HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-12-03; City Council; 3243; REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN (MP-153)- " - "" -.:- .* a Agp$da ^Biil No: 32@ 9 DatehG-ceder 3, s
,. 1 * 3 ; /.$ 7- .:.
Referred To:
Subject! Request for approval of a Master Plan (1 53)
Applicant: Don Loker (Lomas Santa Fe Development)
Submit tec
Pl ann; ng Commi s
1 1.2- " '!
Statement of the Matter: The Planning Commission held public hearing on the reque
Master Plan for the Loker property, to be known as Valle Verde. The first public heari held October 22, 1974 and continued to November 12, 1974.
The proposed Planned Community Master' Plan contemplates the phased development of some acres northerly of Palomar Airport Road and easterly of El Camino Real. The subject 41 and the adjacent 186 acres to the south were rezoned to Planned Community (P-C) and P1t Industrial (P-M) respectfully in June, 1974. There was substantial testimony submittec the adjoining property owner, Mr. Clarence Dawson, with respect to drainage and the efl of the proposed development on the adjoining Dawson/Los Monos Reserve. The Los Monos/[ Reserve is owned by the University of California, Natural Land and Water Reserves Systc The University representatives are of the opinion the Master Plan, as presented, protec
interest in the Dawson/Los Monos Reserve.
The Planning Commission moved and recommended to the City Council that the Master Plan proposed be adopted by a vote of 4 to 1 , 1 absent.
The project has been reviewed by.the Airport Land Use Commission with no outstanding CI offered. The applicant has met the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Public Facil i
Exhibi t : ~~ ~.
Staff report of November 12, 1974 Planning Commission Resolution 1110 Master Plan Map labeled Exhibit D, dated 10/22/74
Staff Recommendations to City Manager:
Staff recommends City Council adopt the Master Plan (MP-153). If Council concurs wit1 recommendation, the matter should be returned to the City Attorney for the drafting of necessary documents.
..
I, * * !
I. 13 Q
AB No. Date: December 3, .1974
Ciky Lfanager's Recornn?ndation
Concur.with staff recommendation.
Council Action
12-3-74 The Master Plan (MP-153) was referred back to the staff f preparation of the documents necessary for approval.
'6' , e,, ,,I)
'. Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT @ CITY OF CARLSBAD
STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 12, 1974
. ' TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE NO. MP-153 (CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER PLAN)
APPLICANT: LOMAS SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT GORP,
P.O. Box AG Solana Beach, CA 92075
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed Va
. Verde Master Plan. The Planri'ng Commission continued the hearin to November 12, 1974 to al'ow the- applicant and the City Staff t settle misunderstandings on the content and intent of the Valle Verde Master Plan Staff Report.
The Staff has been in contact with the applicant and his represe ative, and the following amended staff report is submitted for y consideration.
(NOTE: The attachment (A) to the Staff Report is for informatio purposes only, and is Staff response to issues raised by the applicant at the October 22, 1974 Public Hearing.)
I. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Master which would allow planned industrial development on.approxi 187 acres and planned residential development on 410 acres an average density of 3.66 DU/net a,cre.
The subject property is zoned P-C and P-M and is located ap mately 7/2 mile east of El Camino Real on the north side of Palomar Airport Road.
11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff'recommends that MP-153, labeled Exhi D and dated October 22, 1974, be APPROVED based on the fo11 justification:
1. The Master Plan meets the requirements of the adopted General Plan.
2. The Master Plan meets the r,equirements and intent of t Planned Ccmmunity and Planned Industrial Zone Ordinanc
3. The Master Plan meets all applicable City policies inc
4. The Master Plan meets all requirements of CEQA and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. The miti proposed in the Certified EIR and as a part of this Ma Plan are adequate in minimizing .. adverse impacts.
the Public Facilities Policy.
,I *,
!, . I s * 0 REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MASTER PLAN 153
- ' November 12, 1974
1) Master Plan approval is granted for land described in the application and any attachments thereto, and as shown on th Plot Plan (Exhibit D, dated 10-22-74), descriptive text (labeled Exhibit F) and slope analysis (labeled Exhibit E, and dated 10-22-74). The location of all proposed develop- mental units, roadways, open space and other features shall be substantially the same as the Plot Plan and Text labelle Exhibits D and F.
2) In order to reduce fire hazard, the applicant shall agree t selectively clear underbrush and debris from ope? space are prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. This brush and debris clearance shall be an on-going activity an shall be done under the guidance of the Parks and Recreatio Department and Fire Department. This activity should not b
grading activities. construed to be total brush removal normally associated wit
' ;3) The applicant shall erect a six-foot chain link fence toppe three strands of barbed wire which shall separate the subje residential development and the University of California an
Dawson properties (a) along the property line in Parcel a-2
(b) below and north of the rear of the development pad with Parcel a-1. The barbed wire shall be angled toward the Val Verde property. A l5-foot wide fire break shall border the length of the fence. This shall be done prior to issuance any residential building permits or'prior to any residentia area grading.
4) The applicant shall design all development along the northe property boundary to drain to the south.
5) The project shall be generally phased as follows:
AREA 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 TOTAL
A1 50 100 66 - - - - 216 c
A2 b - 34 50 - - - 84
B1 30 100 38 - - - - 168
B2 . * - - ' 71 71
83 - - - - - 54 - 54
84 - - 74 100 100 100 - 379
85 - - - 39 150 - - 189
B6 - - 64 64
B7 30 100 100 50 - - - 280
TOTAL 110 300 312 239 250 154 135 1500 T
-
- - - -
- - - -
6) All denuded-natural or constructed slope areas shall be p1 with natural plant materials in order to reduce erosion.
shall be done in a manner satisfactory to the Parks Direct .. ... - ..
,
,.
)I .I) * e
and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any permits by zhe City and also afte'r any grading activities.
7) All areas indicated on the Master Plan as greenbelt, existi trees and pond shall be rezoned to Open Space (0-S) zone pr to or concurrent with consider.ation of any Specific Plan or Tentative Subdivision Map within the project boundaries.
8) The applicant shall offer to the City an 15 foot wide open space .easement for pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle purpo
Master as "green belt, existing trees, and existing pond "b units B-7 and B-2 and also B-4 and B-5) andbshall be locate sized according to the specifications outlined by the Parks and Recreation Directop at the time of Specific Plan/Tentat Map application. The applicant will be responsible for imp the easement to City Standards, and the City will be respon for normal maintenance and liability. The easement shall b offered to the City concurrent with the first final map adj, to any portion of the east-west valley described above.
9) The applicant, prior to consideration of any Specific Plan i cations; shall prepare a water master plan which is accepta to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and also to the Ci. Fire Department.
The easement shall transverse the east-west valley (shown o
10) Approval of this Master Plan indicates an acceptance by the City Counci? of a general scheme of development for the pro It is part of an on-going planning process and is subject tl amendment in the future.
Approval of the plan does not constitute any guarantee that
individual Specific Plans will be subsequently approved, nor that the availability of public facilities and services will necessarily coincide with the developer's time table fc construction. Availability of public services will be evall in the context of Specific Plan approvals.
Specific Plans will be evaluated in accordance with Municipt Ordinances in force at the time when said Specific Plans are before the City Council for approval. Approval and construc of a Specific Plan shall not vest any rights in the balance the Master Plan nor create any vested rights to the approval of any subsequent Specific Plans.
The developer shall comply with the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and related drainage improvements.
12) The development is presently within the sewer service area c the City of Carlsbad. Sewer facilities (Le., City Master Plan sized gravity mains and/or sewage pump stations), will be required as approved by the City Engineer.
..
6, I
.'
,..I 8 @
I 13). The applicant shall enter into a secured agreement for the construction of full half street improvements on P.alomar Airport Road between the westerly and the easterly limits of
, the development along the entire precise alignment as adopte prior to completion of the first phase of development, (63' section right of way).
14) fircheologi,cal sites #2,'#8 and #9 shall be'mapped, excavated
contained in the Certified E.I.R. Prior to any Specific Plan and/or have surface calk!CtiOnS made aCCOrdinj to specificat
consideration. I I I. BACKGROUND
\ A. Legal Description: A psrtion of Lot B of Rancho Aqua Hedionia in the City of Carlshd, according to Map No. 823 filed with the San Diego County Recorder.
B. Location: On the north side of Palomar Airport Road between
El Camino Rea7 and Rancho Santa Fe Drive.
C. Size.: Planned Community - 409.5 Acres Planned Industrial - 186.9 Acres
0. Density: -. .
..
Proposed Density by Area
AI 2;O DU/net acre A2 1.9 DU/net acre 61 3.1 DUJnet acre B2 4.0 DU/net acre
B3 5.8 DU/net acre B4 6.6 DU/net acre B5 6.5 DU/net acre B6 4.0 DU/net acre
87 5.1 DU/net acre r
Existing General Plan
0-4 DU/net acre and Open Space 0-4 DU/net acre 4-10 OU/net acre and Open Space 4-10 DU/net acre and Open Space
4~10- DU-/net-.acpe and' bp-&- .4-10 DU/net acre 4-10 DU/net acre 4-10 DU/net acre 4-10 DU/net acre and Open Space
E. Coverage: At the time of Specific Plan consideration, the appl will be required to meet the coverage requirements of the P-C Z The areas within the residential sectors which are proposed to zoned open space would apply to the 66-2/3% open space committm
F. Projected POpUlFition: Based on 2.8 persons per household, the projected population is 4,200. .
G. EIR Finding: The City has certified two EIR's for the project
conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and the prezoning of property. The certified EIR's discuss potential impacts of the Master Plan and Zoning. Consequently, Staff bel ieves that SUPF information will be needed only with subsequent development prc
Mitigation measures, as proposed in the Certified EIR, have be€ included as conditions of the Plaster P7an approval.
The critical impacts of the project as discussed in the Certifi EIR are as follows:
an *
I ,..I e a-
7) The availability, e;lse and economy of supplying services to
2) The impacts of the project on Open Space/Wildlife areas;
3) The geological impacts of the grading associated with the
4) The impact of the project on the orderly, planned growth
the project;
project;
of the City.
H.
..
. : I.
. . . -. - . . . J,
K.
L.
Exi sting Zoni ng : Units C-1 and C-2 - P-M (Planned Industrial) The remainder of the site - P-C (Planned Community)
Adjacent Zoning:
North: R-A-10,000 (Carlsbad) and A-1-8 (County)
South: A-3-8 (County) East: A-1-1 (County) C-2 and P-C (Carlsbad) West: R-A-10,000 and P-M (Carlsbad)
General Plan: A copy of the General Plan -1a.nd Use designation f the Val1 e Verde site has been attached to this report. The Val1
Verde Master Plan does generally reflect the Land Use Element designations. Overall density for the project is well under the maximum allowed under the General Plan. Future Specific Plans will be required to provide all Open Space corridors depicted in the Land Use Element.
The Land Use Element shows one neighborhood conmercial facility the site., The Master Plan’s designation of two commercial sites is compatible, providing that all locational/market criterion fo neighborhood commercial uses are met.
Parks Ordinance: The Park Dedication Ordinance provides that fo projects involving fifty or more units, the City Council may req either a park dedication or in-lieu fees. The Parks and Recreat Department has recommended that:
... . . . .__._.”.. -
- - - - -. . . . .
1) In lieu fees be required, since the Preliminary Parks and Recreation Element does not indicate a need for a park dedication in this area;
.I
2) The Canyon floor Oak Woodland area shown as Open Space on 1 Master Plan provides a desired open space linkage, and the1 fore should be credited toward the 25% on-site recreational allowance provided for in the ordinance. Staff is recomer
that an Open Space easement for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian access purposes be required over the canyon floc
Schools : The appl icant bad ini ti a1 ly proposed that an el m’entat
school site be located in the Northeastern corner of the Val le \ site. The State Site Selection Committee subsequently rejected school site because of its proximity to Palomar Airport. Becaur
of the State’s criterion for site selection, it appears that scl
aged children will need to be bused to a school outside of the airport influence area.
~ - - - . ".
a. . .,.
e. P (b .'& .
. .-. The applicant has secured a 1 etter from the Carl s.bad Unified Schc
District stating that the necessary agreements for providing faci for all school aged children generated by the project will be sec
- at the time of Specific Plan/Tentative Map application.
. _..
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES
A. Re'lationship of Project to Surrounding Land Uses':
. . ..- 1. Dawson tos Monos Reserve: The proposed Master Plan is adjacent to the Dawson Los Monos Reserve and the Dawson
Ranch along the northerly project boundary.
The Dawson Los Plonos Reserve is owned by the University of
reserve system. It is anticipated that the Dawson Ranch
will be added to the reserve in the future.
The Reserve is intended as an outdoor laboratory for primarily scientific and educational purposes. Because of the Reserve's value as an undisturbed natural habitat, it is particularly vulnerable to disruption frm adjacent development. Staff believes that the following adverse effects could occur, absent any effective mitigations:
a.) Displaced animals could be forced from the project
site into the Reserve, causing an imbalance in the
California and is part of a statewide natural land and water
. .. natural ecology.
.. .
b) Predatory domestic animals such as dogs and cats could .endanger species on the Reserve and upset the natural population balance.
c) Fire hazard ,on the Reserve will be greatly increased
. 'by its proximity to development.
d) Drainage from the project site could cause siltation and erosion problems. Also, use of chemical fertilize1 insecticides, etc. on the project site could influence groundwater quality on the Reserve.
.- Proposed conditions for the.Master Plan related to fencing, fire precautions and drainage attempt to mitigate these advt effects.
The northwesterly corner of the Master Plan is shown as Ope1 ,Space. This greenbelt, especially because of steep terrain will Drovide a considerable buffer between development on tl
projeh site and the Reserve. Staff is recommending that tl area be rezoned to Open Space prior to any Specific Plan apl
_, h?-l!9 Unit A-2 of the Development is adjacent to the Preserve and planned as a single-family detached development with a maxir
- Density of 1. g DU/acre. Subsequent Specific Plan/Tentative Maps will be encouraged to be designed so proposed developml will not adversely affect the Dawson Feserve and simultanec provide the potential residents with outstanding visual and
I ’.
,..I 0 0
2. Palomar Airport: The southerly l90+ acres is, within the influence of the Palomar Airport F1 ight Patterns. The recently
residential activity on the Southerly portion of the Valfe
Verde project and requires Airport Land Use Commission review
of all programs to be built on the project site. The Palomar Airport impact has been given an in-depth assessment in the
EIR for the recently adopted General Plan Amendment.
adopted CPO Land Use Plan for Pal omar Airport recornends Ron-
Plans to increase the Palomar Airport function envision a second para1 le7 runway approximately 700’ north of the
existing runway. The northern runway as presently designed will not affect the proposed development in areas B-4, B-5 B-6 and B-7. However, recent informal discussions have intimated that the northern runway may have future operational potentials. Since future airport requirements will be dictated by State of the Art Aircraft, the City should be aware at the earliest possible date of future alternatives.
The Planning Commission therefore should be aware of the staff desire to insure land use and airport compatibilities so that when Specific Plan dna Tentative Maps of areas B-4, B-5 B-6 and B-7 are presented to the City, the airport plans in effect at that time will be evaluated in light of the develop- ment proposals.
B. Services: The proposed Valle Verde Master Plan will require every level of service pfovided by the City. Project site location is approximately 1/2 mile east of Palomar Airport. Consequently it is about 2-1/2 - 3 miles from normal levels of City service. The dis- tance to City service especially applies to the ability of the City to provide adequate levels of Pol ice and Fire protection:
1. Sewer: The site is traversed by the Buena Sanitation Sewer trunk line. Carlsbad has rights to capacity in the line, therefore the City will have the responsibility and capability of providing sewer service on a first come, first serve basis. It is anticipated that a parallel gravity main will be con- .str?ucted to carry the effluent to the Buena Trunk line at El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Based on a factor of 2500 gallons per acre, the industrial sector when fully developed is estimated to yield a f7ow of 0.47 MGD. The residential sewage flow would be about -34 MGD. Accordingly, total projected sewage flow is 0.81 MGD.
Because specific industrial uses have not yet been determined for the site, it is difficult to ascertain how much, if any, industrial waste will be generated. It is probable, however,
the proposed zoning would not restrict industrial waste, that some industrial waste would be generated. The City of Carlsbad would require industrial waste permits.
. that with an industrial development of this size, and since
, I.
.II.
'. e e
The City of CarlsSad 'lownslt capacity rights for 1.2 MGD in t Brrena Trunk 'line at Pafomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. This capacity is increased by degrees to 3.0 MGD at the west extrme of the trunkline (Encina Plant). Inasmuch 3s the
projected discharge is more khan two-thirds (213) of the
city's total capacity rights in the Buena Trunk line at El hino Real and Palomar Airport Road, additional capacity me be necessary through either (1 ) Purchase of additional cap: in the Buena Trunk 1 i ne; or (2) the construction of a 1511
gravity main westerly along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, as Shot on the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan.
There js no guaranteed capacity in either the Z:~ena Trunk 1
or Encina Treatment Facility; a17 projects are ensured szwe only upon the availability of capacity at the time of build permit appl ica tion. Approved or master planned projects potentially exceed the present capacity of both the Buena Trunk 1 i ne and the Encina Facility. However, the COnStrUC~ of new 1 ines a.nd a proposed phased expansion of the Encina Facility which would increase Carlsbad's capacity ta 3.43 MGD. by 1975 and 5.43 by 1977, will provide a gradually inC1
capacity .
2. Water: The site is within the Carlsbad Municipal Water Di service area. Carlsbad Municipal Water District has indic that they will be able to provide water service to the sit
which meets all Carlsbad Municipal Water Department requir ments. The City Fire Department has also expressed concer that adequate fire flow be provided for the site. Conditi
fir8 of the Master Plan requires that the applicant coopera'
project.
. providing that the applicant prepares a water Master Plan
:,;& with these two agencies in planning water service for the
3. Circulation: Circulation for the proposed Master Plan wi developed using existing Palomar Airport Road, proposed M Drive and proposed tos Monos Drive.
.. ... .. ' The initial phases of development will be Served by-a neb
. . collector to be built from Palomar Airport Road north ti^ the industrial property. As subsequent phases are built additional points of ingress/egress will be provided by I Monos Drive on Melrose Drive. The applicant may have thf requirement of off-site road construction if this develol preceeds other developments in the area.
C. Major Planning Consideration: Staff believes that there are sever critical issues related to the Master Plan. Master Plan ADDroval of course, does not auarantee acceptance of specified development . proposals. Services must be extended and expanded; the applicant no assurances at. this point that service availability will corres! to the proposed Master Plan phasing.
,.
>,,
'. 0 0
8 The allocated densities are generalized concepts and not
the density allocations must be reassessed in light of the static entitlements. At the time of Specific Plan Considera
following:
1) Density compatibility with natural topography (.i.e., slope stability, minimum alteration of landforms, etc.);
2) Density compatibility with areas which are environ mentally sensitive or of scenic value;
3) Density consfstency with the concepts of Planned
Community Development (i.e. , Optimum Utilization c Open Space, efficiency of services, etc.)
..
ATTACHMENTS!
Master Plan E.xhibit D. , dated 5-6-74 School Letter from Carlsbad Unified School District General Plan Land Use Element Section Letter from J. Roger Samuelson dated July 12, 1974 Addendum to EIR prepared by Dr. Kenneth Abbott Attachment A (Staff Response to Applicant Issue from October 22, CPO letter dated October 31, 1974
t
..
vb c
..
*... I -,.. ~ .. . . --.
I. .. @ < .,
i?
~ -.
PLfih) LRND use ?L
FLEi
E I//zRI-)E @A)€RAL
#F V4l-L pEplc7jod
t,;,
-I
'. I ~., (a .; 1
*. - '."NXVEHSfTP OF CALfFORNIA (6.
J
..e,, ;:+ .;*-:; yy ::, * 4;". - A, .,
:,-. .,ILL" ': .... \ 1 E~F:;E=~ I I].kvIs * IZYiSE - LOj. ASCELES - RIVERSDZ - SAX DIECO * ShS FRASCUCO ~~$,~-,f~~~j:~~<.~$ i i;?>,Z:.<w< i' ,..$ .<-+..*.,
'&~~~..:...:. )'+j .I' !
' CliAELES J. IflTCii
P,,c.;i&n: oj the S'nicrrsitrl
kEEilT L. JOHXSON
' Vice p,y.s&d-C'nic~m'tg &&:ions
SAhTh B.L?.3.\EU * SALT.3
OFFICE OF TEiX PRESIDEhT
BERSELZY, CALIF0itSZ.k 94720
July 12, 1974 '
x.
Carlskd City Comcil
City of Cxkbzd
Carlsbzd, California 92008
Ear 'Council Msr$ers:
I arn writing ~7ith re2-t to the props& 'Valls Vdz" project and the. reqxzs
that havz ben sdmitted by bi Smta Fe Capration, jnclrding th-e Zone &
and Final Ehvimm.tal @act Rqmrt you brill be ConsiZering on July 16, 1974
me University owns property imrediately mrth of thz propsed cIsv2lopent, k
as the Ezwson Los Nxos Cmyun -serve. The resenz has bea xquix& over t?
last ten yzars' tkAwu# the generosity of Eks. Ida. D237mn, xvho Contjnms to res
1200 ELm AvWLE
on th;! adjacent propxty to the wt.
Ths Dzwson Los Yartos Can;ron FIes2-m is being nmgd and used as part of the t sity' s Natural Land and Water Resers Systan, ths purpse of whidn is to .xq and hold for sciatific aad &cca+iorml purpses a series of "ouLibr labmtc
bmdly rep~!satative of th? diverse hsitzts found L3uzoug3aut the Stae of (
nia, Enclosed are several cqizs of a panghlet describirg the systen in mre
Unfortunately, there was a delay in notifying the Univzrsity of the props& T
Verde dsvslopmt so R did not 'nave an opportunity to consizIpy its full mnij until very recently, oil JutlS 27-28, representatixes of ths Vniversity ret wii
Donald A. Agatsp and Dana Hie16 om' the Ciiy Planning Office and with m. D. P
o,m= of th proprty, and LW. Al ?3xn and Mr. col-rald PkKlellan of Fr?ras sa2.lt
Corporation Ce~~lop~nt. We explained L& backqrowd of tk? Dawson ~bs Lwnos
. Reserve, expressed several cancem as +a the possible ef fwt on tie res2~- (
props& Cievelopt, and considxed a nmber of alterr!ati+s that might ale.
,those concerns. EZGI of ~ose \.TiL& whan we ret ~7a~ mst -ti= and exp
. a desire to xork with us in raxhing an accmdation,
Since our meting, a rsprt, including a ssries of recumwdaticns, has 'been j
pared by Dr. Kmnsth mtt, a recent recipient of a dcctorate in biolcq at rMi mius of ths UEiversity, with a spdalty in plant and axhal. ecology
co?y cf 'his rqort is acloszd. ~n the qirit OZ' OUT rzcent convzrsztiors wi
5. .
<
I. ,/I
I. 0;
" carlsl~& city CrJw-cil July 12, 1974
Pa92 2
e- :>
. the prhxipds nand, we now ar&icipatz furt2kr ~~cussior;s, usiq Dr. $&
rscairckLLoas as a hse. In the ~aatke, bk. cordd 3. Sites, asis-isant
C;u.?,cellor-Facilities Xarrqm.ent at UCSD, will. I=t atLkrding. your ref3f;;?q 0;7
' m~dq a EX as s&ssqwzk mthgs of the City Council and ths planning
Cmissim as rqked.
&.s -h ti2 i~-&i-&e cpes+Lms comecrhg the Zcm Dmqe aii Fizd ~TP~O~T
Impact Rqmrk, we would be mst qpreciztive. if yo% action could take cogn
of the repxt tihat hx keen subnitL& by Dr. ABmtt on our Mdf.
erIclosures
sinc-117,
?. /weL ,-D ./-F--d ..q. A
/'. '- 3. &er smlsen
Director, XaM Lad and
Water Rsssrves System
cc: Dr. Kmeth D. Abbott Mr. and Mrs. . Clarence H. Dawson Mr. Al Kern
Mr- D. P. Loker Assistant Clcelior Ccdd H. Sites
Director of Developrent Fsbert H. Soith
..
..
..
_. .. .. .i
.* ..
*
-, ..
,t ' I.,
, e. ,,,
I.
\*
'.
' .Liiy 10, 1374
(I. 4 (e
, ~TLU pPlSIC?!I, PXD SIflrIC P,:ODEi~?XIC?lS To
LOS FDXOS CXWOX EX21 PRX'GSZIl DZV~X'JE~~T - cTm m?z
Seven mjor types of physical enviira-xenLd changes "d inflcsces co-dd pot -tid.ly take place ?with 6E5E1cLmt of the Vdle Verde pmjeck These =e' de
ktriefly and in-clrde the follu,.;ing:
A. Emsix .I; ~+,.-2;n c.;aLa lfifi~zeLi~z ?.. '_
Habitat alteratim Increased fire hazd ..
Increaszd hunting pTessures
..
F. Increased predzkion by dozestic -1s G. &ki@ pop.&tion disrqtion by displaced anirrals
..
. Potentizl ?hysical Influencss:
A. Erosion
mqies of soil erosion are' noticable wi- portions of the project' area t
' have been altered. Soil' is the rain resermir for nutrierrts, mst bein3 dis
in the shallox xqpr layers. . there nutrients arc lost by th2 erosion of to? plat pifodtiction decreases which leads rast often t0 the 6qniia"don of hahi
and ph~t cczpsition. &sy. =ea, therefore, where natural vegztation is re?.
.. .-
..
. - -, _" fw&e.r . . . - . . . - by . excessivs dficatioa (grding, dtivation, roz&uilding) will MgMy sensitive to erosion.
B. Strean water dfication
. .. ... . .
..
.. . .
chanqes in stream water are directly' related to potentidl increases from.ero &Mifiations of eautwy creek ci"lannels and increased erosion auld lead t
increased silt-lozds .wiiithin the wter course of hs &bms hyon and ther&y
wildlife habitats.
.In addition, &a5es in 'strearn water &odd pter.tially be direckkly related t
clensity housing and mccmtrolled landscaping within tributary drainqe khnn
Runoff fro3 urban areas (garas, lawns, gold comso,s) are often high in .org nutrierts; principally nitrates and phosphates. Increassd nutrient loads cc
. lead to algal blooms. and eutzophication wit%? the waters of Los Ibms myc
.. I
.~
.. . 'Pote-lltial Eiotic Inf luenczs:
. C. Habitat alternation :
. .. .. ..
\
Ikabitali mdlification is by far the mst salient facbr in the reduction, SUF
and sqplanbtion of native fauna and flora- Since +le reserve represents F
hr&iL&ts, it :.;odd k a price target for recreation& z.ctiviLies by schmj.ck
aye~s, an6 others. As a result, increased mi! uncont-olled encroadxmnt F;
lead to the disappearance of the res&rVn,' S ,oreS€?Ilt Il&XEd, Stab.
$
,I , ,. ,>.! a' ,.,
.. . 4' I. -2- -. P.. . L.
9 (. -.
5. Fire !-~wzcds
Csastd sq: sd a2 chqxmd m1m.mitizs a-e highly slnsitivs to fire- i.:rt
a- increasz! ~LZEX-I ppdation fire potentials will Lqtw.sif-y triL&rl kk zrs.
E. increasd hurki?q pressues
s-~cics. rr-?",..xtion has been exazted by hunters for Wrt, quasi-scientific pup
ad for 17.0 ~q:lair-&le reason other '&?in ko kill native dn'als. In&&, this
an unfort.rn2-e khrsat to I32 resen2 from Zzvelop-edc-
- ...
' , 2, TJv"@Qs2;;i p-l-&">an l-&7 &r.es?ic cLT&s . . .- 7
A. ..
O"J1lzr thw aca h&iLtat alteration, the greatest twzat to ~?aticz vertarate
poplatiox is the &b~dz?.ce ard behavior of 6mstic cats ad dogs. cats effe tivzly replae natural predztors ,and mdessly kill adult and youncj reptiles,
birds, md ~zmals. Eiorses woidably r26uce vegetativ2 cover md alter soil
characteristics.
. . G. . Nativs ppulation disruption by displaced anirrials
'~opdation nmws ani sizes of mst native s*Ecies .t.~i- the reservo, are reg
naturally and tend to exist in a .stabilizsd state. The p0ten"Lial i.iigraLdon
&s$ac& anir~als from the-valle Ver2.s project into L?ie resew- vjould, therefo
dis-rcpt the natural conditions aid populations of ms ?%mas Caqycn. . .
REmwmmTIoNs ..
A list of recomCk+Aans a-6 sqszstions presented zainly to help +i?cize an
avoid adverse envirormtal effects b 'd"s University of Cali.fO'?nia Natural La
and Water ;?esem in LOS xonos cayon from props& devel0-t is described k
/ ..
&rotective Fence -. . ... .
a. A chain-1k-k fence, a~prodtely six feet ir, hzight bor6aze.d with
three stTmds of barb& wire .should be placd at the norttksrn bound=
of thz developrent.
. . 'b. The said fence should be erected prior to the initiation of the devel
mitt s constmction. actirities . c
.. c- ~-,i~ ,- of fence Fauld jnhibit L&ni&tion of displaced terrestrial
mimls bb cqe reseTve_, deter encm&mnt by ~~EJIS, md reduce
potentid prsdation, pressures of cats and .~OCJS.-
..
. . Qosion .
Potential erosional 'influences to the reserve Fiould zise only %om the alter:
oE hillsides and rz.vines draining into Ias Fbnos Cayon. CoLsqently, the fc
list ,pertains only to these areas. .
a. Initial develo,mt should not demde, by ~frdiag, ar.d abandon l~~rge
parcels of ground since extensive damding sodd prmte erosion;
partidall7 during rainy seas0n.C;.
-5-
., - I. - *
>’, ..
XI I_ .,I
.de , I. tC (e‘ - .”
I1 - *. ,, i. .. b- L,ZC~ Wsct~ of e;qasd soil should zot rerain_ denc%d for Ic~g Fxioe
(ss,era~ seasons) .- ~hsse a.rsas my be ”seeded” wi* grasses to prs;.?-r
erosiw. ,
c. cmtinn sl”ould %e tzk~ in Fading activities md + the plzc~mk of’
fill-dieL. Eycess soil should r.ot k-2 depsiM hzpkzxltLy- Lrtto
e:dsti?g &aimge ckmels since this vould alkr ri.tcral Lmqoff.
d. placment of excess soil. and fill-dirt ‘should be direct& sa as not’
to zdii to siitz.t;m and t& dsgrzdation of seeam water. quali-ty.
”. 0 ->;?; A crFL7aqs 2ccri1.g frc~ the c?s\z’~ sbuld ’E dL-~ct& W the wu& rz?&z -&- i2L~ us >bn~s Cayon, .> .
. . ./Fizz. Pxt-aULons
a. Fire breaks of at least 15 feet h width sbdd rim the phrareter fa
~ce plant or ivy nay be used as pund mvsr within the fire ’Ure&s -
b. Fire brads of a similar nature could be provided alsd to prote‘ct
c. Posted signs my be. placed adequately to warn against fire hazar6s.
d, ?re\rati= prQ&W3 should be carried out durhy th2 different phas
housing dev?lopIt”lts.
..
. . of Gevelopmt to minimize potential fires; particularly dur&g SLX
. and fall mnths ;,\hen scrub and chapwd zones are hicj~y flmle.
. General Presemtion
’ . - 1“::. Thcidentiw ad future -pres&tim of the reserve rauld 52 &anced greatfy
the e-rem nortwest prtiori of tile Valle Verde project were assign& b *e University of California Natural Lanci ad Water %+me or set. aside and protc
as a natural unique =ea.
.. ..
.. .. ...
.. .
. ..
I
.a
.*
, ”., . .’ . 0 .. 0
’ COMPREHENSIVE PLP,NNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION i
October 31,1974
12GO THIR[ SAN DIEGC
(714) 233-5
Mr. Don Agatep 2.f ‘.., Planning Director
City of Carlsbad ( 73” 1200 Elm Avenue
?,
Carlsbad, California 92008 *
Dear Don:
Since the adoption of the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Palomar Airport”, CPO has received
development proposals from the City of Carlsbad. In the judgment of CPO staff, neither propos; in conflict with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted plan, and therefore, is not SI
to ALUC review for the following reasons:
I[ ’
A.W. McReynolds Property, Case Number: SPL61 - Residential subdivision
outside of the Palomar Airport Influence Area.
Loker Property, Carlsbad Airport Business Center, Case Number CT74-21 -
a subdivision and general use category is compatible; however, the “Compre-
hensive Land Use Plan: Palomar Airport” places intensity and height
restrictions on the subject property. Airport Land Use Commission and
FAA review of the building permit stage is imperative.
Due to a reorganization of CPO staff, future Airport Land Use Commission referrals should be $e to Peggy Goldstein.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED r
NOV 5 1974
R) H:gi CITY OF CARLSBAD
cc: Don McClelland
Planning Department
Lomas Santa Fe Development Company
Solana Beach, CA 92075
P.O. Box A9 .. 7.
.. . I_ .,. ,I *. a 0
ATTACHMENT A
* November 12, 1974
TO : THE PLANNING COMMISSION (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)
FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT ISSUES OF OCTOBER 22, 1974
At the October 22, 1974 Planning Commission hearing, the subject applicatiol was continued so that the applicant could resolve differences with staff over several matters. The applicant has prepared the following comments based on the October 22 Staff Report. Staff has attempted to answer these point by point. ..
1. Location in Report:
I. REQUEST
Applicant's Statement:
This should be rewritten to relate only to the residential portion of the project.
Staff's Comment:
The Master Plan included the industrial area so that' the parcel could be looked at in an integrated manner, and the interrelation ship between the industrial and residential could be examined. Specific Plans will not be required for the industrial area, but Master Plan conditions related to grading, rezoning of open space and brush clearance all apply to the industrial area.
2. Location in Report:
Recommended Condition #l
Applicant's Statement:
The words 'concurrent with grading permits' should be added. I
this. Would that department normally be involved in fire protec. or grading supervision? It would seem to us the grading ordinant enforced by the City Engineer, would take care of the grading it and fire protection would be fairly straightforward. If grading required to provide fire protection, there might be coordination with the City Engineer. If the City Engineer uses the Parks 'and Recreation Department as an advisor, that is certainly their pre rogative, but it would seem a secondary relationship to us and w make it difficult for us to know who to coordinate with and who would have the prime responsibility for that coordination with u on the part of the City.
..
also question the need for the Parks and Recreation Department il
' ,. .,. ,I .. 0 0 2
Staff's Comments:
The City Council has stressed on several occasions, the need to utilize the Parks and Recreation Department's expertise in matter relating to landscaping and maintenance of planted areas. This department is uniquely qualified to supervise in conjunction with the Fire Department, the removal of dry vegetation and debris wit out sacrificing the aesthetic natural quality of the site.
3.
The intent of the condition is to provide for selective clearance of flammable materiais on the entire site prior to any intrusion of humans and machinery (and the concomitant increase in fire hazard.) This should occur prior to any grading atxi should not be construed to be the same as a grading operation which scrapes all vegetation. The City Engineer need not be involved in this matter.
The condition has been revised to clarify the intent.
Location in Report:
Page 2, Condition #2
Applicant's Statement:
On Page 2, Item 2 regarding the six-foot fence, reference is to t property boundary which was not the discussion we had earlier wi: the people from the University. In fact, the topography would nc easily permit the fence and the 15 foot fire break without terril adverse effects. I feel it is reasonable that the fence be insti prior to any work being done adjacent to the north property, howl development would most likely start in the valley and it seems pl mature to have to install a fence at that time, however, in my 01 this is not a major issue compared to the location.
Staff's Coment:
The fence condition emanated from the recommendation made by the
Counci 1 1 ast summer.
'Staff believes that the fence is necessary prior to any grading 1 building permits on any section of the site because of the threa posed by migrating animals, hi king residents, etc. Pressure on University property will increase with development on all portio
of the site.
The location of the fence is not critical; as long as it separat all development and human activity from the University's and. the Dawson's properties. The firebreak may be located on either sid
of the fence and incombustible Vegetation (ice plant, ivy, etc.) . may be planted in the break. For example, the fence might be pl along the ridgeline with the fire break placed on the north side and screening vegetation on the south.
University which was contained in the EIR certified by thecity
7..
.*I ,I 0 e- 3
*I
The condition has been rephrased to clarify this.
4. Location in Report:
Page 2, Condition #3
Applicant's Statement:
Regarding drainage, the basic drainage patterns are understood and approval is required by the City Engineer. We would be con- cerned about the City accepting the responsibility for any sub- stantial change in the drainage pattern and completely relieve us of any responsibility for the diversion of the natural drainagl courses. I think we can say, with our proposed plan, the slight
diversions, if any, would carry more water to the south than the natural ridge lines do now and therefore there would be less surface area affecting runoff to the north than the present, natural conditions. Also, all areas to be covered which would increase runoff because of roofing, streets, driveways, etc., would all carry to the south and if this could be interpreted in that light I think the condition is met.
Staff's Comment:
The condition refers only to drainage from development (generated
by the applicant) and not the natural runoff. The City Engineer will review in detail the drainage patterns as a part of any tentative map and specific plan. By the applicant's own admissic their proposed plan would be carrying more water to the south tha the present natural runoff. Detail for ensuring adequate drainag can be worked out with subsequent plans.
5. Location in Report:
Page 2 , Condition #5
Applicant's Statement:
Page 2 , Item 5 regarding pl ari;ting of a1 1 'graded areas is poorly worded, I think. I hope it relates only to slope areas and does not imply planting of pad areas where there would be no erosion and building would be in progress. I think the term 'natural pl( mater5als' would be better stated 'approved plant materials'. Here again, the Parks Director is involved as well as the City Engineer. The term 'prior to issuance of any permits' is difficl to understand when, in fact, you must get a grading permit to do the work to create the slopes which need to be planted. If the inference here is to the clearing of brush, it seems redundant with Item 1 , Page 1 under Recommendations.
.. - .. . .. * 0 4 ,, ..
Staff ' s Comments :
Staff's intent is to:
1 ) Have areas which are presently denuded and causing erosion problems on adjacent properties to be replanted with indigent:
materials prior to issuance of any permits. The City Engine€ and Parks Department can determine where this is necessary;
2) Have slope stabilization plantings made on slopes as a part of the grading permit process. (Note: The appl icant is
correct in saying that this is a normal condition of grading permits. 1
The wording "approved plant materials" is acceptable to Staff. I a number of recent projects, the applicant has reseeded denuded a
with native (indigenous) materials. The advantage of this is tha
1) It attempts to maintain the ecological balance between nativ plant and animal communities;
2) The native rnater'ials require less water;
3) The aesthetic character of the natural vegetation is maintai
Staff hopes that the applicant will reseed with native plants whe ever poss i bl e.
6, Location in Report:
Page 2, Condition #6
Applicant's Statement:
This relates to the open space zone. The wording here 'prior to consideration' bothers me., It was our understanding this would k initiated either by ourselves or by the City concurrently with t! processing of adjoining subdivision maps. If it has to be proce: prior, it means several months delay before tentative maps could filed. There is no quarrel with the granting of the open space i now 'that the ordinance exists. Earlier we had offered a buildin5 .forfeiture easement which would have accomplished the same thing but now the City ordinance would probably be a better vehicle, ai least in the eyes of the City.
Staff 's Comment:
It is staff's intent to present the rezone application for the 0 Space over the entire Valle Verde site on the night when a tenta subdivision map (a1 ready submitted) for Units C-1 and C-2 is" pre There should be no delay, providing the applicant provides legal descriptions of all green belts prior to the rezone hearing. Th wording "prior to consideration" will be changed to "concurrent ' consideration".
.I . I.
,I % ,. *. e e 5
7. Location in Report:
Page 2, Condition #7
Applicant's Statement:
This relates to granting of a 'pedestrian access easement' over the canyon floor, and is then somewhat specific in relation to the
final map over any of the residential portion. I would make the following comment. I have been concerned from the beginning about granting a public access easement that went nowhere, would be of no mutual benefit ta the property owners in the project and would
be their total responsibility and liabilit,y. I have also mentione concern about the location of such an easement in relation to the private open space and scheduling for the granting of such an ease ment. I am in full accord with the intent if several conditions can be met. (1 ) That the trail go somewhere beyond the property boundaries so there would be a mutual benefit. (2) That the tra- be located so that it can be maintained and properly controlled bj the'City. (3) That the City accept some responsibility for the maintenance and control of this pathway and relieve the property owners of *liability in regards to public use. (4) That it be for equestrian as well as pedestrian use. (5) That it not be tied tr
the 'valley floor' but simply stated to traverse through the va11 from east to west and (6) it should be tied to the development of the adjoining property. In my opinion, the only way the trail, i
some instances, can properly be created is when there is. developin activity and grading.
Staff's Comments
This matter has been discussed in some detail with the Parks and Recreation Department. As indicated in the staff report, a Park dedication is not desjred by the City for this project. If it WE a total of seven acres would be required for dedication.
The Preliminary Parks and Recreation Element shows an equestrian center to be located on the County-owned land to the west of the site. Preliminary discussion with County authoriti.es regarding 1 possibility of this use have been met with favor. This could prc
"Pl' areas. It also mentions recordation of this with the first
.the- trail system link to which the applicant refers,
.. Regarding the trail system, Staff recommends that the following 1 required:
1. That a looped trail system through the valley shown between B-7 and B-2, and also B-4 and B-5, be provided. The exact location of the trail would be determined by the Parks and Recreation Director. *
2. That the applicant be responsible for construction of the t and physical improvement. (Note: This would apply to the credit for park-in-lieu fees.)
b ..
,I . ,. *. 0 0- 6
3. That the trail would be for equestrian and pedestrian.
4. That the City would be responsible for normal maintenance and 1 iabi 1 i ty.
5. That the easement be offered to the City with the fi,rst fina
map adjacent to the east-west green belt.
8. Location in Report:
Page 3, Item. "D" - Density
Applicant's Statement:
There is an error which was picked up under Item D. Density.
that somewhere there is a definition of 'net acres'. It is very important in this context delineated this way. The net density indicated on the Master Plan, by request of the Staff, is the tot acres less the roads only.
Staff Is Comments :
Net acres should be defined according to the Planned Community Zo definition and Land Use Element definition.
8-3 shodld have shown 4-10 to the acre. I think it is also impor
The density error on B-3 is acknowledged.
9. Location in Report:
Page 3, Item "F" - Population
Applicant's Statement:
I think the factor of 2.8 is high but we would not make an issue that. For this project, the factor should be more like 2.4.
Staff's Comment:
No Comment. .-
10. Location in Report:
Page 4, Item "J" - General Plan
Applicant's Statement:
General Plan, the second paragraph relates to two commercial'sitc This has never been the intent. The descriptions call out a recr complex and a neighborhood commercial site..
Staff's Comment:
Ac know1 edged.
..
,1 * *. e 0 7
' 17. Location in Report:
Page 4, Item 'IK" - Parks Ordinance
- Appl icant ' s Statement:
I feel that 25% credit for this much open space and private park concept is subjective on both sides and we won't challenge it.
Staff's Comment:
No Comment.
12. Location in Report:
Page 4, Item "L" - Schools
Applicant's Statement:
The narrative is fine but the last part of the paragraph on Page however, relates to the letter from the School District. This im that an agreement will be secured. We feel we have already enter into an agreement with the School District which will be implemen at the building permit stage. That is not what this statement sa, nor what the letter from the School District says.
Staff 's Comment
See attached School Letter.
13. Location in Report:
Page 5 - Relationship of Surrounding Uses
Applicant's Statement:
1. The second paragraph makes reference to the Dawson Ranch bei added to the University Reserve. I don't believe that to be true. There may be portions of her ranch which she is consi donating to the University, however, it is rather presumptio on the part of the City, in my opinion, to make this kind of statement.
In next to the last paragraph I would raise the question aga of the open space zone 'concurrent or prior to any specific plan approvals I .
There is an error in the last paragraph. It should read 1.9 rather than 1.0. Also in that paragraph, there is a mis-sta ment of what the plan and the applicati.on say. It specjfica indicates A-2 as a single family detached development. A-1
A-2 are called out for single family detached and/or attache units. When we get into a precise plan for that area I do n want to lose that flexibility of design.
I
.-
6 .. 0 a 8 *.
2. Page 6 relates t3 Falomar Air ort. In the second paragraph a statement I don '+ e leve IS true in regards to runway sepi tion and possible effect on land use decisions concerning un in the valley floor. It also says that both the City and th Airport Land Use Commission would have to approve the height and concentration of structures as may relate to airport cra
and noise hazards. I don't believe the Airport Land Use Corn would have any concern whatsoever of height in the valley fl, The concentration is well within the guidelines of the CPO S which is the basis of their review. In regards to the City, is their prerogative to review densities. The height would controlled by ordinance. There is nothing in the valley tha any way, in our opinion, will be affected by the second runw based on all the p7ans we have seen on the CPC studies, Coun Airport Department of FAA maps. The last sentence in the se paragraph is totally unacceptable and should be removed.
Staff ' s Comments :
1. Mrs. Dawson has indicated that the University is in the proc
of surveying a portion of her land, and that all of her pro! will eventually be donated to the University upon her death, or possibly before. This, of course, is something over whic the City has no control.
In the next to last paragraph, the wording "concurrent with or prior to any specific plan approvals" is acceptable.
. The comments regarding the error in density and housing typc is ac know1 edged.
2. There are a number of uncertainties related to future airpor expansion. The City and the Airport Land Use Commission wi- have to review all plans within the airport influence area - relation to the recommendations of the study (including hei< of structures, soundproofing measures, densities, etc.) St; intent, in suggesting that development in the valley area bf deferred, was that the applicant could justify airport comp; at such time that airport expansion plans are finalized.
14. Location in Report:
.. Page 6, "Bl' - Services
Applicant's Statement:
B. Services: The third sentence makes no sense to me. It says 'consequently it is about 2-1/2 to 3 miles from normal levels of City service'. The response time for fire protec from La Costa is less than four minutes we're told, as well police coverage from the La Costa area. There is no refere under that heading to other utilities so I assume it is re1 only to pol ice and fire.
1. Sewer: The whole sewer issue has been discussed and I it was adequately covered in the review by Lyle Gabrie
-.. , <. e e- 9
, w!4h tL !!ty Staf-F, however, l't would seem appropriate
that there be some mention of the defined area these cay rights apply to and that this property is within that ar
I have no problems with Water and Circulation.
Staff's Comment:
The efficiency and economy of extending services is a critic; aspect of this project. This project's nearest residential neighbor is La Costa, some three miles to the South. Travel time for normal police patrol will be considerably increased. Fire response time is more likely to be around five minutes, which is still within reasonable response time limits.
15. Location in Report:
Page 7, Item C - Major Planning Consideration
Applicant's Statement:
I think the first paragraph is apparent without being stated; the project can only be developed if there are services avail
The next paragraph is very discouraging. After going through all this Master Planning to the degree we have with a grading
study of the whole project to give the concepts of open space and minimized grading, I would hope that at this Master Plan stage we would have some response from the Staff, at least in general, that it appears the concepts proposed in the develop ment do, in fact, attempt to minimize grading and fit the ter I believe that to be the case and felt that was the interpret the Staff had from review of the plans which have been submit This constant hedging on the part of the Staff is very dis-
considered on a specific plan basis later. I would think it would be only fair, with the amount of review by the Staff, the impression we have gotten from those reviews and the amou of detail which has gone into the Master Plan, that there be some recognition on the Staff's part that the plan does seem to fit the ground and that they see no major problem in proce specific plans within the guidelines of the Master Plan to ob the densities called out. If that isn't done, I question the value of the whole Master Plan procedure and, in fact, the PC zoning ordinance.
couraging and yet I understand all of these things must be
Staff's Comment:
More than a third of the site has slopes in excess of 15%. The applicant shows development of over 5 du/acre in areas wh have some slopes in excess of 25%. It is important to be rem
sensitive areas, and optimum utilization of open space must b considered with future Specific Plans. Staff , of course, is giving tacit acceptance of the Master Plan concept through it recommendation of approval.
that density compatibility with slopes and environmentally
9 1. .
I- li
II
.. ....
1 *.- -. ~.
I. '. ',\' -
II
..... ....... .* ' "
.._
1
2
'3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
3.3
3.4
15
3.6
. 3.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
PLANNING CONMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1110
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOM OF THE CI1
PLAN TO ALLOW PLANNED INDUSTRIAL, DEVELOPMENT ON
DEVELOPMENT ON 410 ACRES, LOCATEID 1/2 MILE EAST
AIRPORT ROAD.
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE MASTER
APPROXIMATELY 187 ACRES AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
OF EL CAMIMO REAL ON THE NORTH SNIDE OF PALOMAR
APPLICANT: LOMAS SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT CQRP. St NO. HP-153
WHEREAS, a verifed application for a certain propert; -\
wit:
That portion of L0t.B or.Rho Agua Hedionda in the Ci. of Carlsbad according to Map thereof No. 823 filed. il County of San Diego, State of California, described i Po1 1 ows:
Commencing at "Point 15" of said LQt B as designated said Map No. 823; thence along the Easterly boundary said bot Y%", South 3 05'08" east a distance of 4108 feet t~ point I'A'', thence conttn~fng along said east( boundary, south 3 05*08" east a diitance of 5511.59 . point %n the arc sf a nsntangent 1230.QO feet radius curve9 concave southerly, a r"ndia7 tc! said psfnt $ea1 worth 2 QOB16" west; thence leaving said easterly bo1 of lot 13, continuing westerly along the arc of said ( through a central angle of 12 51 '07" a distance of 2: thence south 79 09'09" west a distancie of &03,98 fee. the beginning of a tangent 2970.00 feet radius curve northerly; thence westerly along the arc of said cur1 through a central angle sf 26 56'49" a distance of 1: feet; thence north 73,. 54'02'' west a' diistance sf 453.r
feet to the beginns'ng Q$ a tangent 3C130.00 feeot rad, curve concave southerly; thence westerly aTQng the a1
said euwe tk~iugk a central angle a+? 21 31 120" a cti: of 1138.117 feet; thence south 84 34'38'' west a distal of 578.90 feet; thence north 3 05'08'F west a distancc 5563.11 feet; thence south 89 54'00" east a distance 4598.59 feet to the point of commencement,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad amd referred to
planning Commission; and
I i WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a req i as provided by Title 21 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code";
~
~ WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and
plxe specified in said notice on October 22, 1974 and co
to November 12; 1974; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with. the Public
Policy of the City of Carlsbad and has provided the neces
~ information which insures Public: Facilities will be avail'
~ I
.. _. II ........ "" .- .... - . " ......... - ... .."__ .. ... .-.-. ................. ___.."..
T I ....,." L
.L /I. - . " * Q . . . . , . . . . .
e.
1 current with need; and
2 NHEREAS, the subject application has complied with ti
'3
Ordinance of 1972"; and 4
requirements of the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protei
5 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and co
6
desfred to be heard, said Commission conslidered all facto] 7
jng the testimony and arguments, ?'f anys af a11 persons w
8
9
10
11
22
13
x4
relating to the Master Plan and found the following facts
reasons to exist:
1) The Master Plan meets the requirements of the ac General P1 an *
2) The Master Plan meets the requtrements and intel the Planned Community and Planned Industrial ZOI Ordinances,
j I 3) The Master Plan meets all applicable Cfty poiici $nclasding the Public Factllties Policy.
$5 4) ~t~e Master an rneeis a? I requirements of CEQA a
$6 the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance, The mitigations proposed in the Certified EIR ar as a part of thfs Master P1an.are adequzte in min-imfzing adverse impacts. 17 I 3.8 NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the, Planning CQMIII~~
l9 the Cfty of Carlsbad, Cali.farnja, as follaws: That a Mast
20 11 3s approved for use sf said property to a~"taw a planned in
21
development an $10 acres at, an average density of 3.66 dwe 22
development on approximately 187 acres and a planned resid
23
approximate9y l/2 mile east of El Camino Real on the north 24
units net acreo The property is zoned P-C. and P-M and is
25 11 Palomar Airport Road; and is slabQect t~ the fo'llawjng cond
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1) Master Plan approval is granted for land describ the application and any attachments thereto, and shown on the Plot Plan (Exhibit D, dated 10-22-7 descriptive text (labeled Exhibit F) and slope a (labeled Exhibit E, and dated 10-22-74). The lo of.all proposed developmental units, roadways, ,o space and other features shall be substantially same as the Plot Plan and Text labelled Exhibits
2) In order to reduce fire hazard, the applixant sh agree to selectively clear underbrush and debris open space areas prior to issuance of any buiidi grading permits. This brush and debris clearanc
-2-
I! . *.
_." . .. . ~. " ". . . , -. --- - . . - ." . .
. .-. ". - .
.. -* - - .-. . . . . . . .. . "" , ._ . . ..- Q .-
.. . .- . " . -. . - . . . , .
,D
3
2
'3
be an on-going activity and sha'll be done under guidance of the Parks and Recreation Department Fire Department. This activity should not be c to be total brush removal norma'ily associated w grading activities.
4
5
6
7
'8
9.
10
fl
12
13
$4
$5
16
19
' 18
a9
20
22.
22
3) The applicant shall erect a six-foot chain link topped with three strands of barbed wire which separate the subject residential development an University of California and Dawson. properties the property line in Parcel A-2 and (b) below a of the rear- of the developm6n-t pad within Parce The barbed wlre shall be angled toward the Val1 property. A 15 foot wide fire break shall bbrd length of the fence. This shall be done prior issuance of any residential building permits or to any residential area grading.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4) The applicant shall design all development aion
northern property boundary to drain to the sout
5) The project sha99 be generally phased as fo'l'low
AREA 1975 1976 1977 ,1978 1979 1980 1987
AI 58 IQQ 66 - .m - I* A% - - 34 50 - -
51 30 101% 3% - - - .. B2 ?I
B3 0 - - - . 54 I B4 - L 74 IO8 '180 loo 85 - - 0 39 'i50 -
I36 64 B7 30 180 IO0 50 - - I
-
- 0 0' - - - .. - - - 0 .7. - -, -
TOTAL 110 300 312 239 2EO I54 I35
61, A91 denuded-natural or constructed slope areas be planted with natural- plant materials in orde reduce ercas1~l.n~' This sha.11 be done in a manner satisfactory to the Parks Director and City Eng p~isr to the issuance of any permits by the C:t also after any. grading activities.
7) All areas indicated on the Master Plan as green existing trees and pond shall be rezoned to Ope' (04) zone prior to or concurrent with consider, of any Specific Plan or Tentative Subdivision M8
in the project boundaries.
8) The applicant shall offer to the City an .15 foo open space easement for pedestrian, equestrian bicycle purposes. The easement shall transversi east-west valley (shown on the Master as "green existing trees, and existing pond ''between unit and 8-2 and also B-4 and 8-5) and shall be Ioca
sized according to the specifications outlined , Parks and Recreation Director at the time of Spl Plan/Tentative Map application. The applicant 1 responsible for improving the easement to City and the City will be responsible for normal mai and liability. The easement shall be offered tl City concurrent with the first final. map adjacei any portion of the east-west valley described a
-3-
II .. ... . . - ."" . . . . . . .
. ."
w a . __ .., .. -Q . . . .. -. ... .. - ".""
1.
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
$5
16
17
98
19
20
21
9.) The applicant, prior to consideration of any Sp Plan applications, shall prepare a water master which is acceptable to the Carlsbad Municipal W District and also.to the .City Fire Department.
10) Approval of this Master Plan indicates an accep of the City Council of a general scheme of deve for the property. It is part of an on-going pl process and is subject to amendment in'the futu
Approval of the plan does not constitute any gUi that fndivfdual Specific Plans will be subsequel approved, nor that the availability of public fi and services will ,necessarily coincide with the developer's time table for construction. Availl of public services will be evaluated in the con. Specific Plan appro.vals.
Specific Plans will be evaluated in accordance 1 Municipal Ordinances in force ai; the time when Specific Plans are before the Ciity Council for l Approval and"cons%ruction of a Specific Plan sh, vest any rights in the balance of the blaster P1, create any vested rights to the approval of any subsequent Specific Plans.
11) The developer shall comply wfth the City of Car Master Brafnage Plan and related drainage irnprs.
12) The develspment is' presently kfthin the sewer 'sr
area sf the City of Carlsbad. Sewer facs"Itties
(foe., City Master Plan sized gravity ~a5ns. and, sewage pump stations), will be required its apprc by the City Enginee~~
9 3) The appl icarst. shall enter into- CS. secured itgree~~ the c8hstruction of full ha1 f street improvement Palomar Airport Road between the westerly and th easterly limits of the development along the ent precise-alignment as adopted prior to completior first phase of development, (63' half-section ri
22
23
24
35
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
11 way 1
14) Arehaeslsglcal sites #2, #$ and f3 shall. be ~ap~ excavatedg and/or have surface collections made according to specifications contained in the Cer E.I.R. prior to any Specific Plan consideration.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADQPTEB at a regu?ar meetfng af
City of Carlsbad Plann-ing Commission held on November 12,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Commissioners Watson, Fikes, Jose, Casler
NOES: .Commissioner Wrench
ABSENT: Commissioner Dominquez
ABSTAIN: None
. . . . ~..
-4-
~ . ". - ...-. . . ~ ... . .. ." -. . ". .
.* *. ........
....
........ . ."." "... .... ..... ...... . .--- ah ". - . . q '..
- -
....... .. .............
Mary Casll er, C.hairman
ATTEST:
9,
Donald A. Agatep,.Secretary
-5-
......... .. ........... .. . ". -_
..
I. @ 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City 1 Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chamber 1200 Elm Avenue, at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, Decembe,r 3, 1974, to consider a Master Plan, Case No. MP-153, to allow planned indus development on approximately 187 acres and planned residential development on 410 acres at an average density lof 3.66 dwelling units per net acre, on property generally locatled approximately
one-half mile east of El Camino Real on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, more particularly described as:
All that portion of Lot B of Rancho Agua Cledionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823, on file in the office of said County Recorder of Said County.
Said application being submitted by VALLE VERDE (Donald P
Publish: November 21, 1974 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
1,
.. e '. e ..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambel
1200 Elm Avenue, at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 3, 1974, to consider a Master Plan, Case No. MP-153, to aflow planned jndui
development on approximately 187 acres and planned residential
development on 470 acres at an average dens; ty of 3.66 dwelt-in! units per net acre, on property generally located approximatelg one-half mile east of El Camino Real on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, more particularly described as:
All that portion of Lot 3 of Rancho Agua tledionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823, on file in the office of said County Recorder of Said County.
Said application being submitted by VALLE VERDE (Donald F
Publish: November 21, 1974 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
t 1 r_
2 t'
+ b b
.I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC- HEARING
RE: CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER PLAN
..
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 22, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. i ' Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad to conside a Master Plan Request to allow planned industria n approximately 187 acres and planned residential development on 410 acres at an
yer?erally located approximately 1/2 mile east of El Camino Real on the north side of Palomar Airport Road: more particularly described as:
average density of 3.66 dwelling units per net acre, on property
All that portion of Lot B of Rancho Aqua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 823, on file in the office of said County Recorder of said County.
Applicant: Valle Verde (Donald P. Loker)
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the pub1 ic hearing.
Published: October 10, 1974 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
c
.
..
..
1 , a. b b
'I..
. , "_,, ~ ,:~ .. ~~~.~,'~.~~~~~.~i~.~~~~~~~~:~ -%b"<.ec, n ,.~~.~~~.~:~~~,!,!~~~.~ .;;::,;;y
SCzILL: //I =.&7Q'
- . I"_ ~."~ .. -. , : *'''$.+.,.~ 'ir \ :<'$:j.;T. !',.., .- y:;;;:p ... ..- ?>,:
a -. .. ,K.. :, ..., I . .-; . ." ,_ . . ~- .% ,..*<- ... : ,;:.; r , ..-., . .<.i..t-"
..
300 FOOT RADIUS PROPERTY OWNER Lt.ST
OWNER PARCEL NUMBER
1 0. NORTH COUNTY I N\!ESTMENTS 209-05-01, 02 2086 COLETA COURT
CARLSBAD, CALI FORN I A
'9 iL<& 2 ,tc <. t- :r_ eG, 2. IDA,*DAWSON 169-23-03, 07, 08,
, RHO AGUA HED 10l,IDA Y LOS MONOS
\I 1-STA, .CALI FCR1.I t Di ..
3. . THIBODO RAQKHO PARTNERSH I P . . . '21.9-0'1 -1 0 530 IIB" STREET; SUITE 2330 221 q-28, 29 SAN D I EGO, CALI FORN I A
4. CARR I LLO RAb2CHO PARTNERSH I P 2.13-03-08, 09
. ' 2330 Ft RST NATIONAL BANK SUlLDING SAN -0 i EGO, CAL I FORN 1 A
5. MARY E. BRESS'I ' 22 3-03-1 0 6670 EL CUP41 NO REOL CARLSBAD, CAL i FORN I A
&!&, aDLd& ,&,*e L. ; GL@A ~~~C i,L (. .. c.A+L.+ fLX .cir$;- I j'
J&&~LCt" ? &,J . j'. .:.(A. P-C c... : /A c i
Fc3. Jb-z" !DL/
-?& q.;"C.(cL. e-A cj -&PJ z,? p7A pjioJEcr yAkkE- !/i?&?d
.' ('A c4s'ER) /I {" .. \;2, :. ! P--\.:. C"L / ...., ?, -;; &L.!t QL./
ii r.l . :: 1:: t
/@J& p&.At- 3 Q 0: t ;3L_ 5&~"J~",,t...&~l LC&& 7 go \&l 1 i c.r(!l.44nJ
l/o,'". e.#&!
d
&.e;&/&/# ccln 4- :
42":7 a,.("tf / by&kF2/
a 23 73 &&Rae2-e #d I - PC\ . 72059 Oa5rT-a ddq , I
:I 7@" I - -@ b
CITY OF CAFLSBAD
. - APPL1CATIO;j FOR ADOPTION OF
SPECIFIC o-R?T6rR PLAN
DATE: 11/29/73 ' SPECIFIC PLAN k. -
FILING FEE RECEIPT NO. 7~05 MASTER PLAN NO. \5 7-
"%----%-a x x X x X' x x x x x x x X x
I. A REQUEST IS HEREBY MADE TO ADOPT A. Master Plan '
(Specific or Master Plan)
FOR PROPERTY DESCRIGED AS: (exact leghl descripti,on)
(See attached)
-
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS ADDRESSED AS Valle Verde
AND IS LOCATED ON THE North'. ..
(North, South, East, N
SIDE OF Palomar Airport Road BETIEEN El Camino Real A (Name of Street) (Name of .Street)
.. Rancho Santa Fe Drive " (Name of Street I----"-
11. I The undersigned state that I am __ ( I, we) ( I AM, \E AI
the owner of the property described herein and hereby .mwners)
give my authorization to the filing of this applicat (My, Our)
Name : Donald P. Lokx
Signature: f3, ,/ s4"--~ I ..
(Typed or Pr 'nted on Recorded Deed) H;p&
Name : - ( Typed or Printed as shown on Recorded Deed)
Signature:
Name :
TTyped or Frinteh as shown on Recorded Deed)
si gna'ture : .
Narntl : """"" .Ty;,trd or Printed as s hovE%nP.ecord>d<ed)-'-
Si gena t UY'C! : -.
+
/- . *" ,<'
, -' Spkific/Master Plan Arnlbtion .. "
I
'b Pag
III. EXISTING ZONE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY R-A-10 &$~-1=8
HAS A MASTER PLAN 5iEN APPROVED? Yes. . (No,)
DATE,:
..
OWNER AND/OR O!dNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT
AFFIDAVIT -
STATE OF CALI FO!I[;IIA)
.COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) SS CITY OF 1
I, (we), Donald P. Loker being duly sworn depose and
declare to the best of MY knowledge that the foregoi'ng is true
and correct under the penalty of purjury:
EXECUTED AT OCEA~ISI DE C4L/F*RMfk
(name )
(my, our ) ,
(City) (State)
DATE DEWrn'B€Je 3 19 73
(Nonth) (Day 1 (Year)
APPLICANT, O\L!NER AND/OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Donald P. Loker fl3"~ ,& p8id.r
(Signature)
2373 Woodacre Drive (14ai 1 ing Address)
californi; -rC'ity and State) 92054
( 714 1 757- 305f -(Area Code) ( 1 el ephone I -
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 3hL DAY OF &&
-="--="%."-A"
<;;:?!.-I.',* -...._ ::<ErIL # /6::;:&\ E!',!"/13 i.* f;,yJQ.q!J 8, 2
\>,:?:! >,..:. 13 . 4::'",::. :;? ,.., _._. , , , ~, . 2L.f .' , A.dd* .*: t ,..; i.. .~..~..;F~~~>IIA t E' '' -W"-fi""-&"XC" z ,! ;: . jll ..'/
. t;y Coxxis:iIil Er; i.1~ ;:I/ 12, 1475
/ +> I. $ ~i<;y::-fi!. ',;;;(\: ;?I
"2. <..,.. , .._ , : .: .- .:- 2.. ;:'J ::: iy
..
.
.
e c-
,. -4 * ,e
..
""1""- MEMORANDUM
TO : PLANtIING DEPART/-iENT STAFF
-. I"R014: PLANt:IPE DIRECTOR . .
*
SUBJECT: REQUI!?E!*'iEiITS. FOR -.- SUBI.IITTAL C)F NE\#/ APP[-JC/l,TIONs .
In an effort to allev-iatt Some of the time spent by S-taff in the
processing procedure for new applications presented to the Planning Depart
it is requested that the b.elow requirements be presented to each individua
developer, at the time of their pre-fil ing meeting with Staff.
!to application trill be accepted unless these items have been compl
1.. All OF the ?8 copies of the map presented to the
Planning Departn:ent, must be individually folded
. lo a Size not to exceed 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches.
'The overall size of the sepia and 28 copies of the
map (before folded) should not exceed 24 inches by
-* 36 inches. . i .. .
2. For each proposal submitted, there' must be a'colored
up copy of ,the map to be used as an exhibit when bei
.. pr,esented to the Planning Conmission and/or City cou
These cdlored-up maps should be approximatejy .- 24" X 3
in size. -9- .
5
%L"x@.P~aj bOli/\fib A. AGATli{),
P~.anning Director
.. I
..
I . "
r. @ t& .
SPECIFIC/MASTER PLAN APPLICATIOM
EXH I BIT "A" -
7. FILING FEES: $100.00 plus $2.00 for each dwelling unit.
2. THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE FORt4ALL1' FILED ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF
3. THE PUBLIC tIECtRIMG AT THE PLAF!I\IING COMMISSION LEVEL UILL EE. HELD
4. IN ADDITION TO HAVING THIS APPLICATION COMPLETELY FILLED OUT, THE
THE MONTH.
ON THE SECOND TUESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING BONTH.
FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE ATTACHED: .
. .. )',.. . . . . . , , . , - , .. . \ ,. ... ' . ..;. ,
..
A. " SPECIFIC PLAN prepared in accordance with Chapter 21,38.060 of the
Carl shad Municipal Code. (28 copies & 1 sepi.a] -
3. 300 FOOT RADIUS NAP - A map to scale not less than 1"=200' showing
each lot witki.n 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject
property, the zone classification of each withi,n 300 feet of the
.. exterior boundaries of the. subject property, and each lot within
300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property shall be
consecutively numbered to correspond with the property owners' 1 ist.
a.
c, PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST - A typewritten 1 i st showing the number of each
lot from item 2 above, followed by the owner's name and address. In
addition,. the applicant must file an affidavit that it is an accurate
list taken from the latest equalized assessment roll on file in the
office of the Assessor of San Diego County, 855 Williamston Street,
Vista, California. (phone: (714) 724-8571). r
~-Jik.kR55J1JI*.jC***--**-*-X.***
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED: FORMAL FIiING DATE:
. - - . -_ ".."
APPROVED FOR..FILING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY:
(Planning Dcpartrncnt)~
-.? . CJ ?t@
. I) December 12, 19;
'.e. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ZONE CHANGE e( SPECIFIC PLAN
*
I,
PROCESSING PROCEDURE ' *******************
PRE-FILING MEETIlIG f Applicant, Plng & Engr. eta1 EIA short 'form to be filed.
2-5 days in. kpt. notify plicant re. EIA quirements (if any)
I 1
t i I
11. * 1 st Monday of Month = Day X. FORMAL FILING OF APPLICATION * . A. Appl-ication complete B. EIS as required.
J I
1st Tues. after Day X.
r I- 1 Send Material to Review Comm,,
to include Coast Zone Reg. Corn Response req. by 3rd Mon. afte
'Ist'Thur. after bay X. , I
' I Pln. Dept. notify Staff of pent applications. I 1 4th Thur. after Day X.
.. -Pyeliminary report to the Revic Comm (appl i cant present) EIA to be included. I _. '13 .days.prior- to :PC I Ffieeting (mi
Publish ii mail to property ownc
4 in 300' radius (10 days prior 1 Public Hearing Minimum Eeq.)
Notification
t 1
1st Fri. prior to I meeiinj.
t i r"-i Pln. Dept. mail Final Report tc Planning Cominission & Applicant (to include EIS).
I 2nd Tuesday of Fol 1 owl ng month.
1 -
111*1
PUBLIC HEARING ( Planning Commission)
A. their findings shall be by Resolution
L
C-L?.
7 .days max.
1. TRANSt4IT RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL
I i .
IV* i 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS (City Counci 1 ) A. thi's public hearing shall be he1 d within 30 days after rcce>pt of thc P.C.Rcs. -
* I V, NOTIFICA'T'IO!I 01: i:T.SUl.'iS: City t~;ll notify the ~~pplic~ttlL wi Lhin 7 ci;t,ys aftclr tllcir firldingr. of fact.
L
That portion of Lot B or Rho Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad according to
Map thereof No. 823 filed in the Office of the County Recorder in the County o
San Diego f State of California , described as follows:
Commencing at "Point 15" of said Lot .'B" f as designated on said Map No. 822 thence along the Easterly boundary of said Lot "B" , South 3 "05'08" East a dis-
tance of 4108.96 feet to point "A", ; thence continuing
along said Easterly boundary, South 3°05'08*' East a distance of 1511.59 to a
point in the arc of a nontangent 1230 .OO feet radius curve, concave Southerly,
L.. .. a radial to said point bears North 2"00'16" West; thence leaving said Easterly
boundary of Lot B, continuing Westerly along the arc of said curve through a
a distance of 803.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent 2970 .OO feet radius CUI
"..". - central angle of 12"51'07" a distande of 275.90; thence South 79'09'09" West
! concave Northerly; thence Westerly along the arc of said curve through a centr i angle of 26'56'49" a distance of 1377.03 feet; thence North'73"54'02" West a distance of 453 .OO feet to the beginning of a tangent 3030 .OO foot radius curvc
concave Southerly: thence Westerly along the arc of said curve trl17ugh a cent1
angle of 21'31'20" a distance of 1138.17 feet; thence South 84"34'38"\Vest a
distance of 578.90 feet; thence North 3 "05'08" West a distance of 5563.11
feet; thence South 89"54'00" East a distance of 4590.59 feet to the Point of
Commencenent .
..
\
c
I
COMPANY DESCRIPTION REVISIONS
TITLE CO.
ORDERNO. REFERENCE BY DATE DATE
".-_ ",_,_ ___ """".... """ _.-...." - """.""... -.-.. -- ..-..- -."" ?."."""
TTyped Or Frinteb as shown on Recorded Deed) -
signature:
""
Name : ~-7J"-"--"--
7 1 or Printed as shmyon Rec%i%n6F-
Si-gnaturc: -. -
- . - .. .~ . .""-".-.,"
I I 'I 18 I I I1