptual approval of our approach to the grading for the major roads within and offsite of the project and to receive City input. The meeting was opened by Don Woodward and all individuals were introduced. Barry Bender presented a description of our plan and pointed out that we did not want piecemeal development, there was a Developer's Agreement that was entered into with the City of Carlsbad in 1984, and that our development is parallel with the Growth Management Plan. Barry also reiterated that we are looking for approval of line and grade of the major roads. He also described the interim and final development of the various circulation element roadways. Barry also described the various land uses, the integration with Memorandum to File RE: CARRILLO RANCH/ZONE 18 January 31, 1989 Page Two the zone plans and the specific involvement with the Scripps Hospital application. Barry also described, in general, the geotechnical problems involved with the preliminary design. There were four basic exhibits presented: 1. The major roads showing interim grading. 2. Carrillo Way and the proposed park system between Melrose and El Camino Real. 3. Topo with the following overlays: a. An overlay that showed the basic road construction with 2:1 slopes. b. An overlay that was a geotechnical map that showed areas needing to be reworked for geotechnical reasons. c. An overlay with the limits of interim grading with the slopes laid back for site distance, drainage concerns, and other design considerations. 4. An aerial photograph with the outer limits of the grading shown. A question came up as to the amount of yardage involved with the roads and Barry indicated that there is not a precise number, but that it was in the 7-7.5 million cubic yard range. Phil Carter asked about the Zone Plan being withdrawn and what the status was. It was pointed out that once the Scripps Hospital application has been resubmitted after staff concurs with the some of the technical problems, the Zone Plan would be in a position to be resubmitted for processing in about two weeks. Since the meeting, I have discussed it briefly with Bill Hofman's office and there are some minor revisions to make and the Plan would then be ready to resubmit to the City of Carlsbad. Dave Hauser commented on the concept of interim grading and felt that he had no basic problem with it, that he would like to see it done at one time, but indicated there could be some planning problems. Marty Orenyak stated that he wanted to review this with his staff and he would be asking Rick Engineering for help to describe the project. Memorandum to File RE: CARRILLO RANCH/ZONE 18 January 31, 1989 Page Three The question of development agreements came up as it relates to proper security and Ray Patchett said that "the security is the land." Marty Orenyak stated that development agreements may be acceptable, but at this point, until more details are known, it was a waste of time to discuss it. Phil Carter was concerned with the phasing in the Zone Plan. He indicated that there were items mentioned in the meeting about the road construction that he was unaware of. It was pointed out that we do have more details from the traffic people and that our Plan was based on the phasing information from the traffic engineer. It was also pointed out again that when the Hospital application is resubmitted, the Zone Plan would be coming in two weeks after that submittal. Ray Patchett indicated that development agreements are a policy issue and said that, until there is a change to the current policy, it would be an uphill battle to obtain a development agreement. Jon Werner stated that he would like Rick Engineering to get together with the staff and then meet again in several weeks. Marty responded that he felt 30 days would be better. At that point, Phil Carter asked when the Scripps application would be coming back in. Jim Leary responded that he has been having a problem getting appointments, that he submitted a weave analysis and that City staff has that in hand, and that Dee would have to spend time on the application. Jim stated Dee would need to spend a month on the application and Dee responded that it would be longer. Mike Howes indicated that only preliminary sketches were submitted. Dee said that more details would be required. Jim Leary indicated that the plans were complete and that they were on hold until the engineering issues were resolved. Jim reiterated that Scripps had provided all the information. Phil Carter brought up several issues about the school-site location that needs to be resolved. He also said the phasing of the project in the existing Zone Plan was too optimistic and that the phasing should be laid out in a more geographical way. Barry Bender responded that the phasing would be more part of the tentative maps. Phil Carter would like to know when and were development would occur. The questions of whether an urban interchange was included in our planning and Rick Engineering indicated that it was not. It was pointed out by staff that this was probably going to be an issue. Jon Werner summarized the meeting and encouraged the staff to speed up their review of the Scripps application. Memorandum to File RE: CARRILLO RANCH/ZONE 18 January 31, 1989 Page Four It was agreed that Rick Engineering was to provide Marty with details on the items presented at the meeting and that a subsequent meeting would be set in the next few weeks to discuss it with staff. A meeting would then be set after that to review with the property owners the concept presented. With that, the meeting was adjourned. RCL:kd.003 cc: All attenders HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Attention: Mr. Bill Hofman of PX\flKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT October 31, 1988 Catherine Daugherty, President Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation, Inc. 2600 La Golondrina Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mrs. Daugherty, In response to your letter of October 18, 1988, I would like to extend our appreciation to you for expressing your concerns during the public review of the 1988 Parks and Recreation Element Revision. Public input is of vital importance in the formation of any such document relevant to the physical development of our community. As you are aware, the Commission has unanimously recommended the Carrillo Ranch be classified as a community park. In addressing your concerns over this issue, I would first like to convey, that I too have a great deal of personal interest in the future development of the Carrillo Ranch. Having been the caretaker of the Carrillo Ranch from 1979-1985, I take pride in the many projects I have undertaken at the "ranch" and that I am committed to insuring that any development of the site should only serve to enhance this facility. In 1975, the Carrillo Ranch (10 acres) was dedicated to the City of Carlsbad under the Quimby Act. The Quimby Act, established by the California Legislature in 1965, enables local agencies to establish ordinances requiring residential subdivision developers to provide land or in-lieu fees for park and recreation purposes. Under Carlsbad's ordinance, the developer is required to dedicate three (3) acres per one thousand (1,000) persons, which is the maximum allowable under the Quimby Act. The City's required standard for Park Dedication is as follows: Community Parks - 2.5 acres/1,000 population Special Use Areas - .5 acres/1,000 population TOTAL: 3.0 ACRES/1,000 POPULATION An additional park classification which does not apply towards a required park standard is: Special Resource areas - 2.5 acres/1,000 population The 1982 Parks and Recreation Element classified the Carrillo Ranch as a special resource area primarily due to a privatization approach to development, very similar to an "Old Towne" concept. Under the 1982 Element, major emphasis was placed on privatization, which is the attainment by local government of private development investment, operation and/or maintenance of recreation facilities within areas of public ownership such as the Carrillo Ranch. In 1987 the City Council approved a recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission to classify the Carrillo Ranch as a special use area for the following reasons: 1. The site was dedicated under the Quimby Act for meeting the park dedication requirements of the Carrillo Estates development. 2. A de-emphasis of the privitization development concept for the Carrillo Ranch. In revising the 1988 Parks and Recreation Element, the Growth Management Program identified the need to acquire an additional 8.5 acres in the southeast quadrant in order to meet the park acreage requirement at the projected buildout population. The Commission recommended that the additional acreage, (to be dedicated by developers) be located immediately adjacent to the Carrillo Ranch. By increasing the overall acreage of the Carrillo Ranch to eighteen and one half (18.5) acres and, with the anticipation that the site will allow for more than one or two recreational amenities, the Commission felt the site was more suitably classified as a community park. Although the 1988 element has de-emphasized the privatization concept, due to concerns for offsetting development, maintenance and operation costs, provisions for privitization remain an option should the need arise. The re-classification will not necessarily change the development philosophy regarding the ranch site. Moreover, I feel it will serve to enhance a more passive approach to development and help to preserve the historical significance associated with the Carrillo Ranch. In order to accommodate requests by the more active segment of our recreational community, the 35 acre Alga Norte Park site, located one (1) mile west of Carrillo has preliminary plans to house adult and youth lighted multi-use ballfields. If I can be of further assistance in explaining this situation, please feel free to contact me at 434-2824. I would like to also take this opportunity to say that should your organizations arboretum proposal as presented to the Parks and Recreation Department come to fruition, I feel it too would serve to enhance the Carrillo Ranch. Sincerely, Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst c: ^HSpPPOTikij", Assistant City Manager javid Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Environmental October 4, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Growth Management Manager 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for Withdrawal of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Phil: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectively requesting a withdrawal of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Due to the delayed processing of Scripps Hospital, we are unable to meet the mandatory one year time limit and 90-day extension granted for completion of the Zone Plan review as required by State Law. Although we are withdrawing the Zone 18 - LFMP at this time, it is our understanding that with resubmittal of our application, no processing time will be lost. Sincerely, Bill Hofman BH:SD cc: Michael Holzmiller Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • [619] 438-1465 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 September 26, 1988 «F Subject: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 - SCH# 88082415 Dear Mr. Hunter: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The state agency review period is now closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse regarding this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Chief Office of Permit Assistance 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • ffVff k • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WrAf/JrM (619)438-1161 of PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 14, 1988 Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan remains incomplete as of this date. Due to state mandated processing timelines, the plan will be scheduled for denial without prejudice unless a written withdrawal request is received in this office prior to October 5, 1988. If you have any questions regarding this action, do not hesitate to contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af Zone 18 Property Owners Phil Carter - Assistant to the City Manager Steven C. Jantz - Associate Civil Engineer Dee Landers - Associate Planner San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, California 92069-2797 619-744-4776 August 29, 1988 Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Mr. Hunter: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan as it relates to the provision of school facilities within the San Marcos Unified School District. Your letter requests my review of this information, and the determination of three things. 1. Is the information correct? The information is not correct and I have provided a marked up copy of your school facilities section, which corrects the information. 2. Can San Marcos Unified School District provide school facilities according to the phasing assumptions presented in the plan and consistent with Carlsbad adopted performance standard? Unless school facilities are provided concurrent with development within this portion of Carlsbad, the School District cannot provide schoolfacilities. 3. Means of monitoring? The Zone Management process provides opportunity for the District to get its input into the General Plan process. Communication between the City of Carlsbad and our School District with regard to specific projects under consideration within the Management Plan would be appropriate for monitoring demand and supply of school facilities. It is becoming apparent that financing arrangements such as a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, within and among Management Zones, may be the only way to adequately finance acquisition of land and construction of school facilities. The involvement of the School District, along with the City of Carlsbad in negotiations with developers proposing to build within Management Zones, would be another way of monitoring demand and insuring the supply of school facilities is available. Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan Page 2 Enclosed with this letter is a marked up copy of the section on school facili- ties. In addition to the proposed corrections marked, the following items should be corrected within the school facilities section: 1. Page 97, Item B2, Build out projections and Item B. Phasing. It should be indicated that the School District has adopted a long range Master Plan. 2. Page 97 and 98, Other Phasing. The statement attributed to me, that the School District will not need a Zone 18 site, is incorrect. Because of the proximity to the airport, there are potential problems in locating a site within Zone 18. The site, if not located in Zone 18, will have to be acquired outside of Zone 18 to mitigate the impact to the School District of development of Zone 18. 3. Page 98, D. Mitigation - Special Conditions for Zone 18. Special conditions for Zone 18 should be as follows: Prior to approval of a tentative map for any project within the San Marcos Unified School District, an agreement shall be entered into between the San Marcos Unified School District and developers of Zone 18 that shall provide for the following: a. The deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District. b. The guarantee for the financing of construction of a school for the District. If any reimbursements and/or school fee credits are to be given, the school agreement shall provide a mechanism to do so. 4. Page 98, E. Financing The Zone Management Plan should require the creation of a Mello-Roos Financing District, or some other public facility financing option to ensure the cooperation of different builders within Zone 18 in the financing and construction of school facilities. Zone Page 18 - 3 Local Facilities Management Plan The School District appreciates the cooperation that we have with the City of Carlsbad in the Zone Management Plan process. We look forward to continuing our good working relationship into the future. It is only through such cooperation that the provision of adequate school facilities, concurrent with development, can take place. After your review of my comments, please feel free to contact me for further discussions. Si net ^ffrey A. Okun Facilities Administrator JAO/jr SCHOOL FACILITIES I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the zone as determined by the school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS As shown on Exhibits 46 and 47 on pages , two school districts technically will serve students in Zone 18: San Marcos Unified School District and Carlsbad Unified School District. However, a new SMUSD/CUSD boundary has been adopted by each school district as of April 9, 1986.^ The new boundary location will follow from Zone 10 eastward along the alignment fo Carrillo Way to El Fuerte and continue north on El Fuerte to Palomar Airport Road. All other current district boundary lines would remain in effect. The official adoption required by the County of San Diego has not yet occurred because the exact alignments of El Fuerte and Carrillo Way have yet to be determined. The analysis of Zone 18 school facilities uses the adopted boundary since it is recognized by CUSD and SMUSD. With the new boundary change, Zone 18 lies entirely within the jurisdiction of SMUSD. A. BUILD OUT ASSUMPTIONS The following analysis is based on the build out projections on Exhibit 10 on page —. Dwelling unit student generation projections for SMUSD is shown on Exhibit 48 on page . Exhibit 48 also identifies student generation rates used by SMUSD to predict demand for school facilities. Exhibit 49 on page lists existing and future school facilities that serve Zone 18. 21 See Appendix - for letter from Thomas K. Brierley, CUSD Superintendent. 92 PER 2 3 1988 Carlsbad High School Aft. A Valley V1 ^Junior High \School VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Kelly Elem. New High School Alt. B o :o :.... "»*>, New Junior High School AH. B • Alvin Dunn • El em. San Marcos. Junior High School CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT New San Marcos Junior High School it Alga Junior High School Alt. A O Alga Elem. School San Marcos High School Potential Elementary School S'rte SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT • La Costa Meadow's ; Elem. School .• ••. _ ••• _•* "• LEGEND MILES • Existing School O Proposed School ••• Existing District Boundaries — Adopted SMUSD/CUSD Boundary Change "CTQ 0 ^ IQflfi GROWTH Exhibit 4 6.SCHOOL LOCATIONS'•/\/Ly/\MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Zone 18 93 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AN MAC0S UNFIE SCHOL DISRICT i RLM LEGEND EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES • •G ADOPTED SMUSD/CUSDPF -os BOUNDARY CHANGE FE8231988 250 500 1000 7\TV GROWTH MANAGEMENT Exhibit 4 7 SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROGRAM Zone 18 EXHIBIT 48 ZONE 18 SCHOOL FACILITY DEMAND TABLE - SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS OF 1-1-88 IAL DWELLING UNITS VED FUTURE BUILD OUT PROJECTION 0 154 154 0 77 77 0 71 71 0 70 70 0 55 55 0 1 1 0 71 71 0 226 226 0 39 39 0 92 92 0 120 120 04 4 02 2 0 15 15 0 296 296 03 3 0 167 167 0 41 41 0 162 162 09 9 0 71 71 00 0 3VED FUTURE BUILD OUT PROJECTION 0 1,746 1,746 CTI mcuT rcucoAT tnij DA TECd 1 UUtH 1 uCfltKA I lUn KAl C3 E JH HS 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.322 0.098 0.194 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 0.094 0.028 0.057 ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION FROM ZONE 6 ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH HIGH SCHOOL CYT CTt UPCA1 o I inu E JH HS 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 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 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 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 0.09 0.03 0.06 EXISTING 0 0 0 APPROVED E JH HS 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 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 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 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 0.00 0.00 APPROVED 0 0 0 Cl tTI IDCFUTURE E JH HS 49.59 15.09 29.88 24.79 7.55 14.94 22.86 6.96 13.77 22.54 6.86 13.58 17.71 5.39 10.67 0.32 0.10 0.19 22.86 6.96 13.77 21.24 6.33 12.88 3.67 1.09 2.22 8.65 2.58 5.24 11.28 3.36 6.84 0.38 0.11 0.23 0.19 0.06 0.11 1.41 0.42 0.86 27.82 8.29 16.87 0.28 0.08 0.17 15.70 4.68 9.52 3.85 1.15 2.34 15.23 4.54 9.23 0.85 0.25 0.51 6.67 1.99 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 FUTURE 278 84 168 BUILD OUT PROJECTION E JH HS 49.59 15.09 29.88 24.79 7.55 14.94 22.86 6.96 13.77 22.54 6.86 13.58 17.71 5.39 10.67 0.32 0.10 0.19 22.86 6.96 13.77 21.24 6.33 12.88 3.67 1.09 2.22 8.65 2.58 5.24 11.28 3.36 6.84 0.38 0.11 0.23 0.19 0.06 0.11 1.41 0.42 0.86 27.82 8.29 16.87 0.28 0.08 0.17 15.70 4.68 9.52 3.85 1.15 2.34 15.23 4.54 9.23 0.85 0.25 0.51 6.67 1.99 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 BUILD OUT PROJECTION 278 84 168 AS *9 95 FEB23 EXHIBIT 49: EXISTING AND FUTURE SCHOOLS SERVING ZONE 18 SCHOOL DISTRICT SMUSD SHUSD SHUSD SMUSD SCHOOL TYPE (1) E JR HS E M $ SCHOOL NAME La Costa Meadows San Marcos Jr. High San Marcos H.S. Future Elementary EXISTING STUDENT CAPACITY 500 750 1.500 EXISTING STUDENT ENROLLMENT 502 886 1.753 FUTURE STUDENT CAPACITY N/A PROJECTED FUTURE STUDENT ENROLLMENT N/A PROJECTED YEAR OF OPERATION 1989 NOTES <^J VOa\ NOTES: 1. £ • ElementaryT^JR • Junior High; HS - High School /**"" 2. San Marcos Unified School District has not estimated the future enrollment for this school. ez.S «-•/•««<-• rn CD to.;//)<?<? t*»<:.L<Lr I 1. Existing and Build Out Population: SFD Multi Zone Units Units Total Rate22 Population Existing 10 1 2.471 2 Build Out 1468 278 1746 2.471 4315 B. INVENTORY 1. Existing Enrollment: Current2^ Gross Surplus/ School Enrollment Capacity Deficit La Costa Meadows /^_ Elementary 570 6 7 £- ^79 5~</7 -*e»- / £ 5 San Marcos Junior High 872 ^3j 761 111 /"? *— San Marcos f High School 1612 /()f 1195 4JL7 V 3 -*> 2. Build Out Projections: The San Marcos Unified School District is in the process of developing a long-range master plan. Within the preliminary master plan, student growth is forecast by grade level to the year 2000 with the need and timing of future schools based on these forecasts. The build out projections for Zone 18 are incorporated into the district wide forecast, however, to assess the impact of Zone 18 on the San Marcos Unified School District, the projected student impact from Zone 18 is listed on Exhibit 48. B. PHASING The preliminary school master plan for SMUSD has indicated a need for an additional elementary school site within the City of Carlsbad. Presently, the Carlsbad General Plan shows an elementary school site within Zone 18. However, 22 Per California Department of Finance. 23 Enrollment as of 6/11/87^ 97 FEB231988 i;°CO/ Olr. Jeff Okun, SMUSD Facilities Administrator, has stated :hat SMUSD will not need the Zone 18 site. As a condition of the adopted Zone 11 - LFMP, SMUSD will enter into an agreement with the La Costa Ranch Company that provides for the deeding of an acceptable school site to SMUSD. Therefore, the need for an additional SMUSD elementary school site within the City of Carlsbad will be satisfied. C. ADEQUACY FINDINGS All of SMUSD facilities are currently at capacity. Temporary classrooms and re-locatables are being used by the district to provide capacity. The school district believes it will be able to provide capacity at build out, although SMUSD feels it is premature to indicate adequacy because it is contingent upon the development and implementation of a successful financing plan. D. MITIGATION Special Conditions For Zone 18; There are no special conditions for Zone 18. E. FINANCING No financing is required for school facilities. 98 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • J/W k • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 of (Earlabafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 23, 1988 Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering 3066 Pio Pico Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: ARBORETUM PROPOSAL Dear Bob: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on your request for information concerning the proposed arboretum in the Carrillo Ranch area in the City of Carlsbad. I discussed this with the Planning staff and the Growth Management Division to determine what types of credit could be given if this land was dedicated to the arboretum. It appears that only that land which would be developable and which would not otherwise be constrained could be used as meeting the 15% open space performance standard. At this time, I do not believe there are any other types of credit that could be utilized for this type of a dedication. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please call me at 438- 1161. Sincerely, ADRIENNE LANDERS Associate Planner AL:af c: Michael Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Brian Hunter 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •^fW.jB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WHFJTM (619)438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 16, 1988 Mr. Jeffrey A. Okun, Facilities Administrator San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Boulevard San Marcos, CA 92069 RE: ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Okun: 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 your review: 1. The adopted performance standard for school facilities 2. Draft buildout assumptions for Zone 18 3. Draft phasing assumptions for Zone 18 Could you please review this information to determine three things. First, is the information correct? Second, can your district provide school facilities according to the phasing assumptions presented in the plan and consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard? And third, what means of monitoring demand for and supply of school facilities would be appropriate to establish between your district and the City of Carlsbad? We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings and any comments regarding the processing of Local Facilities Management Plans. Mr. Jeffrey A. Okun August 16, 1988 Page Two Your review and comments are part of an overall plan preparation which needs to be completed by August 30, 1988. If you need further information or assistance, please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Phil Carter August 9, 1988 William Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: Enclosed are staff's comments regarding the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan: 1. Review of Exhibit 10 indicates need for partial constraints analysis to be carried to two digits beyond decimal point, therefore, changing net developable acreage. This changed Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 13. You will need to revise residential buildout throughout document. 2. Exhibit 13: math error - RLM DU total 499, RLM buildout population 1,233. RM-4 DU total 119, RM-6 DU total 1, and RM DU total 1,033. RMH-3 DU total 70; therefore, RMH DU total 241. Total DU = 1,743 and buildout population 4,307. Redo throughout plan. 3. Provide 5 minute fire response map from temporary fire station location at La Costa and Levante, as well as from permanent site along Rancho Santa Fe. Identify number of units outside of response time. Analyze zone phasing versus station location timing. 4. Additional park land location is nonspecific at present. Provide adequacy analysis, mitigation, and special conditions focusing on Zone 18's demand. 5. Wastewater A. The City will provide updated flow data for Exhibit 27. B. Minor text changes. C. Use six point mitigation plan. Mr. William Hofman August 9, 1988 Page Two 6. Drainage A. Use adopted performance standard. B. Wordage on mitigation. 7. Water - Text changes. 8. Sewer A. 18A will ultimately flow in the S.A.H. Interceptor. Show impacts. B. Flow transfer agreement. 9. Circulation A. Section was not included in this submittal. B. Refer to letter dated June 24, 1988 for comments. HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning Project Management Environmental July 14, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Growth Management Manager 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Request for 90 Day Extension For Completion of the Zone 18 - LFMP. Dear Phil: On behalf of the property owners in Zone 18, we are respectively requesting an extension of 90 days to complete the processing of the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. Due to the delayed processing of Scripps Hospital, we are unable to meet the mandatory one year time limit for completion of the Zone Plan review as required by State Law. We feel we are very close to resolving all other issues that have been identified by the City of Carlsbad. We believe that with the 90 day extension we can complete the Scripps Hospital application and resolve the remaining zone plan issues. Please call me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Bill Hofman BH:SD cc: Michael Holzmiller Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig Wes Pringle 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad CA 99009 • (619) 438-1465 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •.JY-jH TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WFUUPf (619)4380161 \^^Cttp of Cartebab COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 6, 1988 Mr. Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208-G Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Bill: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request concerning the processing of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 and the proposed Scripps Hospital development. As you are well aware, the City Council authorized staff to process the Local Facilities Management Plan for this Zone along with the Scripps Hospital applications. The City and your team have been working together to complete this plan since it was accepted for technical review in August of 1987. All of our work is centered on the understanding that the Scripps Hospital applications would be processed with the Local Facilities Management Plan. It is now our understanding that the appropriate Scripps Hospital applications cannot be completed in the same time frame necessary to process the Local Facilities Management Plan under the State mandated time lines. As we discussed, the property owners have two options if the Scripps Hospital applications cannot be completed with the Facilities Plan: 1. Withdraw the application for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 until the Scripps Hospital applications can be processed concurrently with the Plan. 2. Continue to process the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 by removing the Scripps Hospital designation and utilizing the underlying General Plan designation of residential. Mr. Bill Hofman July 6, 1988 Page Two Your proposed solution to these alternatives has been reviewed by staff and is not acceptable. The analysis of the Plan with Scripps Hospital included, without all of the appropriate applications being processed concurrently, may prejudice future decisions on specific applications when they are presented before the Planning Commission and City Council. Also, the proposed solution would create an additional burden on staff in terms of processing this Plan. Under all circumstances it appears obvious that the Plan would have to be prepared twice and submitted again for public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. It is staff's intention to continue to work towards completing the Local Facilities Management Plan for this Zone. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary for you to provide to me in writing what course of action the property owners wish to pursue. Please provide me with this letter within the next the next fifteen days. The reason for the fifteen day request is that time is short and we need to know exactly how the Plan is going to be processed within the allotted time frames. If you or any property owners wishes to discuss this matter further, please call me at 438-1161 or 434-2819. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager bjn c: Zone 18 Property Owners Ray Patchett, City Manager Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Brian Hunter, Associate Planner Steve Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Protect Management • Environmental June 29, 1988 Philip 0. Carter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Processing of the Scripps Hospital Application related to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Dear Phil: Per our phone conversation, this letter is written to clarify the city's position regarding the processing of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Plan and the Scripps Hospital application. Last week I requested that the Zone 18 LFMP be allowed to proceed ahead of the Scripps Hospital application. Up to this point, the two had been processed concurrently per direction of the City Council. The reason for my request is that the Scripps Hospital application has been delayed due to design issues and will not be ready to go to public hearing as soon as the Zone 18 LFMP. You stated that the staff's position is that the Zone 18 plan can be addressed separately from the Scripps Hospital application only if the zone plan is amended to include residential land uses where the Scripps Hospital is now proposed. As I stated to you, this position would not be acceptable to my clients because it would cause both a time delay and a substantial cost increase to re-do the zone plan. I believe there is an alternative position that would be acceptable to both the city and the property owners. I would suggest a condition of approval be added to the general conditions of the zone plan that would preclude further development in the zone unless Scripps Hospital was approved. If Scripps Hospital is not approved, then the zone plan would have to be amended prior to further development within the zone. 6994 ElCamro Real. Sute 308 • Cartebad • CA 92009 • [619)438-1465 The proposed condition is: "No further development approvals shall be granted for projects within Zone 18 prior to approval of all related Scripps Hospital applications. If the Scripps Hospital applications are not approved, then this LFMP must be amended to reflect the existing General Plan. Processing of discretionary applications may occur within the zone up to the point of Planning Commission and City Council approval, however, no items can be scheduled for planning Commission or City Council hearings prior to approval of Scripps Hospital or prior to the amendment of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan . " This condition would allow approval of the Zone 18 LFMP and continued processing within the zone but would prevent any approvals prior to Scripps Hospital approval or an amendment to the L.F.M.P. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Zone 18 Property Owners Ray Pachett Marty Orenyak Michael Holzmiller 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • •fW.jB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ' (619)438-1161 of PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 28, 1988 William Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: We are in receipt of your submittal of revisions dated June 24, 1988 for the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. It is our understanding that the Scripp's Hospital Plan is no longer in synchronization with the Local Facilities Management Plan. If the intent, at this time, is to process the plans in a nonconcurrent fashion then the Local Facilities Management Plan should only address the existing General Plan. You are reminded that our letter of February 23, 1988 which clarified the public hearing agenda for the plan requires a final determination by August 31, 1988. If you wish staff to continue working on this plan, a request for a 90 day extension would be appropriate at this time. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Phil Carter Steven Jantz Zone 18 Property Owners 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJWjM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 m^MrM (619)438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 24, 1988 Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: Staff has completed its review of the traffic study for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18. The following is an itemized list of comments regarding the data contained in this report: 1. The major issue still confronting Zone 18 is the grade separation at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue. According to a proposed grade separation standard, whenever the combined traffic volumes of two intersecting streets is in excess of 60,000 ADT, consideration must be given to a grade separation as opposed to an at grade intersection. The report should include an intersection analysis with and without the grade separation. Also, include a sketch showing lane configurations and necessary right- of-way to accommodate both alternatives. This issue, along with the following comments from the traffic study, should be re-analyzed prior to the re- submittal of an updated traffic report. 2. Page 4 - Existing Daily Volume shown on Table 2 are lower than those shown on the 1987 SANDAG projections. The 1988 results will even be higher when adjusted for an assumed annual three percent growth rate. Please revise all applicable charts. 3. Page 5 - The existing conditions for intersections indicates that El Camino Real and Alga at a PM peak hour shows a level of service A. This conflicts with the Barton-Aschmann traffic study which indicates that Page 2 the same intersection operates a level service D for the same PM peak hours. Please explain the differences in levels of service. 4. Figure 4 - The year 1990 Directional Distribution Trip Map seems unrealistic. The map indicates that only 10% of the traffic generated from this zone is going to use Palomar Airport Road westerly of El Camino Real. It is staff's opinion that a much higher percentage of traffic would travel Palomar Airport Road to reach Interstate 5. Please justify why you feel that only 10% of the traffic will travel this route towards the freeway. 5. The year 1995 Direction Distribution Trip Map (Figure 5) also seems unrealistic. This map indicates that only 15% of traffic from Zone 18 will use Carrillo Way through Poinsettia Lane to the freeway. This route would be the easiest route to Interstate 5 and would attract traffic currently using Palomar Airport Road to reach the freeway. Therefore, assume at least 20% of the traffic from this zone would travel Poinsettia Lane to 1-5. Please provide the appropriate capacity analysis for this road segment through buildout of this zone. 6. Page 27 - This report indicates that it is necessary to improve Palomar Airport Road east of Melrose Avenue to three lanes in each direction (1995). This report also recommends that the portion of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue is not required to improve it to three through lanes until the year 2000. Please explain the difference in phasing of the improvements of the three lanes. It would seem realistic that this road would require three lanes in each direction at the same time. 7. Please analyze all roads and intersections impacted by the first few phases of development within the zone. Specifically, analyze Palomar Airport Road and the adjacent intersections in relationship to the proposed phasing of development. What impact would this traffic have on these road segments in intersections until Melrose is completed and Carrillo Way is completed? This will ensure that as development progresses, the impacted road segments and intersections will conform with the adopted performance standard. 8. Please include with the next submittal the intersection geometries showing existing right-of-way and improvements and ultimate proposed right-of-way improvements. The criteria necessary to complete the Page 3 graphics is explained in the guidelines manual under Chapter 10. These drawings are necessary to determine ultimate right-of-way and proposed location of utilities. 9. Also, with the next submittal, please include the 200 scale alignment drawings of Carrillo Way, Poinsettia Lane, and El Fuerte. If you have any questions regarding the comments within this letter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer cc: Lloyd Hubbs David Hauser Phil Carter Brian Hunter SJ:dm San Marcos Unified School District 270 San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, California 92069-2797 619-744-4776 June 17, 1988 Phil Carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: School Boundary Change/Carlsbad Unified School District Dear Phil: At its regular meeting of March 31, 1986, the Governing Board of the San Marcos Unified School District agreed to a boundary change •with the Carlsbad Unified School District. This boundary change affected the southerly portions of the Carrillo Ranch project in Management Zone 18. The processing of the boundary change has not been completed because final routes for Carrillo Way and El Fuerte Street have not yet been established. The District does, however, for planning purposes, consider this area as a future part of our district. The students residing in this area of Carrillo Ranch would attend the San Marcos schools. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me. We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the Zone 18 Management Plan when the draft reaches our desk. Thank you for your continued cooperation in addressing school facility planning issues. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Okun 'Facilities Administrator JAO/jr cc: Hofman Planners Carlsbad Unified School District HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Environmental June 15, 1988 Phil Carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2073 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Zone 18 - LFMP Update. Dear Phil: This letter summarizes the current status of the Zone 18- LFMP. In your letter of March 8, 1988, you provided us with comments on our February 23, 1988 resubmittal. Shortly thereafter, the city considered the possibility of realigning Melrose Avenue. Since any realignment of Melrose would require a new constraints analysis, the zone plan was affectively put on hold until this issue was resolved. With the issue of Melrose Avenue resolved and with the staff comments previously provided to us, we anticipate completing the zone plan within a short period of time. Based on your letter of March 8, 1988, the constraints map was revised to show an additional riparian area in the Planned Industrial General Plan Land Use and the phasing spread sheets were updated to 1/88 population as requested. Due to the above revisions, Library, Administration and the Wastewater Sections have been updated and are ready for resubmittal. The technical revisions (Sewer, Water and Drainage Sections) as provided by Rick Engineering are also ready for resubmittal. These items will be submitted on Friday of this week. 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • [619] 438-1465 The remaining items that need city input before they can be resolved are the following: 1. Parks - Location of additional park land. 2 . Fire - Meeting with you and Fire Chief to discuss 5 minute response time standard. 3 . Circulation comments from Engineering Department (due to us by June 20, 1988) . We would suggest a meeting be held as soon as possible to resolve these issues. I will call you to set this meeting up. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Ho f man cc: Zone 18 Property Owners Rick Engineering Wes Pringle 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 9200*4859 (619) JB^ (£ttt| of PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE " May 18, 1988 Bill Hofman 6884 El Camino Real, Suite 208G Carlsbad, Ca 92009 SUBJECT: MELROSE ALIGNMENT Dear Mr. Hofman: On May 18, 1988, Planning and Engineering staff met to review and discuss the information provided by Rick Engineering regarding the alignment of Melrose Avenue. Agreement was reached to support the property owners1 contention to allow the alignment of Melrose to remain at its existing location as shown on Study 1. Although there are other issues related to the realignment, the primary question addressed was whether or not a realignment would significantly reduce the amount of grading required to install Melrose. Staff decided that such a justification cannot be made at this late date although a more sensitive alignment may have been possible when the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was originally reviewed. It was also staff's decision to notify all property owners that future development plans should not use the alignment of Melrose Avenue as a justification for further deviation from City standards. All requirements relating to the zoning ordinance, hillside ordinance, intersection spacing, grading, environmental mitigation, and public facilities must be complied with. All projects will be required to demonstrate site sensitive grading relating to the natural topography and not the elevations created by Melrose Avenue. This may entail some site redesign on the part of property owners; however, staff believes this is of vital importance in preserving the remaining natural landforms given the intrusion of Melrose Avenue. Bill Hofman May 18, 1988 Page Two Please feel free to contact Dee Landers of the Planning Department at 438-1161 if you have any questions. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:AML:af c: Ray Patchett Marty Orenyak Lloyd Hubbs Charlie Grimm Dave Hauser Phil Carter Mike Howes ' Dee Landers Steve Jantz Clyde Wickham Herb Palmtag Tom Parsons Dick Putman Dick Weiser Jim Leary Ben Clay Jon Werner Barry Bender Ed Domingue Bob Ladwig Don Woodward Wes Pringle Bryon White MARCH 23, 1988 TO: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER FROM: DEE LANDERS^-— SUBJECT: RANCHO CARRILLO ARBORETUM Attached are a few of the main points that were covered in two recent meetings involving the proposed arboretum near the Carrillo Ranch. 3/21/88 - Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Presentation by Katherine Daugherty and Dr. Andrew Wilson. 1. Proposed acreage would be 80 acres plus the City's 10 acres at the Ranch. Most of this land is designated Open Space but does include some RM area to the north and some RMH to the south. 2. The ranch house would be restored and utilized as a gift shop or a community purpose area. 3. The creek and riparian areas would be enhanced to encourage the return of birds and development of a bird sanctuary. 4. Once they receive conceptual approval from the City Council they will pursue funding. Funds appear to be easily available through grants, private funds, Fish and Game, the Smithsonian, etc. 5. The Foundation proposes that the developers dedicate land to the City and the City would lease it back to the arboretum which would then assume all liability. 6. The Commission's recommendation was to accept the arboretum on a conceptual basis and recommend that the Planning Department include the arboretum in the review of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. They also expressed the wish that arrangements be made to allow other interest groups to participate in use of the ranch house. 3/23/88 - Meeting with the Foundation, and the surrounding property owners at Rick Engineering. 1. Before the property owners could express an opinion they said they needed to have several questions answered. These include: a) If they did dedicate the land, would they get park credit or be relieved from paying park- in-lieu fees? b) What type of tradeoffs would they get for any possible downzoning from residential to Open Space? c) Would there be additional setbacks required from the arboretum boundaries which would further reduce density? d) How would the arboretum affect the timing of the Master Plan and the Zone 18 Plan? I plan to talk to Phil on a) and d). Do you have any comments on b) and c)? I'll need to prepare some answers for our next meeting with the Foundation and the developers although a date hasn't been set yet. Let me know if you have any questions. ALraf -2- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS Df\\VE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Cttp of Cartebab March 8, 1988 Mr. Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN, ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: Thank you for your non-technical resubmittal of February 23rd in response to staff's comments given to you on January 29th for the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Prior to this resubmittal Steve Jantz was provided the technical resubmittal exclusive of the circulation analysis. Although this resubmittal for the technical items has been reviewed, it was not submitted per the agreed upon procedure. In the future all submittals should come through me as we discussed. In reference to the non-technical information, while the format of the resubmittal is acceptable we are unable to provide an accurate and efficient review of your quantitative analysis because the buildout assumptions have not been completed. The buildout presented for Zone 18 is predicated upon net developable acreage as defined by the constraints analysis. Without an accurate constraints base map with the appropriate environmental documentation and certified via an engineer's seal, signature, an expiration date, the effective analysis of your buildout information cannot be completed. Currently, the City has conflicting documentation regarding the varying riparian areas shown in the 1985 Riparian Quarter Study done for Rancho Carrillo by the Planning Center, The Melrose Drive Alignment Study, and the constraints map provided as part of Zone 18. Please provide all environmental documents as requested previously on January 29th, so that we may verify the accuracy of your buildout numbers as well as to continue to review the quantitative analysis of each section. Bill Hofman March 8, 1988 Page Two Attached to this letter you will find two listing, one for the non-technical resubmittal and one for the technical resubmittal. Please keep in mind that these are initial comments that should be addressed by you and your staff followed up by meetings in order to complete these sections. To date we have not received the circulation resubmittal as was indicated. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Growth Management Manager POC:af Enclosure c: Steve Jantz Brian Hunter Property Owners in Zone 18 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY REVIEW: 1. On page 18 under overview of management Zone 18 the paragraphs on Scripps need to be updated to include specific authorization from City Council allowing Scripps to be included as an alternative. The last paragraph on that page should be deleted altogether because it is incorrect. 2. In general the graphics included in the Zone Plan are not acceptable and will need to be refined to be clearer and more easily understood. This comment should be taken throughout the entire document, therefore, no specific graphic is being highlighted at this point. 3. Exhibit 7 needs to be updated or there needs to be an Exhibit 7A which includes the indication of where Scripps would be located within Zone 18. 4. On page 23 under buildout projection the discussion is incorrect because it should include why Scripps is being included and not just the General Plan as of 5/1/87. 5. Exhibit #9 on page 24 needs to be blown up into one larger exhibit so that it is readable. The constraints summary should be included on a new page. 6. The constraints map should include information concerning partially constrained lands on nonresidential designated land uses. 7. Again on the constraints summary, the open space provided does not total to the net acreage of 101.8. Please revise. 8. Page 25, Exhibit 10 under schools, a footnote should be included as number 2. 9. Page 29, Exhibit 11, buildout projections are incorrect and should total 1,730 units. 10. On page 30, Exhibit 12, an indication should be included as to the application number which indicates the square footage for Scripps not a reference to Mr. Leary's indication of what the square footage will be. Please provide this item for an appendix. 11. On page 31, Exhibit 13, there needs to be a footnote which indicates one existing dwelling unit exists on open space land on Carrillo Ranch. 12. On page 34, Exhibit 14, the January 1, 1988 residential numbers will be confirmed by staff but have not been confirmed at this time. 13. On page 40, Exhibit 17, will also need to be updated to include the existing amount of nonresidential square footage as of 1/1/87. 14. On page 44, Exhibit 19, needs to be explained at our next meeting. 15. City Administration: a) This analysis should be consistent with the residential phasing which brings us up to date as of January 1, 1988. b) Zone 18 currently has one dwelling unit which should convert to 2.471 people and also has an impact on the performance standard of approximately 3', please update. c) On page 49 the redevelopment section should include an additional 1,200 square feet this should also require changing two other totals in the chart. d) On page 50 again redevelopment should be updated to be 3,200 feet and the corresponding total should be re- added . e) On page 51, Exhibit 21, it should say projected Citywide City administrative facility. That is in column 9 of the chart. 16. Library: a) Again, under Zone 18, current population should be updated along with the demand on public facilities. This will be updated to January 1, 1988 and staff provides these numbers. 17. Park Facilities: a) The entire park facilities section will need to be revised. b) The existing buildout population is shown on page 69 should be 4,275 not 1746, therefore, the amount of park demands created from Zone 18 will total 12.83 acres at buildout. c) On page 73, under future park dedication, the timing of the park dedication for 35 acres should read January 1, 1990 not 1988. This entire discussion concerning the approved and future park facilities will need to be -2- revised based upon the La Costa Ranch Parks Agreement entered into between the City and La Costa Ranch. d) On page 75, under committed number of units, it appears that this number is inaccurate and we will need to discuss this at our meeting on parks. e) On page 76, Exhibit 32 will need to be revised based upon staff's confirmation of the existing number of residential dwelling units per zone in the southeast quadrant as of 1/1/88. f) On page 80, Exhibit 33 should be changed to include all items concerning the construction of park acreage in the southeast quadrant not just those additional acres required as a result of Zone 18. 18. Fire: a) The fire section needs to be updated pursuant to Council's action with the Zone 6 facility financing plan. b) On page 84, the first paragraph discussing compliance with the adopted performance standard. The analysis contained in that paragraph is inaccurate. This should be revised to indicate that no more than 1,500 units may be outside of the five minute response time of those fire stations servicing the area. Please indicate in your analysis how the additional 2,096 units will receive fire service at buildout. 19. Open Space: a) The discussion of open space will need to be completely revised to not only show where the existing and future performance open space will be provided but exactly how it will be provided as Zone 18 builds out. b) Determining the amount of open space required based upon the standard has been done incorrectly. The total acreage of open space required at buildout as our calculations show will be 51.7 acres not 109 acres as shown in the plan. Please revise if appropriate. 20. Schools: a) Please provide documentation that the boundaries of the school districts have not officially been changed however that the San Marcos Unified School District will be providing the entire school service to this zone. -3- b) Please also provide a similar letter from the Carlsbad Unified School District concurring with the San Marcos School District letter. 21. As a general item please be aware that the conditions contained in the Zone Plan will be written by staff as the final analysis is concluded for each facility. It should also be noted that tying certain items to the issuance of occupancy will not be accepted by the City. TECHNICAL SUMMARY (WITHOUT CIRCULATION)I 22. Water Facilities: a) Under the performance standard - The third line should read, "determined by the appropriate water district." b) Under facility planning and adequacy analysis - All information obtained through discussion with water district staff should be documented by a letter and included in the appendices. c) The graphic entitled "Existing Major Facilities" should be reworked, the bottom 1/3 of the graphic is not necessary. That area should be deleted and the area surrounding Zone 18 should be centered along the page. d) Under projected buildout demand - There is a notation on the next page indicating plant. 1. Indicate what kind of plant; 2. Projected buildout 10,500 - Is that acres? Following on the next page - same item - fitness center, 20,000 square feet. To get your average unit demand there should be a square feet per person generation rate to compute average buildout water demand. e) Under Zone 18 yearly water demand - The buildout cumulative average demand of 1.45 MGD does not match previously estimated at 1.47 MGD. f) Under Phasing - The comment "development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase" may not be true. This line needs to be rephased. -4- g) Under Financing for Phase A and also the other phases, first paragraph, "these water lines are anticipated to be financed". Remove the word anticipated. Also under phasing in the next paragraph is indicated that the district may assist in the financing of these water facilities - we will need some kind of documentation if the water company is going to assist in financing. The district may reimburse a portion of the cost for the water facilities. h) Phase F - Water facilities will be provided as required by Costa Real or the Vista Irrigation District. 23. Drainage Facilities: a) Graphic of proposed major facilities within Zone 18. The master drainage plan indicates a need for a 36" and a 42" pipe within the southerly portion of Zone 18. The 42" pipe is not shown. b) The graphic of proposed major facilities outside of Zone is unacceptable. The graphic is very hard to read. c) Under Phasing - the statement " Development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase." This again is not true and should be rephased. d) Under Phase E Special Conditions - In the second paragraph "Prior to approval of any final may within Phase A." That should be Phase E. e) Under Phase I - This is the area where the 36" pipe and the 42" pipe should be addressed as they are addressed in the master drainage plan. This would also include the revision to the cost estimate. 24. Wastewater Treatment Capacity: a) Exhibit 8 showing wastewater facilities. The location of Encina is located within Zone 3, not in Zone 22. b) Page 67, under Phasing - You are showing existing demand as 5.25 MGD. Is this determined at 220 gallons per EDU or 246 gallons per EDU. Also, on the same page on footnote number 13 - Carlsbad currently assumes a flow rate of 220 gallons per EDU. c) Exhibit 28 - Current Carlsbad Encina capacity is 5.72 MGD. Also the Phase 4 expansion should increase Carlsbad capacity to 8.50 MGD. This chart also shows -5- capacity at Calavera Hills. Currently this treatment facility is not operational and should not be used to determine total capacity within the Carlsbad service area. Under the same chart, subsection 1 - Currently Carlsbad recognizes a average sewer generation rate of 220 gallons per EDU. 25. Sewer Facilities: a) As mentioned earlier, any conversations with an outside sewer district should be documented by a letter from that agency and included in the appendices. b) Sewer district boundaries graphic - The boundaries between the two sewer district is not along Palomar Airport Road. Zone 18 is entirely within the Carlsbad Sewer Service District even though a portion may be sewering through the Vista Sewer Assessment District. c) The graphic, "The Existing Major Facilities", should include boundaries of outside zones from Zone 18 through to the Encina Treatment Facility. This graphic should also include a legend indicting the different facilities. Use the map which is included in the revised sewer master plan as an example. d) Under buildout assumptions - The hospital buildout facilities define per discussion with Brown and Leary Architects should be documented in a letter from and included in the appendices. Please include the appropriate City Application Number. e) Under technical assumptions - The generation rate for commercial and in planned industrial is not consistent with the new generation rates presented in the revised sewer master plan. Please use the new rate. f) The yearly projections for the area in the Vista Sewer Basin should have a table heading. g) Under proposed buildout facilities - The third paragraph should be reworded - The flow transfer agreement will be required prior to any development within the Vista Raceway Sewer Basin. h) Under Phasing - The line "Development within one phase is completely independent of the approval requirements of another phase." This may not be true. This line should be rephased. i) Under Mitigation Special Conditions - The word should -6- read prior to issuance of any development permits. Deleting the word "building". j) The portion of Phase B that includes the proposed trunk sewer BSMT1B, the development within Phase B shall provide for an easement and also the construction of the sewer line to the pump station within Zone 6. This may be subject to reimbursement but the construction and easement will be required as a condition to any development within Phase B. General Comments: With the sections that are under technical review in the Engineering Department, some of the graphs, charts and data can be combined into one chart for easy reference. These should be looked at closely and hopefully can be consolidated for easy reference. We are still awaiting for the traffic circulation study and accompanying text for a technical review. This will take some time and your prompt attention is recommended to give staff adequate time for review of this section. -7- HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES Planning • Project Management • Environmental February 23, 1988 Phil Carter City Planning Dept. 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Phil; Revisions to the Zone 18 Management Plan. - Local Facility Attached please find revisions to the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. These revisions are based on our January 29th meeting and the staff comments dated January 28, 1988. We are submitting all of the text except for the techinical sections (Sewer, Water, Drainage and Circulation) as a separate package. As agreed, we have incorporated the comments we received on the Zone 11 and 12 plans. Rick Engineering has previously submitted Sewer, Water and Drainage under separate cover. Weston Pringle and Associates will forward the Traffic Report on March 2, 1988 and the Circulation Section will be submitted to the city on Monday, March 8, 1988. Listed below are the sections and page numbers for the revised text: Section Executive Summary Introduction Build Out Phasing Administrative New Page No. 1-16 17 - 22 23 - 31 32 - 44 47 - 53 Replaces Old Page No, 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad CA 92009 • [619] 43B-1465 Library 54 - 61 Wastewater 62 - 68 Parks 69-80 Fire 81 - 86 Open Space 87-91 Schools 92 - 98 In addition to the above revisions to the text, please insert the Zone 18 Requirements section (pages 45 - 46) in the text. Please review these sections at your earliest convenience. We would like to discuss a Planning Commission Hearing after you have reviewed all the revisions. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Zone 18 Property Owners Bob Ladwig Wes Pringle PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab February 23, 1988 Mr. Bill Hofman c/o William N. HOfman Company 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: This letter is to clarify the agenda for the processing of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. There are two distinct concepts involved within that time table: concurrent processing, and state mandated time limits. On January 27, 1987 the City approved concurrent processing of the Scripps Master Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Zone Change, Major Subdivision, and Environmental Impact Report along with the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. The nature of concurrent processing requires all related discretionary actions to be taken to public hearing simultaneously. In other words, the timing of the Zone 18 public hearing is dependent upon not only the Zone 18 Plan, but also the Scripps Plan. Under state laws when an environmental impact report is required, the City has a one year time period for the processing of an application. Concurrent processing has tied the Scripps Environmental Impact Report to the Zone 18 Plan. The Zone 18 Plan was officially accepted on August 31, 1987, therefore a determination upon all of the related applications must be made by August 31, 1988. If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Property Owners, Zone 18 Phil Carter Dee Landers 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^(Sj/M (619)438-1161 €itp of Cartefcab February 5, 1988 Mr. Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering Company 365 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, California 92069 Dear Mr. Ladwig: Enclosed you will find an envelope containing a drainage section for Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. This section was delivered to Steve Jantz yesterday from Rick Engineering. The purpose of this letter is to return this section and ask that it be delivered in a complete package along with the other engineering sections as we discussed in our first technical meeting concerning this zone plan. Please advise your engineers working on Local Facilities Management Plans of this procedure so that we can continue to process all facility plans in a timely manner. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst arb Attachment cc: Brian Hunter' Steve Jantz Bill Hofman PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Cttj> of Cartebab February 1, 1988 Bill Hofman c/o William N. Hofman Company 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN, ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: This letter will serve to briefly summarize the content of our 1/29/88 meeting regarding the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Mr. Jantz is responsible for the City's review of engineering information, while I am responsible for the review of nontechnical documents. Mr. Carter will schedule meetings. A comment summary sheet was given to you at the meeting (copy enclosed). Your response to those comments should be returned to the City in no more than three separate submittals; nontechnical, technical, and circulation. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering Zone 18 Property Owners Steve Jantz Phil Carter ZONE 18 COMMENT SUMMARY SHEET 1/29/88 COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION Redo title page/cover sheet. 2. Constraints map A. Relocate elementary school to noncon- strained area. B. Provide all environ- mental documents. C. Provide engineer's seal, signature, and expiration date. 3. Buildout number different then City letter 8/27/87. Table 2, page 16; include Zone 19 and dwelling at Carrillo Ranch. Page 18, Redevelopment; 3,200 square feet. Office is located north of Elm (Exhibit 6). Page 24 - Show $7.1 million debt financing under projected costs. Table 4, page 25; include Zone 19 and refigure fail- ure date. Park demand varies from Zone 11 (53.28 vs. 52.22), page 33. Page 38, Table 7; Zone 10, 1,200 units. COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION 10. Refigure park mitigation per Zone 11. 11. Update fire per Zone 11, show all potential dwell- ing units outside 5 minute response time, not just Zone 18. 12. Provide open space from master plan referred to on page 98. 13. Carrillo Ranch Park is not used for open space credit (constrained). 14. Exhibit 17 does not constraints map. match 15. Carrillo Ranch generates school children now. 16. Page 101, bottom; 1747 or 1746? January 28, 1988 ZONE 18 - COMMENT AND REVIEW Wastewater 1. 2. 3. 4. Include chart showing percent ownership of all six agencies and current flows (Oct., 1987). Describe Encina and ocean outfall (as in Zones 11 and 12). Revise mitigation as in previous zones. Graphic (Exhibit 8) - show satellite treatment facilities. 5. Table 8 - add Phase V expansion capacity (see revised master plan). 6. Revised Master Plan also projects needed future capacity. Revise numbers, as needed. Circulation 1. Awaiting up-dated traffic study and text. Revise text to reflect phasing scenario as presented in previous zone plans. Submit with revised sections as complete package. Drainage 1. Extend topo outside zone boundary. 2. Master Drainage Plan recommends facilities not shown. Item #1 on Exhibit 15 should extend to zone boundary.3. 4. Sewer 3. Cost for construction of earthen ditch should be shared by all projects tributary to facility - revise special conditions accordingly. Remove all references to a specific person contacted within districts. An agreement between Vista and Carlsbad for area with raceway basin must be approved prior to development. Revise generation rates as presented in up-dated Master Plan. Zone 18 - Comment and Review Page 2 January 28, 1988 4. Sizes of lines presented in proposed build out facilities (p. 126) differ from Master Plan. 5. Carlsbad retained 5.0 MCO in San Marcos interceptor. 6. A portion of Zone 6 will flow into new system (see Master Plan). Water 1. Performance standard - provide for 10 day storage. 2. Remove reference to specific people. 3. If a portion of Zone 18 is under V.I.D., break out area and use Vista's water generation rates. 4. Zone 18 yearly water demand - check build out demand. AGENDA MELROSE ALIGNMENT ^x" JANUARY 25, 1988V JANU 1. Introductions 2. Purpose of meeting and recent actions *7" laA<2-£- c3> r<2rjj 3. Horizontal alignment of Melrose - Clyde m<L<Et~ a. Future access points b. Future development potential petffe&'M a^i *") 4. Location of utility lines * a. Gas and electric b. Water c. Sewer 5. Vertical alignment of Melrose a. Discussion of what traffic counts should be used for analysis b. Rick presentation of at-grade solution c. Marty Bouman presentation of overpass solution and urban interchange d. Traffic volumes, detail design, intersection spacing standards — Where do we go from here? a. Field trip to sites with at-grade solutions (LAX near Hawthorne, John Wayne airport) b. Urban interchange video . (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno) C. I . Ivn 5 &• >*-;Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 729-9291 'Excellence In Education" BOARD OF TRUSTEES JULIANNE L NYGAARD President J. EDWARD SWITZER, JR. Vice President DONALD M. JOHNSON Clerk JOE ANGEL Member JAMES McCORMICK Member DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION THOMAS K. BRIERLEY, Ed.D. Superintendent SUSAN-HARUMI BENTLEY Assistant Superintendent Instructional Services JOHN H. BLAIR Assistant Superintendent Business Services GERALD C. TARMAN Director Personnel Services ROBERT LAWRENCE Manager Facilities/Maintenance/ Operations November 3, 1987 -.,34067 1987 PLANNING DEPARTMENT £ CITY OF ^, CARLSBAD <"/ Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Gary Wayne, Sr. Planner Subject: Elementary School Site Located in Zone 18 Dear Mr. Wayne: There has been some discussion between the Carlsbad and San Marcos School Districts regarding the elementary school site located in Zone 18. The school site as it is shown on City planning maps shows the elementary school site located on alluvium soil and on the 100-year flood plan in the creek bottom. It is required that this school site be relocated onto higher ground somewhere within Zone 17 or 18. This would serve to establish the school site in a usable area and would free up the creek bottom for such other purposes as might be suitable. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 434-0626. Sincerely, Johh H. Blair ^Assristant Superintendent jsiness Services JHB:njg c: Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Daugherty Distinguished School Board Award 1984, United States Department of Education THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental October 30, 1987 Dee Landers City Planning Dept. 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Zone 18 - Local Facility Management Plan. Dear Dee: Attached please find revisions to the Zone 18 - Local Facilities Management Plan. These revisions are based on the staff review comments in your letter of August 27, 1987. As requested, we have provided all the revisions in one package as opposed to submitting these in a piecemeal fashion. Also, as we agreed, we have incorporated most of the comments we have received on the Zone 11 and 12 plans. The only comments not incorporated are those just recently given to us. Listed below are the sections and page numbers for the revised and original text: New Old Section Page No. Replaces Page No. Introduction 1-6 1-7 Build Out 7-13 8-13 Phasing 14 - 17 14 - 18 Administrative 18 - 22 19 -24 Library 23 - 26 25 - 30 Waste Water 27 - 32 31 - 35 Parks 33 - 43 36 - 45 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • (619) 438-1465 Drainage 86 - 90 86 - 89 Fire 91 - 95 90 - 95 Open Space 100 100 Schools 101 101 Sewer 120 - 132 119 - 130 Water 133 - 145 131 - 141 In addition, included in this submittal are the cost estimates for drainage facilities and the Initial Study- Part 1. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely , Bill Hofman cc: Phil Carter Mike Howes Dan Clark PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 Cttp of Cartebab September 23, 1987 Bill Hofman The William N. Hofman Company 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208-G Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: PROCESSING OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1987. Staff appreciates the fact that you are anxious to begin processing of the Zone 18 Plan. In my letter of August 27, 1987, I indicated several pages of items which needed to be "provided to enable staff to initiate a complete technical review of the plan." As we discussed at our informal meeting on September 22, 1987, except for the revised constraints map, no additional information has yet been provided. Staff will be happy to set up a meeting as soon as these items have been addressed. In regard to the constraints map, the five foot contour intervals should be shown the blue line map. The mylar overlay is cumbersome and difficult to continually line up at the exact same points. As I mentioned to Bob Wilkinson on August 28, 1987, this should be done as soon as possible to allow staff to proceed with the constraints review. Thank you for your letter, and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ADRIENNE M. LANDERS Associate Planner AML:dm cc: Philip Carter Mike Howes Dave Hauser RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, #202, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-4987 PLANNINGDIVISION September 17, 1987 Ms. Adrienne M. Landers Associate Planner Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7495-Y Dear Dee: In response to your request when accepting the zone plan, I have attached a new 200-scale constraints map. The revised map has all constraints clearly identified. The topography remains at the 25-foot contours, but it also includes an overlay topo with five-foot contours. It is my hope that this overlay will provide adequate proof that the slope constraints were calcu- lated per the City's requirements even though the five-foot contours do not show on the constraints map. Hopefully, the more readable constraints and the 25-foot contours are now ade- quate for you and your staff's review. Please feel free to call me at your convenience if this does not do the job. Sincerely, Robert E. Wilkinson REW:sis/0912 Attachment cc: THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Mr. Bill Hofman RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Mr. Robert Ladwig THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental September 15, 1987 Dee Landers City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Processing of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. Dear Dee: Thank you for your thorough review and acceptance of the zone 18 - LFMP in your letter of August 27, 1987. Now that zone 18 has been accepted, we would like to begin immediately working with the city towards the completion of this plan. I would propose that we set up weekly meetings to go over each facility contained in the plans so we can identify issues as soon as possible. I realize staff has limited time, however, we all may save time in the long run if we can define and begin to resolve major issues in the south Carlsbad area. I would suggest setting up a 'kickoff1 meeting which would include all our major consultants and the key city personnel so that lines of communication can be defined and contact people identified. This meeting should be held as soon as possible and I would suggest the week of September 21, 1987. Please let me know what is convenient for the city. Please call me at your earliest convenience to set up a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J3sJ-? At Bill Hofmarf cc: Michael Holzmiller Lloyd Hubbs Charlie Grimm Phil Carter David Hauser Zone 18 Property Owners Rick Engineering Weston Pringle and Associates 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • [619) 438-1465 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab September 2, 1987 Bill Hofman WILLIAM N. HOFMAN CO. 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208"G" Carlsbad, CA 92009 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 18 Dear Mr. Hofman: Although the guidelines for the preparation of a Local Facilities Management Plan did not specifically require the submittal of an Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I, the City Attorney has determined these plans to be projects under CEQA and, therefore, are subject to all CEQA requirements. As a result, you will be required to provide this information to the City for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18 as soon as possible. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements. If you have any questions please contact the Planner coordinating the Zone Plan review. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Carlsbab August 27, 1987 Bill Hofman The William N. Hofman Company 6994 El Camino Real, #208 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Bill: Staff has completed its content review of the official Local Facilities Management Plan as prepared and submitted for Zone 18 on July 28, 1987. Staff has concluded the plan will be acceptable as soon as the following two guideline items are added to the Zone 18 submittal. The items which must be provided are: 1. 2. Constraints Map at 200 scale, clearly show constraints. Define boundaries and A 200 scale graphic showing the vertical and horizontal alignment of El Fuerte. The technical review process will not begin until these items are provided to staff. Both items are fully explained in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan under the guidelines section. These items must be provided before the $10,000 processing fee will be accepted by the City. When these items are submitted to staff, we will be able to accept the $10,000 processing fee for Zone 18 as required by Resolution No. 8799. After the plan has been officially accepted a schedule for Planning Commission public hearing will be provided within sixty (60) days. Staff will arrange a meeting to discuss our initial commments after the William N. Hofman Company has reviewed this letter and is prepared to provide the needed information. Although the plan will be acceptable following the submittal of these two items, staff has major concerns with the technical information provided in the plan and the appendices. Based upon a preliminary review of the technical data presented, the Page 2 following additional information must be provided to enable staff to initiate a complete technical review of this plan. Additional Information to be Provided Introduction 1. Page 1, first sentence, last paragraph: This sentence is incorrect because residential phasing has been accelerated. Provide an analysis of the demand generated by Zone 18 and how public facilities will be provided to meet that demand. 2. Financing methods shall be selected in priority order rather than just being proposed in the plan. 3. Page 2: The Scripps site as listed in their application, contains 70.6 acres. This will alter the buildout numbers unless the latest figures provided are intended to update their submittal. Buildout 1. 2. Phasing 1. 2. Page 12: Residential buildout previously submitted was 2094 units. Based on the information contained in this version of the plan, the new residential buildout number should be 1,730 not 1,747. Population footnote from the Department of Finance should include a date. Last paragraph, second sentence is incorrect. It appears the zone is phasing too quickly to supply needed public facilities covered in the financing sections of the plan. Table 3, page 17, does not accurately reflect the impact of citywide growth. Provide more detail to justify your phasing proposal. Page 18: Some discussion needs to be added which clarifies how the hospital is going to be built over time, i.e. 20,000 sq. ft. a year does not seem practical . City Administration 1.Page 19: Delete R/A Group and Public Relations square footage from Leased Space. Page 3 2. The Las Palmas facility should be moved to "Permanent Space". Library 1. Page 25: This section should be updated to reflect recent City Council action. 2. Page 25: Delete 500 Square feet of Audio Visual area. 3. Pages 26, 27: Mitigation and Financing sections are inconsistent. Also, separate short and longterm financing. 4. Table 6, page 29: Update table to reflect recent library changes (similar to Zone 6). Population figures are also inconsistent: 63,871 (page 29) and 63,704 (page 30). Wastewater 1. This section should be completely redone. 2. Tables are wrong. Non-residential demand was not included. Phasing plan listed earlier was not followed. 3. New developments are arising which could change analysis. These concern treatment and outfall capacities for all Encina agencies. Parks 1. Page 36: Current population should read 17,408 (as of January 1, 1987). 2. Page 39: Joint use areas need further discussion. Joint use areas may not be counted until a written agreement with the school districts is provided. Please provide a summary list of existing agreements that are contained in appendix 2. 3. Page 41: Population should match the population listed on page 36. 4. Page 42: Phasing of the quadrant is not reflective of other zone plans which have been submitted. Staff will work with you to establish these projections, however these should have already been included. Page 4 5. Page 42, number 6: Delete discussion of San Marcos Canyon as a passive park site. 6. The financing section will have to be revised. Circulation 1. Analysis of this section addresses only impacts created within Zone 18, but does not discuss impacts created by Zone 18 on other zones. 2. Show line and grade as required with initial review of Zone 18. 3. If intersections and road links are to be phased, show analysis of each with each phase. (If ultimate links are not built, how will interim traffic affect intersections?) 4. Analyze traffic heading north on Melrose Avenue. 5. Recommend Scripps Way be upgraded to prime arterial. 6. Also, show proposed intersections on Scripps Way to: a) Hospital Site b) Residential Property Southerly 7. Address the extension of Carrillo/Poinsettia connection. This may alleviate some improvements needed on Palomar Airport Road. 8. Provide horizontal and vertical alignment of El Fuerte and include in analysis. Drainage 1. Exhibit 15 shows a proposed earth ditch. The master plan addresses a need for a 48 inch pipe. Also, this system accepts flows from Zone 17. 2. The master drainage plan addresses other areas which require enclosed systems. Even though this zone plan states that the projected facilities will cross roads, the future system (as stated in the master plan) may be necessary, and financing, other than the facilities you show, should be addressed. 3. How will the discharge from the 30 inch pipe affect property in Zone 17? Page 5 4. What impact will a) The drainage south of Palomar Airport Road have at the bridge on El Camino Real? b) Concentrated flow southerly through the golf course have? c) The drainage north of Palomar Airport Road have at the bridge and El Camino Real? 5. Did not address possible de-silt basin. Fire 1. Page 90, first paragraph under Inventory, last sentence: How will this land transfer take place? Where will it be? The City will determine when the construction of Fire Station No. 6 will take place. 2. Page 92: If it is accelerated, then the developers would be required to pay the costs. 3. Page 94: Delete discussion of financing an interim fire station. Open Space 1. Page 100: Why are schools listed under open space? What high school? Schools 1. Page 101: Change total population figure. Sewer 1. Page 119, third paragraph: Who are William Hughes and Dennis Zeugin? 2. If sewage flows through Vista to Encina, who will be charged for capacity — Vista or Carlsbad? 3. The area north of Palomar Airport Road is not in the Vista sewer service district. 4. Verify sewer generation rates with Wilson Engineering and the revised sewer master plan. 5. Show a reach by reach analysis of all sewer flowing northerly (i.e. Buena, Vista, and Carlsbad). Use existing and commercial buildout. Page 6 Propose mitigation of deficiencies and projected year when deficiencies show up. Water 1. Page 131: Provide analysis for both line capacity and 10 day storage capacity. 2. What impact will Zone 18 have on the industrial area? 3. Show water system which will serve northerly portion of Zone 18. Engineering staff recommends that you respond to their previous comments (i.e. line and grade adjacent to Zone 18) prior to your next revision. Staff will provide you with a processing schedule within 60 days of acceptance of your processing fee. Thank you for the receipt of the Zone 18 plan. I will look forward to working with you on the plan. ADRIENNE H. LANDERS Associate Planner AMLrdm cc: Michael Holzmiller Charles Grimm Mike Howes Philip Carter SOUTHWEST QUADRANT - PARK DISTRICT 3 - PHASING OF PARK FACILITIES * PLANNING PROJECTIONS ONLY * STATUS fcH> ING PROJECTED - V BUILDOUT NOTES ..... YEAR 1/1/87 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES 4 5 6 9 19 20 21 22 23 SE SW (3) (1) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 2,484 407 230 0 115 60 115 0 121 0 0 51 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 31 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT YEARLY TOTAL YEARLY TOTAL DWELLING DWELLING POP. POP. UNITS UNITS 3,553 3,553 8,779 8,779 359 3,912 887 9,667 283 4,195 699 10,366 321 4,516 793 11,159 464 4,980 1,147 12,306 597 5,577 1,475 13,781 568 6,145 1,404 15,184 450 6,595 1,112 16,296 435 7,030 1,075 17,371 620 7,650 1,532 18,903 608 8,258 1,502 20,406 513 8,771 1,268 21,673 483 9,254 1,193 22,867 232 9,486 573 23,440 257 9,743 636 24,076 257 10,000 635 24,711 257 10,257 635 25,346 257 10,514 635 25,981 257 10,771 635 26,616 257 11,028 635 27,251 257 11,285 635 27,886 257 11,542 635 28,521 257 11,799 635 29,156 257 12,056 635 29,791 258 12,314 638 30,429 258 12,572 638 31,066 253 12,825 625 31,691 34 12,859 84 31,775 ACRES OF PARK FACILITIES. ... . .... .... . ZONE 6 SW QUAD SW QUAD CONFORMING/ PARKS PARKS PARKS (NON- DEMAND DEMAND SUPPLY CONFORMING) 3.02 26.34 16.00 (10.34) 3.02 29.00 16.00 (13.00) 3.46 31.10 16.00 (15.10) 3.46 33.48 16.00 (17.48) 3.46 36.92 16.00 (20.92) 3.84 41.34 16.00 (25.34) 4.21 45.55 16.00 (29.55) 4.21 48.89 16.00 (32.89) 4.21 52.11 16.00 (36.11) 4.44 56.71 16.00 (40.71) 4.44 61.22 16.00 (45.22) 4.44 65.02 16.00 (49.02) 4.44 68.60 16.00 (52.60) 4.44 70,32 16.00 (54.32) 4.44 72.23 16.00 (56.23) 4.44 74.13 16.00 (58.13) 4.44 76.04 16.00 (60.04) 4.44 77.94 16.00 (61.94) 4.44 79.85 16.00 (63.85) 4.44 81.75 16.00 (65.75) 4.44 83.66 16.00 (67.66) 4.44 85.56 16.00 (69.56) 4.44 87.47 16.00 (71.47) 4.44 89.37 16.00 (73.37) 4.44 91.29 16.00 (75.29) 4.44 93.20 16.00 (77.20) 4.44 95.07 16.00 (79.07) 4.44 95.33 16.00 (79.33) NOTES: (1)[?ONE 4 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CC RESO ) (2) 'ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MAUJGEMENT PLAN (CC RESO ) (3) NO CONFIRMED DATA AT THIS TIME. AS THESE LOCAL PLANS ARE ADOPTED MORE ACCURATE PHASING SCHEDULES WILL BE PREPARED. HENORAHDUM DATE: JULY 30, 1987 TO: ZONE 18 TEAM - CHARLES GRIMM, PHIL CARTER, MIKE HOWES, DAVID HAUSER, STEVE JANTZ FROM: Dee Landers ZONE 18 Attached is a copy of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan which was submitted for official review on July 28, 1987. Please review the document to determine whether or not adequate information has been provided to ensure an accurate technical analysis. In other words, does it meet the guidelines? I have set up a meeting on August 17th at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning Conference Room. Please be prepared to discuss the plan at that time. AML:dm Attachment THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental July 28, 1987 Dee Landers City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Dear Dee: Official Submittal of the Management Plan for Zone 18. Local Facilities Enclosed are 15 copies of the Local Facilities Management P submittal includes all items official acceptance as indicated our meeting held on the week of indicated that the necessary i acceptance by the City were the your letter of May 29, 1987. We in the following manner: official submittal of the Ian for Zone 18. This necessary for the City's by you and Phil Carter at June 8th 1987. You both terns needed for official first five items stated in have addressed these items ITEM #1 - A complete yearly demand schedule is provided for each public facility. Zone 18 is proposing a five to ten year phasing program and comparisons of Zone 18 demands to city wide demand projections are included. For each facility, a comparison of demand and supply and identification of conformance and non- conformance with the adopted performance standards are given. Also, mitigation measures and financing techniques are indicated for each facility. Where appropriate, exhibits are included showing the location of future facilities. ITEM #2 - A complete analysis of City wide facilities and Zone 18fs impact on these facilities is included. As I mentioned, Zone 18's affect on the City wide demand projections are given. ITEM #3 - The build out projections were revised so that Scripps Hospital is not being counted as land for any residential development. 6994 Ei Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • (619) 438-1465 ITEM #4 - Residential and non-residential phasing is included in the analysis. ITEM #5 - The circulation section now contains a complete yearly phasing schedule, mitigation measures and a financing section. The majority of other items in your letter of May 29, 1987 have been changed. Some of the minor items are still being completed and will be submitted shortly although you indicated that these would not hold up the official acceptance of our application. We believe that we now have a complete application. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide you with any additional information. I am looking forward to working with you on this management plan. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Zone 18 Property Owners Michael J. Holzmiller Lloyd Hubbs Charlie Grimm Phil Carter Mike Howes Rick Engineering Company Weston Pringle and Associates PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800 June 19, 1987 Mr. Michael Holzmiller CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LFMP ZONE 18 (JOB NUMBER 7495-Y) Dear Michael: We would like to request a modification of the requirement to submit a property owners' list and addressed stamped envelopes for the formal submittal of the Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) for Management Zone 18. The purpose of the original requirement was to notify all property owners' within a given zone and within a 600-foot radius of that zone, of any public hearings regarding the LFMP. The City of Carlsbad, in preparing the LFMP's for Zones 2 through 5, set a precedence by notifying the property owners' of the public hearings with a notice in the local newspaper. We propose that a notice of public hearing regarding the LFMP for Zone 18 be published in the local newspaper in lieu of mailing individual notices. Please let us know your response at your earliest convenience. Since] CC:cea/001 W -^ VL<ITE IT-DON'T SAY :! Date June 3 19 87 To Bill Hofman ^ DReply Wanted From Dee Landers nNo Reply Necessary Attached are further comments from the Engineering Department. They were not received in time to be included with the letter I sent you. These are also preliminary comments and submitted to aid you in your Zone 18 revisions. Please .call me if you have any questions. Thanks. AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINTED IN USA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartaftab May 29, 1987 Mr. Bill Hofman William N. Hofman Company 6994- El Camino Real, Suite 208-G Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN, ZONE 18 Dear Bill, Enclosed are staff's comments regarding your draft of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18, submitted April 29, 1987. It is important to understand that these are initial comments and are not intended to be a complete review of the draft plan. The following coments will be useful in preparing an acceptable plan for the City to review. Besides these comments, you should pay close attention to the guidelines for preparing a local plan which are detailed in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan before submitting this plan as an official application. Listed below are major items that were not included in the plan as presented and which would make it unacceptable for technical review by the City. These items include: 1) Each public facility section must be able to stand alone. This means a complete yearly demand schedule, a yearly comparison of demand and supply, and identification of conformance or non-conformance with the adopted standard. Mitigation measures should be proposed if non-conformance is determined. And, the complete financing alternatives must be given if mitigation is required. For each separate facility, a plat should be prepared and included which illustrates the locations and timing of all future facilities. May 29, 1987 Page 2 2) An analysis of the Citywide facilities (City Administration, Library, and Wastewater Treatment Capacity) must be included in the plan. Each section must show how development in Zone 18 will affect the Citywide demand and how it fits into the phasing established by the City for each of these facilities. 3) The 69.4- acres designated for Scripps Hospital will not be counted as land available for residential development. 417 units must be removed from the 2094 potential units you have projected for Zone 18. 4) Provide residential and non-residential phasing. The plan cannot be accurately analyzed without this information. 5) The circulation section is not complete. Phasing, mitigation, and financing are not included. From information provided in the plan it is clear there are many impacted intersections and road segments which will have an F level of service and will require extensive mitigation. These issues must be addressed completely. Listed below are comments of a more minor nature; however, these too must be addressed in the final text: Page 2 - Middle of second paragraph, sentence which begins "The phasing ...facilities performance standard." This sentence is unclear and inaccurate. Page 3 - Carlsbad Raceway has been changed to PM-Q. Please remove the word "unlikely" from the 14th line. Page 9 - Potential number of units should be reduced to reflect reduction of RM land use. Please include acreage of the prime arterials - Palomar Airport Road and Melrose. Why was the extension of Carrillo Way designated as a collector? This appears inadequate. Page 11 - Chart is too small and unreadable. Please enlarge this page to a foldout sheet. May 29, 1987 Page 3 Page 18^ - Put Special Use Areas Chart in the appendix. Because the school district sites are not definite as to the timing of construction these facilities should not be included in the analysis. Page 19^ - Last column of chart is misleading. Explain the demand generated by both Zone 18 as well as the quadrant. Alga Norte is not in the CIP; school sites are indefinite as to the actual construction dates; Carrillo and Macario are also not shown in the current CIP. Page 23 - Analysis of this section is incomplete--lacking phasing, mitigation and financing. Please submit a vertical and horizontal alignment for the extension of Carrillo Way. Marty Bouman, the City's Traffic Consultant, has reviewed this section. It is presently being typed and will be mailed to you shortly. His review is not a complete technical report. Page 38^ - Without phasing, the fire facilities section cannot be analyzed. Page 4-5 - Map is inadequate. Please indicate both constrained and unconstrained open space. Page 65 - Address sewer capacity through Zone 5. Will Zone 5 create a bottleneck for Zone 18? Without phasing, the demand for this Zone cannot be analyzed. Again, these comments are not intended to be a complete critical analysis plan, but are intended to enable you to prepare an acceptable Local Facilities Management Plan. After your team has had an opportunity to review and revise the plan as needed, staff would like to arrange a meeting to discuss these revisions. The revisions do not need to be in final form, but should be prepared in such a fashion to facilitate meaningful discussion at our meeting. May 29, 1987 Page 4 Please call me if you need any clarification of comments. Sincerely, Adrienne Landers Associate Planner AML:POC:af cc: Michael Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Phil Carter Mike Howes Lloyd Hubbs Dave Hauser Clyde Wickham Bob Wilkinson MAY 29, 1987 TO: ADRIENNE LANDERS FROM: MARTY BOUMAN SOME COMMENTS ON ZONE 18 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1. Appendix, P. 1: "--trip distribution assumptions based upon previous traffic studies--". What previous studies? Give documentation. (The distribution percentages are critical to the LOS analyses.) 2. The body of the report is much too sketchy in its interpretation of the traffic analysis. In the appendix on P. 30 it simply jumps to "Conditions with Improvements". What improvements? When? (Existing, Existing Plus Committed, or Buildout?) 3. The terminology in the traffic analysis (Appendix) is inconsistent with that used in the body of the report. It cannot be followed. For example, on P. 12 (Appendix) there are three references to "the project". WHAT PROJECT? What happened to "Existing", "Existing plus Committed" and "Buildout"? 4. Appendix P. 16 Table 11 is headed "Circulation Improvements - Without Project". What does that mean? Is it Existing, Existing plus Committed, or Buildoout? 5. Table 13A, P. 20 (Appendix) Heading reads "Project Completions Geometries". What does this mean? Is that the same as "Existing plus Committed"? 6. Appendix P. 17- RE "Circulation Improvement Phasing." Certain things are required after 60% of Zone 18 development. Documentation please? How derived? 7. General Suggestion After the traffic consultant clarifies his report by standardizing the three time frames (existing, existing plus committed, buildout) have him write the executive summary for the body of the report. Keep it simple; in lay terms, what was done, how was it done, what are the results? For "improvements needed," proceed orderly from one time frame to the next. Show a simple graphic for each problem intersection, with lane designations that go from existing to existing plus committed, to buildout. Best method is to show the same intersection diagrammed three times on the same page, with arrows showing what is needed lane-wise from one time frame to the next. (With respect to Tables 11, 13A, 16, and the unnumbered table (last page of appendix), a picture is worth 1,000 words) . Actually, the unnumbered table is quite good. If it were standardized with existing, existing plus committed, and buildout, it should be in the body of the report rather than the appendix. MB:af Circulation 1) Evaluate Scripps way as a proposed major arterial. This road is a natural extension of Carrillo Way. 2) Analyze impacts of Palomar Airport Road to include ultimate traffic of Zone 18 plus Zone 5 to 1-5. Also evaluate impacts of El Camino Real from Alga to Faraday ^ Avenue (use Barton-Aschman study results). 3) Address phasing schedule. These streets won't be constructed to ultimate width with 1st phase of construction. At what time will these segments need to be built so that conditions conform with performance standard. 4) Address the need to complete full width improvements of El Fuerte to Palomar Airport Road and Carrillo way to El Camino Real. 5) Address proposed financing of improvements. 6) Provide line and grade of: a) Carrillo Way from Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real b) El Fuerte from southerly boundary to Palomar Airport Road c) Melrose from 1000' northerly of Palomar Airport Road to Rancho Santa Fe. Sewer 1) Conform with capacity analysis as provided in Zone 5 sewer section. The City has limited capacity rights in the San Marcos interceptor. With the proposed industrial sewer flow in Zone 5, when will capacity be reached. Show phasing to capacity in Zone 18 report. 2) Also, the raceway basin is within the City of Carlsbad service area. If this property is to flow to Vista, agreements will be required. 3) All sewer improvments required with first phase. Drainage 1) Possible de-silting basin prior to leaving Zone 18. 2) Address all downstream impacts northerly to the Agua Hediona Lagoon and southerly to Batiquitos Lagoon. If any facilities prove to be inadequate, propose mitigation with possible fee to upgrade facilities. Water 1) This report says that the area north of Palomar Airport Road can be served by V.I.D. or C.R.M.W.D. settle the issue as to which district will serve. Waste Water Treatment This section was deleted. This issue must be addressed. 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT M^O/cf M (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab May 29, 1987 Michael Smith Bennett Properties Inc. 2333 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Suite 450 San Ramon, CA 94583 Dear Mr. Smith: Staff has reviewed your request for concurrent processing of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan revisions and general plan amendments with the review of the Zone 18 plan. This type of processing was prohibited by the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance on duly 1, 1986. Please refer to sections 21.90.030 (a) and (b) (See attached sheet). The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 was submitted on April 29, 1987 and reviewed on a preliminary basis. After revisions have been completed and the formal application accepted by the City, the City will have 90 days to complete review. Once the plan is approved by the City Council, processing of the other applications may continue. Staff understands your desire to proceed as quickly as possible; however, the Growth Management Ordinance does not permit this action. Please feel free to call at 438-1161 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Adrienne Landers Associate Planner AML:af Attachment THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental April 29, 1987 Dee Landers, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad "\ 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 18. Dear Dee: Attached are 10 copies of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. As we discussed at our meeting last week with Jim Leary, Charlie Grimm and Mike Howes, the phasing and financing plan of the circulation section is not included in this draft report but will be contained in the final submittal. The plan is complete in all other respects. Dee, if at all possible, we would appreciate your comments back sooner than 30 days. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you or provide to you to facilitate your review. We are looking forward to working with you on this plan. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Zone 18 Property Owners Michael Holzmiller Philip Carter Charles Grimm Mike Howes Rick Engineering Weston Pringle & Associates Attachments 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92009 • (619) 438-1465 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Cttj> of Cartebab April 10, 1987 Mr. Bill Hofman 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 G Carlsbad, California 92009 Dear Mr'. Hofman: Please find attached a copy of the map you submitted with your March 30th letter. We have reviewed your request to include the small approximate 32 acre site in Zone 18 which was previously a county island as shown on the map. We agree this should be included into Zone 1 8. Consider this letter as the City's official determination regarding this site, and it should be included with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. Sincerely, PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Administrative Analyst POC:dm cc:Michael Holzmiller Mike Howes zone ••-. 'six 0 250 500 1000 GROWTH Exhibit 4 MANAGEMENT 'CITY ZONING MAP PROGRAM Zone 18 THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental March 30, 1987 Philip Carter City of Carlsbad 7300 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Management Zone 18 Boundary Change. Dear Phil: Two weeks ago, the City Council annexed various county of San Diego "island" parcels throughout the city. One parcel is located adjacent to Zone 18 along its northwest boundary (see attached exhibit). The site is approximately 32 acres in size and has a general plan designation of Planned Industrial and is zoned L-C (Limited Control). We are in the process of preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan for this zone and a determination is needed as to whether this annexed parcel is contained in Zone 18. I have had conversations with both Mike Howes and Nancy Rollman regarding the parcel and both believe that the parcel should be contained within Zone 18. They both suggested, however, that I ask for a formal determination from the city, hence, the reason for this letter. We believe that the parcel logically relates to Zone 18 and we are willing to consider it within our management plan. Your signature below would constitute agreement that the parcel should be considered as part of Zone 18. If you concur, please sign and return to me. Your earliest attention would be appreciated since we are in the final stages of preparing this plan. Please call me if you have any questions or if you need more information. Sincerely , Bill Hofman I concur as stated above Philip Carter City of Carlsbad 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619) 438-1465 WIMPEY GENTRY INC. 7220 TRADE STREET, SUITE 32O SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 (619) 271-8333 March 10, 1987 To whom it may concerns As the owner, or owner's representative a-F property located within Management Zone IS in the City of Carlsbad, I hereby authorise the preparation of a Public Facility Phasing Plan by We5ton Pringle and Associates. understood that this authorization is limited to the preparation of said plan and does not causa any other commitment •from the property owner or the property ownad by the property owner including, but not limited to, any -financial obligation -far any public facilities which may be required as a part o-c said p 1 an. Approved By: :r y ,^1^re^i dent Wimpay Gantry Inc. As the owner, or the owner's representative of property located within Management Zone 18 in the City of Carlsbad, I hereby authorize the preparation of a Public Facility Phasing Plan by The William N. Hofman Company, the Rick Engineering Company and Weston Pringle and Associates. It is understood that this authorization is limited to the pre- paration of said plan and does not cause from the property owner or the property owner including, but not limited to, any for any public facilities which may be said plan. any other commitment owned by the property financial obligation required as a part of Don Woodward The Woodward Companies As the owner, or the owner's representative of property located within Management Zone 18 in the City of Carlsbad, I hereby authorize the preparation of a Public Facility Phasing Plan by The William N. Hofman Company, the Rick Engineering Company and Weston Pringle and Associates. It is understood that this authorization is limited to the pre- paration of said plan and does not cause any other commitment from the property owner or the property owned by the property owner including, but not limited to, any financial obligation for any jxTblic| facilities which may be required as a part of said Howa Meisi Meiste] Jevelo'pment Group As the owner, or the owner's representative of property located within Management Zone 18 in the City of Carlsbad, I hereby authorize the preparation of a Public Facility Phasing Plan by The William N. Hofman Company, the Rick Engineering Company and Weston Pringle and Associates. It is understood that this authorization is limited to the pre- paration of said plan and does not cause from the property owner or the property owner including, but not limited to, any for any public facilities which may be plan . any other commitment owned by the property financial obligation required as a part of 'Jim Leary Brown/Lcary As the owner, or the owner's representative of property located within Management Zone 18 in the City of Carlsbad, I hereby authorize the preparation of a Public Facility Phasing Plan by The William N. Hofman Company, the Rick Engineering Company and Weston Pringle and Associates. It is understood that this authorization is limited to the pre- paration of said plan and does not cause any other commitment from the property owner or the property owned by the property owner including, but not limited to, any financial obligation for any ^p-tt-b^lj^c facilities which may be required as a part of Plaxi..,\ X '±2£L Dave Resnick Partin-Bennett Financial Group, Inc. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab January 21, 1987 William Hofman Company 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208-G Carlsbad, CA 92009 ZONE 18 BUILDOOT PROJECTIONS Dear Bill: Phil Carter, Mike Howes, and I are continuing to work with Bob Wilkinson on the buildout projections for Zone 18. At this time we are waiting for Bob to get back to us with additional information needed before further review can continue. At our last meeting it was decided that Helrose Avenue needed to be realigned to conform to the General Plan alignment rather than that shown on the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan. This will then entail the reassessment of the dwelling unit count for each subarea. Each subarea boundary also needs to be clearly delineated. Basically, we are in agreement on our numbers count except for this one minor area. As soon as we receive the needed information we can proceed. Please call if you have any questions. ADRIENNE LANDERS Associate Planner AML:bn c: Bob Wilkinson PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 dtp of Carlsbab January 20, 1987 Mr. Douglas P. Boyd Principal Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701-6699 Dear Mr. Boyd: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your buildout projections for Zone 8. Staff has reviewed all of ttte information that you have provided and would like to thank Steve Flint- for -fr*»s- assistance with these projections. We have reviewed the various scenarios which were presented and believe the most rational approach would be to allow Zone 8 to recoup those dwelling units lost as a result of acreage reductions in villages A, C, and D. Multiplying these acreages at the growth control point for each specific land use results in the addition of 141.5 units to the zone. Depending on whether or not the power line easement is relocated will determine the actual dwelling unit number approved for Zone 8. With the lines relocated, the numbers are as follows: Kelly 1,214 Kirgis 11 Total 1,225 With the lines not relocated, the numbers are as follows: Total Kelly Kirgis 1 ,187 1 1 1 , 197 Douglas P. Boyd January 20, 1987 Page Two As we indicated, the sole purpose of this letter is to respond to your buildout projections and the dwelling units allowed under each scenario. These dwelling unit numbers are in no way guaranteed. When future development plans are submitted, they will be reviewed to determine the actual number of dwelling units which may be allowed within that specific development area. The development proposal will be reviewed based on typical criteria such as environmental constraints, principles of good design, sensitive site planning, etc. Again, the dwelling units listed above are being agreed upon for buildout projections of the zone and are based on the information which has been presented and reviewed at this time. We appreciated your assistance in this process and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call your zone plan coordinator, Nancy Rollman, at 438-1161. Sincerely, Philip 0. Carter Senior Management Analyst c: Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne POC:dm GENERA'.P'.ANCATEGORY R'.M-l RLM-2 RLM-3 RLM-4 RLM-5 RLM-6 RLM-7 R'.M TOTAL RH-1 RM-? 1 RM-3 RM-4 RM-5 RM-6 RH-7 RM-8 RH-9 RM-10 RM-11 RH TOTAL RHH-1 1 RHH-2 RMH-3 RMH TOTAL FOiAi.RES. RC-1 C-l C-2 PI-1 P!/0 E x OS MAJ. * (ROAD) iUML ZONE 1 GROSS ACRES 75.0 26.7 26.3 27.1 20.6 0.3 25.6 201.6 53.8 8.1 18.3 23.1 0.8 0.6 2.6 53.0 0.9 30.1 79.0 270.3 16. 4 2.6 9.2 28.2 500.1 11.0 10.2 2.4 71.1 133.8 15.9 U2.0 7.0 893.5 1 A 1.7 1.7 1 1 1 0.5 5.3 O.i B C 1.9 1 1.8 1 .7 1 2.6 7.0 3.3 1.1 1 .7! 0.1 0.3 1 11.5 1.3 6.i id 1.6 0.5 1.9 1 !.6 11.71 0.5 8.3 D 9.8 1.0 0.4 0.1 11.3 1 5.8 O.i 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.8 7.9 0.8 2.0 4.0 1 1 0.1 0.9 O.i 0.9 5.7 1 1 | CONSTRAINTSloot E F G 1 H I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 11 II 1 l.lj 1 1 ' 0.1 1 11 •1 0.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.6 1 8.S 1 1 1 1 IUIA1.ACRES1 11.7 1.0 2.2 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.6 20.0 9.1 1.5 1.2 2,0 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.3 10.2 23.0 1.4 0.8 2.5 5.9 i 0.1 2.5 0.4 13.1 9.2 3.9 17.3 1 1 1 1 5011 30.2 3.1 3.7 10.2 2.0 0.0 1 •2.9 52.1 14.0 0.2 3.5 2.3 4.3 2.1 8.3 26.8 1.8 ?.o 2.0 4.6 1 1 1 K 1 1 1 NET DEVELOPABLE 48.2 24.2 1. 22.3 21.9 17.2 0.3 21.61 1 155.7 37.7 6.5 15.4 20.0 0.7 0.3 2.5 49.4 0.5 27.8 S4.7 225.5 14.1 0.8 5.7 20.6 401.8 10:9 > 7.7 2.0 58.0 124.6 12.0 124.5 ' 7.0 748.5 SUMMER*: GENERA1.P' ANCATEGORY R'.M-l Ri.M-2 RLM-3 RLM-4 RLM-5 RLM-6 RLM-7 RLM TOTAL RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-4 RM-5 RM-6 RM-7 RH-8 RM-9 RM-10 RH-ll RM TOTAL RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 RMH TOTAL IOIALRES. RC-1 C-l C-2 Pl-1 P!/0 E x OS rtflj.'(ROAD) TUFALZONE GROSSACRES 75.0 76.7 26.3 27.1 20.6 0.3 25.6 201.6 53.8 8.1 18.3 23.1 0.8 0.6 2.6 53.0 0.9 30.1 79. 0 270.3 16.4 2.6 9.2 28.2 500.1 11.0 10.2 2.4 71.1 133.8 15.9 1 162.0 1 7.0 893.5 1 A1 I 1.7 1.7 0.5 5.3 0.4 B 1.9 1.8 .7 2.6 7.0 3.3 1.1 .7 0.1 0.3 1.5 1.3 6.4 U.7 1.4 0.5 1.9 1.6 11.7 0.5 8.3 C D 9.8 1.0 0.4 0.1 1 1 a.1 5.8 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.8 7.9 0.8 2.0 4.0 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.9 5.7 C ( E 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 - 0.1 0.4 3.4 8.6 ) N S F 1 T R /nni G 1 1 N H 1 1 T S I roiAL ACRES 11.7 1.0 2.2 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.6 20.0 9.1 1.5 1.2 2,0 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.3 10.2 23.0 1.4 0.8 2.5 5.9 I 0.1 2.5 0.4 13.1 9.2 3.9 17.3 1 1 50% J 30.2 3.1 3.7 10.2 2.0 0.0 2.9 52.1 14.0 0.2 3.5 2.3 4.3 2.1 8.3 26.8 1.8 7.0 2.0 4.6 1 1 1 K 11 NET DEVELOPABLE 48.2 24.2 22.3 21.9 17.2 . 0.3 21.6 155.71 37.7 6.5 15.4 20.0 0.7 0.3 2.5 49.4 0.5 27.8 64.7 225.5 14.1 0.8 5.7 20.6 401.8 10 '.9 •• 7.7 2.0 58.0 124.6 12.0 124.5 ' 7.0 1 748.5 1