HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-12-17; City Council; 3255; Request Approval Tentative Subdivision Map CT 74-21 Donald Loker Lomas Santa Fe Development Corpfa Bill ~o.33gg w c . * t'
:red To:
?ct: Reauest for aDDroval of a tentative subdivision -~ ~ Submitted By:
Map CT 74-21
Applicant Donald Loker (Lomas Santa Fe Development Cnrp? kA \
., Planning C .mm. q
\4 UdT \J Sment of the Matter: The Planning Commis,sion at it's November 26, 1974 1
meeting heard an application for a tentative subdivision Map CT 74-21 which would permit the development of approximately 187 acres for. industrial-business park purposes. The proposed subdivision (CT 74-21) is the 1st phase development for the Loker (Valle Verde) property located. north of Palomar Airport Rd, easterly of El Camino Real.
The Planning Comrnission in recommending approval of the proposed subdivision,'had substantial discussion on the circulation system. The circulation represented on Exhibit B dated 11-12-74 is the circulation recommended by the Commission.
The applicant has met all requirements of the City of Carlsbad, includ- ing Public Facilities.
.. ..
>it: -
Staff Report to Planning Commission dated Nov. 26, 1974.
Planning Commi ssion Resol uti.on 11 19 ,.
C Recommendations to City Manager: Staff recommends that the City
Council approve the tentative subdivisicn map CT ,74-21 fqr reasons and subject to conditlons outlined in Planning Commission Resolution
recommendation, the matter should be returned to the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents.
' 1119. If the council concurs with the Planning Commission
4,
~ -~~ ~.~ .~~
.. 0 e
AB NO. Date: December 17,
City Manager's Recommendation '
Concur with staff recommendation
.. . . ,.
Council .Action
12-17-74 Approval was given the tentative map for Carlsbad Trac
74-21 for reasons.and subject to conditions. outlined i Planning Commission Resolution No. 1119, and the staff was instructed to prepare the document .necessary indic approval.
-2-
!I e e.
CITY OF CARLSBAD' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
November 26, 1974
TO : THE PLANNING CO!4!IISSION
FROM : THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT -. .\. '..
WORT ON: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CT 74-21
APPLICANT: DONALD R. LOKER By: LOMAS SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION P. 0. BOX AG SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
. . I. REQUEST: The applicant is .requesting approval of a 38-lot tentative subdivision map for 187 acres of' property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road approximately 1/2- mile east of El Camino Real. The property is zoned P-E! and is legally described as follows:
All that portion of Lot B of Rancho Agua Hedionda
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State ' of %a1 ifornia, according to Map thereof No. 823, on file in the office of the San Diego County Recorder and further described on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department.
11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of CT 74-21 based on the following justification:
1. The project meets a1 1 Carlsbad Ordinance and Policy requirements.
2.. .The project meets all requirements .of the Subdivision
3. The project conforms to the Carlsbad General Plan.
Map Act.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Final Map shall be submitted for approval within one year from the final action by the City Council on the Tentative . Subdivision' Map. The Final Map shall be in substantial con- formance of the Tentative Subdivision Map known as Exhibit B, dated 11/12/74. t
.*
a - 2- e
2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations and - restrictions of all municipal ordinance and State and Federal statutes now in force, or which, hereafter, may be in force for the purpose of preserving the residential characteristics of adjacent properties.
3. All pub1 ic improvments shall be made in conformity to the City
of Car'lsbad Engineering Design Criteria and Standard Plan, the
Subdivision Ordinance and other City Standards; to the satisfacti of the City Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad, and free of all 1 iens ant; >ncumbrances. Improvement pl~s for water and sewer systems shall meet. the requirements of the respective service districts.
4. All land and/or easements required by this Ordinance shall be
' granted to the City of Carlsbad without cost to the City and frec of all 1 iens and encumbrances, No easements shall be recorded pr to approval of the Final Map unless approved by the City Engineer
5. All utilities shall be placed underground and/or shall be complet
..
conceal ed from vi ew.
6. Ornamental street lighting shall be provided for as required by
cash in th2 amount necessary to energize said street lights for an eighteen month period after construction, to permit the incorp tion'of the subdivision into a maintenance district. This shall be done prior to approval of Final Map.
. Municipal Ordinance Code. The developer shall post a bond and/or
7. The improvement plans shall include a report of a geological investigation and a complete grading of the entire site when required by the City Engineer. The report and plan shall be prepared by Civil Engineers licensed by the State of California, and experienced in erosion control. Said Engineer shall certify sthat they have investigated the site and prepared data with full consideration of the consequences to the included and neighboring properties.
8. A17 slopes created as a result of this development shall not excec a 2:l slope.
9. Ingress and egress along the property line bordering public stree. right of way for a17 lots shall be dedicated, except at locations as specified by the City Engineer. Dedication shall be made priov to approval of Final Map.
10. Street trees, when required by the City, shall be installed by the applicant at his expense. Trees shallcbe of a type approved by . the Parks Department and shall be' installed to their specificatior If removal of any existing trees is required by the City, said removal shall be at the applicant's expense. It shall be the
e -3- 0
responsibility of the applicant -to make all arrangements with the Parks Department concerning the requirements of this conditio These arrangements are to be made prior to approval of the Final
- Map.
11. Street names shall be subject to approval rand shall he designated in accordance with the standards and policies adopted by the Planning Commission on file in the Planning Department. Said names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to approva of the Final Map.
72. The C.C. & R's for this development shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for rview and approval prior to the approval of Final Map.
13. Lot 35, because of its unusual configuration, is unacceptable and shall be eliminated. A new lot design for Unit 2 shall be sub-
. mitted to the Planning Director for approval prior to Final Map approval by the City Council. -
14. 'The developer shall work with the Carlsbad Municipal Water Distril and the City Fire Department in preparing a water master plan for .the project. Minimum flow for fire and domestic purposes shall be 6000 gallons per minute.
15. The applicar,t shall grant to the City a lo! wide Open Space
_. Easement for pedestrian and bicycle purposes adjacent to the future "C" Street, which is within the project boundaries. The applicant shall improve the easement with asphaltic concrete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. The applicant shall submit a revised 'tentative map to the City
Engineer which shall show the following:
a) Interior Lot slope; b) Correct slopes and/or day1 ight 1 ines at rear of Lots 1, 2,
* 26, 27, 28 and 29.
C) Footage of offsite sewer d) Grading of future "C" Street from Palomar Airport Road to a reasonable distance beyond the property boundary.
e) AC Pavement and Base on typical street sections.
17. Access rights shall be dedicated where lots border Palomar Airporl Road and future "C" Street, except at uti1 i ty easement access points.
78. A future "C" Street Grade, from Palomar Airport Road to a reasonab distance beyond the property boundary, shall be shown on the improvement plans for Unit I.
L
0 -4-, 0-
19. Storm drains shall be installed down-proposed slope; to outlet at toe of slope. Alignment shall be roughly perpendicular to proposed slope contour lines and adequate erosion control shall
- be provided at out1 et.
20. The applicant shall provide complete half street improvements on Palomar Airport Road, reflecting the ultimate centerline alig ment and grade. Such improvements shall include a permanent PCC curb and raised median.
21. Palomar Airport Road sha?l have three median openings: one at the westerly intersection of "A" Street, one at future "C" Wee,
and one at the easter-7:l intersection of "Bl' Street. The develop1
shall install traffic signals at the "A" and "B" Street inter- sections, as determined by any future City Council policy, and shall provide turn pockets and channelization for eastbound traf. on Palomar Airport Road.
22. The Engineering Department has s,ent plans and profiles of the sewer to the Utilities Maintenance Department for review and comnent as to depth and alignment. Redesign of site grading or sewer alignment may be necessary to avoid future maintenance difficulties.
. 111. BACKGROUND .
A., Location: On the north side of Palomar Airport Road l/(Z-mile - east of El Camino Real .
' ' B. Property Description: The property consists of two mesa areas separated by a north-south canyon. It.is currently under cultivs (primarily tomatoes and squash).
C. EIR Finding: An EIR was certified for the Industrial sector of
the Yalle Verde projett last May concurrent with a General Plan
amendment application. The applicant has submitted supplemental .information which Staff believes is adequate in addressing the particular impacts of this project.
..
D. Zoning: Subject Property: P-M North: P-c East: C-2 and P-C South: A-3-18) County West : P-M
E. General Plan: The Land Use Element of the General Plan shows the subject property as Planned Industrial w.ith a connecting Open'Spac Corridor through to Palomar Airport Road. The proposed plan, together with the requirement for a bicyclelpedestrian corridor through the middle of the project, meets all General Plan require- ments.
F, Public Facilities Policy: The applicant has provided the necessar evidence that Public Facilities will be available to serve the project. Please refer to the attached letters from Carlsbad
0 - w- 0,
Municipal Rater District aid the City Fire Department.
IV. DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES:
A; Traffic Circulation: There are three alternative road systems which could be employed to serve the project. All three of these alternatives are potentially viable,road systems which could serve the project.
A1 ternate $1 :
This is the alternate which is illustrated on the plot plan labe' Exhibit B. This alternctive would have the advanta9cc of provid
disadvantages of this proposal are:
a) Allowing five openings within a less than one-mile stretch
b) Creating traffic hazards by. allowing U-Turn'and right turn
two points of access for each unit and of diffusing traffic. Thl
of a prime major arterial ;
.only movements. .. 1
Alternate @:
This is the alternative which is labelled Exhibit C, Alternate $2 (see attached 1. This a1 ternate provides the following advanta
a) 'It would limit access' to Palomar A-irport Road to 'those
b) It wou1.d provide a looped fire access which is acceptable signal ized intersections a7 ong the Val 1 e Verde property;
to the Fire Chief;
as #16. . e) It would eliminate driveway grade prob7ems.on lots such'
The disadvantage of this proposal is that it would create traific concentration at two intersections until installation of traffic signals could be justified.
A1 ternate #3: ..
This alternate is illustrated on Exhibit D (see attached). The
advantage of this proposal is that. it would 1 irnit openings on to Palomar Airport Road while maintaining two points of access for each unit.
The major disadv substantial f i 11 Because of this,
antage of this proposal is that it would require of the canyon through which. 'IC" Street runs. Alternate #3 is the least feasible alternative in Staff's opinion,
4
..
e - 0
B. .Lot Sizes: The P-M zme requires a minimum lot size of one acre. However, with the large setback requirements for the P-M zone (50 foot front yard, 20 foot side yard and 25 foot rear yard), smaller lots may often provide limited useable
area.
The subject application has a number of small lots which the applicant has constructed in a pie-shaped manner so as to minimi front yard setbacks. The applicant maintains that there is a
significant demand for the lots-to serve small independent businesses.
C. AirDort Land Use Referral: This project is within the referral area for Palomar Airport and as such was reviewed by :.he Airport Land Use Commission (CPO Board of Directors). Th? A.L.U.C. founc that the project does meet with the requirements of the Palomar Airport Land Us2 Plan and, as such, meets with their approval.
A copy of a letter from the Airport Land Use Comiission is attached.
. . ATTACHMENTS: .. Plot Plan, Exhibit 8, dateh.17/12/74 Alternate 82, Circulation Plan - Exhibit C Alternate fi3, Circulation Plan - Exhibit D Letter from Carlsbad Kunicipal Water District Letter from Airport Land Use Commission (to be de'livered at Cornmissiol Menorandurn from City Fire Departrnent
..
.. *-
..
..
.. 68
..
" - ._
""_.
..
CITY OF CA-RLSBA D PLANNfNG D€PT
APPL/CANT LOKER, DONALD C4RLsBA.D AIRPORT
CASE h0 cr 74-21 BUS!W€'SS C'WEh
I DATE
I T
..
( t
. :
..
EXHlB,lT C / /. -.. . .:- : ! .. , I / .. ..
.. . -. .-
; /'
*. .
0 0, . --"
-0 7<
r., .-I. .. t I ! / WOBDSlDE/KOBQYA 23 ASSOCIATES, 1NC. L . .. .. .i ". . r
CONSULTlNC -7 1
;- i
ENGINEERS
L ...."." d
2965RooseveltSt.~P.O.Box1095~Carlsbad,California920(38-~7141729-1194 October 21 , 1974
. Mr. Donald A. Agatep, Director of Planning City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. .Carl sbad, Cal if. 92008 c
Subject: CT 74-21 Tentative Flap - Carlsbad Airport Business Pari Improvement District No. 3 - Carlsbad Municipal Water
. District.
.. Dear Mr. Agatep:
. Responding to your request by letter received at the Water Distr'
on October 9, 1974, the District has the following comments and I
commendations regarding the subject proposed tentative map:
1. The proposed sGbdivision is a part of a pro-perty that is 1oc within our bistrict and Special Improvement .District .No. 3. Public water service will be the resp.onsibi1ity of this Disl
2. Inasmuch as the proposed subdivision is a part sf a large m?
plete master plan for water system development for the entir 600 acre planned community.
planned area the developer will be required to prepare a c[
3. Public water service wily be provided to the area subject' tc the terms and conditions established by the Board of Directc of the 'District.
4. The developer will be required to provide all pubfic water system components as set forth in the applicable master plan of the water system development as adopted by the Board of Directors of the District.
Thank You for this opportunity to communicate with you and please contact the undersigned if YOU have any questions regarding the project.
CC: City of Carlsbad - Engineering Department Carlsbad Municipal Water District
JYKlle In range County, Santa Ana
7390
- e.
..
0. '. ..
j
~~~~~~~ ip5Efl gjiy,q p 9
-, r"-- P*fl%?\ P 'fiy Ir INTEk-DEPARTMENT MEMd
TO PLANNING DEPARTLPENT
FROM: FIRE DEPARTiaNT
DATE 10-17 '9 74
1 SUBJECT: CT 74-21 LOKER
HYDWWTS WITH REQUIIED FIRE FLOW AS REQUIRED BY FIRE Dl <&OOO GPMs) IN SERVICE PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES ON SITE, ..
.. ,. WATER AVATLABILITY TO BE DETERMINED.BY C.M.W.D. AND Po:
LOOP SYSTEM. (TWO SOURCES) ,
q7-J
()GI 1%.
b@.sBbQ y OF \epaYt@nf
qq b
191 4
p yJ L y?Z?-yJ 4J
' C$& C"L4
REPLY ON THIS SHEET FROM A. Wolenchuk,
L
WlLMER 3cncClpr Fi "*hL STANDARD INTER OEPT.
I .'
.
..
b
b.
e e. ;../
d,,-~-~--.,, ,,,- "" -.. \ ,. '\
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION. , .
%*. -- ,.< -. Y J' "L. . . _"
October 31,1974
Mr. Don Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad 1206 Zn Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don:
f j ,/
id' SECURITY PP
SUITE 524
12GO THIRD i
SAN DIEGO.
(714) 233-521
(/ '~
/f 7?sJ
1 /. "i z
I.
Since the adoption of the "Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Palomar Airport", CPO has received tu
development proposals from the City of Carlsbad. In the judgment of CPO staff, neither proposal in conflict with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted pian, and therefore, is not sub
to ALUC review for the following reasons:
A.W. McReynoids Property, Case Number: SPL61 - Residential subdivision
outside of ihe Palomar Airport Influence Area.
Loker Property, Carlsbad Airport Business Center, Case Number CT74-21 - a subdivision and geceral 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 sen1
to Peggy Goldstein.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, BECEl3.ED
NOV 5 1974
RJ H:gi CITY OF CARLSBAD Plannlng Department
cc: Don McClelland
Lomas Santa Fe Development Company
P.O. Box A9 Solana Beach, CA 92075
MEMBER AGENCIES. Cities of Carlsb~d. Chula Vista. Coronado. Dcl Mar El Cnlon. Exondido. Irnner!a/ Oench. La Mesa. National Cltv. Occanslde. Sar San Marcos. Vlsta and Cauntv of San Dleao / €X-OfFICIO EALMBER- Calllorma Deoarlrncnf of TransDorlal~o~ / HONORARY MEMBER. Tlluana.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.ll
3.2
.-
\
-.
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
0 e,
PLANNING COMWISSION .RESOLUTION NO. 11 19
RESOLUTION OF TEE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE I OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE TENTAl SUBDIVISION kAP TO ALLOW CREATION OF 38 LOTS ( 187 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SI[ OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MIL[ EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL. CASE NO. CT 74-21 APPLICANT: DONALD R. LOKER
~ ~ ~~
WHEREAS, a verified app1ic.ation for a certain propt
wit:
All that portion of Lot B of Rancho Agua Hezionda i the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 8,23., on fi in the office of the San Diego County Recorder and further described on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department:
has be.en filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a re
its provided by Title 27 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code"
WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with the Public
'Policy of the City of Carlsbad and has provided the nece
information which insures Publ-ic Facilities will be avai
current with need; and
WHEREAS, the subject application has complied with I
requirements of the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Prot
Ordinance of 1972"; and
WHEREAS, said Commission con'sidered a1.1 factors re1
the Tentative Subdivision Map and found the following fa
reasons to exist:
1) The project meets alE Carlsbad Ordinance and PI requirements .
I . 2) The project meets all .requirements of the Subd, Map act.
30
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Comm 31
3) The project conforms to the Carlsbad General P'
32 of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
..
I.
'z
I 1l
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
.13.
'. 22
13
14
15
16
-' 17
38
.. 19
20
23.
22
. 23
. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
/. e.
* A) That the above reci.tations are true 2nd correc
8) That a'Tentative Map is approved 'for use of sa to allow creation of 38 lots on 187 acres of p
approximately 1/2 mi!e East of El Camino Real subject to the following conditions:
1) The final maps shall be submitted for app
City Council on the Tentative Subdivision The final map shall be in substantia7 'con on the tentative subdivision map known as B, dated November 12, 1974.
~ located on the north side.of Palomar Airport R
. within one year from the final action by
2)
3)
The development of the property described
shall be subjecst to the restrictions and set forth herein which are in addition to requirements, limitations and restriction municipal ordinance and State and Federal now in force, or which, hereafter, may be force for the purpose of preserving the r characteristics of adjacent properties.
All public improvements as shown on Exhib dated November 12, 1974, shall be made in to the City of Carlsbad Engineering Desig and Standard Plan, the Subdivision Ordina other City Standards, to the satisfaction City Engineer, without cost to the City o and free of all liens and encumbrances. ment plans for water and sewer syst.ems sh the requirements of the respective servic
4) All land and/or easements required by thi Ordinance shall be granted to the City of without' cost to the City and free of all
and encumbrances. No easements shall be prior to approval of the Final Map unless by the City Engineer.
5) All utilities shall be placed underground shall be completely concealed from view.
6) Ornamental street lighting shall be provi as required by Municipal Ordinance Code. developer shall post a bond and/or cash i amount necessary to energize said street for an eighteen month period after constr to permit the incorporation of the subdiv into a maintenance district. This shall .prior to approval of Final Map.
7) The improvement plans shall include a rep geological investigation and a complete g of the entire site when required by the C Engineer. The report and plan shall be p
by Civil Engineers licensed by the State California, and experienced in erosion co
Said Engineer shall cer,tify that they hav igated the site and prepared data with fu sideration of the consequences to the inc neighboring properties.
-2-
. -.
..
..
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
i
a
.9
10
11
32
13
14
' -15
16
. i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24.
25
26.
27
28
29
' 30
' . 31
32
0
*.
I I I' 1
~
i
e
8)
9)
10)
11 1
12)
13)
14)
All slopes created as a result of this de shall not exceed a 2:l slope.
Ingress and egress along the pr.operty lir ing public street right of way for all IC be dedicated, except at locations as spec by the City Engineer. Dedication shall t prior to approval of Final Map.
Street trees, when required by the City, installed by the applicant at his expense shall be of, a type approved by the Parks ment and shall be installed to their spec If removal of any existing trt?s is requi
the Cfty, said removal shall be at the aF expense. It shall be the responsiblity c applicant to make all arrangements with t Department concerning the requirements of condition. These arrangements are to be prior to approval of the final map.
Street names shall be subject to approval be designated in accordance with the stan policies adopted by the Planning Commissi file in the Planning Department. Said na be approved by the Planning Director prio approval of the Final Map.
The C.C. & R's for this development shall submitted to the Planning Director for re approval prior to the approval of Final M
Lot 35, because of its unusual conf igurat unacceptable and shall be eliminated. A design for Unit 2 shall be submitted to t Planning Director for approval prior to F approval by the City Council.
The deve'loper shall work with the Carlsbac pal Water District and the City Fire Depat in preparing a water master plan for the I Minimum flow for fire and domestic purpost shall be 6,000 gallons per minute.
15) The applicant shall grant to the City a l( Open Space Easement for pedestrian and bic purposes adjacent to the future I'C" Streei is within the project baundaries. The apl: shall improve the easement with asphaltic to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16) The applicant shall submi't a revised tent; to the City Engineer which shall show the
a) Interior Lot -SI.opes . b). Correct slopes and/or daylight lines of lots 1, 2, 26, 27, 28 and 29. c) Footage of offsite sewer. d) Grading of'future 'IC'' Street from Pal Airport Road and future "C" Street, e at utility'easement access points. e) AC Pavement and Base on typical stree
-3-
(-yl~+~
ltiov~&er 20, 1974
'PO : Planning Director
FROM: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Request for Engineering COmximntS
We have reviewed the follawing projects and submit these comxnents:
1. Variance 246 - (Sunnyhilf. and MacArthur)
a. Proporsed rear lot sewage will have to be pumped to Sunny- hill or sewered to rear to cul-de-sac sewer. These systems nust be private.
b. A letter of permission from the adjoining property QtJner
to concentrate drainage at the rear may be required at the building permft Stage,
2. CT 74-21 - Carlsbad Airport Business Center (Palomar Airport EBad east of El Camino Real)
a. The following tentative map refinements are recomended:
1. Show interior lot slopes.
,Z. Catmct slop08 and/or daylight lines at rear of Lots I, .I
2, 26,27,28,29.
3. Show footage of offsite sewer.
4. Show grading of future ''CR Street from Palamar Airport Road to a reaeonable distance beyond *e property boundary
5. Show AC Pavement & Base - on typical Street Sections.
13, Standard: Engineering Condet&ons 8,9,10,i2,13,15,1.9 and 20
aPPlY
c. Slopes shall not exceed Zt 1.
d. Access rfghts shall be dedicated where lots border Palomar
--- -~~~-.~~~~~"~~~"""-.~~-=-"- ".."., r -_I-.-.- - ."""_""",,_ ..._ -.,__. "" - " -
~.~~,~~*~~DU~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dirsctoac Novoz*or 20 8 19 '84
Paga 2
Airpost Road and future "C" Streat, ~weept at it^ ease- men% access p~fnts.
e. A future "C" Stmet grad@o from Palomar Airport R~ad to a
333aSOxl&~s di8t@Xl@e b@yOHld the prQpf3 y Boundary, shall be shown ~n the %IR~FDVOEIQ~~ P%&?O $?OH U1~bi.t XO. 1.
f. Stsm drains shall. be installed down proposed. slopes to aut- let at toe of 8 ope. Alignment shall b@ roughly perpendicular to proposed slope contour linear, and adleguate? erosion control shall be provided at outlet.
Q. Complete half street improvements af Pafamar Airport Woad, reflecting the ultimate centerline alignment and grade, are requiked. Such improvements shalB include a psmment Pa curb .and. raised nradian.
h. Palomar Airport Wad shall have three median openings: OA~ at tho ~ssstesrly intersection sf ''A" Street, one at. future '"" Street, and one at the eastarly intersection of I%" Street. The developer shall install traffic oignnlls at the "A" and "D" Street lntsrsectkons and shall provide turn pocketo and channelization for eastbound traffic on Palomar Airport Road.
f. The Engineering Department has sent plane and praE$ITe~ of the sewer to the UtilitSse/~aintenan@e Department for review
and comment as to depth an& alignmont, Redesign of site
grading or sewer alignment may be necemcary to avoid fuCure maintenance difficulties .
The City Engineer be not at City %raL thfe week.
''~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ BY ,~A~~~~~ C. CRO'BH'"
Dtmial Gr~th, C. 6. Associate
deg/sZn
1.. ~ "" ~_. ". ..._. ". . . -. "". "". ." ~_... . .. . .___ - .. .. . . .. - " .~
1;
r._; __"
ii - pT
11 I To I/ p
mz, A. M.
DATE 19 P. M.
g.
11
REPLY OM THE SHEET
WILh',E9 SERVICE-&NE S-AN3ARD ihTER DEPI. MLCC. FCRK '
-~__ __ "~~. ~-~~ ~ "_~ ~__-___.~- 1, TfiyBg~~ iT -79gDKj7~ SF y/ vr //I I - - YL L!h jjquEB-DzpARui&&ENT $,jj~;@~~~y~~~
~~ - - -__
'I TO A. iM
DATE 39 P. M,
I,
-+
I1
I1
-. .
II
I1 II 11 II I 1 ""FLY cy -j-:":;5 S""Z$ F~Ohi /@s"&%y;q;&r*, c /4 ,/C,@? ,4
1 -__ ____ _____- ""C ~". "_ . ~ ~~-~ - Y~ -.*--- "~ ~ -~~
"i .%Li< "SCRYICE' bvs j-,y..:ii3 ,-: ~ .. A',,.,/,~ -, , _~~"
Y. .- c "L
v a, I /' -
4
0 LL.1 Y Vi' CHKLS~AU 0 7-c i;: c TA F: 77 q n
jd(y 1 y jCj7'1 Inter-Office Correspondence
!.]I -7 !_!TE~F.!I,P:,INT.
Reply requested:
REPLY : 'i ,<?; ; L ,<~ i .< ,-c. ,/!: ,:.,-<.: -,: ?/ ;;. ;:J ~. . -2z- ~ /- ,:. i 2 i.%l: - .z .,
,_
._
,T
,/;.<. j\./ .<; ,:. 2 , .A <<./-?C/ <"/
_, 9 ./' 5,
,/..i I . ,I ~, f;, 7, -/ /<< ""' ,. , , ' /. ,: /- ;:' . ' ;; ;-" .i/ f,- :I />' j->; < ,, i ~~ :. I ",, , -1
'/ -
;4 1 /'
,I /.' 1, J?: , :' ,! ,. .q
-
Date: . ; ,- I ' , . , . "" Signature : ,'; ,.i 4 <,I: 2p~2
,, , 7,i ., /
/,
"" " . " - / "" "- -
w PLANNING DEPARTMENT LI I 1 ur LHKL~DHU I
STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 12, 1974
TO : PLANNING COMIviISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Y(
CASE NO. MP-153 (CONSIDERATION OF A MASTER PLAN)
APPLICANT: LOMAS SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT CORP. P.O. Box AG
Solana Beach, CA 92075
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed Vc Verde Master Plan. The Planning Commission continuez the hearir to November 12, 1974 to allow the applicant and the City Staff 1 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 represt ative, and the following amended staff report is submitted for ) consideration.
(NOTE: The attachment (A) to the Staff Report is for informatic purposes only, and is Staff response to issues raised by the applicant at the October 22, 1974 Public Hearing.)
I, REQUEST: The applicant is requzsting approval of a Master which would allow planned industrial deveiopment on approx' 187 acres and planned residential development on 410 acres an average density of 3.66 DU/net acre.
The subject property is zoned P-C and P-M and is located a[ mately 1/2 mile east of El Camino Real on the north side 01 Palomar Airport Road.
11. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that MP-153, labeled Exh.
D and dated October 22, 1974, be APPROVED based on the fol' justification:
1. The Master Plan meets the requirements of the adopted General P1 an.
2. The Master Plan meets the requirements and intent of ' Planned Community and Planned Industrial Zone Ordinan1
3. The Master Plan meets all applicable City policies in( the Public Facilities Policy.
4. The Master Plan meets all requirements of CEQA and thc Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. The mit proposed in the Certified EIR and as a part of this MI Plan are adequate in minimizing adverse impacts.
- W w-
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MASTER PLAN 153
November 72, 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 open 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 Recreatic Department and Fire Department. This activity should not t
construed to be total brush removal normally associated wii
grading activities.
.3) The applicant shall erect a six-foot chain link fence toppc three strands of barbed wire which shall separate the subjc residential development and the University of California ar Dawson properties (a) along the property line in Parcel a-;
(b) below and north of the rear of the development pad witi Parcel a-1. The barbed wire shall be angled toward the Va' Verde property. A 15-foot wide fire break shall border th( length of the fence. This shall be done prior to issuance any residential building permits or prior to any residentii area grading.
4) The applicant shall design all devel.opment along the northc 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 - - - - 21 6
A2 - - 34 50 - - - 84
Bl 30 100 38 - - - - 168
B2 - - - - - - 71 71
B3 - - - - - 54 - 54
B4 - - 74 100 100 100 - 374
B5 - - - 39 150 - - 189
86 - - - - - - 64 64
B7 30 100 100 50 - - - 280
TOTAL 110 300 312 239 250 154 135 1500
6) All denuded-natural or constructed slope areas shall be pl
shall be done in a manner satisfactory to the Parks Direct
with natural plant materials in order to reduce erosion,
..
1 m 0
and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any permits by the City and also after 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 consideration 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 The easement shall transverse the east-west valley (shown o Master as "green belt, existing trees, and existing pond "b units B-7 and 8-2 and also B-4 and B-5) and shall be locate
and Recreation Director at the time of Specific ?lan/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.
sized according to the specifications outlined by the Parks
of any Specific Plan
_l__"""-----~-""r-- "_I"" ."I ____l___l_____
10) Approval of this Master Plan indicates an acceptance by the City Council of a general scheme of development for the pro It is part of an on-going planning process and is subject t 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 f construction. Availability of public services will be eval. in the context of Specific Plan approvals.
Specific Plans will be evaluated in accordance with Municipi Ordinances in force at the time when said Specific Plans art 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 approva' of any subsequent Specific Plans.
1 7. The developer shall comply with the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and related drainage improvements.
the City of Carlsbad. Sewer facilities (,Lee3 City Master
be required as approved by the City Engineer.
12) The development is presently within the sewer service area c
Plan sized gravity mains and/or sewage pump stations), will
0' e
,
13) The applicant shall enter intcj a secured agreement for the construction of full half street improvements on Palomar Airport Road between the westerly and the easterly limits o the development along the entire precise alignment as adopt prior to completion of the first phase of development, (63' Section right of way).
Archeological sites #2,'#8 and #9 shalf be mapped, excavate and/or have surface collections made according to SpeCifiCa contained in the Certified E.I.R. Prior to any Specific Pld
consideration. 111. BACKGROUI'JD
A. Legal Description: A portion of Lot B of Rancho Aqua Hedjonda '.
in the City of Carlsbad, according to Map No. 823 filed \rlith the San Diego County Recorder.
B. Location: On the north side of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Drive.
C. Size: Planned Cornunity - 409.5 Acres Planned Industrial - 186.9 Acres
D. Density:
Proposed Density by Area
A1 2.0 DU/net acre
A2 , 1.9 DU/net acre B1 3.1 DUlnet acre B2 4.0 DU/net acre
83 5.8 DU/net acre B4 6.6 DUlnet acre
85 6.5 DU/net acre
B6 4.0 DU/net acre B7 . 5.1 DUjnet acre
Existing General Plan
0-4 DUJnet acre and Open Space 0-4 DU/net acre
4-10 DC/net acre And Open Spac 4-10 DU/net acre and Open Spac
4--10 DU/net- acre and bpen 4-10 DU/net acre 4-10 DU/net acre 4-10 DUjnet acre 4-10 DU/net acre and Open Spac
E. Coverage: At the tirne of Specific Plan consideration, the app will be required to meet the coverage requirements of the P-C The areas within the residential sectors which are proposed to zoned open space would apply to the 66-2/32 open space committ
F. Projected Population: 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 th Master Plan and Zoning. Consequently, Staff be7 ieves that sup information will be needed only with subsequent development pr
Mitigation measures, as proposed in the Certified EIR, have be included as condi tions of the Plaster Plan approval.
The critical impacts of the project as discussed in the Certif
EIR are as follows:
(W m*
1) The availability, ease and economy of supplying services to the project;
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
project ;
of the City.
H. Existinq Zoning: Units C-1 and C-2 - P-M (Planned Industrial)
The remainder of the site - P-C {Planned Community)
i
I. 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)
.... . Gles t : ~-A-10,000 and P-M (Carlsbad)
.. - . . . -. , . J. General Plan: A copy of the General Plan Land Use designation . the Valle Verde site has been attached to this report. The Val' Verde Master Plan does generally reflect the Land Use Element designations. Overall density for the project is we1 1 under th maximum allowed under the General Plan. Future Specific Plans will be required to provide all Open Space corridors depicted i the Land Use Element.
The La.nd Use Element shows one neighborhood commercial facility the site. The Master Plan's designation of two commercial site
is compatible, providing that all locational/market criterion f neighborhood commercial uses are met.
K. Parks Ordinance: The Park Dedication Ordinance provides that 1 projects involving fifty or more units, the City Council may rc either a park dedication or in-lieu fees. The Parks and Recrec
-. - " . .
Department has recornended 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;
.-
2) The Canyon floor Oak Woodland area shown as Open Space on Master Plan provides a desired open space linkage, and th fore should be credited toward the 25% on-site recreation allowance provided for in the ordinance. Staff is recom that an Open Space easement for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian access purposes be required over the canyon f1
t. Schools: The applicant had initially proposed that an elment
school site be located in the Northeastern corner of the Val le site. The State Site Selection Committee subsequently reject€ school site because of its proximity to Palomar Airport. Beca
of the State's criterion for site selection, it appears that s
airport influence area. aged children will need to be bused to a school outside of the
W c I ?e. ,%, P
.'%> . a;
The applicant has secured a 1 et'cer frcm the Carl sbad Unified Sch
District stating that the necessary agreements for providing fac for all school aged children generated by the project will be se at the time of Specific PlanjTentative Map application.
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES
A. Relationship of Project to Surrounding Land Uses;
. .-. 1. Dawson Los 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 Monos Reserve is owned by the University of California and is part of a statewide natural land and watel
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 val.ue as an undisturbed natural habitat, it
is particularly vulnerable to disruption from 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 natural ecology.
b) Predatory domestic anjmals such as dogs and cats could endanger species on the Reserve and upsc?t 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 fertilize 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 adv effects.
The northwesterly corner of the Master Plan is shown as Ope Space. This greenbelt, especially because of steep terrain
will provide a considerable buffer between development on t project site and the Reserve. Staff is recommending that t
area be rezoned to Open Space prior .to any Specific Plan ap
Unit A-2 of the Development is adjacent to the Preserve and planned as a single-family detached development with a maxi Density of 1. g DU/acre. Subsequent Specific PlanjTentative Maps will be encouraged to be designed so proposed developrr will not adversely affect the Dawson Reserve and simultane provide .. . the ,. potential - residents with outstanding visual and
w 0-
2. Palomar Airport: The southerly 190+’acres is within the influence of the Palomar Airport F1 ight Pattekns. The recently adopted CPO Land Use Plan for Palomar Airport recommends non- residential activity on the Southerly portion of the Valle
Verde project and requires Airport Land Use Comission review of all programs to be built on the project site. The Palomar Airport impact: R;ss been given an in-depth assessment in the EIR for the recently adopted General Plan Amendment.
Plans to increase the Palomar Airport function envision a
second para1 le1 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 8-7. However, recent informal discussions have intimated that the northern runway nay have future operational potentials. Since future airport requirements will be dicta‘ted
by State of the Art Aircraft, the City should be aware at the earliest possible date of future alternatives.
he 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 1 ight of the develop- ment proposals e
B. Services: The proposed Val7e Verde Master Plan will require every level of service provided by the City, Project site Iocatjon is approximately 7/2 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 abiiity of the City to provide adequate levels of Police 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- -strutted to carry the effluent to the Buena Trunk 1 ine at El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Based on a factor of 2500 gallons per acre, the industrial sector when fully developed is estirnslted to yield a flow 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 bow much, if any, industrial waste will be generated. It is probable, however, that with an industrial development of this size, and since the proposed zoning would not restrict industrial waste, that Some industrial waste would be generated. The City of Carlsbad would require industrial waste permits.
w c-
The City of Carlsbad "owns" capacity rights for 1.2 F~,GD in 4
Buena Trunk line at Palomar Airport Road and €1 Camin0 Real. This capacity is increased by degrees to 3.0 MGD at the wesf
extxeme of the trunkline (Encina Plant). Inasmuch as the projected discharge is more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Gjty's total capacity rights in the Buena Trunk line at ~1
Camino Rea1 and Palomar Airport Road, additional capacity m;
be necessary through either (1) Purchase of additional cap in the Buena Trunk line; or (2) the construction of a 15"
gravity main westerly along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, as sho on the City of Carlsbad Sewer ?$aster Plan.
There is no guaranteed capacity in either the Buena Trunk - or Encina Treatment Facil ity; a7 1 projects are enswed s2wt
only upon the availability of capacity at the time of builr permit application. Approved or master planned projects potentially exceed the present capacity of both the Buena Trunk line and the Encina Facility. However, the construc of new lines and a proposed phased expansion of the Encina Facj] jty which would increase Carlsbad's capacity to 3.43
MGD by 1975 and 5.43 by 1977, will provide a gradually inC
. capacity .
2, Water: The site is within the Carlsbad Municipal Water D. service area. Carlsbad Municipal Mater District has indic that they will be able to provide water service to the si- providing that the applicant prepares a water Master Plan which meets all Carlsbad Municipal Water Department requi ments. The City Fire Department has also expressed conce that adequate fire flow be provided for the site. Condit
X8 of the Master Plan requires that the applicant coopera with these two agencies in planning water service for the project .
3. Circulation: Circulation for the proposed Master P7an w
developed using existing Palomar Airport Road, proposed 1 Drive and proposed Los Monos Drive.
.. . The initial phases of development will he served by a ne
. - collector to be built from Palamar Airport Road north t the industrial property. As subsequent phases are built additional points of ingress/egress will be provided by Monos Drive on Melrose Drive. The applicant may have tt requirement of off-site road construction if this develr preceeds other developments in the area.
C. Major P7anning Consideration: Staff believes that there are seve' critical issues reiated to the Master Plan. Master Plan Aaorova
of course, does not quarantee 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.
a e
The allocated densities are generalized concepts and not
static entitlements. At the time of Specific Plan Considera the density allocations must be reassessed in light of the fo'l'lowing:
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 consistency with the concepts ef Planned
Community Development (i.e.> Optimum Utilization ( Open Space, efficiency of services, etc.)
ATTACHMENTS;
Master Plan Exhibit 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
f
vb
c _' a (,e -
.-.
GEAJER& PM~) LWI~ USE ELEMENT
pEpfCTlOid Or I/ALLE t/EkdE Si'iTE
:: .I . f P c\ ,m
+~~~/%..?~: ...:.< ,qy
' GXIJiEHsITI OF CXLI\i;o YIA .."--4
... &/. >+.:<., . .?+:j.:><.?*7, '... , ,. -.._ 3.: :.\' .
F>k. .. . ""_ . .y . ... r ...? ,-\..
:I> ,x_. .
3% - s.\s DIEGO - shs FRAYC!&O ~~~,~.-~~~~:~!~~-!~~~ Y2iXT..i nk!.\u 1 c),\T
.,.:u% *<. "._ "___._.. .*
" x~?~<~*ay - VI^ I inY[SE - LO5 -\SGELES - Klb-iZRST
~I:AF:LES J. I!xTCX Pw.,id.n: oj the I:r.iccrs:t:l OFFICE OF TI= PRESIDEXT
BEFiSELZY, C.ILXFO?.\-iZ.I 94.720
F,~ZEXT L. ~oHsSOS vice ~,-:,~&-~-I~'niczrn~y Rzlu:ioM
July 12, 1974 .
\
Carlsbzd CiQ Council
City of Carlslozd
Carlshd, California 92008
1200 ELn AVCL AT-72E
~ear'Coc31cil Msrbers:
I am writing ~7ith re-t to the proposed 'VValle v+rd~'' ~ro ject ard the rep?
that ~TE ken s&mi-lt~.?d by TLciiez~i Sanb Fe CorpOratiaI, irLclu&xg ti!?? Zone Ch
and Final mviromw.tal Lqact Zqprt you will be mnsiSazing on July 16, 197
The University oms props- imediaLLely ECJ~"~ of the propsed dsveloprmt, k as the D2~7son Ias Pbnos Cayon Psserv2. TIE resem bs &a a&& over t
last ten yzas tkmugb tk gemzosity of Nrs. Ida Damn, who continues to re on tik adjacent .prcprky tu tl wt.
Tne D.ZZ.WII LDS XTIOS Gmya Ess-~ is beirrg rraa9d and used as park of the
sityls Natural Land md Water Resexms Systm, L&2 p-se of whid? is to ac
and hold for scientific and duc~+Aor!d- purposes a series or' ''outilmr lahral
broadly repr~sen~ativs of tics diverse kbi+a+s fomc? L2rro~~g3~uk i3-e Stae of,
nia, mclosed are several copiss of a paphikt desaibir-g th sys"lerti in mrc
Unfortxz"ately, ft"ere was a delzy + no+ifyFng the Univsrsity of f3"e props&
Verde dsvs1op-t so re did not haTJ-, an oL~~r~y to consSsr its Full rxrt
until wry recently, (Jh JLZ 27-28, repr2sentati.w of th? University mt w
Donald A, Aqaep & Daa field of 621 City Planning Office ad wiL& 1N.r. D. :
ownsr of t2-e prop*, mil Xr. 1;1 &zn and Pk- Bdd PldECLellan of Lams SZ?. Corpratian IX?velcp?ent. We explzind "&? ba&grou~d of ti% Davson Us ~Xmo
%serve, express& severai c3ncem.s as +a the pssible effect on the res-
proposzd developmt, wd considad a nmkr of dterr?aLd+s that might all
those conceLms. Ezdn of "hose with whcm TNZ rzt was mst cweratiw wd e~ a &sire to tcork with us in rc2aching an accamdation,
skce om meting, a rcport, incIu&-g a series of remdat;sns, AS 'k~
pared by ~r. Kenneth rWmtt, a recent recipient of a doctorate in biolay'y at
Idr CLG~~LIS of KE Upiversity, wiL& a s,Cxialty in plat and mind -1%
cosy cf bLs rzprt is a~clos&. Ln LA^ qL-it of OLX r5cmt convers&Aor,s P
..
1. (0
Wlsbz. City CO?2?cil
!\e -
July 72, 1972
Pagz 2
the priyzipdls me, ICE? I1GW anticipa& fut-tlk~~ ~~SC?~SS~GSS, ui~g cr. A&
~~isc&~2ons as a hse . Ln the r~an~Lir;f!, I&. Co~dii X. Sites, kssi3-a:
hcell3r-Fzcilikies ?hnaqexerrt zt= GGD, will k ak+a&g, your r~et=Lq 01
mesday st8 LZCL as s*&~q.mt rmLthgs of ths City Cam-cil. md WE Plan!nh,~
Cmission as xscpirsd.
As k) Cr-2 i.-.-.&z.te q!s+Loll; cc~?cc?~ciirq thz .ZES Cbaqe ~-d Fiqal ~~~~,-g~=
Inpact Pz-p-rC,, we ~.i~dd %e mst *9reci&ive if yow action could take cog
of the re-mrk that ~BS keen- s&nitL& by Dr. Wtt on our keks.2.r'.
sincerely,
3. /L-J -3 J < ./.~,"--" ./. .. ;7 2
,/'
- J. er Sax~lsen
-.
Director, Haturd La-.. and
Water F@ssr~s Systat
enclosures
cc: Dr. Kenne*th D. &k&t Mr. and lks . Clarence E. Dawsan Mr. m Kern
Mr- D. P. Loker Assistant Chacelior Cc-rLalc? H. Sites
Director of D0,Velo~rrent Pssert H. Snith
i L
.-
0 .
( “ @ (\ -. @ .T&.y 10, 1374
pm~la~, p;~is~cc $39 ETIC i,:CcCEiCATiC?TS TO ms j!,Q?iCS QLbYG>T ED.1 p,~~S~ D~~XJEXC - \T\ZJX VEXX
Sev2n ?&jDr +-s of physical aviLgyhwnLLiL C~LXL~ZS a~”d i?fl~%-ces add pot&?-
jdaly Ad-;p plzce h<~~ &,eloW-nt of *e VZU~ ~erdt project. TbL~se are desa
k,riefly ad kcluc?z “he Eolb;ing: j! A * z ‘2’3 s i.3c s~~cL.~~ (<;ah= A~&fic.~L~o~A 2;
Hca3iL;at altzratian
Ixreased fire hazards
Increased hmt;rl5 pyessures
‘f!atibz popdaticn iiisqtion by displaced anirralS
..
F . B.crwsed pre6zLdon by dmestic animals
..
potentid Fnysical XnflGenes:
A. Erosion
mqles of soil zrokion are. noticable within portions of the projkb’ area thE
have &en alte_red. soil is the rain resendr for nutrients, mst kbg disk
j.n <?E s?d-b,q U~EX layers. 1:kere r,utrients are lost by the erosion of tope
plant p~~~~~~on &ceases which lezds most often tu the dqmda”don of hahit;
a~d pl;~rrt CoVsitioD. my. =ea, therefore, where natural veqstation is ram
-. -. ” - - f&Lns by excessi’m? rcdificairion (grading, dtivation, rOz&Uildillg) will b
kigrly. Sensitive to erosion-.
3. Strezn water mdification
Chwqes in strcairn water axe directly’ related to potential ir,cra.ses from em5
p-”kdifiCations of tributary creek ci’lannels and increased erosion could lead -tz increased silt-loads wit”.1 the water course of Us Pbnos Gnyon and thereby
wifdlir’e habitats.
.In addition, &.cjes in strearn water &odd pte.tially be directly related -&
-density housing md snccntrolled landscaping within tributary dxaimqe 2mrm:
Runoff froxt urbar~ areas {gazikns, lawns, gdd courses) are ofteq high in .erg, nutxien’-%; pri?ci+ly nitrztes zmd pbsphates. Increasa nu”sier?t lozds co
. lead to algal blooms. and eutzo@ica+Aon wit5.h the vmters of LQS Mmos Canyo:
-. Potential Eio tic Lrf lumces:
C. Habitat alternation \
€I,&Ftat mdif ication is by far the mst salient facLar in the reduction, SUI
. an3 sq$a-rtktion of native fauns. zrd flora. Since t5e reserve reprcssnts I
nab:+Ats, it .,;od.c! k a prii txget for recreat-Aond zctiviLi5es by s&Cqlc?
cxrprs, m.2 oklmrs. As a resultl incrmsed & ur-contmlled encroxhreerk I
lead to the disappearance of the reserve’ s present, natural. state.
1.
I'
c. m \.. ..
-2- / 1)- f .\
9. Fire !:z.z~~;c~s
Cc?as+Lal sqz sczb z-d c5zpmd cammities &-e hi@y swlsitiv3 to fire. L:;i
2-n k-creas&. hna.n ~puLa+Aor- fire ptentials ?ill kter?-si5-y wiL& <;e =a.
E- izcreasd I"l.ungliq pressmes
S-wcies. ry>Lceog hzs been exsrtsd by hmters for -qat, quasi-scientific pq
~xj for 110 g@ai-.&le reason other +&m La kill native zn5i~a.l~. fndzed, thi!: a mfortwdLe khxeat to Lhs resen= fron Ckvelopat.
1 1' j-JypW~& pf"--~on $1 &r,es?ic xijds . .
Othzr <:am actud h&iLdt dtera+Aon, the greatest th.r?zt to na"titlr! vert&ratc
ppul.aLt5ons is the ahm&xce md Maavior of dcrr;estic cats and dogs. Cats er'
~v&y repke natna1 pvebtors c7n3 nedessly kill dlt m-6 yow-9 reptiles
birds, md mzxcals. Eorsas urm~oidably red;lce vege"d-live cover md alter soi
characteristics.
' G. . WatiE ppiLa"tion disruption by displaced anhlS
Population nlmkrs am3 sizes of mst mtive sApcies .within the rsserm =e re naturally and tend to exist in a sta5ilizzd state. The pt~ntial Lmnig-ra~~on
disghced anirrals .from the Vdle Ver& project into the resene vould, '&eref
disrupt the natural conditior;~ ad ppulaLLons of ms nos cartyon.
Fanwmmnoxs
A list of recoimen&.+ions ad sxcpssons presen%d imiiily to help Tlinize e
avoid adverse envirorLiTtal effects to &tie University of Califo'mia Natural I
and tvaer gesem in 3s xmos Cayon from propssd devdomqt is described
4f
drotective Face
a. A c;-- 1- fence, appro&tely six feet in h2iqht 'mrdered WLET . ..
three strads of barb& wire. should be ?lac& at the ~orthern bourd;
drotective Face
a. A c;-- 1- fence, appro&tely six feet in h2iqht 'mrdered WLET . ..
three strads of barb& wire. should be ?lac& at the ~orthern bourd;
of thz dsvelopmt.
. b. The said fence should *xi? erected prior to the initiation of the devr
myt ' s constrcc-tion' ac+tivities.
c. T'nis typ of fence muid inhibit imtiption of displaced terrestri
aniTals into the reserve, deter encrox'mnt by h~ns, and redgce
potentidl preiiation pressures of cats and Zqs.
Erosion potential erosional inflmces to the res-= bjould Zise onPy fron L&s altq
of hillsids and rzvines drainirq into Las Yanos Caiyon. Consequently, thn,
list pertains only to these areas. 0
a. Ini tid devslo,cient should not deride, by gzdhg, 'md &mdon lLrc
parcels of cjromd since extmsive &nuding mldd prcmte erosion;
particularly durirg rainy seasons.
, (:'::e ( .m "
I\ b. ~,,x,::z t-_racts of e:psed soil should r,ot reiiah dEqu%d Cor Icq p~?Zb &?zral ssasons) . CES~ aeas my be ''sse~e6" v7i';in qz~~ses ta prs;3
erosjFm.
c. Cmtisn should %e +Ska~ in qa&q x&dvi.ties md in the plzc~mer~t of
Eill-dirt. E.:cess soil skould ~ot k depsia h~$wzzZSy- L7-b c;ds kjrq &&,Tqe (A -""~~yn,ls - Ll sixe this would alter rz.kwal Lnxrtoff.
d. placc?.-at of excess soil aril fill-dirt 'should k directed sa as nat t- ZVJ~ to ,5jJL~k3n and tl-2 ikgradauon of stream water. cpdity-
e. -?Tav - 21r~2zq2 zc-r,-q fcr;?. EQ~ &~zkp-re~t sho?lld ix dizzcts3 to t?!.~
~Q-L~I r~~~~~ *a2 ~J-Q ms ~~TQS CZX~O~. 5..
,) Fire. PrecauLLions
a. Fire br~aks of at least 15 feet in widL& sbuld rim the pzareter fa
Ice p1aqt or ivy pay 'E wed as ground covsr within the ?ire brezks.
b. Fire brads of a similar nature could be provided also to p~~te'ct
housing devslo?mn+Ls.
c. osk ked signs ;ray be.placd xkquately to mrn against fire hazariis.
d- pre\p~tj.~ procecures &lould ke carried out: during the dif fere.nt ph
of 6svelopmt to minimize pterkiial fires; particvlarly dwkg sw
and fall rronths id-ien scruj and oIapzrral. zon~ are highly flmle.
. General Presemtion
* . _._____ ~he-._i&ntity aii future preshtion of 'chi res2m v;ould be w&nced greatly ae, eerm mrti-,v;st pri;ofi of khe Valle verde project were assip& to the
UiliversitTJ of miforr& NatxraL Land ad VJater Resin-e or set. aside and prot
as a natural ~+- 73 =ea.
1.
..
.. ..
.-
* ..
..
’ \-. m’ .m e
/4 P./- pJ.’ J”
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANlZATlON OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION : :
., I
~ ‘,, ! l“.. ‘c:’ 1-
October 31,1974 SUITE 52‘
SECUWT‘
1200 THiF
SAN DIEC
(714) 233.
Mr. Don Agatep
Planning Oirector
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
2- f \ (77, /- ?( ,z,
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 s to ALUC review for the following reasons:
A.W. McReynolds Property, Case Number: SPL61 - Residential subdivision
outside of the Palomar Airport Influence Area.
Loker Property, Carisbad 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 s
to Peggy Goldstein.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, ..
-@r p;Ecgp[ED
RICHARD J. HU F NOV 5 1974
Executive Direct0
RJ H:gi CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department
CC: Don McClelland
Lomas Santa Fe Development Company %
P.O. Box A9 Solana Beach, CA 92075
a 1)
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 applicatio was continued so that the applicant could resolve difference: 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 I s Comment:
The Master Plan included the industrial area so that the parcel could be looked at in an integrated manner, and the interrelatio ship between the industrial and residential could be examined. Specific Plans w-ill not be required for the industrial area, but Master Plan conditions related to grading, rezoning of open spac and brush clearance all apply to the industrial area.
2. Location in Report:
Recommended Condition if1
Applicant's Statement:
The words 'concurrent with grading permits' should be added. I also question the need for the Parks and Recreation Department i this. Would that department normally be involved in fire protec or grading supervision? It would seem to us the grading ordinar
enforced by the City Engineer, would take care of the grading il and fire protection would be fairly straightforward. If gradin! required to provide fire protection, there might be coordinatio with the City Engineer. If the City Engineer uses the Parks 'an1 Recreation Department as an advisor, that is certainly their pr rogative, but it would seem a secondary relationship to us and ' make it difficult for us to know who to coordinate with and who would have the prime responsibility for that coordination with on the part of the City.
- " L
3.
Staff's Comments:
The City Council has stressed on several occasions, the need to
relating to landscaping and maintenance of planted areas. This
utilize the Parks and Recreation Department's expertise in matter
department is uniquely qualified to supervise in conjunction wit! the Fire Department, the removal of dry vegetation and debris wil out sacrificing the aesthetic natural quality of the site.
The intent of the condition is to provide for selective clearancc of flammable materials 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 and 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
Appl icant ' s Statement:
On Page 2, Item 2 regarding the six-foot fence, reference is to property boundary which was not the discussion we had earlier wi the people from the University. In fact, the topography would n easily. permit the fence and the 15 foot fire break without terri adverse effects. I feel it is reasonable that the fence be inst prior to any work being done adjacent to the north property, how development would most likely start in the valley and it seems p mature to have to install a fence at that time, however, in my o this is not a major issue compared to the location.
Staff's Comment:
The fence condition emanated from the recommendation made by thc University which was contained in the EIR certified by the City Council last summer.
Staff believes that the fence is necessary prior to any grading building permits on any section of the site because of the threz posed by migrating animals, hiking residents , etc. Pressure on University property will increase with development on all portic of the site.
The location of the fence is not critical, as long as it separa. all development and human activity from the University's and- thc Dawson's properties. The firebreak may be located on either sic of the fence and incombustible vegetation (ice plant, ivy, etc. may be planted in the break. For example, the fence might be p' along the ridgeline with the fire break placed on the north sidl and screening vegetation on the south.
a w
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 drainag courses. I think we can say, with our proposed plan, the slight diversions, if any, would carry more water to the south than
surface area affecting runoff to the north than the present,
natural conditions. Also, a1 1 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 (generatec 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 admissi their proposed plan would be carrying more water to the south th the present natural runoff. Detail for ensuring adequate draina can be worked out with subsequent plans.
the natural ridge lines do now and therefore there would be less
5. Location in Report: a
Page 2, Condition #5
Applicant' s Statement:
Page 2, Item 5 regarding planb'ng of all graded areas is poorly worded, I think. I hope it relates only to slope areas and doe5 not imply planting of pad areas where there would be no erosion and building would be in progress. I think the term 'natural pl materials' 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 diffic to understand when, in fact, you must get a grading permit to dc 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 I tern 1, Page 1 under Recommendations.
..
a .- - L
Staff's Comments:
Staff's intent is to:
I) Have areas which are presently denuded and causing erosion problems on adjacent properties to be replanted with indigen 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 applicant is correct in saying that this is a normal condition of gradinr permits. )
The wording "approved plant materials" is acceptable to Staff. a number of recent projects, the applicant has reseeded denuded i with native (indigenous) materials. The advantage of this is th,
1) It attempts to maintain the ecological balance between nati! plant and animal communities;
2) The native materials require less water;
3) ' The aesthetic character of the natural vegetation is mainta
Staff hopes that the applicant will reseed with native plants wh ever possible.
6. Location in Report:
Page 2, Condition $6
Applicant's Statement:
This relates to the open space zone. The wording here 'prior tc consideration' bothers me. It was our understanding this would initiated either by ourselves or by the City concurrently with t processing of adjoining subdivision maps. If it has to be procc prior, it means several months delay before tentative maps coulc filed. There is no quarrel with the granting of the open space now that the ordinance exists. Earlier we had offered a buildir .forfeiture easement which would have accomplished the same thin? but now the City ordinance would probably be a better vehicle, t least in the eyes of the City.
Staff's Comment:
It is staff's intent to present the rezone application for the
Space over 'the entire Valle Verde site on the night when a tent, subdivision map (a1 ready submi tted) for Units C-1 and C-2 is- pr There should be no delay, providing the applicant provides lega descriptions of all green belts prior to the rezone hearing. T wording "prior to consideration" will be changed to "concurrent consideration".
a - cl
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
granting a public access easement that went nowhere, would be of no mutual benefit to the property owners in the project and would be their total responsibility and 1iabilit.y. I have Llso mentiont concern about the location of such an easement in velation to the private open space and scheduling for the granting of such an eas 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 b, 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 fo
equestrian as well as pedestrian use. (5) That it not be tied t the 'valley floor' but simply stated to traverse through the vall from east to west and (6) it should be tied to the development of the ad.joining property. In my opinion, the only way the trail, i some instances, can properly be created is when there is developrr 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 desired by the City for this project. If it w a total of seven acres would be required for dedication.
The Preliminary Parks and Recreation El ement shows an equestrian center to be located on the County-owned land to the west of the site. Preliminary discussion with County authorities regarding possibility of this use have been met with favor. This could prl
.the, trail system link to which the applicant refers.
Regarding the trail system, Staff recommends that the following required:
1. That a looped trail system through the valley shown betweer
"PI' areas. It also mentions recordation of this with the first
fo'llowing comment. I have been concerned from the besinning about
8-7 and 8-2, 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 responsib?e for construction of the ' and physical improvement. (Note: This would apply to the credit for park-in-lieu fees.)
W - I
3. That the trail would be for equestrian and pedestrian.
4. That the City would be responsible for normal maintenance and liability.
5. That the easement be offered to the City with the first fin:
map adjacent to the east-west green belt.
8. Location in Report:
Page 3, I tern "D" - Dens: ty -
Applicant's Statement:
There is an error which was picked up under Item D. Density.
8-3 should have shown 4-10 to the acre. I think it is also impo 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 to acres less the roads only.
Staff's Comments: ~~
Net acres should be defined according to the Planned Community Zl definition and Land Use Element definition.
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-sit This has never been the intent. The descriptions call out a rec complex and a neighborhood commer.cia1 site.
Staff's Comment:
Ac know1 edged.
rn - 11. Location in Report:
Page 4, Item "K" - Parks Ordinance
Applicant'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 ir that an agreement will be secured. We feel we have already ente, into an agreement with the School District which will be implemei at the building permit stage. That is not what this stateinent SI nor what the letter from the School District says.
Staff 's Comment
See attached School Letter.
73. Location in Report:
Page 5 - Relationship of Surrounding Uses
Applicant's Statement:
1. The second paragraph makes referencq to the Dawson Ranch be added to the University Reserve. I don't believe that to k true. There may be portions of her ranch which she is cons donating to the University, however, it is rather presumpti on the part of the City, in my opinion, to make this kind c statement.
In next to the last paragraph I would raise the question a: of the open space zone 'concurrent or prior to any specific plan approval s ' .
..
There is an error in the last paragraph. It should read 1
rather than 1.0. Also in that paragraph, there is a mis-s ment of what the plan and the application say. It spec.ifi1 indicates A-2 as a single family detached development. A- A-2 are called out for single family detached and/or attac units. When we get into a precise plan for that area I do want to lose that flexibility of design.
.- 4, " I
2. Page 6 relates to Palomar Airport. In the second paragraph a statement I don't believe is true in regards to runway seF tion and possible effect on land use decisions concerning ur in the valley floor. It also says that both the City and tk Airport Land Use CornmiSSion would have to approve the heighl and concentration of structures as may relate to airport cri and noise hazards. I don't believe the Airport Land Use Con would have any concern whatsoever of height in the Val1 ey f' The concentration is well within the guidelines of the CPO ! 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 th any way, in our opinion, will be affected by the second run' based on all the plans we have seen on the CPO studies, Cou Airport Department of FAA maps. The last sentence in the s paragraph is totally unacceptable and should be removed.
Staff's Comments:
1. Mrs. Dawson has indicated that the University is in the pro
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 whi
' 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 tyF fs acknowl edged.
2. There are a number of uncertainties related to future airpc 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 he+ of structures , soundproofing measures , densities , etc. ) SI intent, in suggesting that development in the Val ley area t deferred, was that the applicant could justify airport coml at such time that airport expansion plans are finalized.
14. Location in Report:
Page 6, "B" - Services
Applicant's Statement:
B. Services: The third sentence makes no sense to me. I says 'consequently it is about 2-1/2 to 3 miles from norma levels of City service'. The response time for fire prote from La Costa is less than four minutes we're told, as we1 pol ice coverage from the La Costa area. There is no refer under that heading to other utilities so I assume it is re only to police and fire.
1. Sewer: The whole sewer issue has been discussed and it was adequately covered in the review by Lyle Gabri
. 4"- 4R w 9
with the City Staff, however, it would seem appropriate that there be some mention of the defined area these ca rights apply to and that this property is within that a
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 wi tt,in reasonable response time 1 imi ts.
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 avai
The next paragraph is very discouraging. After going throuc all this Master Planning to the degree we have with a gradir study of the whole project to give the concepts of open spac and minimized grading, I would hope that at this Master Plar stage we would have some response from the Staff, at least i general, that it appears the concepts proposed in the develc ment do, in fact, attempt to minimize grading and fit the tc I believe that to be the case and felt that was the interprc the Staff had from review of the plans which have been submi This constant hedging on the part of the Staff is very dis- couraging and yet, I understand all of these things must be considered on a specific plan basis later. I would think il
would be only fair, with the amount of review by the Staff, the impression we have gotten from those reviews and the am( of detail which has gone into the Master Plan, that there bt some recognition on the Staff's part that the plan does seer to fit the ground and that they see no major problem in pro(
.- specific plans within the guidelines of the Master Plan to ( the densities called out. Lf that isn't done, I question tl value of the whole Master Plan procedure and, in fact, the I zoning ordinance.
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 \ have some slopes in excess of 25%. It is important to be r that density compatibility with slopes and environmentally sensitive areas, and optimum utilization of open space must considered with future Specific Plans. Staff, of course, i
giving tacit acceptance of the Master Plan concept through recommendation of approval.
*
o/& 4:w
/ a74"~
w ili?_L 'VG, .B,p j(''\hb 'T- x
1 L9
J 1 \
&pa& e. *d& -,kLuis pix .. J& . __ I, /yP&& 2% /& .e. - 4 r
C '4
,
Tf=- p- - - ./&3
"-
>/ i
c!JXLno /it - mm Jrn. -
1
3,d-F 'f 4 tcd
i
I 1
A& _~_
3,d-F 'f 4 tcd
- k$64d: &Sa t&-"&4
' /IAu! j aI ST $PjA.+ GtLzdL.& ,qGz&+
$ .,;" W:' ' - - '.p" \. + g_ 1; -\,
.-n
e=- " I i - .
lQ
\ : Ll
\j p, ..> !. "
X<<\. i .. . )) L
!!" TI]
:"."9 cq
x .?LOrn*2LS p&:: "-4- = Ib, i :I * ,.> 5 ,_ 1. :~ ".". . i , 4 ,;c i ::
CLLLLa 2-63
7 4s 'OE'~~EI.O?\?EST CC)XKl!<ATiOS
POST OFTICE BOX XC SOL.iS.4 EiCH. CALiiOXKih 92075
AD.\.!iS15T?.,\TiOS: (714) 755-1552 / 276-5010 CCXSTSUCTIOS: (714) 755-934d
-.. .
! ",\ ,\
October 24, 1974 ':
7 F p -17 7"
A. I+% A b p~ 1- '<,/ F a - !L ~*' d
Mr. Donald Agatep
City of Carlsbad
Director of Planning
1206 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
QCT 2 5 1974.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
Reference: Processing NE'-153, Staff Report
Dear Don:
Following our meeting on October 23rd to discuss tho, 3i8ster Plan process
and Staff Report issues, I want to rake the folloving points,
1. There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the importance
of soze of the wording in the Staff Report, but your eqlanztions
hdped us understand your arezs of concern and trhat your report
57as trying to say.
2. There is an obvious c&nmnications problem between us which seems to
This liok will be eliainated and we will directly handle all coordi-
nation through the Master Plan processing.
. . . be Lyle G2brielson who has been providring the coordination between u
3. The obserwtior, regarding Plaster Plzn change considerations was a ni
take irL your opinion. I felt , hosever, the point regarding density
transfer within a planned commnity had tu be Eade. We will not pro
any changes in the ?laster Plan ar this tine even though the consider
in n:y oplnion, are Elinor and would make a considerably better plan f
both the future residents as wall as the City. hy required charges
the ?,laster Plan r~ill be processed vith specific plans Inter.
4. 1 nmLi.omd 2.3 my letrcr of Ocroblr 23rd the aEtachezent of a file Q
Review of Staff Report". These comxents were ay first inpressions
when reviewing the report. I realize some points are minor and pro3
were previously flagged by you. I will confine my remrks to the ma
points.
It
I
4 0 e
>< L'x. Dor.al.d Agatep
< 1 Oc~ob~r 24, 1974 Page I:.jo ,-.
(a) Airport - ?& have sc);=e cozmon concerns regarding any airport
expansion. I feel, as I expressed, that all the plaxs for
Palornar now being considered will have no effect on the resi-
dential portion of Valle Verde and that is all that is being
considered in PP-153. You say all you are trying to say in x the Staff Report is that any specific plans will have to con-
sider present and planned airport facilities. That is fine
and woulcl be the case whether stated or not. I didn't under-
stand that from the words in the Staff Rsport. The in?pli-
cations are much greater and I feel unjustified.
(b) Open Space, Public Access Easements - I would like to resolve
this point by siraply showing a ten foot easement adjacent to
the east-west thru road. This could be implemented as the
road sections were inproved. If dedicated along with the
road, the City wou1.d then assucle mainfename responsibility .
for'the pedestrian and equestrian use. \hen these understand-
ings are reached I will then set aside my interests of mutual
benefit: and location, and the City would be assured access
thru the valley, east to west.
I: am hopeful we can discuss any points of concern you might have.
Sincerely yours,
&/&J
A1 Kern .
AK: jc
cc: Pir . Donald Loker /
Mr. ~aui Bussey r/
Hrs. Yfry Casler
lifv lI. Lyle Gabrielson
..
-
..
e * ,:
V" &@
\$ &p
CY *ev
SIDEIKUBOTA & ASSOCI ATES, INC.
#!NOINEERS
2965 RooseveltSt. P.O. Box 10950 Carlsbad.California92008 (714) 729-1 194
Mr. Donald A. Agatep, Director of Planning City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carl s bad 9 Cal i f. 92008
c 7.
.-.<& 2%
qc)>)/ i 2 3 2
@flh CI 7 ~~+& ++ ,
qf3 :, %-vf &
e4Q c+ q..
6 4% October 21 , 1 97%?+$'ha
48 ?e
Subject: CT 74-21 Tentative Map - Carlsbad Airport Business Par Improvement District No. 3 - Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
Bear Mr. Agatep:
Responding to your request by letter received at the Water Distr on October 9, 1974, the District has the following comments and commendations regarding the subject proposed tentative map:
I. The proposed subdivision is a part of a property that is la within our District and Special Improvement District No. 3. Public water service will be the responsibility of this Dis
2. Inasmuch as the proposed subdivision is a part of a large TI planned area the developer will be required to prepare a c plete master plan for water system development for the enti 600 acre planned community.
3. Public water service will be provided to the area subject t the terms and conditions established by the Board of Direct of the District.
4, The developer will be required to provide all public water system components as set forth in the applicable master pla of the water system development as adopted by the Board of Directors of the District.
Thank you for this opportunity to communicate with you and pleas contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the project.
cc:Ji"ty of Carlsbad - Engineering Department Carlsbad Municipal Water District
JY K/1 e
9390
In range County. Santa Ana
%?? @ ery truly yours
3 c Y. Kvbota, Districl wlsbad Mnicipal Water