Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MP 149B; La Costa Master Plan; Master Plan (MP)
'bASAAlI:A'AAAsfLf.]r.tA "EXHIBIT k May 1.5, 1976 Pi-ejjared byj City cf Carlr.bad Planning Department 1200 Elm Averiue Carlsbad, Colifornia 92008 (714) 729-0620 Frc.n infcrm.Ttion si.'ppl'ied by: •Jack Bevash Associates 1900 Avenue of the Stari Suite" 1750 Los Angeles, California 90057 (213) 879-0603 La Costa Land Company Costa lel .Mar Road Carlsbad, California, 92003 (714) 438-9111 .RFCON Rick Environmental Consultants 552U Friars Road San Diego, California ' 92110 (714) 299-9125 Rick Engincorina Company 3083 Pio Pico Orivo Carlsbad, Californi,n 92003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ConcGptual Co-mmunities 1 Design Concepts and Programs 7 Land Use 11 Geologic and Seismic Safety^ Noise 13 Circulation 30 Parks and Open Space 33 Public Facilities.- 37 Introduction This M-aster Plan document constitutes an amendment to and expansion of the La Costa Master Plan'first adopted by the Carlsbad City Council September 5. 1372 (Crdinance 9222). The exhibits contained in this document reflect the total La Costa CO.—ijnity (5300 acres). However, the policies and programs adopted in this text are applicable only to those lands zoned Planned Community (/:025 acres). Included in this Master Plan A-end.T.ent are lands not previoi'sly a part of the La Costa Master Plan-El Camino Glens (436 acres). La Costa .Northeast (182 acres), and Bressi Ranch (717 acres). Approval of this Master Plan A^endrnont replaces an approved Xaster Plan cn the latter property. Also induced are two Planned' Co.-nrjnity areas with approved subdivision maps: Vale, and Estates North. • APPROVAL OF THIS-WSTER PLAN INDICATES ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL CF A GENERAL SCriEME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY. IT ALSO EXPRESSES MITIGA- TI.'iG yE;..£U.=.ES TO IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN EIR-307. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE TKAT INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE Mj;STER PLAN BOUNDARY WILL-BE APPROVED. I.\DIVIDL'.AL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE EVALUATED IN ACCORD WITH MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND POLICIES IN FCRCE AT THE TIME OF PLAN SUBMITTAL. APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A.N INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THIS MASTER PLAN WILL NOT VEST ANY DEVELOP- MENT RIGHTS IN TKE EALA,NCE OF THE MASTER PUN AREA. THE CITY CF CARLSBAD AND LA COSTA LAND COMPANY BOTH RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THIS DOCUMENT. TO ENSURE THAT IT IS KEPT UP-TO-DATE, CITY STAFF SH.ALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL INFOR.^'AL STATUS REPORT CN THE PROGRESS OF THE .-ASTER PLAN'S PR0G?J;.MS. THE CITY SHALL CONDUCT A FORr-iAL REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT EVERY THREE YE.A.RS. LA COSTA LAND CO. BCUNDARY j ^MEADO-/.^A.=!X KcSORT A\'0 / REC. AREA f LA COSTA LAttO CO BOUNOARIES SHAC'«"a AREA IS :Xi: / •( ) Ay ^ till •"^•.^^.-ivJ •<^.j..f>'' •'-i"^ ii-^ t.--J [..aX- LLJJ fc-Jki Liii k.**:'-^ ^aklA The Co.-TTT^unity Concepts of La.Costa La Costa was begun in 1963 as an exclusive recreation and resort conr.unity. In recent years La Costa Land Company has turned its attention toward development of three new, more varied and diversified communities aimed at serving a heterogeneous population. The Existing La Costa CoiTmunity The "resort coiii7,unity" includes the existing developed areas within and adjoining the golf course, tennis complex, the club, the hotel and spa. Included in this community are the Vale and Estates North developments covered by this amendment. The community is bounded generally by El Camino Real on the west, the'highlands .'• .overlooking the golf course south of. La Costa Avenue, the upper elevations of La Costa Vale on the east, to San Marcos Canyon, and Estates Korth and Alga Hills cn the north. The homes and condominiums within the resort complex orient towards and identify strongly with the resort-recreational elements at the heart of this community. Although many owners and users of the facilities are transient and seasonal visitors, there is a growing trend toward more permanent residency. Adjacent to the resort elements lie a group of existing residential neighborhoods where the relationship to the resort fecilities is more visual than real. Residents and owners in these neighborhoods overlook the open space and recreational facilities from the higher terrain ejevations without significant participation in resort activities. These might inclL;de the neighborhoods of Green Valley Knolls, La Costa South, La Costa Vale, Estates North, and La Costa Meadows. -1 New La Costa Com.munities Thi. three new La Costa cocr.T.unities can best be identified by their direction from the resort community—La Costa North, La Costa Northeast, and La Costa Far South. La Costa North North, of the resort cdmm.unity on a 717 acre parcel. La Costa proposes a new cc.T.T.unity which will focus on a new gclf course and tennis facilities. Because of the special and unusual topographic configuration of this land, this com.muhity is self-contained with lands rising dn all sides overlooking the valley areas in which golf facilities are to be developed. Emphasis will be placed on creating another quality residential environment whose focus will be golf and tennis. Although it is envisioned^as a cortwuriity of primarily single- • V family, detached residences, provision is made in the community for a variety of housing types and densities, to allow diversity in family types, size, and life styles. Studies are now in. progress as to the feasibility cf including a lake in the valley area of this ccrrmunity. A related swim and sail club would add a new dimension for resident and o-wner participation. LA COSTA ^ fAEAOOWS - 4 La Costa Northeast Another type of community is proposed for Rancho La Costa with.'n the highland areas between the Meadows Community and San M-irccs Canyon. A large-parcel ranch estate com,T,unity , "The Rancheros", is planned to accommodate those who prefer more rural, open and natural terrain, wiih country atmosphere, lower densities, and the feeling of open space. In this community rural-type roads will fit the natural topography and give access to predominantly larger ranch parcels. Hiking.and riding trails will be extended through the-community, linking with upper San Marcos Canyon. On a pocket of land between the foothills of the Rancheros cn the v/est, the upper San Marcos Canyon on the south, and the Industrial Park facilities on the east, a neighborhood of l'ov;er priced homes of medium density is proposed. Moderately priced housing could be provided in this neighborhood for individuals who work in southeast Carlsbad. I ( La Costa Far South At the far southern extremities of La Costa, out of the sight and sounds, of the resort ccm-munity, are lands planned for a new and more diverse kind of co.Tjr.ur.ity. Instead of the golf course and resort facilities of the Far North, 2 "string of parks" with playfields, bike paths, and a variety of passive and active recreational facflities is proposed. The string of parks will traverse the ccmrr.unity frem east to west, joining varied open spaces and recreation-areas, both active and passive, some public, some private, serving the neighborhoods, the com.T,unity, and Carlsbad as well. Jk.inirig the string of parks in giving the Far South definition will ba tha "Cosn-.unity Core". The Community Core will provide a center for cormunity .activities serving present and future residents of La Costa and LA C0-5TA SOUTH the developing properties to the south end east. In addition,- it may serve many residents of Carlsbad and the greater community at large through development of facilities which complement or broaden those already existing in other areas of the city and coupty. / • (-' When completed tha Community Core will be composed of well-integrated residential, com.-nercial and institutional structures and uses. While it is proposed that retail shops, restaurants, theatres, banking and offices be a part of the core, it is essential that public, quasi-public, religious, cultural and educational facilities be encouraged as well, to add vitality and meaning to this focal center. Several neighborhoods are planned in the Far South with a housing mix aimed at meeting the varied housing demands of the population expected in the years ahead, . ^ SANTA FE GLcNS CO//IM ERCIAL • A k CAA> cf"? • ^ PARK . CP ^y SINGLE FAAAILY ^.r^/ ^ 4iy'4:^'-:^ A^ ^ '—-^"^ ^ J A^U.-LTIPLE ff TOWNHOUSES FAMILY i;^^ 4^ ^-VP^ TOWNHOUSES \i.y\ 1 ^/-^ <r^h STAGE COACK PARK ^. s c RV! c £ s ^^K, •^^yiczr^.sr^/'y<^'^'^— ^^-^ SINGLE FA.'AILY '^''^ '.^ n CTf^ \ 1^ AArMTIDI P F4 ,«..i\I\' z^-^- ^ SINGLE FAMILY • ^' • RANCH STVLE HOMES AAf fn r fn^ prTi ^y Tfy^ y ^ The character and design of Rancho La Costa have been well established since its early beginnings. Using a ccm.bination of building materials and rich, varied plant materials. La Costa has set a tone and quality fitting and compatible with the topography, climate and character of the area in which the com.munity is being developed. Its character and design is strongly reflective - of the Southern California look and draws heavily from the early Hispano- Mexican-American tradition. ' Several factors are involved in continuing the distinct character and design of Rancho La Costa. First, La Costa Land Company has encouraged good design by setting good examples in the resort buildings it has constructed. This practice will be continued in the future. Second, good design is stimulated through the use of carefully drawn and enforced covenants, controls and restrictions (C.C.& R.s) which are administered by an Architectural Advisory and Control Committee established by La Costa Land Company. Guidelines are spelled out affecting'such design factors as building materials, color and texture, building setbacks, screening, fencing, signing , lighting, plant materials and landscaping. Third, the character of the La Costa community is defined at its principal entrances. The principal entrances to La Costa are from major arterial roads such as El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. These arterial entrances will continue to give strong visual entry identification to La Costa. .This identification is achieved by combining signing, lighting, and landscaping. As additional major entrances are opened to the new communities, they will be given similar treatment. . Q - La Costa Land Company has proposed a comprehensive sign program that will give directions and identify individual neighborhoods and communities. The proposed program includes size, location, aesthetic, and maintenance considerations. i, ' Finally, it,is proposed that while all communities have a strong La Costa theme, each will have a separate and distinct identity; name and symbol reflecting its special design characteristics within the La Costa Community. In addition to these design programs, the following design conditions shall be adhered to in individual neighborhood developments: (/) VAouglit and •^in.z-iuLitinnt nativz landiCRping ikaZt b& a&zd A.n tiiQ. pKojzcit a/tea. ' • • (2) Att i'jLtuJte., de.\i<Llopme.nti voWiin tiia Moife-x Vlan aA.ta ihaZt LutuLize. whVLZvcK 5eai.i.We Xhz loZZcMing itrnJigy-iavZng tzch- niqau, iuch ai: [a] kficivLtzoXwiaZ d<iii.gn. wliA-ch KzdaziLA i.oindoia and dooK opztujigi , and Axfeei advantage oi w-cntet iun and iurmiDi ihade.; ib] ZmuZation {,0^ att ituicXuAcJ, acco'iduig io Statt iiandvid^; (c) SotoA. kmting {OK both, ipacz and uxutiLh. litatiyig; (d) Landicaping itiiiig dcciduoui tfiQ.iu [to ihade. -ot iunrnvi and ottoiM iuntigiit uxinteA] and uiLndbA.zali&. Design Conditions ;-3C.-«Si'-.^- -r7.-;T •'^'•'••T'''.','Ei: LJ V..,...._J..LJ. LJ A^,._j - 12 Introduction La Costa is planned as an integrated community with a variety of residential uses and densities, supported by commercial and office service areas, intermingled with park and open ^pace corridors. This element i-' describes these varied uses, their relationship to each other, and their development over time. Residential Communities The amended Master Plan proposes the following housing styles in the outlying cotrfnunities: Dwellinas oer Acre* Single-family Detached Homes 0-4 Clustered Garden-type Townhouses 4-•10 Mobile-Modular Homes 4-10 Large, Single-family Detached Homes 0-4 Ranch-style Homes •0--1.5 Multiple-unit Apartments and Condominiums 10--20 It If, tli.c liitmt o£ the. amzndzd UoiteA ?tan tn bioadzn tiiz appzaL oi zxAAting La Coita to i.n dbxdz a guzatvi vatizty OjJ .xuidzviti in Housing ouXtijing comnunvtizi; to pKovidz a gKzaXzA naxiztii Og ti£z-itylz Obiectiv^ . , — oppohXaiviXlii -tn tsiziz commuiuXizi. * NOTE: Where specific numbers of dwellings are cited in this text, its e.xhibits and tables, they represent the m.aximum number allowable under this Master Plan amendment. Maximum densities are used for population/utility projection purposes only, and do not constitute development approval.for that number of units. The actual number of units allowed in any area will be ap- proved in terms of the development conditions of this Master Plan and appli- cable City policies and ordinances. La Cost^ North The resort atmosphere of this community will appeal to the same housing market served by core La Costa-second-homeowners, visitors, and recreationalists. To achieve this atmosphere the majority of the community will be rr.ade up of large, single-family detached homes. These hom.es will front upon a r^jor. private recreation facility, such as a new golf course extension, and/or a man-.made lake with swim and'sail club. Clusters of townhouses will be located in several areas of flatter topography, while single-family hemes, will over-look the open space and recreation features from the surrounding hillsides. Elementary schools will be developed to serve the perm.anent residen-.ial population of the community. Method of Development:_ La Costa Land Com.pany proposes to sell the Single-family lots on an individual basis or to selected builders for custom ho>T,e cc:istruction. Develcp.T.ant of t.he clustered garden-type.townhouses will be acco.Tplished through a series of developer packages. Maxi.T.um Large Home Units 2400 Maximum Townhouse Units 1320 Miaximum Total Units 3720 Maxiraum Total Population 10,104 See Appendix A for constants used in projections. - 17 - 13 - \, — Jr.. Iff ] I-Cc- FUERTE PARK NOTA PART ^y^^'^ri CM.W.O. y W\UA>^/A: yy if ^1 y v> SAN MAP:: CREEK WT A FA.-.T- S.A1.C.W.D. /¥/. .y:^'^ GOLf • couRSE"*^^^,,.; v-» ; -=-.1 ,\i r-^ 14 La Costa Northeast The topography of this community suggests that two distinct neighoorhoods be created. The Master Plan accentuates these differences by proposing ranch- style homes on- large land parcels on the hills overlooking San Marcos Canyon, and higher density clusters to the north and east. An elementary school will be developed in the northeastern corner of the com.munity to serve the residential population. La Costa Land Company may request approval to develop a mobile-modular hc:r.e community ih the area designated for Clustered Garden Townhouse use. As such, any request will conform to normal City processing requirements for mobile-modular hc.T.e parks (Section 21.42. Conditional Uses, C.M.C). Method of Development: La Costa proposes to sell.the ranch-style parcels cn an individual basis for custom construction. Development of the clustered garden-type townhouses and multiple units will be accomplished through a series of developer packages. SUMMARY Maximum Ranch-style Units Maximum Townhouse & Mobile/Modular Units .Maximum Multiple Units Maximum Total Units M.aximum Total Population 513; 1,320 250 2;093 5,015 See Appendix A for constants used in projections. MULTIPLE UNITS 1^ RANCM-STYLE MON/ES CLUSTERED GARDEN-TYPE . TOWNHOUSES/MODULAR HOK/IES / 3 -''"a v'" fA // yy\^ y\ I, rlVii .7 'i f 'C' A 1^ ;-o jpyo r£a"> SA,V MARCOS '^;>V.;-' CREEK PARK- V NOT A PART--^/-A: ..--^S s.M.c.w.D. • LJ • f iiiil iA^/ finis W ^^=^5%/ -^0 Ayy<y- : GOLF COU;?SE'"-'^--.:-:?H=^ • '"^ ^^^idelil i\L^I,;>^rV=^-=^Q^-^-vsJ ./^^: PARK ^ y y. f^AfA^'^' A PAST -v-it^-'j***"'^ •' " ^ - .\\ HAIM , ^ { ^3 MiJLTIPLE UNfTS MM (?AK!CH ST^'te^HOMES nj^- SINGLE-FAMILY HOA/VES CLUSTGREO GAGOEN-TYPC "lOlVMHOUSeS La Costa Far South It is La Costa's intent to develop the Far South into a family- oriented co.Tj.-.unity housing a heterogeneous population. The topography of the C(|piiunity ani its major circulation corridors suggest the development of several distinct neighborhoods, linked by a "string of parks" and joined to a ^community core". Following the natural topography north-south and east-west wilTbe belts of single-family detached housing, An area for ranch-style ; homes on large, natural land parcels will be set aside In the northeast. Areas of clustered garden-style, townhouses and multiple , units will be located adjacent to major circulation corridors and service centers. A high school in the southeast corner, and three elementary schools will be developed to serve the residential popu- lation. Method.of development: La Costa Land.Company proposes to sell major single-family subdivisions to developers for hoirie package devel- I opment within the approved Master Plan. Development of the ranch- style homes o.n'steeper terrain will be accomplished on a custom, lot by lot basis. Development of the townhouses and multiple units will be acco.Tiplished through a series of developer packages. SUM!''ARY Maximum Single-family Detached Units Maxi.mum Ranch-style .Units MuXi.iium Townhouse Units Maximum Multipla Units • ;' Maximum Total Units Maximum Total Population 3,5£4 770 2.250 l,9c0 8,654 22.506 See Appendix A for constants.used in projections. 15 - La Costa Co.u'iercial, Office, and Institutional Areas >.'hen completed, the La Costa development will include a variety of supportive uses. Residential It Li tliz Zntznt o^ tliz amzndzd MaiicA Vlan to pKov^dt comniZA.CA.at, Support oai.icz and ZmtAtLLiionaZ icAuXcei lo-'ixcii uxlZZ •'iZ.ivz tliz j-izatzA La Coita Objective corjr.unLtij, -CK tocat^iaiti acczi,i.ibZz to La Coita Azildziits. Proposed Outlying Community Service Centers Four areas are planned for future -service centers in the Far South. These areas can be classified as travel' service, neighborhood commercial, and con-.-:iunity core uses. , Travel Service: Uses in these areas may include motels, service stations, restaurants, and other services oriented to the traveling public. Tv/o areas have been designated in the amended Master Plan--the southeast corner of Mision Estancia East and Rancho Santa Fe Road; and an area on the east side of El Camino Real between Mision Estancia West and Olivenhain Road. Neighborhood Co.T.r.'.ercial: Use of this area may include a supermarket, drug store, and other uses serving a group of adjacent neighborhoods. Neighbor- hood coinniercial centers have been located on the north side of Mision Estancia West mid-way between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road, and within the / Community Core. jl Community Core: The Master Plan proposes a Com.munity Core for a large area at the intersection of La Costa Avenue extension, easterly of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Community Core may include townhouse and multiple-unit residences, restaurants, movie theaters, banks, a department store; financial, I insurance and real estate offices; religious, personal and professional services. Additional space will be set aside for possible use as offices for public and quasi-public agencies, a library, or other cultural-educationul facilities serving a broad segment of the North County population. The Community Core will be designed to serve the residents of the neighborhoods in the Far South, all of the other La Costa communities, as well as areas to the north and south. Because of the integration of uses proposed for the Community Core, a site development plan for the area, except f'.- the park site, will be submitted to the City for.approval prior to development. - 17 - I i—hf^yh i ^ I %i C Lc-!-IV!:>.'WA'.M _J Afj. STAGE COACH PARK ...... 15.'iJ PROF. OSfiC!; " * K23 COM/ViERCIAL [v;£^3 NEICHtOPHOOO CO.MMtRCIAL r-,--3 VCL GCRVICE 7* 1S-- Parks & Open Space Because they play such a major role in La Costa, Parks .-.nd Ojien Space are discussed at length in their own secticn. This section describes the relationship of Parks and Open Space to the other land uses in the amended Master Plan. Open Space Objective Ii Zi thz hrtzitt oi tJiz a.-nziidzd .^'.aitz.t ?lan io utiLizz open ' ipccz co.-Ju.donj> io dziinz diiCLncJ: nzighbo.ihoodi, to uiz ilizr. Oi a r.i^>Li oi paiiivz acczsi bztxzzii nzighbd.ihoodi, and • zo ^.Zicivz ii/U-Ling gzog.ia.p'rU.c cyizai ioA. viiuaZ KzLizi. li is tj'.z i)itZKt oi tixz amzndzd Ua.itz/L VZaii to izt aiidz iu^Uabtz JizcAzxtionaZ a-tzoj, {oA. CiXif ?a/ik uiz, and to augmznt Objective tSiziz pciki -.lUXli pAi\)atz nzZghboKhood poAki and A.zcAzation iacLLiiLzi io inc/izaz nzighboA.I:ood cohsAion and dziiniXion. .oarks To meet these objectives La Costa has designated seve__ral important... open space corridors, strategic park and historical sites. These are identified in the Exhibit cn the opposite page.' In designing individual neighborhoods La Costa will includa open space links and private park/ recreational sites in accordance with the criteria described in the Parks and Open Space section. FUESTE fAI PARK -^'-^ '/y • J? WOT A PART J/ S.D.G.t£. // CM.WO. /-' SAK' /.'.ASCO3 WOT A w»r—:.r-\ • ..\v S.MCV/.D w^).-' V, CREE.K PARK^ Akf iA^^A KILLS//- ^%.JA • • jyy^-Ay A/ //?/• ^ r^p^R^v 4^=yAy,. . ^^yAyy .y fl yj y I ^.^i y yf^. o^fe<^ w y. - ' 'v^ '-fO^^ ^'yAyi^AAA^^^^'^if^-^f^'y yf\y\ • !f^-^ ^' EL CAMIWC GLENS Si :..^^..V-.....;r,jpj,,.j ;.---.tv '^Icxi-.^-!.;.. ..-x jl • I h 'LV';. ) _OJV£l.'HAIi-J—I—- 'AAf^ - ACCESS VISUAL ^ COMViUlJlTY BUFfSR Phasing The development of the three future La Costa conmunities is projected y to occur over a fifteen-year period. No plan can project the precise ( sequence in which the various neighborhoods comprising these communities will be constructed. At this time development can be projected to occur in three phases, each of approximately five years duration. Pnesing "it ii tr.z intzi:t oi thz cjnzndzd-hiaitzA PZmi to dzvztop thz O^ji-v-cive Coita comm^u^iti.zi in a izquzncz oi diitincX ' nzighboihoodi, in a maiznz/L oiiuAing tlie, pn.oiv.pt, zHiciznt iuppty oi pubiic iztviczi. Based on this objective, the phasing for each community as it is now projected is outlined in the following pages. SUMMARY La-Costa at Completion (calculated at maximum permitted densities) + - IS - Existing Resort Community* Single-family dwelling Units 2.066 Multiple-family dwelling Units 8,432 Population 24.750 Private Vehicles 17,847 Students 1,505 Gas Consumption ' 47.651 (1000 CF/Mo.) Electrical Consumption 6,058 (1000 KMH/Mo.) Solid Haste Generation 139,838 (lbs./day) Sewage Generation 2,104 (1000 GPD) Water Consumption 3,713 (1000 GPD) Future La Costa Communi ties 7,247 7.220 37.625 24.593 3-. 040 65.680.1 13,972 212,581' :,198 5.643.8 Total 9,313 15,652 62.375 • 42,440 4.545 65,727.8 20.040 352,419 5,302 9,357 + See Appendix A for con.stants used in projections. * Includes Vale and Estates North 20 - La Costa North During Phase I. development of large, single-family detached homes will begin adjacent to Carrillo Way. and include development of the major private recreation facility and some townhouses. The developm.ent of large, single-family detached hemes will continue during Phase 11 and include additional townhouses. Phase II! will see the completion of the large, single-family detached home and town.house neighborhoods. SU.'-V-'.ARY (calculated at maximum permitted densities)* -Phase Phase Phase I II III Totals Single-family dwelling Units 1,300 672 428 . 2.400 Multiple-family dwelling Units 440 200 680 1.320 Population 4,863 2,456 2,700 10,104 Private Vehicles 2,SSS 1,432 1,884 6,324 Students 460 - 235 .. 203 899 Gas Consu.Tption (1000 CF/Mo) 7,899.6 3,958.9 5,030.3 16,888.8 Electrical Consumption (ia-:o K'.-;H/MO) 1,005.7 504.0 640.4 2.150.1 Solid "A ite Generation (lbs./day) 9,831 4,927 6,250 21,018 Se'.vaqe Generation (1000 GPD) • • 413.8 203.8 235.3 853.9 Water Cov.sumption (1000 GPD) 730.2 368.4 417.0 1,515.5 *Sea Appendix A for constants used in projections. teste #p:i LA COSTA NORTH -PAf^^K. / /NO!GATES PHASE a /.<A:-y.-yAAA:Ay.-y.y-yy^s)y.\. lyAAmA -:-.-:-:-:-;-:-:-:.-.->--i-.':-.-.-.-.--.---..---.-r;^^» .•Ay..y •>^.-."';-.--;-;-:-:-:-.-:-:-X":>^x-:-:-:-:-/xV .-^J • j.. FUERTE• PARK -Tf-' mfAAAAA^'iAAyrfAAffA^AiuV;.- n :$ ^ : - 'r^'i^m>:>^ky /- MOT A PART p/ . V- ^y'yyyyAAyAyy:yyr^D.(b.^E. y/ M .'I A A^^'f f XN. V. '"^LICAUT?: ALGA--./. -HILLS -A .13 / / ^•.-jf^.'J eco COSTA ^:ORTH PARK - J.li_ 7 i> .11^ 3\-i. « FUERTE_^ _ ^imMSM^^ PARK V- ;^fiAyyyyyi0i^ 'fiyjf ^MOTA PART i ^^^^w^^^^^-'-^-w-^- myAyymmmAyyyyffff / - -J - . c:i•^•f'^•f'•f^•f''Af^''<^ \ // La Costa Northeast ' • In Phase I the ranch-style homes on larger lots are expected to be developed. These homes are expected to be developed on natural terrain with minimal disturbance to existing topography, using rural standards e.-.d i.-prove- ments. Equestrian facilities and trails systems will be developed to link the southern portion of the property to San Marcos Canyon and extend north and south along the eastern boundary of La Costa. In addition,multi-fa.r^ily and mobile-modular homes will be developed below the foothills of the ranch-styl-e hom,es eastward toward Melrose Avenue and the neighboring Industrial Park. During Phase II, development of clustered townhouses will cctr.ence on the northern area adjacent to the Carrillo property. During Phase III developm.ent of ttie tov/nhouses and the multi-fimily units in the northwest will- be completed, SUMMARY (calculated at maximum densities)* Phase Phase • Phase I II III » » Totals Single-family dwelling Units 513 • —. . — 513 Multiple-family dwelling Units 700 620 ,250 1,520 Population 3,079 1.354 572 5,015 Private Vehicles 2,052 1,054 442 3.558 Students 234 63 \-25 323 Gas Consumption (1000 CF/Mo) 5,507 2,314 8 1,180.4 9.502.2 Electrical Consumption (1000 KWH/Mo) 701.1 358 4 150.3 1.209.8 Solid Waste Generation (lbs./day) 6,853 3,503 1,459 11.825 Sewagn Generation (1000 GPD) 261.7 115. .9. 48.6 426.2 Water Consumption(1000 GPD) 451.9 204 .5 EE 8 752.3 '*So"e'.App2ndi;'. A for constants used in projection. ' :ll La Costa Far South Phase I development will include the developm.ent of sinqle-family and tcwnhouse units adjacent El Camino Real, a portion of the conmunity core, and single-family and townhouse units on both sides of Rancho Santa Fe Road. During Phase II townhouse and multiple units will be constructed on both sides of Mision Estancia 'n'est. The Community Core will be expanded, and additional single-famiHy, tov;nhouse, multiple units, and ranch-style units will be constructed east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Single-family and ranch-style homes will begin to appear in the north end of the com.Tiunity. . During Phase III the remaining residential areas- of the Far South will ba constructed. • SUMMARY (calculated at maximum densities)* Single-family dv/eUing Units Phase I Phase II Phase . Ill Totals Single-family dv/eUing Units - 1,525 2,356 452 4,334 Mul ti ple-fami ly dwel1i ng Uni ts 2,720 870 730 4,320 Population 10,562 8.982 2,962 22,506 Private Vehicles 7,218 5,484 2,009 14,711 Students 761 840 217 1,818 Gas Ccnsurr.otion (lOCO CF/Mo) 19,276.8 14,645.0 5,366.3 39,289.1 Electrical Consumption (ICOO K'.-.'K/Mo) 2,454.2 . 1,864.6 683.2 5,002.0 Solid Waste Generation - (lbs./day) p,990 '1 18,227 6,678 43,895 Sewace Generation (1000 GPD) . 897.8 763.f 251.8 1,913.1 Water Consumption (1000 GPD) 1.534,3 1,347.3 444.3 3,375.9 * See Appendix A for constants used in projection. fA PARK—rr--' ^ ^y ^^A^r.iryy^ 5D-G-.eE. y m I yy SAN MARCOS CREEK .PARK KOT A PART S.AVCiV.D. lyC: ALGA /.-;--// HILLS y -^^ Jf r^'y'^y ' • Ff-.- " • t i; . tt' %'-^.y:%'^^»f' fc^y j/A^Afyff- yyyf i f'^''%>y§^AyyA=^ Goir .COURSE ^^--<-s -vK-^ • ^WM{:>A |i XV V'' '.J^^% y \\|^^^•W-^•Wv•WOr A PART EL CAAAiWO GLENS \| my.:}AfyAfAAf:y^yyA.ff\ u © ^-ymff-A^^fyA .• uw- • -^§^ym^ • _0L1VE>JHAIN . ROAO ' I- I.KioiCATES PHASE ^(<y)f^l](£^ f .'v„;V Vil/' /^^ n r C^ i \.---- ; i !-y \ o Li 'LJ ^yff^ yin Cj-' J \f.- . in 1/ Existing Geotechnical Hazards La Costa is located in an area of diverse geology. While this diversity contributes to the natural beauty of the conununity, it also poses potential problems in developing parts of the co.mmunity. The Exhibit on the opposite page shows the geotechnical conditions existing in La Costa. These include: • - A landslide area at.the head of San Marcos Canyon - Deep Alluvium soils in the Far South and North - La.Jolla Group soils, particularly in the Far South and North - ether relatively stable units, particularly in the Far South and Northeast. • These conditions are translated.into Engineering Studies needed on pages 25-27. . None of the existfng geotechnical conditions within La Costa would preclude develop.ment. All of the community developments described in .• the Land Use Element can-be made safe if approporiate engineering studies and construction techniques are followed. Jt ii tliz iyJiZi-X. oi Xiiz amzndzd UoitZA Ttan io pAotzct thz Geotechni,cal pahZiz j-tom zoAXJixqi^akzi, itoodi and othz,i naXuAat liazoKdi, XJ avoid coittii ACjr.zdiaZ conitmcXion duz to gzotogic Ob.iectu'e condiXioiis, ojid to iinuAZ tlxaX atXzfiaXLoni to tJiz naXuAot " iopogfjiphtj nziain a naXuAa.t appziiAancz. [\]G\c:dJj\g i'lati bz tbn-lXzd to tJiZ minur.um oAzai nzcziianij to Geotechnical accomptiik tliz dzvztopr.znt .pZ'--r.iXXzd by tiiz .Mayic/-. Ttan. Safety W/:?AC gr.adbig ixpacXi afiz iound io bz zxcziiivz io'i tiiz Conditions irXo'-iiXy oi ptannzd/pz^jniXtzd dzviiop.nzrJ:^ ottiAnativz pxajzct dziigin on tzii ZrXzniivz uiZi ikaZl bz cor.^idz/!.zd. l2)\/zszXzXi.on-clz::Ai.-.g opiuiationi ihatZ bz madz no moiz than .ico wccLs in advance oi g/iading. Geotechnical Safety . Conditions (3) Mt» grading ikall occux ducting thz montJii oi Ncvvr-i WoAc/t, zxzzpt iuWzjr. ipzcial mzaiuAZi can bz takzn to ccnt-xi iiltaXion. Tlvii condition ihaJtl bz ir.zX to thz ioHiizztich c£ tiiz City Evi.ginzzt. 14) V/'j^nagz iaciZiXizi, n^zquiAzd by thz CiXif Enginzzn. ilrjAz bz conitJuj-cikd ccncio-Jiziit i/iiXh grading aciiviXizi. 15] All giuadzd iuAiacu iliatt bz luatzAzd and lottzd t£ icvn a comcactzd cap oi ioil oi optijr.um dzniity. [6] SuJiiaczi ihalt bz gnadzd to dinzcX AiinoH tc-ixvid plaju:zd oA-oinagzi and, ii:hztzvzA poiiiblz, cvxiy iA.om cuX-and-iilZ itcpu. • (7) diound covzn. ihatl bz plantzd on appJiop-iiaXz iiopzi upjr. comptzXion oi giading acXiviXizi. Thii gwurA COVZA i'rjUl tz i/bUgaXzd Xo Xhz iatiiiaction oi thz CiXy Enginzzn. to maxiinizz znoiion corvUiot. • [&) VuAing coiUtAj.cXion, CiMj Bu,ilding and EnginzzAXj-.^ ijuczcto-'^i ihall zmuKZ thai alt cJimicali [zipzcially •paii-.ii, iuzli and lu.b.-J.carXi] OAZ pAopzfily ccnXainzd and iioAipc-'jtzd oii-iiXz whzAZ thzy can bz Kzcyclzd oi p.iopvJjj dzi,t'.oyzd. (9) VrCiot tX) dzvzlopnznX oi cj-iy paction oi thz l.'aj,iz)\. ?ian ar.za, that portion ihall havz thz nZCZiio-xy zr.ginzz.iir.g itiidlzi complzXzd by a quatiiizd znginzz/i. . Any comtAiicXlan tzdrj-Jij^'j.;.^ AzcocTMzndzd by tkz.itudizi .ihalZ bz uXiZLzzd. The figures on pages 25-27 show what studies will need to te accomplished in each community to determine appropriate grading and ccnstructicn techniques. Legend .a ,LANDSLIDES- Generally on north facing slopes along major str£:_-s. DEEP ALLUVIUM- Relatively soft and compressible, saturated de- posits of silts, clays and sands, seis-ic a.-.d flood hazards. LA JOLLA GROUP- Highly susceptible to erosion; develops bad"a.-.ci . topography. 'OTHER GEOLOGIC UNITS- Relatively stable units; grading !r.ay b-i di.ficult in •Sgnous and r^tanarphic r-;:i-s. — P.OAD EXI5TIN6 GEOTECH'NICAL HAZARDS .Legend Area Terrace deposits. Alluvium east of I . -| El Camino.Real - Deyelbp:~.ant Investic;ticns .Need-ed ResidentiaT S - .Routine Engineering Geologic Invest. Co.~.ercial - Routine Soil S Four.daticn Ir.-.-est. - Rojti-e Slcpe Stebility I.-;vcst.fi Arzl. - Routine Seisric r.zziri I.-.vsst. o A;-.:.?. - Routine Erosion Cc.-.trcl i.-.vest. La Jolla' Group Critical Structures Residential Con^mercial Critical •Structures - Routine Engineering Ceolcjic In-.-est. - Routine Soil S Foundation Invest. - Routine Slope Stability In-.--:st.S Aral. - Detailed Seis-ic Hazird Invest.S Anil. - Routine Erosion Ccntrol Invest. - KC'Jti.ne Lnqine-; ;cic -•vest - Routine Soil S Foundation Ir,v-2st. - Routine Slope Stability Invest, i A.',= l. - Routine Seismic Hazard Invest. !. A.-nzl. - Detailed Erosion Ccntrol Invest. - Detailed Engineering Geolccic Invest. -- Routine Soil S Fcundjticn Invest. - Detailed Slope Stabilitv Invest.S Ar.>l, - Routine Seis.-ic Hazard Invest.i Anal. - Detailed Ei-osion Control Invest. Igneous Rocks, Residential Metamorphic Rocks, • . AAy Lusardi Formation, Point Loma Formation Conr.ercial Critical Structures Detailed Engineering Geolccic Invest. Detailed Seismic Hazird I.nvest.d.A.-.2l. Routine Slcpe Stability Invest. 6 Anil. Routine Soil u Fo-andaticn Invest. Detailed Gecp.-.ysical Invest, to determine excavation char's cf reel:. Detailed Engineering Geolccic Invest. Routin-3'Sei smic H izard Invest. S Ar.il. Routine Slope Stability Invest.S Ar.."J . Routine Soil ?• Fc-ndation Invest. Detailed Geophysical invest, to determine excavation char's cf recks. Detailed Engineering Geologic Invest. Detailed Seisr.ic Hazard LTrest-S Anal. Detailed Slcpe Stability Invest. J Anal Routine Soil S Fc-nd'ticn Invest. Detailed Geophysical invest, to deter.~ine excavation char's of rocks. A--^i Landslides Alluvium v/est of El Catnino Real Residential - Detailed Enginoerin-; Geclocic Invest. - Detailed Slope Stability Invest.i A.-;U - Detailed Soil & Foundation i,-.vest. - Routine Seismic Hazard Invest.!. Anal. Residential Detailed Soil and .fecundation Invest. Routine Seismic Hazard Invest. 1 Anal. Routine Floodi.-iy Potential Iiivesc. V^\^:::^[yyiiA}jA:y- mii^rPRING INVESTIGATIONS NEEDED Noise A co:Tinunity with the variety and intensity of land uses planned for La Costa must make careful provisions to minimize its potential noise problems. ifO-jsa Cbjective Jt ii Xhz inXznt ci thz anzndzd V-oitzn. Vlan Xo pKCvidz anrf maintain a hzalXhy acouMtic znviAovmznX ion. cJUi La Coita. n.ziidznXi. Land uses relate to no\se in two ways; • - They can be particularly sensitive to excessive noise levels; or - They can generate noise levels excessive for surrounding land uses. Noise Sensitive Land Uses The following land uses in the Master Plan sre noise sensitive: •- - Residences - Schools - Libraries - Passive Parks, Nature Areas - Auditoriums . " - A.-phi theatres - Churches - . - The planning of land uses in the Master Plan has^taken into account these sensitive land uses. Minimizing noise impacts in residential areas can best be acco-.plished at the time of land subdivision/construction. School sites have been lecated away fro.ti major sources of traffic noise, and additionally must meet State Board of Education site selection requirements. Parks and open spaces have also generally been located away from the sources of traffic noise. The remaining sensitive uses have been grouped in pe Communi'iy Core. Noise- sensitive Land Uses Conditiens 1. ACC fiziiidznczl. and ickocZi ihoLi bz iit-:d and ccnifiactcd Jjx iadi a mannzn. that tlizy meet CiXu and appticAbtz Sate, noiiz ita.'-.d^rdi in ion.cz cX thz tijnz ci conitAiiaticn. 2. The Ca-5inuiuX(/ Conz ihall bz dziigr.cd, atid i)-idivid:ixiL buildb:gi conitnuctcd, in iuch a r.annzn tixaX noiiz iviiiXivz aid anz not iubjzcX to noiAZ tzvzti in zxczii oi CiXy and apptiaxbtz Stoic noiiZ' itanda.xdi in ioncz-aX the tin\z ci conitnucticn. Noise Generators . " _ • The primary noise generators presently affecting or expected to affect La Costa are: - Highway and'street noise - Offroad vehicle noise- - Construction noise - Airport noise. - Active parks To minimize the impacts of these noise generators the following policies will be adhered to throughout La Costa. (/) T-'ie location oi n.cad:':atji ihall bz pf-tirncd iO as Xc rrJj-Jj-Jizz rsiiz impactji on izniitivz anzai. (Z) incAzaizd iztbacki and/an iolid banAiou ihjxll bz intcZ-izd idiznz nzccAioAy to p-iotzcX izmitivz mzi adjcij-i-inq tr.c.icn .'i.cad:-:aui. Noise T.iaiiic iunctioiu ihall bz nzviesczd piion ic n.cad dcilgn tc Generator mininizz thz nzzd ion zx.cznivz bna!uj:g cx azczloxaticn. ?,-JjjaXz Conditions , » ^7 i. i J. - <. - - > • noadi'aij}) ihall bz kept /iett4c>;afa.tc Kzpatji to ACCUCC tJiAZ )\Cij>z. [4] La Coita Lcuid Ccrpany ikcJLt poit pxclxihltlons agair.it cii-.\cad vzkiclz UiZ on iti piXvaXzlij cxnzd lojxd itv'icia appxcp'Xiatz. (5| All don^itnucXion in tliz p-to/ect ajiza il-iOll occun di^vlcg nc-j-.al dn.:jti}r\z wo-lfiing hcam (7:00 A.M. .-to 4:30 ?..'-L V.cnday tj:.-.c:igh SaXiJ-xdau]. Q y:i t. t I n - - Introduction The circulation needs of the La Costa Com.munity are as varied as the housing and neighborhood styles planned for. As described in the Conceptu- alized Communities sectioh, streets, bikeways, pedestrian, and equestrian paths bave been located throughout the Master Plan area to reinforce indi- vidual neighborhood character. Bikeway and pedestrian paths have also been located to promote their use for travel between neighborhoods within La Costa. Finally, the La Costa circulation plan reflects th4 City of Carlsbad's GeneralPlan Circulation Element, and its concern for a balanced. City-wide circulation system.' Jt i-i thz i;iXziit oi thz ar.zndzd lioiizn Vlan Xo p-xovidz dziinzd ponXiom oi tliz accon^ipanying itnzzt, bikzj.C'Oij, pzdutnian cj-A zquzit^Jjan nzXxonkj> concuA/XznX vxith thz dzvzlcpnznt ci ixdi- Circulation "'^'^^ nzighbonhoodi. Jt i^ tlxz U-Xznt oi thz a-cndzd Sloitzn. Objective Plan to iacXlitaXz whoxzvzn poaiblz,ih.^ tinkir.£ 03 thaz bikziooiji, pzdzitnian and zquzj>X'iian paXlii to bz iniiailzd in iutiL.xz nzigh- bonhoodi uiiXh tiioiz. ptann?.d uxitiiiii thz cxc-iioig La Coita Cominunity. , • JX li iunXhz/i. XJiz intznt oi Xhz ar.zndzd l.'aj,tz>-. Plan Xo dziign clncuilaXion iacilitizi and n.zlaXzd land aizi in iuch a loxy XJ-jzt ovznalt znviAjOyjnznXal impacts anz cMrJjrJjzzd. street Program The La Costa Master Plan includes ten major streets shown in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element. These streets, their function, and their planned right-of-ways are the following: Street ' Carillo '«'ay Alga Road Alicante Road £1 Fuerte Street Melrese Avenue . La Costa Avenje Kisicn Estancia. East & West Olivenhain Road. Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Function Secondary Arterial Major Arterial Secondary Arterial •Secondary Arterial Prime- Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Prime Arterial Right-of- Hay (feet) 84 102 84 84 84 84 102 102 125 7 'rans ts and ;icns (1) Thz p-nopznXy oicnzn iliall dzdicatz, dziign, and coizitnacX all public noadi lr. iuch phaizi tixaX adzquaXz vztiicalan. dncuZatXon ii rr.ainXainzd tiVioughoaX thz ccir.-zi,iiXy. , (2) Except t<.v':C/te modiiizd Xo acccrrjr.odaXz bikzMiyi on. pzdz^St/Xiatx patlii, all iC-.zzXi and n.cadi i'\all mzzX adopXzd City itandandi ion vzntical and honZ- . zcntal Cy'ioii-izzticixi iclu.ch r.ay bz in ioncz at thz timz oi dzvztopr\znX.. (3) T.naiiic iignalization ihall bz pnovidzd at itnzzt intzuzcXiovn at iuch Xi,~.zi Oi Xxai-ic ii.g,:ali an.z ican/ianXzd by CiXy policy. JmplzinznXation oi app.\cp.-JjaXz iignalization ikalZ b-z accomptu>hz.d it. accondancz iciXh CXty Pcticy f:'iiidx ii In ioncz at thz tvr.z oi dzvzlopmznX. {4) Vi'.zcX acczii inoir. iinglz-iamily nziidznXiaZ pnopzAtizi i'nonXlng onto cj-Xz-JjOl itnzzXi [&i izzX on gnzaXzx] ihalt not bz alloinzd. 15) i.'.zdian opzningi on pnirr.z 1126 ioot] and majo.x. {iCZ ioot) anXznijal itnzzti ihatl nat ocan cloizi t' vn 1200 izzt apcAX except ai appnovzd by thz City Zivginzzn. [6] Thz UiZ oi p-nivaXz it/izzXi in lizu oi iutt pubii.c acczii ihatl. bz comidznzd cn a. caiz-O'J-caiz boili aX XJiz tinz oi dzvzloprr.znX, pnoviding that tliz pnA.vatz itnzzXi axz comtniLcXzd in conio.'w.aixcz iciXh CiXy itandaxd-i. (7) La Ccita land Corr.pany ihalt takz inXd comidzAjaticn zuiiti.ng and potzntial v-j.blic X'juxiit nouXzi and itop LocaXJiom in duignlng individuat dzvzlopmznXi idtiiin iliz l-ioitz/i Plan anea. {Sl Li Coita Loi-.d Corr.pany ihall adhzxz to pcHcizi oi tlxz City oi Canlibad and Xhz HonXji Ccunty Tncjiiit SyiXzm pznXaining Xo Xhz pnoviiiom oi tnamit iazititizi. BIK'E PATH .. PEDSSTRIA.V-6U'E FAT V. . PEDESTRIAN' PATN ............. E0UE5TKIAN TRAIL ""' V>=:=:=t 5.D.G.CE-EASE/AE.'-iTS/ PEDESTRIAN Ll.S'KS LA COSTA' BOUNDARY MAJOR STREETS - 32 Bikeway, Pedestrian, and Equestrian Program Ths La Costa Master Plan makes use cf extensive bikeway and pedestrian net-works to link the major service and recreation attractions of the Community, These networks-reflect both the City's Circulation policy of incorporating bikeways within or" near all major and prime arterials, and the City's policy of incorporating paths which are a minimum of .20 feet in width in open space corridors. Reflecting their more family-oriented neighborhoods, additional indscendent bikeways are planned for La .Costa Far South and Northeast. Finally, the rural atmosphere to be achieved in the Northeast will be heightened by , the provision of equestrian paths and facilities in that community. '{1) Thz appticent ihall dziign. and comtAacX all bikzixayi in accondancz e:iXh t/.e CinculaXion Elzrr.znt o^ tixz Gznznal Plan oi thz City oi Canlibad and thz Eiic 2oiLtz StandaA.di (Section 7-1000) thz State Caliionriia Higlxiisay Vzjign !.'j3.ivual. [2] Any riodiiicaXLom to tliz dziign oi oAXzniaZ itnzzXi to accommodatz bii.zj:c.yi ihalZ bz app-xovzd by thz CiXy cnginzzA aX tliz timz oi aHzcXcd on. ' adjoijxing nzigl-Jjc-xJiood dzvzlopnznX. (5) Ti:c dziign and coniXnuction oi individual ponXiom oi Xhz Bikeinay and Pzdzit-J-an pcXh nzX^'c-xki ihall bz accomptuhzd at .hz tXmz oi indJ.vidual nzighboxhcod dzvzloprr.znX. Thz dziign iliatl takz -uxXo account -thz natiVjol izaXjinzi oi thz an.za and expected uiz oi thz paXti-t. Thz dziign ihall bz ap&xovzd by tr.z Citjy Enginzzn. and tiiz Panki and Rzcnzaticn ViAzcXon. .iu:ewjy. [4) Thz p-xoviiicn oi izpanaXz pzdcitn-ij.n path nzXiconki {20 ioot m-inijnum |.^.-Si.rian [.^J^] {^^.J^JJ^ not aHzct thz pnoviiion oi iidcpJaZki u:iXhin tliz pubtic •qjestrian night-oi-way. -j..-i^ions jj.j £^2^.^3)1 and iiXi>xg oi individual ponXiom oi thz zquzitnian path nttvo-xli (20 joot iriinin:uin icidXii) ihall bz accoi::iptiihzd aX thz Xunz oi individual nzigkbo-xJxood dzvzZoptr.zivt. Thz design ihall takz into account thz r.aX:i.xaZ izcXanzi oi tliz anza and zxpzcXzd i^iz oi Xhz pcUln. Thz dziign iliall bz approved by thz Panki i.nd RzcnzaXlon VIILZCXO'X. io] Thz p.xopz.-.,t:j oiunzn. ikaZl ptovidz bikz packing iaciliXizi aX all majon iZAvizz and nzcAZzticn an.zai in'thz h'.aiXzn PIAUX anz^a.. Thz dziign and. locaXion oi Xlxziz iacXLitizi ikaZl bz appnovzd by thz CiXy Enginzzn and Panks and 'RzcxzaXion VinzcXon. cX tlxz timz oi dzuzlcpmzixX, LA COSTA" BOUMDARY - .Vf.'^JOf? STKEETS - SIK'5 PATH _. PEDESTRIAN'-3lk'£ FAT - PEDESTRIAN' PAT.H .-• EOUESTKIAN TRAIL =: 5 D.G. CE. EASEMENTS/ PEDtSTRiAN LINKS 5-/S-76 The recreational emphasis of the existing resort community demonstrates the importance of parks and open space in all La Costa communities. Their i.T.portance in cc.T.munity definition was described in the land use section. However, tha primary purpose of parks and open space in the new co.iimunities will continue to be recreation. Private, .i'satelite" recreation facilities will be established in the new comr.unities as extensions of the core golf and tennis fecilities. In the Northeast and Far.South increased e.mphasis will be placed on providing parks and open space geared to the more traditional family way of lifa. , ' The provision of these facilities also corresponds with the policies and programs of the City bf Carlsbad as described in th'e Parks and Recreation, and Open Space - Conservation Elements of the City's General Plan. As discussed below, the provision of private facilities must be coordinated with the'provi- sion of public facilitie's to ensure a complete, yet efficient, network of park and open space facilities. . . ' . Parks JX li thz inXznX oi thz amzndzd MoitcA. Pla.x to izX aiidz iaiXabtz .zzcn.zaXicn anzzi ion. CiXy'panh uiz, and to cuxg^ent thz.iz pa.xki with p^^,.^ p-xlvaXz neighbonhood panki and nzcnzation iacilitizi to incAzaiz Objective neighbonhood co/ici-con and dziiniXion. (?) La CoAta Land Ccmpaiuj ihall zrXzn. inXo a nzu: ir.uXual poAki agnzz- ir.tnX viiXSi tlxz CiXy ai Canlibad iciXiiin 60 dayi oi tixz adoption oi thz cir.indzd I'Mitzn. Plan. Thz agnzzmznt ihall covzn. thz tixz c^.nd mztSxod oi dedication oi ipzciiic panki in tliz gznznal locaXJ.om dz.icnlbzd bzlao. (Z) In Xhz zvznX a nzin rr.uXual panJu agnzcinznX ii not adoptzd witiiin Ccnditions 60 dayi ci Xhz adoption oi Xlxz arr.i^ndzd Maitzn Plan, no additional dzvzlopaznX plani ihusli bz app.xovzd until tlxli i.'.aitzn Plan ii arr.zndzd Xo irJionponjoXz all pn.ovij,loni, nzcZiiany tc zmuA.z tiiaX adzquaXz po-tfe ia:;lliXlzs :ilU. b& avalZabtz ion. thz Aziid.znXi oi Xhz La Coita ccmr.unlXy. Parks Conditions (3) In appnoving tliz pa-xk pnoviiion oi tht crr.zndzd !.'.aitz.X Tlojx, tiiz CiXy oi Ccutlibixd zlzcXi to jDnoczzd puniuanX to SzcXlon Z0.4J.no c( thz Caxtibad y,iinicipal Code in z^itabililiing pnoviiiom icn Pank cjxd TsZcnzaXlon land and iacilitizi viitl-ln t/ie La. Coita yiaitcx Plan CotrjT.anlttI. {i}] WhzAz ix iA, judgzd nzcziiaxi/ by La Coita Land Ccr.pany and Xlit CiXy oi Canlibad to iupptzr.znX nzlghbo.xhood and ccr:Tr.u.ncty Izvzl pa'.ki •in nziidzntiaL nzighkonJicodi.i zxpzcXzd to Include iigniiicant )\:.^~.bc:j> oi ckLtd.xzn, La Ccita Land Corrrpiny may cX t':e tlr.z oi dzvzicpr.znX ilt oiidz anzai ion. uiz ai ptayloti, irlrii-, on vzit-pocket pa-xki in a n-.annzn. dziinzd in Table VJ ci thz CiXy Pcxki Oixd Rzznza.Jicn Elzr.zrX. Tlxziz pa.xki may bz combined iiitJi p-xlvcXz iatziltz nzcxzaticn iacilitizi. CnzdiX ion XiiZ'iz pa,xki Xc::::a.xdi corr.ptior-.cz icith tliz r.'jiual pcnli cgxzz- ir.znX ma//6c gnanted La Coiia Land Ccrr.pany ai p-xzicxlbzd in ii:z SubcU.viiion Ondinancz oi tliz CiXy oi C<iA.Libad. (5) PnopoioLi ion. pnlvaXz, iotzilXz nzcnzaXlcn iacilitizi ihall bz iubm.ittzd to tliz City oi Coyilibad ion app-xoval ai paxt ci tlxz dzvzlop- mznX oi a nzicLbonhcod; on in tliz io-xm oi a CondlXloival Uiz PenrlX idizne thz iacltlXlzi anz pnopoizd ion. an exiiting nzlghbonJicod. Jn att ca.izs tliz IccjxXlon, dziign, qjr.d irXzi'jizd uiz ci thz iacillXij ihall complement iXi nzlghboniicod. [6] An ir.^p.xovznznX pnogni^jn io-x thz pncpoi,zd poAk p-'cog.'-ici ilialt bz ' dzvztopzd by thz CiXy and L-i Coita La>:d Ccppajxy Xo a.iiu,xz that pank iaciliXizi anz availablz concu/i/iznX icith nzzd. An interim agreement between the City and La Costa Land Company provided for the systematic dedication of land for public park purposes within the .'-'.aster Plar. area. The following three parks have been so provided for: . ' t- • (a) Canyon P.irk (9 i.' acres): Lots 271 and 272 of La Costa Vale ^3 have been dedicated to the City of Carlsbad. (b) Fuerte Park (4 ±. acres): A 4-acre portion of Lot 478, La Costa .Meadcws shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad fcr public parks purposes within SO d.iys of the approval of the emended Master Plan. The exact location s.hall te mutually detoruiined by tho City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Director and the La Costa Land Company. (c) Algti Hills Park- (5 --t. acres): Located south of Alga Road and west of the S.D.G.S E. transmission easement. The exact location shall have reasonable access to a public street. The final boundary shall be determined concurrent with the approval of the final .v..;p for the property known as Alga Hills. La Costa Land Company proposes' the adoption of a permanent parks agreement with the City of Carlsbad. The agreement includes the dedication of approximately 43 additicnal acres. The general distribution and dedication of these lands are described below. However, specific parks may be increased or reduced in size, and located v/ithin h mile of the sites as shown on.the accompanying exhibit, in conform- ance with the parks agreement. This may be done if the parks which result are substantially in conformance with this Master Plan and the provisions of the Parks and Recreation Element of the Carlsbad'General Plan. (a) San Marcos Creek Park (5+ acres): The proposed park site is generally located adjace.nt to tne ^an .'--arccs v.'ater D'istrict treatment facility. The park shall be dedicated at-such time as any final map is approved in the area designated as La Costa N'ortheast. The exact location of this park shall be considered consis- tent with tr.e aT.ended Master Plan provided (i) it has-reasonable public access, suitable for public park purooses as defined in the Parks end Recreation Element of the City's General Plan; (ii) the precise location best augments the entrance .to San Marcos Canyon. f (b) Stacecoach Park (28 ± acres): The proposed park site is generally located sojth cf Rincno Sinta Fe F.oac and southerly of La Costa Avenue extension. The proposed Stagecoach Park will be a coraunity-level park, precisely located nt such tire as Final maps are approved in the area known as Santa Fe Knolls. Tho propos-ec dedication shall occur in increments as set forth in the permanent parks agree-ent. (c) £1 Ca-ino Glens Park (5 acres): The proposed park site is generally located ncrtneriy of kzi'.cr.o del Pcncerosa, in the vicinity of Mision Estancia 'ft'est, east of El Camino Real, and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The precise location and timing of dedication will be determined at such time as the next final .T.ap (exclusive of Green ''alley Knells) is approved in the area designated as Area Nur.ber 1 of La Costa Far South. (d) ?-':rth ?;r^ (5 .-t acres): The location of North Park has not been fully » evaluated, 'r.s. pzrk will ner.e-^lly be lecated in the northerly one-half of La Costs North in the vicinity-of the oroposed Carillo Way alignment. The' precise locaticn and ti.v.ing of dedication will be determined v.'hen a final map is approved in the northerly one-half of La Costa North. li;^^/ ;;.%T7.ttf.V4-\^^i<-^ c,v..w.D. A JA :? y..>:yfA^'' ~ >^ m ^^myy^ ii ' GOLF COJR^^^^^^..^/^^ "-::..'-^^-^':'... -Zr. -,: f'-., ' CANYCW AAy:iy:y ...\ IS y ;MT A PART • • .^CAV.D: EL CAMIWO GLEWS \; roAcw)-.-?, - ..J STAGE COACH-/--? PARK ^i-i' _OllVElIHAm — RDAD — J VISUAL < CO.'-V.AU.'.'iTY 2tTFCP- . open Space -The najor open spaces in the existing La Costa community are the .golf course and San Marcos Canyon. Additional open spaces have been reserved throughout the Cc.Tir.unity. Ths'amended Master Plan includes a greater variety of open space in the three new co:TTr,unities. Visual, access, 'and co(nmunity buffer open spaces fall into three levels of concern: Open Spaces of Ma.)or Public Concern San Marcos Canyon and segments cf t.ne SDG & £ easer.ents. Ooen Spaces of Both Public and Private Concern -- Open spaces adjacent erterin streets, open spaces containing bike and pedestrian routes. Ooen Soaces of Private Concern — The golf course extension, open space used solely for cor.-.-unity definition. Q^.^ ^oace tlxz i,-XznX oi the ••amended Ma^s.teA Plan to utilize open ipace rG'-.I'-f,. zo.xnidc-u to dziinz dlitlnct nzighbo-xhoodi, .to uiz thzm ai a mzam COjtf^uli/C - . ...... OJ poMivz accz-ii fcetioeen nzighbonhoodi, and to .xziznvz itn,Lking gzognaphJ,c a,xzai icn. viiual nzlizi. Open Space Conditions (?) T/:e open ipaczi dziignatzd in tliz hiaitcA. Plan zxhibiX on ixgz 35 ihatl not bz iixtznpnztzd ai p-xzcliz nzpnzizittatiom ci actucit cfzn ifccz duDzmiom. Thz diir,zmiom oi tliz open -ipace-s dziignatzd ilxall bz dzXzAsrlr.zd aX tiiz tir.z oi dzvzlopmznX oi thz nzighbon- hoodi in loliicli tlizy lie and may bz vanizd pnovidzd thzy a.xe comii- XcnX vUXJx the intent oi thii and othzn izctiom oi thz I'iaiten Plan, and cn tiiz boyilu ci tlxz Gznznal Plan oi tliz CiXy oi Canlibad, iXi iir.plziTiZixXing o xdinanczi cjxd poticizi. (2) Vzdication and/on. nziZAvatlon oi Sa:x l.ianca Canyon, thz goli ecu-lie extension, cjxd othzn viiual, acccii and conmunity baHzn. cczn ipacZi ihao: in tliziz ).'.u.itzn Plan zxhibiXi ihall OCCUA at Xixz XJjTiZ oi dzvzlopir.enX oi adjoining nzighbonhoodi. 13) Jn .xzcogniXion oi Xhz San i.'.oAcoi Canyon AgnzzimnX bztwzzn thz CiXy and La Coita Land Corr.-pany, thz dzvztopcA.. iliatl iubniX a ptan iox p-mtCCCicn oi tl-.z n.xiunai znviAoninznt in .tliz Canyon p-xion to ap.r.iov.ti oi individual dzvelopmznti -adjacznt to Son Alo-xco-i Canyon. Tlxli plan irxJLl inctudz, tchzAz nzcziiCAy, pnoviiiom ioA limiting accui to thz Canyon and ihall bz iubjzcX to the Azvitm and appxovcZ oi Xhz Panki and RzcAzaXilon VI/LZCXOA. 14) Jn addition to thz rr.ajo-x open ipazz axzoi dziignatzd Zn thz amzndzd l.'.aitzA. Ptan, individual dzvztcpr.znti iciij:in thz .Mit-jteA Pcan cAza ihatl ir.axlrrlzz upen axzoi boizd cn tiiz {clLc-.cing cnlXzAla: (a) rJJt •xlp.a!tlan hab.itaXi ai dziinzd ir. cIR 307 ilxall be pnz^iZ'Xvcd; (5) ail cA.zxX'i i'jith iigp-iiicaitt nur^bzAi Cj .xanz plojxt ipzclzi ihall bz pxeiznved; [c] alt (.v-^chiclogical cn liiito.x,ic cAZ&i cc/iicn axnixct bz iatli<acto.x.it.y mitlgatzd pxicA to dzvzlcp-.zixt ii-jxiC bz cove-Xid on pxziZAvzd a.i opzr. ipacz; id] act oAzoi I'UXh zxzcai'jz iicpa and z:cuxz--.zi!j' umtablz ioil conditiom [oi idzixtiyizd in tlxz dztail.cd ioil arS geologic l.ivzitlgatiom nzqainzd in tlxz Gzologic SaizXxj izcXlon] iliall bz pnz.izn.vzd ai open ipacz. 1 Maintenance of Ooen Scaces and Parks Because significant amoimts of public and private open space and park . area are planned for in the Master Plan it is important that provisions te made for the maintenance of these areas. Maintenance responsibilities .correspond with the levels of open space concern: Public Responsibility -- Those'lands dedicated to a public agency and for use by the General Public shouTd b"B m.3intained by the public. Mixed Private/Public Resoc.nsibili ty -- These lands ber>=fiting bcth the general public and a specific qrcup cf private individuals should be m.iintained by a special mainte.nance procram. These procrar.s may include eitiier a broad-based Homecv/ner's Association, a S.uecial ' Maintenance District, cr other m-jintenance program approved by the City Manager and La Costa Land Ccirpa.ny. Private Responsibility -- Those lands clearly benefiting cnly a group of private individuals should be maintained by either a • Hoi;iecwner's Association or by individuals. . Maintenance Condi tion Lo. Coita iand Comjxinu and thz Cltii oi Cantibad iliait addxzii thz ioll'.M.lng liiuzA OJ., yjoAX of, an ovzAatl Open Soace :.'alrXzii7r.zz Agncer.znt: -{a] t/ie Aeip0f-.,ii[)i£i,tic.6 oi inXznzitzd pa-xXizi ion MxirXxliiing tliz open i-paczi d'Zii.xnatcd in t.'-.is a-.zndzd !''..z.itzx Plan; (fal p.xcczdiL,xz.i iox dz.tex:'.:in.i,:g thz nz-iponi ib iiitiz i Cj i.-.^ c "Ci ted paxtLz.i ion :nuin t'.itiing a):y open .ip^iczi ,CyXaat-id in. La Cciia cc~r-ur.- ipliA not dzii.gi\':J:.zd in thii lioitQA. Plan; ic) t>.e pnoczdjAZi [cx Citibtliiiing iirr.zly fr.airXzrjonzz oi opzix ip.azzi du-xln'g dzvzlopr.n'X oi indlvid'Mxl nzighbo-xhoodi ci paxX oi tl:Z >''.zitZA Ploji; and [d] tlxz Izvzli oi rr.alntanancz to bz pzAioAT.zd in each clan o- cpzn ipacz. n © ^A J t: '--'' 7 • ' -.-^ J ; \. :\ V yy. Ly*A ^Mw-.^*^ ono /"^^ r i 'n'hen completed. La Costa will require a large supply of public facilities, The_ installation of seme of these facilities are the responsibility of the developer. Others are City .^r County-wide services available to La Costa residents. La Coita Land Com/.vjjf/ iLxll ir.zzt all .xzqulxzrr.ZjxXi cj Xl:z i: p It li tliz InXznX oi Xhz cr.zr.dzd ^'.aiizn Plan Xo cn,6uA.e tfiat adzquaXz Facilities Izvzli oi all public iacilitizi OA-Z available Xo La Cata NzighhonJioodi Cbj ;i ve CJ, Xhzy dzvztop. 'rt'ater La Costa 'is served by three water districts: the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (Civ.'O); Olivenhain Municipal Water District OMV.'D); and.San Marcos Ccunty'w'ater District (S.'-'.C'AD). Adequate line and storage facilities exist to r.eet the current and irvnediate future water needs of La Costa. Cooperation betv/een La Costa Land Cornpany and the serving agencies will be needeji to ensure the timaly availability of water during the latter develcp.ment phases of the ccmnunity." Phased v/ater demands are given in the accompanying .table. a la. Coita Lard.Ccr.payM ihjitt mzzX all AzqulnzmzrXi ci Xhe ixaXen '/>3t&r Condition dlitAj.cXi In'pnoviding icaXzn ieAvicz Xo nziQlxbonlxoodi oi Xhzy develop. La Ccsta is served by three sewer agencies: Leucadia County Water District (LC'WD); SMCW'D; and the City of Carlsbad (CC). Sewage from all three agencies is treated a.t the Encina '/ater Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). While there is-sufficient capacity in the EWPCF for immediate and near future needs, the macnitude of the total La Costa Master Plan is such as to require staged enlargement of the regional treatment plant. As development is anticipated, it would be appropriate to coordinat^ with tbe'.Servicing agency to insure sufficient capacity is available. Phased sewage demands are given in the acccT.panying table. . ' Sewer Condition dlj,tAlcXi iix pnoviding izM:zA izxvicz to nzlghboAhcodi ai Xhzu- dzvzlcp. Solid Haste .Solid waste from La Costa is collected and disposed of at the county-cpcrate: San Elijo Landfill by McDougas Sanitation Inc. The firm has indicated that it has adequate capacity to meet the anticipated de.nands of the proposed La Costa communities. Phased solid waste demands are given in the acccmpanyir.g table. . Gas and Electricity The San Diego Gas and Electric Company distributes natural ges and elec- -tricity to the La(Costa area. The future power demands of the La Costa ccrnunity are within the long-range capacities of the'Ce.mpany as presently foreseen. Phased energy demands are given in the accompanying table. Utilities All uXltiXlei, includlixg pnoviiiom io-x. zcblz Xzlzvliicn, ihall bz Condition placed undzAgnound. Flood Control -The provision of storm drainage facilities throlighout the La Costa area is necessary to avoid potential flooding from the San Marcos Canyon-Batiquitos Lagoon watershed. Flood La CoiXa Land Compayiy ihall ir.czX alt Azculnzr.zrXi oi Xlxz San Vizoo Control CounXij Vzpa.xX3T.znt oi SanlXaXlcn ar.d Ttood CcnXncl atxd Xhz CiXu at Condition ^ r- a CcAdMbad. in pnoviding ilood contnol iacilitizi to r.zighjiD--j-xods oj tJr.zy CA.Z developed. sy-ffyi PmSED PUBLIC FACILITY DEMAND Calculated at Maximum Permitted Densities + Number Gas D-ivelling Popu- 1000 Units 1ation CF/Ho. Electr. 1000 KKll/Mo. Solid Waste Total Sewer Districts Sewer (1000 GPD) 1000 GPD LCWD CC SMCWD Total Water 1000 GPD Water Districts (1000 GPD) CMWD SMWD c:'WD PH.ASE I La Ccsta North Northeast Far South 1,740 1,215 4,246 . 4,868 3,079 10,562 7,899.6 5,507.0 19,275.8 1,005.7 701.1 2,454.2 27,504 17,396 59,675 413.8 • 261.7 897.8. 84.o2 51.00 \ 897.77 329.46 210.72 730.2 461.9 1,584.3 730.2 461.9 ! 1,584. 1^2 1, Phase i \ :!, Existing* Total, I & Fx. .7,201 10,498 17,699 18,509 24,750 43,259 32,683.4 47.7 32,731.1 4,161.0 6,068 10,229.0 104,575 139,838 244,413 1,573.3 2,104.0 3,677.3 1,033.09 2,103.75 3,136.84 i 3^29.46 329.46 210.72 210.72 2,776,4 3,712.5 6,488.9 730.2 1,859.9 2,600.0 451.9 j 1,5.S-. 573.6 ' 1,265. 1,035.5 7,853. r-:r.SE II La Costa .North •.':rtheast Far South 872 • 620 3,225 2,456 • 1,364 8,982 3,958.9 2,814;8 14,645.0 504.0 358.4 •1,864.5 f 13,876 7,707 50,748 • 208.8' 115.9 763.5 't 659.63 208.76 93.84 115.94 6,488.9 368.4 204.6 1,^47.3 368.4 204.6 210.6 1,136. T-j-'l, Phase II Total, I & Ex. Total, I, II & Ex. 4,718 17,599 22,417 12,802 43,259 . 56,061 21,419.7 32,731.1 54,150.8 2.727.0 10,229.0 12,956.0 72,331 244,413 316,744 1,088.2 3,677.3 ' 4,765.5 > 659.63 3,135.84 3,806.47 302.60 329.46 632.07 115.94 210.72 325.66 (• 1 5 Q 0.3 1 5,488.9 1 8,409.2 368.4 2,600.1 2,968.5 ^iD.2 1 ,035.5 1,450.7 t. "i J -. 2,cti. r. ?--££ Ill Costa North !-! 0 rth e a s t \ Far South Total, Phase III . Total, I, II & Ex. 1,103 260 1,182 2,550 22,417 2,780 572 2,952 • 6,314 56,051 5,030.3 1,130.4 5,366.3 11,577.0 54,150.8 640.4 150.3 683.2 1,473.9 12,956.0 15,707 3,232 16,735 35,674 316,744 ! •236.3 48.5 251.8 536.7 4,765.5 .1 i 164.14 \ 72.17 i 48.62 251.77 I 464.53 72 17 |3,805.47 1 632.''07 r 326.56 417.0 85.8 444.3 947.1 8,409.2 417.0 417:0 2,958.5 . 8S.8 29.25 115.05 1,450.7 ^15. il ^ 3,95C. lot' "i , i , III li Ex Tttal Cco..-£rcial Totol, La Costa Co.'voun. Buildout 24,967 24,967 1 62,375 62,3^5 65,727.8 i! '65,727.8 14,429.9 6,353.8 20.783.7 352,41-3 (0,010 5,302 2 844.3 362,428 4,271.0 i 704.23 1 . 1 j6,145.5 ,j 326.56 9,355.3 925.5 10,281.8 3,335.5 1 ,555.75 4,405. See Appendix A for constants used in projections. InoVudes Vale & Estates North Schools - • La Costa is currently served by five school districts: Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD); Encinitas School District (EU); Rich-Mar Union School District (RU):'San Dieguito Union High School District (SDUH): and Escondido Union .High School District (EUH). On July 1 , 1975 a new district, the San Marcos Unified School District, will replace the Rich-Mar Union and Escondido Union.High School Districts. Ensuring the availabili.ty of school facilities as they are needed for La Costa children will require close cooperation between La Costa Land Company and these districts. La Costa Land Company,has ens-jred by agree.-nent with each district that the Company will assist in providing facilities concurrent with need. Schocis La Coita Land Corpany ihuotl comply laiXh Xhz CiXy oi CanJtibad'i Ccr.o.ticn pu^blic PaclllXizi Policy by aiiuAlng continued coopzAoXlon MiXh iXJ> iclxool diitxlzXi, and by thz Xiir.zly corXAlbuXlon oi iuch land and/oA iaciliXizi ai matf bz nzcziiOAij to meet tlxz nzzdi oi Xixz AZipzcXlvz ichoot dlitAlcXi. Public Transit ' ' ' . In recognition of the future provision of transit services to the La Costa co.'nrr.unity. La Costa Land Company shall adhere to the policies stated in the Circulation Section regarding public transit. SUMMARY: PHASED SCHOOL DEM.AND .CALCULATED AT MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITIES -i- School Districts (Grades) PHASE I Single-Family U n i t's Family Uni ts Population SDUH 7-12 • CU K-12 RO K-9 EU K-6 EUA 10-1; La Costa North Northeas t Far South 1 ,300 513 1 ,526 440 700 2,720 4,868 ' 3,079 10,562 407 332 96 172 353 32 62 Total Phase I 3,339 3, 860 18,509 40 7 332 268 353 . 94 Total Existing* 2,065 8,432 24,750 558 47 371 387 141 Total, I & Ex, 5,405 12,292. 43,259 96 5 379 539 740 ' 235 - PHASE II La Costa North Northeast Far South • 672 2,356 200 • 620 870 2,456 1 ,364 8,982 421 235 43 1 2 4^04 19 4 Total Phase II 3,028 • 1,590 12,802 421 235 . 55 404 2 3 Total , I. & Ex . • 5,405 12,292 43,259 • 965 379 639 740 . 2 35 Total , I, II & Ex. . 8,433 13,982 56,061 1 ,386 614 694 . 1,144 258 P.HASE III La Costa North Northeast Far South 428 452 680 260 730 2,780 572 2,952 106 9 144 18 16 91 52 8 5 Total,Phase III 880 1 ,670 6,314 106 9 178 91 65 Total , I, II & Ex, 8,433 ^ 13,982 56,061 1 ,385 if 614 694 1 ,144 258 Total, I, III & Ex. (Buildout) 9 , o 1 3 1 5,652 62,375 1 1,492 1 623 872 1 ,235 • 323 i + See Appendix A for constants used in projections, * Includes Vale and Estates North f Fire Protection:. Fire protection for La Costa is provided by the City of Carlsbad from a te.Tiporary station on El Camino Real near Arenal Drive. Ultimate develc-p.Tent in the City south of'Palo.mar Airport Road and east of El Caniino Real to Melrose may require the construction and manning of three permanent fire stations. These stations would be manned by 15 firefighters with three engines end one*\.ruck. Police Protection: Police protection is provided by the City of Carlsbad on a patrol basis. Ultimate development may warrant a police substation in La Costa and additional patrol beats. If desired, a substation could be located in the CoT^-nunity Core. Libraries: La Costa is served by the Carlsbad City Library and by the Encinitas branch of the San Diego County Library. These libraries combined .teet the existing needs of La Costa residents. Ultimate development of La Costa will v(.arrant the establishment of a branch City Library in the ' CoTiunity Core '.-.'ith a maximum size 10,000 square feet and a collection of eight to t-welve thousand volumes. Lc Coita Land Cocpamj will icoAk cloizly \aiXix tlxz CiXy oi CoAJiibad t^.'.'yy.^- to r.akz Icjxd availablz ion GeneAot CovzA.njr.znX uiz in Xlxz Ccmr,unlty Condition Cc.^e, OA zlie:-/nzAz, ai dzznzd nzczaany by the City oi Canlibad. fi SUBJECT TO • ..-.N3E May 9, 19 7 7 II. I'HE MARKET FOR PROPOSED LAND USE AT LA COSTA Summary_of Master Planned Development y VTnile Rancho La Costa began in 1963 as primarily a recreation and resort community, the conceptual focus of development has shifted to accommodate an increased demand for single-family detached and multifamily units in the northern portion of San Diego County-^. The existing resort community, developed around the La Costa Resort, still provides a central theme for the overall development plan. The Rancho La Costa Master Plan for future development caters less to the part-time resident and resort community market, and more to the emerging demand in North County for single- family and multifamily residential units utilized year-round by their occupants. From a marketing perspective, the objective of the Rancho La Costa Master Plan is to capture new increments of effective demand for housing, typically in the high end of the price range. While La Costa's original development and marketing strategy was dependent upon growth in the second home and vacation resort m.arket, that emphasis has shifted to capturing growth in a more localized market. In short, the success of the new master- planned development will depend primarily on growth in the North County subregion. 1- Development Phasing The phasing scheme developed for implementation of the Rancho La Costa Master Plan is illustrated in Figure II-l, and further described in Table II-2, for the planned residential uses. 'La Costa Land Company estimates that the development will take place in four distinct phases. The first two will cover two years each and the next two, five years each. The phasing plan described in Table II-2 corresp'Onds to distinct geographical areas represented on the map in Figure II-l. Roman numerals corresponding to the time phasing of each development are indi- cated in Figure II-l. Thus, at the end of phase one, the in- frastructure necessary to support development at its maxinium density of 4,338 housing units on 743 acres will have occurred. 3?C3'0se of its geographic significance in this report, for edi- torial ease, the r.orTihern portion of San Diego County is fre- Ccunty. • JTJ r" ^ •'• II-l " ^ :-;o. r^lif...-a 94111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CH.'-NGE May 9, 19 7 7 Figure II-l r^c ^1 c "-1 ' 11 jtf.-" - t^ "-''0•' y<i-'%y-AAi: SDS; y) yyA^A^- fyy^, II ;V'r."---- •' J„ •.'-..v--V.~"". - •• • - - -ywy^-^j^^fy-^'-^ff'- - - >'^---^^^^^.ij- • • :-.-v \ \i y-^ -yYy -^i •'V\:. y^ x.A^ff^ AAA SA _ \ %y^^' 'A^ \ j I - , :^ff^" /yt%^ yy -I II -2 Table II-2 RANCHO LA COSTA PHASING PLAN RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS h-i I IvO Source: La Costa Lanc3 Company PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV TOTAL -Arons and Unit Types Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres 0) n fj(M-C'L'll S i n()l,o-Fam i ly Mu.l.L.ifamily 4 to 10 --848 110 212 11 852 940 213 94 700 270 175 27 2,400 1,320 600 132 MDK'l'lii'lAKT Mu) liifamily 4 to 10 Multifamily 10 to 20 1,180 118 - 260 13 -1,180 260 118 13 0 rn liOUTIl .S .Ltujle-Family Multifamily 4 to 10 Multifamily 10 to 20 1,538 1,440 180 472 144 9 800 440 250 200 44 12.5 965 1,080 313 54 387 480 110 258 48 5.5 3,690 2,360 1,620 1,243 236 81 p TOTALS "'BY'"TYPE 'OF UNIT n 0 a' Single-Family Multifamily 4 to 10 Multifamily 10 to 20 1,538 2,620 180 472 262 9 1,648 550 250 412 • 55 12.5 1,817 940 1,340 526 94 67 1,087 -750 110 433 75 5.5 6,090 4,860 1,880 1,843 486 94 TOTAL UNITS & ACREAGE 4,338 743 2,448 479.5 4,097 687 1,947 513.5 • 12,830 2,423 " ^JJ -ll K Ul < ^ I'j -^''l - O Z'. H-" ("j M (.) O o S-J3J:-:CT TO CHANGE .May 9, 19 77 2. Build-Out Schedule A? described in the Mas-ter Plan, however, there is a considera- h-e difference between the phasing plan and the anticipated rate of dwelling unit construction and occupancy, which is estimated to take place over more than a 20-year period. This means that, while the necessary public service infrastructure will be com- plete throughout the Master Plan area at the end of 16 years, build-out and subsequent occupancy of the dwelling units may take more than 20 years, according to estimates provided by La Costa Land Company. Further, the development history of exist- ing La Costa areas indicates that seldom are the maximum allow- able densities ever achieved. In estimating a separate build-out schedule to accompany the Master Plan phasing scheme. La Costa Land Company assumed that build-out would take place at seven units per gross acre in areas designated for accommodation of four to ten units per gross acre, and 15 units per gross acre in areas designated for accommodation of 10 to 20 units per gross acre. The build-out schedule which accompanies the phasing plan reflects a reduced number of dwelling units from the maximum density shown in the phasing plan in Table II-2. Table II-3 presents La Costa'a estimated build-out schedule. It must be emphasized that the build-out schedule does not.bear an exact relationship (either in time sequence of development or in final developed density) to the phasing plan presented above. In comparing the estimated build-out schedule with estimates of new demiand for housing units (Table 11-11) , a build-out scheme consisting of five periods is imposed on the build-out schedule in Table II-3. It has been arranged such that phases one and two each cover a three-year period, while phases three and four each cover a five-year period, and phase five covers the remain- ing four years of the estimated 20-year period of build-out. Because public service facilities must, for the most part, pre- cede the development of housing units, it is assumed that the build-out phasing begins in the year 1978, in contrast to the phasing plan provided by La Costa Land Company, which begins in 1977. Although it is somewhat cuiribersome to deal with simultaneous phasing and build-out schedules, offset by one year, this method enables a comparison of expected -arket perforriance and required public service conijni tments . 3. The Housing Plan Table II-4 shows a price description of the single-family and multifa.Tilv units that are exc-scted to be cevelooed acccrding R- G'.^^p Inc. 3U3 ?rc r': .-nlc ?'u-,>t -^-...^ .M '- o, C. : S jnU Table II-3 ESTIMATED BUILD-OUT OF DWELLING UNITS ON MASTER PLAN AREA OF LA COSTA M I t-n Single-Family (and Duplex) Annual Increase Multifamily Yoar North Far Sou th North- east Units Population North Far South North- east Annual Increase Units Population'' Combined Single-Family and Multifamily Units Population l'-)77 -----_ _ _ 1978 ------50 150 200 300 lb — 110 -110 330 -50 150 200 300 1080 150 160 -310 930 38 150 150 338 507 'fi ima 150 240 -390 1,170 39 245 150 434 651 J 'iB2 150 240 -390 1,170 -245 151 395 593 ] ')y\3 250 170 -420 1,260 130 246 75 527 790 I'l (.14 250 170 -420 1,260 130 150 45 355 532 1 -IMS 250 170 -420 1,260 130 250 — 425 638 1 'li'lG 250 170 -420 1,260 130 257 _ 387 581 /' ,i '11(7 250 170 -420 1,260 138 200 -338 507 0 .1 'jun 150 100 -330 990 ' 95 196 -291 436 1 'tH9 150 100 -330 990 94 200 -294 441 c i ' t'.,tO 150 180 -330 990 200 -200 300 l.'J'Jl 150 IHO -330 990 -200 — 200 300 1 .-1 1 '''»^. 100 :^40 -340 1,020 -228 _ 228 342 1 'I'J.'l — :i40 -340 1,020 -— t—» 1 't'J/1 -.'140 -340 1,020 — — _ -313 -313 939 — _ _ i 'I'.iG -68 -68 204 -- 1 ')'I7 -G9 -69 207 ---— ;i,4oo 3,f.90 -0-6,090 18,270 924 2,867 1,021 4,812 7,218 200 310 648 824 785 947 775 845 807 758 621 624 530 530 568 340 340 313 68 69 10,902 •'fhree persons per single-family, 2., 1.5 persons per multifamily, 300 630 1,437 1,821 1,763 2,050 1,792 1,898 1,841 1,767 1,426 1,431 1,290 1,290 1,362 1,020 1,020 939 204 207 25,488 -Source: La Costa Land Company TJ -,4^ A) C ^ W < VD lii I I'.] - o >-. n VD H O O 'u o tr. > CD .REVIE'5^'' COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 77 to the build-out schedule exhibited in Table II-3. The single- family detached homes are expected to range in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet each, while the multifamily units will average approximately 1,150 square feet per unit. Table II-4 HOUSING UNIT DESCRIPTION (Prices in 1977 Dollars) Unit Descriptions Price Range Percent Total Number of Share Dwelling Units SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES "Quality Production" "Semi-Custom" "Djstom" "Estate" MULTIFAMILY High Density (ave.rage 15 dwelling units per acre) Rental Condominium Condominium Low Density (average 7 dwelling units per acre) "Retirement-oriented" "Family-oriented" "Villas" $ 60,000-$ 80,000 $ 80,000-$110,000 $110,000-$150,000 $150,000 $ 25,000-$ 30,000 $ 45,000-$ 60,000 $ 60,000-$ 90,000 $ 55,000-$ 70,000 $ 55,000-$ 70,000 $ 85,000-$125,000 100% 25% 60% 15% 100% 85% 15% 6,090 100% 4,812" TOTAL 10,902 Housing mix percentages were not available from La Costa Land Company. I 'Prices for rental units are based on the capitalized val-iie of nonthly net rent. ^Housing mix percentages for multifamily dwelling units were not available frD-t l.a Ccsta Larid -^cr.pany. •::-.,-;e: S?.r.zzr± Z-tndkin Research Ccrpc'ration and La Ccsta li-.i Ccrr^-y, FEVJEW COPY SUBJECT TO CH/iNGE May 9, 19 7 7 4 . Other Land Uses The Rancho La Costa Master Plan includes a proposal for the de- velopment of a large community commercial core center, in the vicinity of the intersection of Rancho La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The phasing plan and development scheme for the commercial land uses included in the Master Plan are outlined in Table II-5. (Description not available from La Costa at the time of this writing.) B. Growth Projections for Northern San Diego County We have included an analysis of the current trends taking place in the housing market of northern San Diego County, but the focus of our overall analysis is in determining longer-term trends. The phasing plan and build-out schedule discussed above cover a 20-year planning horizon and may require substan- tial commitment of funds for public service infrastructure. To ensure that public service investments coincide with public service needs and ability to pay, we have assembled a series of long-run growth forecasts for the Carlsbad and North County area. The purpose of presenting these forecasts is to enable a com- parison between the postulated build-out/phasing schedule and the expected performance of the housing market in the North . County area. Historically, construction activity has been high- ly cyclical, with strong surges of "building taking place until excess supplies served to arrest the upward movement of prices. Construction activity has then slowed, while the market re- covered by absorbing excess inventories, and the cycle then re- peating itself. This process has often been likened to a game of "musical chairs" The object of the game is, of course, to avoid being last and having to wait out a period of excess supply in which public services costs remain unmatched by public revenues. An over- view of current market trends in residential construction tak- ing place in the North County indicates that the music has again begun to play. The timing of new development, allowed to take place, is now extremely important and must be determined from a careful reading of demographic and economic indicators that re- late to longer-term growth patterns. The crucial long-run variable is, of course, the rate of hcise- hold formation that will be occurring in the Carlsbad area, par- ticularly at those income levels necessary to purchase units proposed in the Master Plan. Recent regional forecasts of house- hold foriTiation by incoiTie classification developed by the Compre- hensive Planning Organization (CPO) of the San Diego Region fcrm REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 1977 Table II-5 LA COSTA PHASING PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY CORE :.'d & C II-8 ..X c,,, r-. v^.,:o,C-':fo..'a 9-4111 REVIEW CO.'^'Y SUBJE'IT TO CH;.N1E May 9, 19 77 the basis of our long-range estimates of new effective demand that will be occurring in the Carlsbad-La Costa market area. Long-run forecasts must also consider the relevant supply con- ditions which will either accommodate or impede the satisfac- tion or long-term new demand. The current shortage of sewage treatment and water supply capacity may serve to inhibit the rate of growth in residential construction throughout Carlsbad and adjoining areas. But the current sewer connection mora- torium may, in fact, favor Rancho La Costa, which will be served primarily by the Leucadia Water District, which is cur- rently unaffected. These conditions, however, are not considered long-term in the sense that policy decisions regarding development of future capacity may alter availability. These issues are dealt with more extensively in Section III of this report, where public service facilities planning is discussed. 1. Regional Projections The CPO projections cited below were developed through a pro- cess involving participation by local and regional planning agencies. The purpose of the projections is to provide local and regional jurisdictions with a means for making coordinated planning and programming decisions that will complement each other in the attainment of local and regional development ob- jectives. - The base year of CPO projection is 1975. The 1975 special census provided the bulk of the demographic and housing-related data. Employment data were prepared by CPO and the California Employment Development Department, while land use information was compiled from aerial photographs. The data from these sources were summarized into traffic area zones, which nest into census tracts. Figure II-6 shows a map of the San Diego region, disaggregated to census tract levels, indicating CPO designated subregional areas (SRAs) and major statistical areas (MSAs). Land use assumptions were developed by CPO, in conjunction with local authorities, which pertain to: • ' Land areas constrained from urban development; • Land available for urbanization; • Local area developed residential density; • Redevelopment policy; and • Transportation system. land Areas Constrained from Urban Develop~'ent were assur.ed to fBll into five categories: G•^fe, Inc. 303 Sacrarr.e:):!o S*:- et i raD-'^ico, Cf 'k: -.'-.a 'JDVL REVIEW COPY SUBJiCT TO CH.HNGE Kay 9, 19 7 7 ^I^S^S^ MAJOR STATISTICAL AREAS CE^SUS TRACTS iz> IU — . f>^'->-^ 1 • •-' ' ^ REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 1977 1) Floodplains, distinguished between those areas in which no development will occur and those in which development already exists or is taking place, due to channelization; 2) Areas distinguished as regional parks, based on local general plans and the CPO Open Space Plan (In cases where park boundaries were not set, data on land availa- bility and acquisition were researched, i.e., particular- ly around the Batiquitos Lagoon in Carlsbad, adjacent to the La Costa development.); 3) All existing agricultural preserves; 4) Land areas with slopes of over 25 percent; and 5) Areas under specified land use categories, including mili- tary lands, Indian reservations, local and State parks, lands in federal ownership, golf courses and water areas- The Land Available for Urbanization was generally assumed to fall into two categories: 1) Lands which were, in 1975, included in serviced urban areas; and 2) Lands in which urban services could be extended by 1995. Local Area Developed Residential Density assumptions were con- structed after local, general and community plan maps had been reviewed. Changes in developed densities were assumed to occur between the 1975-85 and 1985-95 projection periods. Redevelopment Policy assumptions about the likelihood of public or private redevelopment occurring over the 20-year projection period were established on the basis of: .1) Area accessibility to employment centers; 2) Age and condition of existing development in th^' a-rea; and 3) The proportion of developed land already existing in the area (i.e., local supply of land). Transportation System a3su~ptions for the period 1976-85 were based on rh-s adopted Regional Transportation Flan. For the 1985-95 period, it was assumed that additional bus service would be provided throughout the region. In the North County area, an extension of Route 76 in Oceanside to Melrose Avenue was assumed to occur, providing service to Camp Pendleton. REVI-EW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 77 Given the future availability of land and historical trends in industrial location throughout the region, levels of basic em- ployment were forecast for the five major statistical areas and then allocated to the subregional areas over the 20-year forecast period. These forecasts form, the basis for projected levels of household formation by income category. The most significant change expected to occur in the next 20 years will be in the North County area, where there will be an increasing concentration of basic employment, generating additional jobs and income in local serving sectors. 2. Supply of Developable Land We have reviewed the long-term forecasts of newly-developed residential acreage over the 1975-95 period provided by CPO. Table II-7 presents an accounting of the current level of resi- dential land use in the North County MSA and the projected level of new land absorbed into residential use by 1995 for each SRA within the North County. Table II-7 FORECAST GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, NORTH COUNTY MSA-4 1975-1995 Subregional Area 1975 1995 New Acreage Percent Change Carlsbad 2,300 7,800 5, 500 239.1 San Marcos 1,700 5,700 3,900 229.4 Escondido 7,100 11,700 4,600 64.8 San Dieguito 7,100 11,500 4,500 63. 3 Oceanside 4, 600 8,800 4,100 89.1 Pendleton 400 400 — 0.0 Fallbrook 2, 000 3,600 1,500 75.0 Vista 5, 900 9, 500 3,600 61.0 Valley Center 800 1,800 1,000 125. 0 Pauma 200 400 200 100 . 0 TOTAL 32,100 61,200 28,900 90. 0 Source: Comprehensive Planning Organizat ion of the S an Diego Region The largest increments of growth expected to occur in County SPvAs will take place in the adjoining areas of the North Carlsbad 12 Iii;3 C.^!:forr.;a 94111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 7 7 and San Marcos. The 5,500 acres of residential land absorption forecast for Carlsbad will account for fully 19 percent of the overall North County acreage. Carlsbad and the four SRAs imme- diately adjoining it account for approximately 75 percent of the total North County lands available for residential absorp- tion over the 20-year forecast period. Thus, the Carlsbad area rests in the center of the largest supply of potentially develop- able residential acreage. Table II-8 shows the potential niomber of new housing units that could be supplied in the North County. These forecasts are based on the SRA specific assumption developed by CPO, in con- junction with local and regional planning agencies, about future residential density per gross acre. Table II-8 POTENTIAL INCREASES IN HOUSING STOCK OF THE LA COSTA MARKET AREA, 1975-95 Growth in Gross Subregional Residential Residential Potential New Area Acreage Density Housing Units Carlsbad 5,500 3.8 21,000 San Marcos 3,900 •4.2 16,400 Oceanside 4,100 4.4 18,000 Vista 3,600 3.4 12,240 San Dieguito 4,500 2.8 12,600 Escondido 4,600 3.7 17,000 Pendleton — 6.0 — Fallbrook 1, 500 3.0 4,500 Valley Center 1,000 2.6 2,600 Pauma 200 2.4 480 'TOTAL 28,900 3.6 104,820 Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region and McDonald & Grefe, Inc. Wliile -Carlsbad holds 19 percent of North County land potentially developable for residential use, it may accommodate roughly 20 percent of the potential new housing stock. Similarly, Carlsbad and the four SRAs surrounding it have the potential of accommo- dating roughly 7 7 percent of the added housing stock between 19 7 5 and 1995, while containing 75 percent of the developable residen- tial lands. 11-13 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 1977 Development of residential acreage in the immediate Carlsbad area is likely to take place more intensively than in the North County overall, due to the relative abundance of suitable land in the Carlsbad vicinity. This condition may lead to a highly competi- tive m.arket environment during the initial years of build-out, as new developers enter the m.arket and those already participat- ing expand their output. 3. Long-Term Factors Affecting the Demand for Housing at Rancho La Costa The 10,902 units which the La Costa Master Plan proposes will only be marketed for a portion of the new Carlsbad demand, oc- curring over a 20-year period. Since housing units surrounded by golf courses, near the water and with superior views generally fall into the high end of the housing price range, an estimate of the market segment will include only newly-formed households of income levels above $15,000 per year. To focus the estimates of future effective demand on the most relevant income categories of newly formed households, the hous- ing price ranges listed in Table II-4 were matched with income levels according to ability to pay. The ability-to-pay criterion used was that monthly shelter costs average 25 percent of gross income. Monthly tax and mortgage payments were calculated for each housing unit price provided by La Costa Land Company and multiplied by four to arrive at the required gross income level. The relevant income categories are - summarized in Table II-9. Table II-9 INCOME LEVELS OF PROSPECTIVE RANCHO LA COSTA HOMEOWNERS Housing TVpe Single-Family Multifamily High Density Rental Condominium Multifamily Low Density Monthly Rent or Price F;a.nge $60,000- -i- $ 200- 350 $45,000- 90,000 S55,O0C-125,OO0 Reguired Annual Income $28,000- -I- $15,000- + $22,000- 40,000 $26,000- 55,000 Proportion of Market 56% 44% Source: .McDonald & Grefe, Inc. and La Costa Land Company 11-14 :o, C' '/rn.va 94111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE Mav 9, 19 77 The monthly shelter costs were determined by assuming a tax rate of $10 per $100 of assessed valuation. Mortgage financing was assumed to be 8.75 percent for a 30-year term with a 15 percent down payment. The number of housing units in each price range was not known at the time of this writing, but the distribution between single and multifamily units was known. Thus, at least 56 percent of the households purchasing Rancho La Costa units will be required to have annual incomes^ of $28,000 or more. All households will require, income levels of at least $15,000 per year, if renters are included. The distribution of current households by income classification derived from a 1975 special census in San Diego County and its subregional areas, including Carlsbad, is presented below in Table 11-10, with accompanying projections to the year 1995. Table 11-10 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN CARLSBAD 1975-1995 (1977 Dollars) Income Level 1975 1985 1995 Income Level No. % - No. % No. % $ 0 - 14,999 3,586 45. 4 6,451 34. 9 7,547 25. 2 15,000 - 24,999 2,581 32. 7 5,347 29. 0 7,639 25. 6 25,000 - 39,999 1,024 13. 0 3,431 18. 5 6,218 20. 8 40,000 and over 710 8. 9 3,259 17. 6 8,482 28. 4 TOTAL 7,901 100. 0 18,488 100. 0 29,886 100. 0 Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region and the 1975 Special Census. Adjusted to 1977 dollars by McDonald & Grefe, Inc. From the distribution of households by income level, it becomes apparent that the income range for which the La Costa develop- ment will be primarily directed will represent an increasing share of newly~for.med ho-useholds throughout the 20-year planning horizon of La Costa developn'ent. In 1975, households with inco.Vie levels above the $15,000 threshold constituted only 54.6 percent of households in Carlsbad. By 1995, this proportion is expected to increase to 65 percent and by 1995, to reach 74.8 percent. An estimate of the long-term effective demand for new housing •units in Carlsbad can be derived from the pro":ected household ^Those purchasing fror: wealth, rathar than inrr.-e, must have (or, in the case of retired househoi-ds, r.ave nad'. 5r-j;ivaient finan- cial capacity. 1 1-15 & n..'e. Ir.c 1^3 '^r,,:,,,. S -..^t S;:n r-.-s-I- :o, rv ;.. -,- ^41 |i REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 77 formation taking place in Carlsbad shown in Table 11-10, by cal- culating the additional households projected for each income level above $15,000 per year. The yearly increase in households within Carlsbad has been cal- culated for these income levels and presented in Table 11-11. Table 11-11 INCREASE IN HOUSEHOLDS FOR CARLSBAD BY INCOME LEVEL, 19 75-95 (1974 Dollars) Increase Increase Total Increase Income Level 1976-1985 1986-1995 1976-1995" $15,000 - 24,999 2,766 2,292 5,058 25,000 - 39,999 2,407 2,787 5,194 40,000 and over 2,549 5,223 7,772 TOTAL 7,722 10,302 18,024 Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region and McDonald & Grefe, Inc. C. The Market for Housing at Rancho La Costa 1. Required Market Performance of the Master Plan A number of data were reviewed in order to present a summary of current and future Carlsbad housing market trends. These trends will determine the likelihood of Rancho_La Costa developers suc- cessfully penetrating the local and regional market to the extent postulated by the Master Plan build-out schedule. •By miatching the rate of household formation in the relevant in- come categories with La Costa's yearly build-out schedule (see Tables 11-11 and II-3), the level of market performance required by the Master Plan can be determined. Table 11-12 shows the cal- culated m.arket capture rates implied by the Master Plan build-out schedule, given the rate of household formation expected in Carlsbad and the North County. Total build-out projected in the Master Plan from 1978 to 1997 would require a long-run capture rate of approximately 60 percent of all new demand occurring in the Carlsbad SRA. This proportion increases to 70 percent if calculated for the period between 1978 and 1993, since such a small number of units are constructed dur- ing the final period of build-out, when dejr.and increases are 11-16 ^'rnr:.-,.-;d & Gr^fe. Inc. 3''3S-i.^.., '..^-..-t 'A-i Froi' --.o. C V .-•, 94111 P-EVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 7 7 For these capture rates to occur and the level of build-out pos- tulated by the Master Plan to be successfully achieved, the builders of Rancho La Costa will have to capture a considerably larger share of the Carlsbad market than they have from 1973 to the present. Recorded building permits in the City of Carlsbad shown in Table 11-13 indicate that since 1973, a much smaller market share has been flowing to the La Costa area. Table 11-12 ANNUAL PROJECTED NEW DEMAND FOR HOUSING UNITS .Carlsbad North County Time Period La Costa Build-Out New Units Demanded Capture Rate New Units Demanded Capture Rate I 1978-80 1,158 2,317 50% 10,155 11% II 1981-83 2,556 2,317 111% 10,155 25% III 1984-88 3,806 4,635 82% 21,065 18% IV 1989-93 2,592 5,151 50% 23,825 11% V. 1994-97 790 4,121 19% 23,825 3% TOTAL 1978-97 10,902 18,541 60% . 89,025 -12% Source: CPO of the San Diego Region and La Costa Land Company Table 11-13 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, 1973-1976 (Number of Dwelling Units Included in Permits) CITY OF CARLSBAD LA COSTA Year Single- Family Units - Multi- Family Units Total Single- Family Units Multi- Family Units Total La Costa as Percent of Carlsbad 1973 638 1,102 1,740 115 585 700 40% 1974 265 398 663 43 71 114 17% 1975 258 77 335 44 3 47 14% 1976' 1,553 246 1,799 428 0 428 23% TOTAL 2,714 1,823 4, 537 630 659 1,289 28% So-Jirce: City of Carlsb ad. Building Permit Records. 11-. :n 1 Yi 94111 RE lEW COPY SE.-:-JECT TO CHANGE Kay 9, 19 77 It should be recognized that the number of permits granted for dwelling unit construction between 1973 and 1976 do not neces- sarily represent the total number of dwelling units actually constructed. While the period between 1973 and 1975 will lend a rough estimate, the divergence between permits granted and units actually constructed may be quite large, particularly in 1976. In that year, a multitude of conditions, including the realignment of coastal zone boundaries, a perceived future sewage trea-tment capacity and water supply shortage combined to result in what might be described as a run on the Planning De- partment to secure rights to build before more stringent poli- cies emerged. While there would be no way to determine without an extensive survey just how many of the permits granted in 1976 will actual- ly result in new units being constructed, the data in Table 11-13 do indicate the relative position of La Costa vis-a-vis the City of Carlsbad, with respect to growth in residential construction. The overall share of development taking place in the City which has occurred at La Costa over this four-year period is analogous to the capture rates for new development implied by a comparison of the Rancho La Costa Master Plan build-out schedule and the rate of new household formation about $15,000 per year income, shown in Table 11-11. These data tend to cast a shadow of doubt over the possibility of Rancho La Costa developers successfully penetrating the long- term housing market at the 60 to 70"percent range required by the plan. A closer look at the market trends in the North County area will be helpful in evaluating the future miarket potentials of La Costa properties. We have evaluated the number of data to provide a summary of the more localized market conditions which face Rancho La Costa de- velopers in the single-family tract and planned unit development markets. Given that the price ranges of planned La Costa units are concentrated in the higher end of the price range of new units during the initial phasing periods, while growth in house- hold form.ation is at the lower end of the price range, considera- ble overhang is likely to occur if the Master Plan build-out schedule is attempted. An example illustrates this point. For purposes of analysis, we can m.ake the somewhat artificial estiir^ate that only households in the $15,000 to $25,GC0 inc-on,e range will live in m.ultifamily units at La Costa (i.e., we can assiome that no higher-income households choose to be "underhoused" relative to their income). We can also ass'ome that the single-family houses are all occu- pied by households with incomes of $25,000 and above. The impli- cations of these assumptions are sh-o'^'n in Table 11-14. II- REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 77 Table 11-14 THE FINANCIALLY QUALIFIED PORTION OF THE CARLSBAD MARKET Single-Family Units .Multifamily Units Assumed Income Range $25,000/yr. and above $15,000 to $25,000 1978-1987 New Units at Rancho La Costa 3,300 3,599 New Households with Required Incomes 5,567 2,672 Ratio 0.59 1.34 1988-1997 New Units at Rancho La Costa 2,790 1,213 New Households with Required Incomes 8,010 2,292 Ratio 0.35 0.53 Source: La Costa Land Company, Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region and McDonald & Grefe, Inc. A perhaps ironic circumstance surrounds these marketing issues. The most significant competition that Rancho La Costa developers will face will come from existing La Costa. During the 1977-90 period, existing La Costa developers will produce 3,092 single- family units, while Rancho La Costa developers will attempt to market 4,290 units. During the 1977-93 period, 2,464 and 4,812 multifamily units are scheduled for completion in existing La Costa and Rancho La Costa, respectively. Estimated yearly build-out of single and multi-family units in existing La Costa and Rancho La Costa combined averages approxi- mately 1,100 units per year. The annual growth in effective demand wit±iin the Carlsbad SRA during this period .is only 770. This situation could inhibit successful market penetration of the master planned units and possibly delay the eventual build-out. 2. Current Market Trends During the final three-quarters of 1976, substantial increases in residential construction activity occurred, not only in San Diego County, but in the southern California region overall. Table 11-15 shews a history of building perm.it increases through- out San Diego County for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1976, in comparison with those granted during the previous year. 11-19 .'--DoT,.^''-! G:c'e Inc. 3^3 S^^'i vr.er.^o 'I'^et San Fiv-'^-'\ C -iia 94111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 7 7 Table 11-15 SAN DIEGO COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, 1975-76 (Number of Dwelling Units Included in Permits) Total Dwelling Units Percent change from previous quarter Percent change from same quarter, 1975 Single Family Units Percent change from previous quarter Percent change from same quarter, 1975 Units in Multiples Percent change from previous quarter Percent change from same quarter, 1975 Source: Second Third Fourth Quarter Quarter Quarter 5,565 6,882 9,470 -23.7% -1-23.7% -f37.6% +22.1% -!-58.1% -1-160.9% 3,483 3,515 5,176 + 0.1% + 0.9% -1-47.2% •f47.9% -f38.0% +135.9% 2,082 3,367 4,294 -45.5% -1-61.7% +27.5% - 5.5% -H86.5% +199.0% Southern California Clearly, substantial increases in the number of granted countywide occurred in the final months solved issues surrounding water quality control agement at local levels, as well as on a regiona have caused a higher level of uncertainty regard velopment possibilities, but all of t±ie increase not be attributed to the buy-now, avoid-future-s Rather, a multitude of market factors and curren bine to place San Diego County in a preferred po southern California region as a location for inc development. building permits of 1976. Unre- and growth man- 1 scale, miay ing future de- can certainly carcity syndrome, t conditions com- sition within the reased residential Table 11-16 presents a comparative summary of the residential 'building activity taking place in San Diego County since 1974. During the third and fourth quarters of 1976, San Diego County showed consistently higher percentage gains in the recorded nujTiber of building permits, compared with permits granted for the same quarters of 1975, than the increases realized in the southern California region overall (counties in the southern California region are listed in Table 11-14). VThile the new upward trend in residential building activity appaars to permeate the souther.n California area, the recovery is particularly strong in San Diego County. Both single-family and multifamily units showed consis- tently higher gains in the number of units constructed in 1976, as compared with the previous year's construction, and the total level of construction was much closer to its 1972 peak period than v;as realized throuah::ut the southern California area. 11-20 N'cDo:.c^id & G:^^e. Ir.r. 303 Socr ...:P'O S'.r-'et -O. <. 94111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CH.ANGE May 9, 19 77 Table 11-16 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ACTIVITY SAN DIEGO AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SEVEN-COUNTY REGION" Building Activity 1974 1975 1976 % Change 1976 from: Peak Peak 1975 Year Year Units Total Dwelling Units Con- structed Seven-County Area San Diego County Single-Family Units Seven-County Area San Diego County 66,907 64,534 119,321 +85% -40% 1963 197,201 16,100 14,705 29,215 +99% -25% 1972 39,105 33,152 41,588 7,655 8,754 71,5.74 +72% -24% 1959 94,008 15,654 +79% -32% 1959 23,140 Units in Multiples Seven-County Area San Diego County 33,755 22,946 8,445 5,951 47,747 +108% -60% 1963 119,606 13,561 +128% -44% 1972 24,193 The seven counties in the southern California region are: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura^ San Diego and Santa Barbara. Source: Residential Research Coirimittee of Southern California The significance of this latter statistic is simply that the San Diego County residential construction industry is operating at a level closer to its probable level of full capacity than is the industry of the entire region. But of further significance is that excess capacity, in the form of both labor and materials, exists within other counties of the southern California region which we may assrime to be at readiness for taking advantage of opportunities in the clcse-by San Diego market. 3. Marketability of Housing in San Diego County ?.n added dimension :am- , ng 'aiTi of the competitive advantage that appears to held by San Diego County is that, during recent months, single- ily housing prices have not increased as rapidly as in adjoin- counties. Southern Californiawide housing prices (for single- ily detached units) increased faster during 1976 than at any er time during the past 30 years. Sumimarized briefly, from icential Research Committee of Southern California's surveys, ff-2 annual increases in housing prices that have occurred :i :he 1970-71 period throughout rhe sever.-ecu-ty sru.hern ifornia reaion: 11-21 i'l'-3111 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 7 7 1975-65 22% 1973-74 13.7% 1971-72 4.6% 1974-75 15% 1972-73 7.9% 1970-71 4.4% The increase in home prices in the San Die^o region over the 1975-76 period was only 20 percent, as compared with a 29 per- cent increase in adjacent Orange County and 21 percent in the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. A possible cause for the sticky upward movement of housing prices in San Diego County, vis-a-vis the rest of the southern California region, may be ex- plained from a review of the California State Division of Labor Statistic wage rate listings by subregional area. As of January 1, 1977, union-negotiated hourly wages and benefits paid to bricklayers, carpenters, building laborers and plasterers in San Diego County were slightly below the rates received by their counterparts in the remaining counties of the southern California region. In addition, San Diego County and particularly the North County area in which La Costa is located, in comparison with much of the rest of southern California is comparatively undeveloped and characterized by a greater availability of land suitable for residential construction. Thus, while building material prices may not vary sijbstantially between counties of the southern California region, final housing prices may vary, according to differential land and labor costs. Currently, in northern San Diego County, there are approximately 16 planned unit developments under construction and 85 single- family tract-home developments, against which La Costa will be competing for its share of effective demand. A summary of the m.arketability of planned unit development and single-family tract, multiple and single-family housing units is provided in the following section of this market study. These market surveys, conducted on a quarterly basis by the Residential Research Com- mittee of Southern California, give an indication of the current housing market conditions by districts within each county of the southern California region. They enable an analysis of the com- petitiveness of each market segment and provide an indication of where in the various market segments either excess demand or supply is occurring. Table 11-17 is the result of a survey con- ducted in December of 1976 of 39 planned unit developments under construction in San Diego County, 16 of which are located in North County, including the La Costa market area. Only housing tracts or planned unit developments with five or more units, either planned or under construction, were included in the survey. As can be seen from Table 11-17, the North County area contains some-«-hat more overhang (excess supply) in the $40,000 to $80^.000 range than is found in San Diego County overall. For housing units in the $80,000 range and above, no unsold units, either completed during the month of December or under construction re- irained unsold in the North County. An inventory of housing -units 11-22 -in.'.lri C-(fp Inc. 303 Sajirtine-.to S;:bet S-^n Fr...r,c'sco, California 94111 .REVIEW COPY SUBJECT 10 CHANGE Kay 9, 19 7 7 Table 11-17 UNSOLD PLANTQED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HOUSING IN NORTH COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 197 6 North County San Diego County Percent Unsold Percent Unsold Under Under Price Range Completed Construction Completed Construction $ 25,000-39,999 22% 36% 16% 48% $ 40,000-59,999 40% 87% 28% 45% $ 60,000-79,999 61% 100% 53% 64% $ 80,000-99,999 — — 24% 42% $100,000 and up — — 38% 100% Source: Residential Research Committee of Southern California for sale in planned unit development throughout San Diego County revealed that 53 percent across all price ranges in the North County remained unsold by the end of December 1976, while 36 per- cent remained unsold throughout the entire San Diego County- The significance of this spot survey of housing unit marketability by price range is that significantly greater competition for existing market shares is taking place within the North County area than in the County overall, resulting in larger inventory of unsold units. Further, over 44 percent of all planned unit developments under construction in San Diego County were located in the North County as of December 1976. The m.arketability of single-family tract units by price range was somewhat different for the North County relative to San Diego Co-unty overall. Table II-18 contains the survey results of an identical survey performed on single-family tract units in San Diego County for December of 1976. The lowest percentages of unsold single-family units in the North County were found in the $25,000 to $39,000 range, indicating a much tighter market (possible excess demand) in the North County than in San Diego County overall, although the level of excess units in this category is not considered to be very high, by any standard. For ho-using u.nits in the remaining price ranges, the North County appears to differ only very slightly from the over- all County, with respect to the percentage of unsold units at each level. An inventory of unsold units remaining at the end of December 1976 carried a 38 percent inventory of unsold units, as opposed to a 33 percent inventory in the County overall. Of 11-23 '•'cDona'd R- G:e!e. 'nc. ''03 ?r;:--^JT)^,.to f-^'ei -n JI -; I-:o, C:.'- -;' ^ ^'1111 3EVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE Kay 9, 19 77 Table 11-18 UNSOLD SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS IN NORTH COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 19 76 North County San Diego County Percent Unsold Percent Unsold Under Under Price Range Completed Construction Completed Construction $ 25,000-39,999 5% 4% 7% 28% $ 40,000-59,999 26% 38% 13% 37% $ 60,000-79,999 18% 49% 20% 52% $ 80,000-99,999 34% 50% 34% 55% $100,000 and up 100% 58% 17% 66% Source: Residential Research Committee of Southern California the 85 housing tracts in San Diego County surveyed during that month, 38, or slightly more than 44 percent, were located in the North County La Costa market area. D. The Market for Commercial and Other Land Uses The commercial land uses in the Master Plan are anticipated to be of a local population-serving nature. They may include office space for some business and personal services, while the primary emphasis will be retail sales. To gauge the marketability of these additional land uses at La Costa, we have first made an overview of the San Diego region to determine existing standards of commercial space requirements. The number of square feet of retail space per 1,000 population, in combination with past records of retail sales per capita, en- 'able an estimate of the rate at which local markets will success- fully absorb net retail space as population growth occurs. Estimates of the future market for office space were achieved in a similar fashion. Employment projections of various office space use categories were used as the primiary variables. Assumptions about the number of square feet of office space required per em- ployee were then applied to the employment projections to yield estimates of f'uture demand. (Additional analyses deferred pending receipt of Master Plan.) 11-24 li ^ G-v3e, Inc 3(i3 Socra-..: Si/^.et San F: ''^ro. Ciliforria 94111 TPY SUBJECT :0 CHANGE Kay 9, ". ^^7 7 Table 11-19 AVERAGE AMOUNT OF RETAIL SPACE PER PERSON Retail Space Major Statistical Area (MSA) (Sq. Ft. per Resident) Percent . and Location 1970 1975 Change MSA-0 - Central MSA-1 - North City MSA-2 - South Suburban MSA-3 - East Suburban MSA-4 - North County Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization of San Diego County Table 11-20 PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES, 1970-1975 Major Statistical Area (MSA) Percent and Location 1970 1975 Change MSA-0 - Central MSA-1 - North County MSA-2 - South Suburban MSA-3 - East Suburban MSA-4 - North County Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization of San Diego County and California State Board of Equalization Table 11-21 OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENTS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY FOR CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ^ Business Office Space Incremental Year F.I.R.E. Service Total Required^ Requirement 1966 1972 1975 1985^ 1995^ "'"Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. 2 Onice space required = 250 square feet per employee. -'Prci ected. So-arca: Com.prehensive Planning Organization cr ths Ear, liago Region a.nd McDonald & Grefe, Inc. I [ - 2 5 REVIEW COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 9, 19 7 7 E. Conclusions 1. The Residential Market In summary, the Master Plan proposed that development of Rancho La Costa occur at a rate which would require achievement of a m.arket share in the 60 to 70 percent range over the 20-year planning horizon. The average market share achieved since 1973 by La Costa developers has been roughly 28 percent, however, this has occurred in a much less competitive market situation than is currently the case. Peak residential construction activity in San Diego County oc- curred in 1972 and total housing starts have slowly declined since that period, only moving upward during the final quarters of 1976. Further, somewhat depressed building construction wages and slower growth in housing unit prices in the San Diego County (compared with regionwide movements) point to a much more com- petitive market environment in which La Costa developers will compete. While the strong competitive advantage of the La Costa planned unit development concept and product design may aid de- velopers in maintaining their market share, increased competi- tion will m.ake achievement of the 60 to 70 percent capture rate highly unlikely. The proposed build-out schedule requires that the highest cap- ture rates be achieved in the initial phases of development. A review of the projected growth in households by income cate- gory reveals that the largest growth in households of the higher- income range occurs between 1985 and 1995. Since the housing units proposed for La Costa cater largely to the individuals with higher incomes, the proposed build-out schedule is some- what mismatched with projected growth in household formation by income level. Finally, the most significant competitive element which Rancho La Costa developers face will be the continuing development of existing La Costa. During the 1978-1995 period, the combined build-out of Rancho La Costa and existing La Costa will exceed the average yearly household formation in the Carlsbad SRA by approximately 330 units per year. 11-26 M':Ou. --;3 K- Gi.fp Inr 3-13 S .-rr;..,--<o S^:-.vt <^.rQ F .-ir'-' o, Cc^iix-rr-ic Oini MEMORANDUM AUGUST n, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR CASE NO.: MP-149(B) - LA COSTA MASTER PLAN, CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: PARTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE LA COSTA MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR SANTA FE KNOLLS, LA COSTA RANCHEROS, LA COSTA VALE UNIT NO. 2. The City Council held a Public Hearing on the Proposed La Costa Master Plan Amendment on June 15, 1976. Prior to hearing the matter, the Council considered adoption of the new Planned Community Zone. Therefore, certain elements of the Proposed La Costa Master Plan were not consistent with the new zone. Council Action directed Staff to return the Master Plan to insure compliance with the new Planned Community Ordinance. The Council further directed Staff to proceed with a partial Master Plan Amendment which would allow three areas to be processed independent of the total revision. The Partial Amend- ment involved the areas known as Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros de La Costa, and a resubdivision of a portion of La Costa Vale Unit No. 2. The City Council requested a Planning Commission report on the Partial Amendment. The Staff has reviewed the proposed Partial Amendment with the require- ments of the new Planned Community Zone and recommends that the Plan- ning Commission file the following report and recommendation with the Ci ty Council. SECTION I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a partial amendment to MP-149(A) be approved for th| following reasons and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. Qeneral Plan Consistency: The proposed amendment to the La Costa Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan because: a. The General Plan Land Use Map shows the individual areas as: (1) Santa Fe Knolls: Residential Low Medium Density, 0-4 dwelling units per acre. (2) Rancheros de La Costa: Residential Low Density, 0-2 dwelling units per acre. (3) La Costa Vale Unit No. 2: Residential Medium Density, 4-10 dwellings units per acre. r MP-149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Two b. The partial amendment will have no adverse effect on any element of the General Plan. 2. Environment: The partial amendment is consistent with the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 because: a. An' Environmental Impact Report, E.I.R. 307, was certified by • the City Council on April 27, 1976. b. The projects in the partial amendment were addressed by E.I.R. 307 with no significant environmental effects being i denti fi ed. 3. Public Facilities: The proposed partial amendment is consistent with applicable City Public Facilities Policies and Ordinances because: a. The affected service agencies for water and sewer have indi- cated that public facilities are available to meet antici- pated needs. b. The affected school districts have indicated their ability to provide facilities. c. The applicant. La Costa Land Company, will provide all neces- sary on site and off site public facilities, i.e., roads, sewer, water, concurrent with development. d. The applicant will provide a schedule for dedication and improvement for neighborhood and community parks as required by the La Costa Master Plan adopted May 2, 1962 (Ord. 9322). Condi ti ons : Plans for the same property as approved by Ordinances No. 9322 and 9376 and City Council Resolution No. 3183, and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval is granted for the land described in the application and any attachments thereto. Development within said land shall occur in conformance with the exhibits, plans, objectives and policies included in the Master Plan document submitted labeled Exhibit "A", dated May 15, 1976. 2. The existing La Costa Master Plan as shown as Exhibit "A" of Ordinance 9322 of September 5, 1972 be amended by Exhibit "C", dated July 30, 1976 by providing for a revised Circulation Plan school site and Park Site Plan and adaptory standards of deve- lopment for the areas identified as Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros de La Costa and La Costa Vale Unit No. 2. MP-149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Three 3. Approval of this Partial Master Plan Amendment (MP-149B) indi- cates acceptance by the City Council of a general scheme of deve- lopment for the subject properties. It does not guarantee that individual developments within the Master Plan boundary will be approved. Individual developments will be evaluated in accord with Municipal Ordinances and Policies in force at the time of plan submittal. Approval and construction of an individual deve- lopment under this Master Plan will not vest any development rights in the balance of the Master Plan area. 4. All public facilities, i.e., water, sewer, roads necessary to serve the proposed development areas shall be provided by the developer concurrent with the first increment of development in each of the residential areas shown in Exhibit "C" dated July 30, 1976. 5. The submittal of supplements to EIR-307 shall be required with applications for any development within the project area. These supplements shall contain the following: a. Detailed soil and geologic investigations; b. Detailed archaeological investigations; c. Detailed biological surveys; d. Mitigation measures and alternatives for all impacts which may affect significant resources; e. Discussions of impacts attributable to the development which have not been adequately addressed in EIR-307. 6. That the park requirements for the subject parcels shall meet the requirements of Parks Ordinance or the La Costa Parks Agree- ment which ever in force at the time a final map for any portion of the Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros de La Costa, or La Costa Vale Unit No. 2. SECTION II. BACKGROUND REPORT Location and Description of Properties: 1- Santa Fe Knolls: Approximately 160 acres easterly of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue intersection. MP-149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Four 2. Rancheros de La Costa: Approximately 325 acres easterly of and adjacent to El Fuerte and southerly of proposed Alga Road exten- sion. 3. La Costa Vale No. 2: Approximately 38 acres northerly of La Costa Avenue in the vicinity of Retire Street and Valero Court. Existing Zone: 1. Santa Fe Knolls: Subject Parcel - P-C North, South, East, and West - P-C 2. Rancheros de La Costa: Subject Parcel - P-C North, East, and South - P-C West - C-1, RDM, R-l, and 0-S 3. La Costa Vale Unit No. 2: Subject Parcel - P-C North and East - P-C South - R-l West - RDM Past History and Related Cases: The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Major Master Plan Amendment, May 19, 1976. However, at the June 15, 1976 City Council Hearing the Council adopted the new Planned Community Zone which then rendered the Proposed La Costa Master Plan non-conforming with the new zone. Therefore, at the request of the applicant, the Master Plan amend- ment was divided into two parts: 1. Partial Amendment to allow three areas to proceed (Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros de La Costa and La Costa Vale Unit No. 2). 2. A Major Amendment that would insure the new Master Plan Amend- ment is consistent with the new P-C zone. The Council, therefore, is requesting Planning Commission Report on this criterion. General Plan Information: The Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan were amended in April 1976. The April amendment made the following changes: MP 149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Five Santa Fe Knolls Area: Land Use from Residential Medium denisty (R-M), 4-10 du/acre, to Residential Low Medium density (RLM), included a specific location for a High School site and a realignment of Mision Estancia east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The major discrepancy is the Master Plan as adopted in 1973 is conflicting with the General Plan. The Master Plan provides for Mobile Home Estates, Elementary and Junior High Schools and a different alignment of the east-west thorough-fare, Mision Estancia. 2. Rancheros de La Costa: No significant change - major reduction in density from Residen- tial Low density (R-L), 0-2 du/acre, to specific Master Plan density of minimum 1 du/2 acres, average 2 du/5 acres. 3. La Costa Vale Unit No. 2: There was no change to residential density in the April General Plan amendment. The change that occurs involves a resubdivision of the existing development, and a concurrent reduction in den- sity. 4. Specific identification of proposed La Costa neighborhood and community park sites, their general location and method of ac- quisition. This requirement was initially required by the La Costa Annexation Ordinance of 1972. Public Facilities: The projects fall within the general service boundaries of Leucadia County Water District (Sewer), Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Olivenhain Water District, San Dieguito Union High School, Encinitas Elementary and San Marcos Unified High School. In each case, public facilities are currently provided to or adja- cent to the three project areas. Off site facilities are required, ie., road, sewer, and water for Santa Fe Knolls, the applicant as a condition of approval will be required to provide the facilities concurrent with development. Fire service, police, library service is currently available although additional facilities and improvements will be addressed as part of the Major La Costa Amendment. Park sites have been identified in the entire La Costa Master Plan Area and an agreement is currently under negotiation with the City to insure timely dedication and improvement to meet service demands. Generally speaking, the park proposal involves six neighborhood MP 149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Six parks approximately 5 acres + in size and one Community Park in the vicinity of Santa Fe Knolls which will be approximately 28 acre + in size. As part of the proposed Partial Amendment, the locations of the above referenced parks and their method of dedication would be required as a condition of approval. Major Planning Consideration: Does the proposed Partial Master Plan Amendment satisfy the require- ments of the new Planned Community Zone? SECTION III. DISCUSSION The significant requirements of the new Planned Community Zone in- volve the inclusion of the following information: 1. Special development conditions, including recognition of grading; 2. Description of each Land Use; 3. Economic Feasibility Report; 4. Parks and Schools Programs; 5. Private Lands Maintenance program. In each instance a majority of the required information is contained in the attached exhibits. Santa Fe Knolls Exhibit E,dated July 30, 1976, Rancheros de La Costa Exhibit G,dated July 30, 1976, and La Costa Vale Unit No. 2 Exhibit F, dated July 30, 1976. A discussion of each area and its relationship to Planned Community Zone indicates the following: 1 . Santa Fe Knolls: The Santa Fe Knolls area is anticipated to be a standard single- family subdivision developed to R-1-7500 standards. There will be a substantial amount of earth grading but the grading will be specifically discussed as part of formal tentative map applica- tion. There does not appear to be significant negative Economic impacts involved in that necessary public facilities will be required as a condition of development and income generated through tax levies will offset public service requirements. There are no parks or open space programs involved in the area which will require recognition of a maintenance program. MP 149(B) August 11, 1976 Page Seven The precise location of the proposed High School site is shown on Exhibit E (approximately 90 acres). The site is proposed for dedication to San Dieguito High School District under school district and La Costa agreement. 2. Rancheros de La Costa: The "Rancheros" is proposed to be a large or estate size single- family residential development with minimum acreage require- ments of 2 acres per lot with a average minimum lot size of 5 acres per lot. One remaining area of the Rancheros - lot 69 - 61.7 acres will be subject to subsequent action which will require an amendment to the proposed Master Plan. Special development of street sections in the Rancheros could provide for rural type streets instead of standard residential streets typical of normal R-l subdivisions. The Rancheros also will provide an internal, privately maintained, equestrian system. Lot 69 and other internal facilities will be maintained by the applicant or his successor in interest. Public services are available and the economic impacts will be balanced by the tax revenues generated from the development. Concurrent with the development of the Rancheros, the applicant will construct an off site east-west extension of Corintia Street from El Fuerte Street to Rancho Santa Fe Road - thereby providing an additional east-west connection between major arterials. Alga Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. 3. La Costa Vale Unit No. 2: Originally, La Costa Vale was subdivided to provide for multiple family or condominium development. The proposal now involves a resubdivision of land and necessary regrading to allow for the development of a modified single-family detached residential development utilizing small lots, "0" lot line and modified set- backs. The minimum standards of development are indicated on Exhibit E of July 30, 1976. All other development provisions including streets are the same as they are for standard R-l sub- divisions. All public facilities are currently provided or insured as part of the previous subdivision therefore additional facilities are not anticipated. Donald A. Agatep DAA:cs Attachments CITY OF CARLOAD MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 8, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Case No. MP-149(B), Amendment to the La Costa Master Plan Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender gave the staff presentation stating that the Vale 2 subdivision pro- posed be denied as an amendment to MP-149(B) - (it was denied at the August 11, 1976 Planning Commission Meet- ing), but that a notation be placed on the Master Plan 149(B) indicating the area of Vale 2 be developed with a PUD, that arequest be submitted to delete SP-38 (pre- viously approved subdivision for this site). A motion was made to approve those items recommended by staff as indicated above. Motion Ayes X X CITY OF CARL-SBAD pJ^^NING DEPARTMENT AMU: MEETING OF DATE: TIME: PLACE: AC^UST 11 , 1976 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 4 A motion was made that GPA-40 be continued to the next regularly scheduled General Plan Amendment Hearing date and that it be renoticed at that time. 9:30 P.M. to 9:40 P.M. - There was a ten minute break' with all Commissioners present at 9:40 as were present at 9:30. NEW BUSINESS Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Report Commissioner Rombotis advised the Commission that he voting regarding Agua Hedionda. and in the hearing of same. would abstain from would not participate Moti on Ayes Absent Planninq Director Agatep then briefly outlined the intent of the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan and reminded the Commissioners that there would, be a special public hearing on August 18, 197.6 at 7:30 .P.M. • 10:10 P.M. to 10:15 P.M. - There was a five minute breaK with all Commissioners present at 10:15 as were present at 10:10. La Costa, Partial Master Plan Amendment, Report and Recommendati on Planninq Director Donald Agatep gave the staff presen- tdiiun stating that the City Council held a Public llearf ing on the Proposed La Costa Master Plan Amendment on June 15, 1976." Prior to hearing the matter, the Counci considered adoption of the new Planned Community Zone. Therefore, certain elements of the Proposed La Costa Master Plan were not consistent with the new zone. Counci1"Action directed Staff to return the Master Plan .to insure compliance with the new Planned Community Ordinance. The Council further directed Staff to pro- ceed with a partial Master Plan Amendment which would allow three areas to be processed independent of the total revision. The Partial Amendment involved the areas known a.s Santa Fe Knolls, Rancheros de la Costa, and a resubdivision of a portion of La Costa Vale Unit No. 2. The City Council requested a Planning Commission report and recommendation on this Partial Amendment. The Commission then discussed each of the three areas and their relationship to t.he the Planned Community Zone. The Commission spent a considerable amount of time reviewing La Costa Vale Unit No. 2 as its total concept had changed drastically and it was being proposed to be a single family residential development with "0" side yard setbacks. The Commission was very concerned about the number of residences proposed per cul-de-sac and the lack of parking. Mr. Fred Morey, Vice President, La Costa Land Company asked the Commission to approve this partial amendment since they had been working on the La Costa Master Plan for over 1% years and it still was not approved and they are unable to proceed with any developments until it is approved. He felt it was unfortunate that the P-C Zone was adopted prior to the Master Plan being adopted. A motion was made to approve the partial amendment as it concerned Santa Fe Knolls and Rancheros de la Costa but to delete La Costa Vale Unit Mo. 2 until 'the Com- niission is provided with additional information from the s;-,nff regarding) comp Vi a nee with the I'-C Ordinance. Moti on Ayes A b s tain Absent X X X y\ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES 1416 Ninth Street, Rm. 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 COUNTY CLERK County of San Diego 220 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 FROM: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Depar*tment 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code /hP'/yf/s Contact person / . r (• Telephone Project Location . , ^ fA j / This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project has been L-g^^pproved by the Lead Agency. CD disapproved 2. The project HH will have a significant effect on the environment. Sf~lPc^•^^^^ not 3. ly An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declara/tion is attached. Date received for filing Sicjnature October 11, 1976 City of Carlsbad R E C t.< - " ^ Mayor Members of the City Council OCT 1 3 1975 Members of the Planning Commission City Manager CITY Cr C^'V i_ J CityAttorney Planning O^ij-ZZ'n Planning Director Subject: La Costa Master Plan - School Letters This is a follov/ up and clarification of the thought I was attempting to communicate to the City Council on the night of Tuesday, October 5, 1976, concerning required school letters. I refer you to the third paragraph on the introduction page of the draft Rancho La Costa Master Plan which v/as at one time recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and not acted upon by the City Council because of a change in the P-C Ordinance. The paragraph (which, I am sure, was worded by your City Attorney), reads as follows: "Approval of this Master Plon indicates acceptance by the City Council of a general scheme of development for the property. It also expresses mitigating measures to impacts identified in EIR-307. It does not guarantee that individual developments within the Master Plan boundan/ will be approved, individual developments will be evaluated in accord with municipal ordinances and policies in force at the time of plan submittal. Approval and construction of an Individual dsvelopment under this Master Plan will not veit any developrfient rights In the balance of ilio Muster Plan area." Note that this paragraph, by implication, makes it very clear that the City of Carlsbad in approving the Master Plan is in no way committing itself to provide service for the entire Master Plan area. It certainly would seem to be unreasonable to ask any other governmental jurisdiction to make a commitment regarding a Master Plan which is nore than that which the City will make. As I think I indicated at the City Council meeting, I would feel foolish to make even such a request of a Board of Education. (Continued) COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 « AREA COOE 714 • TELEPHONE 729-91 11 Page -2- October 11, 1976 It seems to me that it might be appropriate in regard to the Master Plan to require before adoption a letter from each schoo! district involved which would read as follows: "Approval of this Master Plan indicates that the Board of Education has reviewed the general scheme of development proposed for the property lying within the District. It has reviewed the proposed location of school sites and finds them generally acceptable. Further the District and developer are working together in assuring reasonable developer participati- in the provision of education in the area. on Approval of this Master Plan does not guarantes that schoo! services will be available to individual developments within the Master Plan boundary. Individual developments will be evaluated in accord with school law and policies in force at the time of plan submittal. The provision of school services to an individual development under this master plan will not imply that the school district can provide service to any developments in the balance of the Master Plan area." I would suggest that you consider amending the City policy to clarify this matter. !t is probable that the letters from sewer and water districts should be revised ina similar manner. Thank you. Sincerely, LA COSTA LAND COMPANY ,4- ,',! 1/ —v.<i~ ^ Fred J. Morey j Vice President A FJM/eem COPIES TO; Superintendent of: San Dieguito High School District Encinitas Elementary School District San Marcos Unified School District Carlsbad Unified School District .CLARKE tSIDEM / _/G. I/UNOZ. PH. D. /VICE PHEsiotNT / ^UGLAS J. HOLLOVv'AY / CLERK f MARY LOU SCHULTZ LORETTA M.SMITH ROBERT L. BRICKMAN, PH.D. SUPERINTENDENT ti BOARD SECRETARY ftcmita^ ^nion ^djooi ^li^rict 189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORMIA 92024 TELEPHONE 753-1152 CAPR; SCHOOL »11 CAF"'.i ^.'-t. -J CENTRAL SCHOOL IBSU-'-I^ON SThttT OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL SIOMELUAROAO PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL 608 THIRD STREET PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL 20MPAnK DALE LANC September 20, 1976 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue CarlsbadJ California Gentlemen: Our ^District has reviewed the proposed 18 single family unit develop- ment generally located in Carlsbad, CT 76-10 and kno\m as Green Valley Knolls and has evaluated the impact of that development on the facil- ities of our District. The developer has contacted us with regard to helping provide adequate educational facilities, and we are satisfied conditions will be met. Sincerely, Robert TT. Brickman, Ph.D. Superintendent SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRfCT 2151 UEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIfORKiA S2007 September 17, 1976 7I4-753-G491 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Gentlemen RE: Green Valley Knolls CT 76-10 Our district has reviewed the proposed IB unit development generally located east side of El Camino Real North of Levante St. , west of SDGE easement and have evaluated the impact of that development on the facil- ities of our district. Please be informed that our district is able to assure you that school facilities and services will be available concurrent with need for this development. Very truly yours /ohn fSy Daily /Jusiness Manager nm BOARD OF TRUSTEES! ADMINISTRATION! Doupi»$ M. Fouquet, Piesldant J»ck R. Sleveni, Vice Pfdjldent WlltUm A. Derrltr, D*nl«l J. Rodrlguaz, Clerk Robert A. Morion, D«vla H. Thompion Don W. Mllchf John i. D»lly, A PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987 August 25, 1976 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Bud Plender, Planning Department Dear Bud: Enclosed is a memo from Jack Bevash dated August 19, relative to La Costa Vale Unit No. 2. He has summarized the comparison to the standard R-l subdivision as you requested. I would, for one, comment that on Page 2, Item 7: he shows the minimum lot size as 5,000 square feet. This should be 4,100 per our previous plan. If you have any questions or need any further assistance from us to write your staff report for the September 8 meeting, please call me. Very truly yours. 7 ^ - \y Robert C. Ladwig RCL:ah Enclosure cc: Mr. Jack Bevash Mr. Irving Roston Mr. Don Woodward (w/enc.) PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA "92008 P.O. 80X1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987 August 25, 1976 Gity of GarliBbad 1200 11m Avenue Garlsbad, Califomia 92008 Attention: Mr. Bud Plender, Planning Department Dear iud* Enclosed is a memo from jack Hevash dated August 19, relative to La Gosta vale Unit No. 2. He has summarized the eomparison to the standard R-'l subdivision as you requested. I would, for one, comment that on Page 2, Item 7: he shows the minimum lot size as 5,000 square faat. This should be 4,100 per our previous plan. If you haye any questions or need any further assistance frcnn us to whte your staff report for the September 8 meeting, please call me^, Very truly yours, '.if • "fAf'''fAf i Robert C. Ladwig AA^ RCL:ah Enclosure cc: Mr. jac*: Bevash Mr. Irving RostcMi Mr. Don Woodward (w/enc.) August 19, 1976 Meeting with Messrs. Morey, Agatep, Plendar, Woodward, Ladwig, Bevash Re: Vale II IntrodLiction by Mr. Agatep: Supports development of smaller lots Linder P. C. Ordinance; believes Council would like precise plan of area and standards proposed for adoption. Concern is expressed about small lots, insufficient parking, especially in cul-de-sacs (even in conventional 7500 sq. ft. projects). Mr. Morey said JBA had studied parking problems, was prepared to discuss how La Costa intended to solve the problem. JB reviewed schematic concept of Vale II area and a small drawing showing several typical lots with homes proposed sited on the land. Each typical lot would provide for a 2-car garage plus 2 off-street car spaces within the 20' setback in front of garage doors. In addition, one off-street parking space is provided in front of each home. Thus each typical lot would provide a total of 5 spaces: far in excess of need. The cul-de-sacs do provide a special problem and characteristically preclude visitor parking due to narrowed frontage per dwelling unit on the street. JB showed that this shortage in the cul-de-sacs could be compensated for in adjacent street areas where lots sided on streets giving added off-street parking capability. Mr. Plendar asked whether we could not provide off-street pockets for added visitor parking where needed. JB said this could be done; however, it would be at the expense of losing several buildable lots. The disadvantage lay in theae spaces being used by adjacent home- owners as permanent parking places and unavailable for visitors. At times it encouraged conversion of garages to work rooms, dens, play- rooms, etc., and utilization of parking bays for permanent; Storage of their personal cars. It ^Iso was found to encourage tfe^n-agets to utilize these convenient spaces to strip'-down and repait their cars and vans, making the areas unsightly and hazardous to others, Messrs. Agatep and Ladwig had to leave for other meetings. Messrs. Woodward, Plendar and JB continued. Mr. Plendar suggested we review the existing R-l ordinance, and taking item by item, list the existing requirements with which we could conform and identify those areas where we would have to take exception. He provided copies to .Mr. Woodward and JB, and together we went through the ordinance as follows: P.C. Exception and/or R-l 7500 Small Lot Explanation 1 . i^and Use 2. Building Height 3. Front Yard Setback Residential Single Family 35' Max. 20 • Same Same Same None None None August 19, 1976 - Page 2. 4. Side Ya^d Setback 4 a. Corner Lot 5. Rear Yard Setback 6. Separation of Buildings 7. Min. Lot Area 8. Density 9. Lot Width Width ) 10. Lot Coverage 11. Streets R-l 7500 10% of Lot Width 10' min. I'^J min. 10' min. 7500 sq.ft. Min. 60 40% P.C. Small Lot 10' one side (min.) 0 lot line Same Same Sam Exception and/or Explanation 10'min.one side; wall on other side results in better utilization of space improved privacy. 5' drainage easement maint.on wall side None None Est. at 5.4 d.u./ac, Min. 48.5' Average 50' Same public 56' r.ow.; Same 36' curb to curb None Average lot size, approx. 6^66 sq.tt, tradeoffs: reduced cost to consumerj lower maint.costs to city and home- owner; pedestrian easements to adj. public park and improved SDGE easement. Present zoning PC 11 d.u./ac. Some lots are wider None None: streets to be offered for public acceptance August 19, 1976 Page 3, It appears that the principle difference lies in the' on-street parking available at the curb; and, of course, there is no way to provide curb space because our streets are shorter and more efficient without the length. If the City insists upon forcing^ equivalent curb parking, several possibilities exist as follows: i .^^=f=^ I n \ m I Enlarged cul-de-=-sacs with parking in the centeir (cosi unattractive). r Pockets off the^ street (costly and a nuisance with resultant loss of lots). 3. No end lots on cul-de-sac;^ (cost of added street^length and loss of lots). I have made a study of the available on and off-street parking and find our Vale II proposal more than adequate, with provision for at least 3 spaces per home for visitors within the project (see memo enclosed). Jack Bevash x.caK 4 '/r SpA^ctx ^l^mu. M^ttXP JACK BEVASH ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITHCTURE, URBAN f^LSlGN August 27, 197 6 .b Mr. Robert C. Ladv/ig Rick Engine£;ring Company 3 088 Pio Pico Boulevard Carlsbad, Ca.l.ifornia Dear Mr. Ladwig: I liave reviewed tbe raemorandurn of Augusf^Bl from j^he") assistant planniiig director regarding our propose/l Vfile II Subdivision at La Costa, and I am p.leased to find thatW/e can agreee v/ith their findings in most instances . ' I believe that we have a problem with Items 5 and 6 of Appendix A ''Development Standards of Vale II". Item 5 states panhandle lots shall meet ordinance requirements. Present ordinance requires a lot area of 8 000 sq. ft. excluding the panhandle. Although I find that in some-cases we have panhandles which v;ill approximate that square footage, I don't believe all of our proposed panhandles would qualify and tlms we cannot agree v/ith this. VJe might instead suggest a pro- portionate increase in lot area comparab.le to the 8 00 0 sq. ft. re- quired on 7500 sq. ft. lots. That is to say, if area is 4100 sq. ft., the panhandle lot could be Using 15%, the lot would be approximately 615 sq. 4715 sq. ft. I am sure we could live with that. our standard lot 10% or 15% larger ft. larger or .Item 6 will also be difficult for us to accommodate, and I wovild 'suggest as an alternative recoimnendation that we propose there be one non-tandera pairking space provided for each unit v/ithin each cul- de-sac street and exclude the 150' limit since I believe this to be [arbitrary. (Why not 3.8 0', or 225'.) It is sufficient that visitors jfinu curb parking somevdioro on the cul-de-.'^ac street where they are 'visiting. ' , '.T think Mr. Plender'i3 justifications for the modifications are rsound, and we can agree readi.ly with all of them. In his last paragraphs ;Where ho cxpre.sses concern v/ith three items, I believe wa can answer in the following way. I ll. Where he speaks of the relative closeness of the homas with each j other that occur£5 in panhandle situations, we should state, tliat: I a. the increase in lot area (IS'-ii) v/ill allow additional ' separation between houses. b. in many cases the hoines on the limited number of flag lots will face the park or the SDGja eaBemont or another street at a different elevation rather than other homes. 1900 AVENUE or THE STARS, SUITE (750, L.OS ANGELES,CAtlFORNIA 90067 (zij) 879-0603 ^ AtyJi, 14 }A :c Vl. iivJCAKC'1 !!i iK:^Jl'Ui, URBAN D!:S1GN August 27, 1976 V V5 /-^ A Where Mr. Plender speaks of the aggravation of street parking problems by the additional \inits and the reduction of curb pcirking, v/e should respond that v/e are in agreement and propose to jDrovide at least one street parking space per home in front of each lot on linc^ir streets, as v/cll as within the individual cul-de-sac streets themselves. That ia to say, if there are ten homes on a short cul~do--Scic, v/e would provide 10 curb park- ing spacef^ to serve them. 3. Where he speaks of adequate turnaround on-site (I assume he means tha flag lots), I believe we can design to accommodate such turnaround v/here the flag depth exceeds 50' from the garage door to street. Where this distance exceeds 50', we v/ould provide turnaround on the lot so that a driver could pro- ceed in a forward direction to the street. I believe this covers the questions and my opinions regarding them, I will be in the San Diego area next Tuesday on vacation but would be available if you felt it was necessary to support your presen- tation at the City. You can reach m.e at 714/273-7831. Sincerely, /l yJACYs. BEVASH' As SOC lATES / \.iJ f\ffi "A Hdyfm ./a dk Be va E? j^V AIA. AIP /jB/b ice: Mr. itv .Kosto'n SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491 August n, 1976 Mr. Donald Agatap Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Agatap: 92008 Re: Master Plan Amendments and Projects Carlsbad Tract 75-9 & Canyon Park No. Attached are two letters from the San Dieguito Linion High School District concerning the approval of the above named projects. Officials of the District are working with La Costa toward the acquisition of a high school site in the area of the projects contained in the Master Plan Amendments presently going before the City Planning Commission. Since the Master Plan Amendments would clearly establish the location of the proposed school site, approval of the Amendments would assist the District in negotiations with La Costa. Sincerely, RECEIVED William A. Berrier Superintendent bfs Attachments AUG 11 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department BOARD OF TRUSTEES: ADMINISTRATION; David H. Thompson President Douglas M. Fouquet Vice President William A. Berrier, Superintendent William F. Howell Clerk Robert A. Morton, Assistant Superintendent Don W. Mitchell Ann P. Sensibaugh John J. Dally, Business Manager SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 August 11 , 1976 714-753-6491 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California S2GG8 Gentlemen RE: Canyon Park Unit No. 1 Our district has reviewed the proposed 210 unit development generally located in La Costa and have evaluated the impact of that development on the facil- ities of our district. Please be informed that our district is able to assure you that school facilities and services will be available concurrent with need for this development. Very truly yours William A. Berrier Superi ntendent RECEIVED AUG 11^976 CITY OF CAR'-SSAD Plannmg Department BOARD OF TRUSTEES: ADMINISTRATION: Douglas M. Fouquet, President Jack R. Stevens, Vice President William A. Berrier, Superintendent Daniel J. Rodriguez, Clerk Robert A. Morton, Assistant Superintendent David H. Thompson Don W. Mitcriell John J. Daily, Business Manager SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 August 11, 1976 714-753-6491 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Califoruia 92008 Gentlemen RE: Santa Fe Knolls No. 1 Carlsbad Tract 75-9 Our district has reviewed the proposed generally located in La Costa 215 unit development and have evaluated the impact of that development on the facil- ities of our district. Please be informed that our district is able to assure you that school facilities and services will be available concurrent with need for this development. Very truly yours William A. Berrier ^A Will Superintendent ECEIVE ^ J AUGU 1976 CITY OF CAR-.:,i:>A[) Planning Deparih cm BOARD OF TRUSTEES: ADMINISTRATION: Douglas M. Fouquet, President Jack R. Stevens, Vice President William A. Berrier, Superintendent Daniel J. Rodriguez, Clerk Robert A. Morton, Assistant Superintendent David H. Thompson Don W. Mitchell John J. Daily, Business Manager SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 V. San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, California 92069 August 10, 1976 Donald Agatep, Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Dear Sir: Please be advised that we have perused the tentative map of Carlsbad Tract No, 76-5 Rancheros de La Costa S.P. No. 177 and find that it is compatible with our school district master plan. If any fiirther information is needed we will be happy to comply. 'Ralptf'E. Kel] Superintendent San Marcos Unified School District REK/ld SAN IWGOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 V. San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos, California 92069 August 10, 1976 Donald Agatep, Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Sir: Please be advised that we have perused the tentative map of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-5 Rancheros de La Costa S.P. No. 177 and find that it is compatible v;ith our school district master plan. If any .further information is needed we v/ill be happy to comply. •Ve£v truly yours, "RalplJ^'E. Eei: Superintendent San Marcos Unified School District REK/ld KECEiVED AUGU 1976 CITY Ot CARLSBAD Plannmg Department ANN R. CLARKE PRESIDENT DANIEL G. MUNOZ, PH. D. VICE PRESIDENT DOUGLAS J. HOLLOWAY CLERK MARY LOU SCHULTZ LORETTA M. SMITH ROBERT L. BRICKMAN, PH.D. SUPERINTENDENT & BOARD SECRETARY Cncinitas! Winion ^cljool Bisftrict 189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 TELEPHONE 753-1152 CAPRI SCHOOL 941 CAPRI ROAD CENTRAL SCHOOL 185UNION STREET OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL 910 MELBA ROAD PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL 608THIRD STREET PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL 2050 PARK DALE LANE August 9, 1976 Donald Agatep, Planning Director City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California Dear Don: (1) Re: Project at La Costa Vale #2 (210 single family units) An agreement exists between La Costa Land Development Company and this District whereby a portion of a school site has been made available to us covering this project. (2) Re: Monte Vista Unit #1 (215 single family units) This project, a portion of Santa Fe Knolls, is covered by a tentative agreement between this school district and La Costa Land Development Company whereby a school site will be provided in the vicinity of the project. Prior to approval of a tentative map, we expect delineation of the exact site location. The Board of Trustees has been made aware of La Costa's Master Plan. Sincerely, Robert L. Brickman, Ph. D. Superintendent RLB:h cc: Fred Morey ^tt Depart-"^"* ^ ANN R.CLARKE PRESIDENT DANIEL G. MUNOZ, PH. D. VICE PRESIDENT DOUGLAS J. HOLLOWAY CLERK MARY LOU SCHULTZ LORETTA M. SMITH ROBERT L. BRICKMAN, PH.D. SUPERINTENDENT & BOARD SECRETARY Cncinitas; Winion ^cfjool Bifitrict 189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 TELEPHONE 753-1152 CAPRI SCHOOL 941 CAPR: ROAD CENTRAL SCHOOL 185 UNION STREET OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL 910 MELBA ROAD PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL 608THIRD STREET PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL 2050 PARK DALE LANE August 9, 1976 Donald Agatep, Planning Director City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California Dear Don: (1) Re: Project at La Costa Vale //2 (210 single family units) An agreement exists between La Costa Land Development Company and this District whereby a portion of a school site has been made available to us covering this project. (2) Re: Monte Vista Unit #1 (215 single family units) This project, a portion of Santa Fe Knolls, is covered by a tentative agreement between this school district and La Costa Land Development Company whereby a school site will be provided in the vicinity of the project. Prior to approval of a tentative map, we expect delineation of the exact site location. The Board of Trustees has been made aware of La Costa's Master Plan. Sincerely, Robert L. Brickman, Ph. D. Superintendent RLB:h cc: Fred Morey '7> LR CQStR AAr. Paul D. Bussey ' ^0 /^^^ Ift?^ May 28, 1976 City Manager ^ITY /^r- Cify of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Proposed San Marcos Creek Park Dear Paul: As part of the total parks program for La Costa, we are submitting to you for review and approval the proposed boundaries of the San Marcos Creek Park. We are including this park as part of the Rancheros Tentative Map (CT No. 76-5). For your information, we have reviewed this site in the field with representatives of the Park, Engineering, and Planning Departments. The specific boundaries have not been reviewed, but just the general area and intent of the park. On the enclosed preliminary exhibit, we have indicated a total of 10.955 acres of various categories of land that we would like to offer for dedication to the City. After a review of the slope and flood plain areas included in the site, we believe it would be reasonable to ask for a 7-acre park "credit" for this site. We feel that this is an excellent park for this location. It provides some relatively flat usable areas on the knoll of the hill, preserves intact a very valuable archaeological site, provides access from the north end of San Marcos Canyon to a public dedicated street, preserves a flood plain area that is covered with considerable vegetation, and provides an area for public enjoyment in this most eastern portion of the City. La Costa would like to reserve the right to work adjacent to and within the park and flood plain areas to improve roadways, grading and drainage, and improvements, along with access to their adjacent properties through the above properties. In addition to the proposed park land dedication and flood plain areas, the San Marcos County Water District Manager has indicated to us that the District may consider a request for the City to use the area from their north line to their fence for park purposes. I would think that a request from the City to the District would be appropriate and we would cer- tainly assist you, if you would like us to, in the preparation of any exhibits, should the City see this portion of the San Marcos County Water District site necessary for park pur- poses. As we have indicated, we are including this as a lot of the Rancheros subdivision. (Continued) COSTA DEL MAR ROAD - CARLSBAD, CALI FORN IA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 739-9111 Mr. Paul D. Bussey, City Manager, Page -2- Carlsbad, California May 28, 1976 We ask for your early consideration and approval of the boundary shown and the amount of credit requested for the park purposes. We believe that the above is consistent with the terms of the draft park agreements now under discussion. Sincerely, LA COSTA LAND COMPANY Fred J. Morey Vice President FJAVeem P.S. Paul, it is very important to the La Costa Land Company to have the Rancheros tentative map (CT 76-5) processed as rapidly as possible. As a matter of fact, the map was submitted on April 16, 1976, without the inclusion of the park site. In the ordinary course of events, we think that the map should be before the Planning Commission on June 23, 1976. Since that kind of a deadline involves final staff decisions at least 10 days before that meeting, you can see how jm- portant it is that staff give this park proposal prompt consideration. Fred f cc: Parks & Recreation Director Planning Director l^-^ Public Works Director