HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-16; City Council; 6928; 813 Unit Tentative Map & Planned unit developmentCIlCoF CARLSBAD — AGENDM&ILL /2.
AR# 6^2r
MTP, 3/16/82
DPPT PL
TITLE- CT 81-9/PUD-30 - CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS
813 UNIT (853 LOT) TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
PEPT. HD.BvV-t^
CITY AmVfiji/•%*
PITY MGR./X^""//('
o(5<J
o
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Staff and Planning Commission recommend that
this application be DENIED and that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare documents DENYING CT 81-9/PUD-30, per Planning Com-
mission Resolution No. 1918.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is a request for approval of an 813 unit (853 lot) ten-
tative tract map and planned unit development generally located
south of Lake Calavera and approximately one mile east of El
Camino Real in the R-A-10,000 zone. This project is being con-
sidered in conjunction with an environmental impact report (EIR
80-8 and EIR 80-8(A)) that is included on tonight's agenda.
Both the Planning Commission and the staff are recommending
denial of this project. The Commission cited the prematurity of
the development as the primary reason for denial. The Commission
also expressed concerns with the lack of tradeoffs provided by
the project to justify approval of a planned unit development and
the significant environmental impacts that would be created by
this project. A detailed discussion of all these issues are pre-
sented in the attached staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This item is being considered with an Environmental Impact Report
included in tonight's agenda (EIR 80-8 and EIR 80-8(A)). The
Planning Commission has determined that the Environmental Impact
Report is complete and has adequately identified the significant
adverse impacts that would be created by this project. The Com-
mission, therefore, is recommending that the City Council certify
EIR 80-8 and EIR 80-8(A).
FISCAL IMPACTS
If the City Council decides to approve this project, the Engin-
eering Department has determined that the cost of providing ser-
vices and maintaining public facilities which are needed for this
project will not be offset by the tax revenues or public facility
fees generated by the project.
EXHIBITS
A. PC Resolution No. 1918
B. Staff Report, dated February 24, 1982, w/attachments
C. Memo from Fire Chief dated March 5, 1982
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO." 1918
A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF A 853 LOT (813 UNIT) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE CALAVERA AND APPROXIMATLEY
1.5 MILES EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: THE BARNES CORPORATION
CASE NO; CT 81-9/PUD-30
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to
Those portions of Lots "D" and "L" of Rancho Agua
Hedionda according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1896
has been filed with the city of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a
request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day
of February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission recommends DENIAL of CT 81-9/PUD-30, based on
the following findings:
Findings;
2
.5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) The project is not consistent with the land use, public
facilities and public safety elements of the general plan
for the following reasons:
Section V.G of the Land Use Element provides that projects
should be rated to development based on certain criteria
including; "The ability of the Fire Department of the city
to provide fire protection according to established response
standards of the city without the necessity of establishing
a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment
to an existing station"; The Public Facilities Element of
the General Plan requires the proponents of the development
to present evidence satisfactory to the city that all public
facilities and services will be available concurrent with
need. The Policies of the Public Safety Element require the
city to consider and analyze fire hazards and police
protection problems associated with proposed development.
The project is "leapfrog" development located far from the
urban core of the city and outside reasonable service terri-
tories for police, fire and schools. Given the isolated
nature of the proposed site, construction of this project at
the present time is premature and is inconsistent with the
policies just stated because:
a. The removal of waste water from the site will require
more energy than would the removal of water from a
project located adjacent to existing developments, as
discussed in the staff report.
b. Providing adequate police and fire protection to this
site would place a financial burden on the city far out-
weighing the benefit of the project. Further, providing
service to this area would decrease service to areas
already serviced. In addition, another fire station or
major equipment additions would be necessary to
adequately serve the project.
c. The excessive length of the off-site improvements
necessary to serve this project would result in very high
maintenance costs in excess of the revenues generated by
this project.
d. The isolated nature of this project will necessitate an
excessive consumption of fuel because of the distance of
this project from existing schools, commercial centers
and job opportunities as discussed in the staff report.
e. Public facilities, such as adequate streets, fire
facilities and police protection will not be available
concurrent with need for this project because the project
depends on the extension of these services by other
PC RESO 1918 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V
property owners and developers. Previously approved
projects will provide such services and facilities as
major arterials and fire stations. When these services
and facilities are provided, development of this project
will be more logical. However, because those facilities
which will be provided by other property developers are
not yet installed, and the city cannot predict when
installation will occur, there is no evidence upon which
the city can find the project consistent with the
general plan's public facilities policies.
2) The proposed project does not meet the intent of Chapter
21. -45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Unit Develop-
ment) since it does not provide a site-sensitive plan and
does not provide sufficient trade-offs to justify the
reduced lot sizes and reduced right-of-way widths because
the project's grading and design will totally alter the
existing landscape and destroy or severely impact almost all
of the existing natural habitats, as discussed in the staff
report.
3) The site is not physically suitable for the type of develop-
ment proposed, because of the hilly topography of the site.
The proposed development, consisting of single family
detached dwellings and duplexes requires extensive amounts
of grading, as discussed in the report.
4) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage due to the massive alteration of the
topography, loss of wildlife habitat and loss of prime
agricultural land, as discussed in the staff report.
5) The proposed project is not consistent with the open space
and Conservation Element of .the General Plan because of the
massive alteration of the existing topography and the
destruction of almost all of the existing wildlife habitats
on site.
6) The proposed project is not consistent with Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code because:
a) Is not consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan.
b) The site is not physically suitable for the type of
development.
c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that the
project be denied.
RESO 1918 -3-
f
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
o Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on
3
the 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
4 I AYES:
5 NOES:
6 ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
8
9
10
.,., (ATTEST:
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERNON J. FARROW, JR., Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO 1918 -4-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 81-°/PUD-30 - CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS - Request for a 813
unit (853 lot) Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development on property generally located south of Lake
Calavera and approximately one mile east of El Camino
Real in the R-A-10,000 zone.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to create an 813 unit (853 lots) Planned
Unit Development to be built in 6 phases out of two irregularly
shaped lots with an area of approximately 263 acres. The site is
located in the northeast corner of the city generally south of
Calavera Lake. At this time, the site is only accessible via
dirt roads.
The northern portion of the site is relatively flat and is being
used for agricultural purposes at the present time. The pan-
handle portion of the site consists of gently sloping hills, some
of which are being utilized for agricultural purposes. The cen-
tral portion of the site consists of a large hill which slopes
steeply to the south and west. A steep valley with a riparian
habitat runs from the northeast to southwest through the south-
easterly corner of the property. Over half of the site is
covered with native vegetation consisting of chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, southern California grassland and riparian woodland.
As this project is proposed, only 19 acres of these natural hab-
itats would be preserved.
At the present time, the site is completely surrounded by vacant
land. The nearest existing residential development would be the
single family homes in Oceanside to the north of Calavera Lake.
The city of Oceanside has approved a tentative map for a 1898
unit project on vacant land to the east of this site. The first
of nine phases has just recorded a final map and build out of the
entire subdivision is not expected to occur in the near future.
The subject property is zoned R-A-10,000 (Residential Agricul-
tural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Approximately 96
percent of the site has a General Plan designation of RLM (0-4
du/ac) while the other 4 percent has a designation of RL, (0-1.5
du/ac). As proposed, this project will have a density of 3.1
du/ac. Cannon Road, a prime arterial, will go through the south-
erly portion of the property, adjacent to the riparian area.
II. ANALYSIS
1. Would the development of this project at the present
time be premature with respect to the provision of:
a. Water and wastewater facilities
b. Police and fire service
c. Street access
d. School facilities
e. Public transportation
f. Energy consumption
2. Does the design of the proposed project justify the re-
duced development standards allowed by the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance? Specifically, is the project's
grading sensitive to the environment such that it would
justify the tradeoffs being requested by the applicant
(reduced lot sizes, increased density relative to the
topographic constraints of the site)?
Discussion
A. Premature Development
Staff feels that the proposed development of this site at the
present time is premature. This project is located in an
isolated area in the northeast section of Carlsbad. The only
nearby residential project is the Leisure World development in
Oceanside which, as indicated, is not expected to build out in
the near future. The city's proposed Public Facilities
Management Program addresses the problems associated with
premature development in isolated areas resulting in the
inefficient use of the city's existing infrastructure (i.e.,
sewer, streets, and other such public facilities).
Specifically, the program points out the fact that energy costs
for pumping wastewater are significantly increased when such
services must be provided for outlying, isolated developments.
The costs are reduced when these services are provided for infill
developments or developments adjacent to existing developed
areas. Staff believes the long term costs for providing sewer
service to the project would be increased with a corresponding
decrease in the efficiency of providing this service if this
project is approved.
In regards to police protection, the Public Facilities Management
Program indicates that adequate police protection becomes in-
creasingly difficult as development patterns in the city become
more dispersed. The cost of police protection is determined more
by the amount of manpower needed to serve developments in the
city, than by the amount of people served. The cost of providing
police protection to an outlying development would be greater
than for a project that was built adjacent to existing develop-
-2-
1
ment. The EIR for this project indicates that 3 new patrol
officers, with supporting vehicles and equipment, would have to
be provided by the city to serve this project while maintaining
the current level of service.
Fire protection can also be provided more efficiently if develop-
ment occurs in infill areas or those areas adjacent to existing
developed areas. This site is significantly beyond the Fire
Department's minimum acceptable level of a five minute response
time. Eventually, a fire station will be built in Calavera
Hills, but the very earliest that this station would be
operational would be 1985. As an alternative to mitigate the
slow fire response time, the applicant is proposing to provide
automatic sprinkler protection for all the units. Although this
could mitigate the potential fire hazards, it would not mitigate
the additional response time required for emergency para-medical
aid to the residents of this project.
Another problem that results from isolated projects, especially
larger ones as is being proposed, is access to the project. To
provide access to this project, the applicant would have to ex-
tend Cannon Road to College Avenue and then extend College Avenue
to El Camino Real. Secondary access would be provided by extend-
ing Elm Avenue through Lake Calavera Hills to the project site.
Although the applicant would construct these roads, the city
would maintain them. According to the Engineering Department,
the excessive length of these off-site improvements would result
in a very high street maintenance costs in excess of property tax
revenues generated from the project.
As mentioned earlier, the city of (Xceanside has approved a ten-
tative map for Leisure World, an 1898 unit project directly to
the east of this project. The construction of Leisure World
would bring Cannon Road up to the edge of this project providing
an easterly access; however, it could be years before this
occurs. According to the phasing schedule for Leisure World,
Cannon Road will not be constructed to the easterly boundary of
Carlsbad until the 9th (last) phase of the project.
With respect to energy costs, isolated developments such as this
result in a higher use of energy by automobiles, because of its
distance from commercial centers, employment centers and schools.
The Public Facilities Management Program points out that growth
adjacent to existing schools with available space can minimize
the transportation cost of busing students. Residents of this
project would be overly dependent on their automobiles. Also, it
is possible that no bus service will be provided to this site in
the near future. To serve this project buses would have to make
a long detour off the established routes on El Camino Real.
-3-
V?
Although it would be possible to provide the necessary public
services to this project, to do so would put a physical and
financial strain on the city's existing -facilities. The extra
costs of providing service to this project would be born by the
residents of Carlsbad, not the developer. Carlsbad is contin-
ually trying to make the most of the existing city revenues.
Approval of a large, isolated project such as this would be con-
trary to that goal.
Overall, given the problems and excessive costs of providing pub-
lic services to an isolated project such as this, staff cannot
support approval.
B. Planned Unit Development Ordinance
The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a greater flex-
ibility in developing a project than would normally be allowed by
the underlying zoning requirements. This flexibility is granted
as a tradeoff for such things as a site sensitive plan, the pre-
servation of natural habitats or an extremely well designed pro-
ject. In this instance, staff feels that the flexibility of the
PUD Ordinance has been used to obtain the maximum number of
dwelling units, through the use of reduced lot size and sub-
standard streets, with little regard for the existing topography
or natural habitats. Although the General Plan would allow up to
4 dwelling units per acre, it would be almost impossible to
develop the site to that density due to its topography. Staff
believes that if the applicant developed this project as a stan-
dard subdivision with 10,000 sq.ft. lots, it would be very diff-
icult to obtain a density similar to .the density proposed by this
project.
Although the applicant has used the PUD Ordinance to reduce lot
size and street widths, the resulting project will still have
massive grading resulting in a complete alteration of the exist-
ing topography and destruction of almost all of the natural
habitats. This project will have approximately 2,400,000 cubic
yards of cut and 2,400,000 cubic yards of fill which averages out
to a total of approximately 18,250 cubic yards per acre. In the
past, staff has found that the final grading plans for a project
often require substantially more grading than shown on the ten-
tative map. A more site sensitive plan could allow the same num-
ber of units with significantly less grading.
The city has approved large residential projects in the past with
similar amounts of grading and landform alteration. Most of
those projects were standard R-1 subdivisions having 7,500 to
10,000 square foot lots and full width public streets. The lots
being created by this project will average about 5390 square feet
in size with some as small as 4100 square feet. In addition,
they will be served by public streets with a minimal right-of-way
width and a minimal turning radii. Although the city has allowed
projects characterized by massive grading in the past, this is
not justification to continue approving projects which result in
a massive alteration of the existing topography. Part of
-4-
Carlsbad's attractiveness is its rolling topography and hill-
sides. These will quickly disappear if the city continues to
allow these hills to be flattened to provide easy building pads
rather than encouraging site-sensitive development plans.
Staff feels that insufficient trade-offs are being offered by
this project to justify the flexibility allowed by the PUD Ordin-
ance. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this pro-
ject.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As mentioned in the description and the EIR accompanying this
report, only 19.5 acres of approximately 142 acres of existing
natural habitat will be preserved. This represents only 13 per-
cent of the existing natural habitat on this site. In addition,
some of the habitat that will be preserved will be significantly
impacted by grading.
The EIR that is being addressed by the Planning Commission at
tonight's meeting has discussed the grading and loss of habitat
in detail. In addition, the EIR discusses the potential environ-
mental impacts in regards to agriculture, public services and
traffic. Staff believes that the EIR is adequate in addressing
the potential impacts and is recommending that it be certified as
complete.
The Commission should be aware, however, that certification of an
EIR only implies that the environmental impacts and alternatives
have been adequately reviewed and analyzed. It does not mean
that no environmental impacts will be created as a result of the
project, and that it should be approved. Staff believes the im-
pacts identified by the EIR contribute to the overall recommen-
dation of denial for this project.
Given the problems of providing public services to this project
because of its isolated location, the project's lack of meeting
the intent of the PUD Ordinance to provide a site sensitive pro-
ject, and the environmental impacts created by the project, staff
must recommend denial of this project.
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the project, you
should be aware that other more detailed design problems exist
which should be addressed. These problems were not addressed in
the staff report given the space needed to address the major
issues; however, a summary of these design problems is contained
in an appendix attached to the staff report.
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the
Environmental Impact Report submitted for this project and ADOPT
Resolution No. 1918 recommending .DENIAL to the City Council of CT
81-9/PUD-30, based on the findings contained therein.
-5-
/O
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 1918
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Appendix
6. Reduced Exhibits
7. Exhibits A-T dated December 7, 1981 and Exhibit X dated
December 18, 1981
MH:ar
2/4/82
-6-
LOC&TIO
OCE ANSIDE
C a I a v e r a
CASE NO. CT81-/PUD-30
APPLICANT BARNES CORP
VICINITY MAP
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO; CT 81-9/pW-30
APPLICANT: BARNES CORPORATION
AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for
813 unitsr south of Lake Calavera approximately 1 mile east of El
Camino Real. ~ ' "~ ~" "
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Lots "D" and "L" of Rancho Agua
Hedionda according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1896
.Assessors Parcel N Briber: 168 - 050 -2,5.
Acres 263 No. of Lots 853 lo^s (813 units),;
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation RLM/RL
Density Allowed °"4 / ° 1<5 Density Proposed 3tl
Existing Zone R-A-10,000 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning . . Land Use
North R-A-10,000 Vacant
South E-l-A County . Vacant
East Oceanside Vacant
West R-A-10,000 . Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD
Water District • CARLSBAD
Sewer District CARLSBAD _ . EDU's _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated FEBRUARY 25, 1982
(Other: _
•,' ' ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
S ---- ---Ji--.-
_ Negative ^Declaration, issued ' ' *• _ ' Log No.
X E.I.R. Certified, dated FEBRUARY 10, 1982
Other,
- V,
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
BARNES/**PRPORATION
Name (indiv. -ual, partnership, joint .venture, corporation, syndication)
343 Third St. No. 3 Laguna-Beach, CA 92651
Business Address
714-497-4008
Telephone Number
same as above
Name
'V PROPERTY
DOWNERS .
Business Address
Telephone Number , .... .-,-'*
See ^Attachment -ft".""
Name-(individual, partner, joint
venture,.corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Home Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Narae Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
. . ...-• ....'."••'.'•'. . t . (Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
BEST
COPY Barnes Corporation
Agent, Owner, Partner
*'•c
-ATTACHMENT "A"
HUGH W. WARDEN and ANNIE M. WARDEN, husband and wife,
as tenants in common.
By: . \ ;
By;
FRANK A. RHODES, JR. and MARJORIE S. RHODES, husband
'and wife, as tenants in common.
;" By: • _' , ' •'• ; _.'.'.:.-.-'
By: ;
ADOLF SCHCEPE, Trustee under Declaration of Trust
established October 17, 1968 by ADOLF SCHOEPE and
MARTHA VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustors (Schoepe Family Trust)
By: . : •' • '
3y:_ ; _____
JON T. GREEN, a married man, and ROBERT L. GREEN, a
married mar., as tenants in common.
By:__ -•- _-- -- • •-..;..- '-..•-• . .; ...
Bv:
RG3ZRT BRUCE CLARK, TERRENCE RAY CLARK and KEVIN DENNIS
CLARK, as tenants in common.
3y:
By:
By: '
GILL B. CAUSEY and JUNE H. CAUSEY, Trustees of the Gill
and Jur.e Causey Family Trust dated August 1, 1978.
^ By-
MARY L. DAILY.
By:
G
• W/
• ATTACHMENT "A"
HUGH W. WARDEN and ANNIE M. WARDEN, husband and wife,
as tenants in common.
By: . .
By: '
FRANK.A. RHODES, JR. and MARJORIE S. RHODES, husband
and wife, as tenants in common. ."'•"-
-.: By: • •' - •"• '••'
.:• By; •' -
ADOLF SCHOEPE, Trustee under Declaration of Trust
established October 17, 1963 by ADCL? SCHOEPE and
MARTHA VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustcrs (Schoepe Family Trust)
B: •.
JCM T. GREEN, a married man, ar.d ROBERT L. GREEN, a
married nan, as tenants in ccnrr.cn.
By:
Bv:
ROBERT BRUCE CLARK, TERRENCE RAY CLARK and KEVIN DENNIS
CLARK, as tenants in common.
By: •
By:
By:
GILL B. CAUSEY and JUNE H. CAUSEY, Trustees of the Gill
and June Causey Family Trust dated August 1, 1978.
By: I
By: '
MARY L. DAILY.
Bv:
ATTACHMENT "A*
•VA.
- 'I 5-
'\ X
HUGH W. WARDEN and ANNIE M. WARDEN, husband and wife,
as tenants in/coiranon.
By
By;
t *^//^S/ M
t )
FRANK A. RHODES, JR. and PRANK A.
•MarjorLe S. Rhodes I
f. JR., Trustee •
By:"?
ADOLF SCHOEPE,V Trustee under Declaration of Trust
established October 17, 1968 by ADOLF SCHOEPE and
MARTHA. VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustors (Schoepe Family Trust)
^
_
JON T. GREEN, a married man, and ROBERT L. GREEN, a
married man, as tenants in common.
By:x It
ROBERT BRUCE CLARK, TERRENCE RAY CLARK and KEVIN DENNIS
CLARK, as tenants in common. ,-
3y:_
By:_
By:_
GILL B/'CAUSEY and JUNE H. CAUSEY, Trustees of the Gill
and June Causey Family Trust dated August 1, 1978.
APPENDIX
UNRESOLVED DESIGN PROBLEMS
The unsignalized 90° intersections of Cannon Road and
College Avenue, two high speed roads, will be hazardous.
Road alignments and a phasing plan for off-site circulation
have not been worked out.
The phasing of the project is inconsistent with the
proposed collector road to Elm Avenue.
The hairpin turn required to gain access to Village 2 is
dangerous and unacceptable.
Some of the street intersections have less than the 300
foot minimum spacing required by the city.
o
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS
THE BARNES CORPORATION
corbin-yamafuji and partners, inc.
architecture • planning
PHASING PLAN
N \\ '^vT X T T 7 7 T T T T'l t T 7 T T Vf ^¥
<>> \V-f-?iL >J-LLiJ-U-L-LL^-IIHU
tt.<&vV3}
•^i-p.'-xy-is;iu:^l--U \r •«;
l^tlr
PHASE
1
Z
3
4
5
6
AREA
GrtK
E/J
CDU
B
A
L
DESCRIPTION
MJ. ATTACHCD/*^. OETACMO
•.F. ATTACHCD/t^. DCTACMCO
*J. ATTACHCO/^F. MTACHCD
LP. DCTACHCO
8^. ATTACHCD
ft*. OKTACMIB
TOTAL D.U
154
146
241
134
86
52
TOTAL
o
o
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS
THE BARNES CORPORATION
corbin-yamafuji and partners, inc.
architecture • planning
SECTION B-B
O
SC/MJE 1' -
SECTIONS
SECTION 0-0
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER . DATE: 3-5-82
<&FROM: JAMES THOMPSON, FIRE CHIEF X
SUBJECT: Attachment: Carlsbad Highlands CT81-9
Just wanted you to be aware of the situation concerning
this project.
It might be appropriate to provide copies of the memorandum
to the individual council members since apparently the
emergency response issue was one of the main causes for the
denial.
We are available to fill in any details that the council
members might need.
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: 3-4-82
>
*—-^,
FROM: JAMES THOMPSON, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS CT81-9
It has come to my attention that some confusion has arisen
over the- fire department's requirements for the subject pro-
ject. Apparently, this confusion led, in part, to a denial
of the project by the Planning Commission. Since the appli-
cant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision, to the
City Council, I feel it necessary to clearly state our
position.
Currently the emergency response time to the project location
from existing fire stations is in excess of the current five
minute standard. This situation can be adequately mitigated
and the time for the mitigation measure to be employed would
be at the time building permits are actually applied for.
The following mitigation measures may be employed in providing
adequate fire protection to the project.
1. A permanent fire station site and a road network capable
for providing 5 minute emergency response.
2. A temporary fire station facility provided by the develop-
er to protect the project until a permanent facility is
available.
3. A contract arrangement with the City of Oceanside if
their proposed fire station at San Francisco Peak is
able to provide fire protection to the project site.
4. Providing a residential type fire sprinkler system in
all units that are built before a station is available
to protect the project.
I feel that all of the-se measures ar6 viable.
So there is no confusion, I feel that the excessive emergency
response time can be adequately mitigated by the time build-
ing construction on the project begins. I would not recommend
that the project be denied because existing response times are
excessive.
cc: -City Manager