HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-06; City Council; 12301; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan ProjectCITI-JF CARLSBAD - AGEND.4 BILL $qf @
B # a TITLE:
ITG. 716193 RANCH0 cARIuLu> MASTER PLAN PROJECT -
EJR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP-139(E)/HDP 91-17 BEPT. PLN CITY MGF3.w
IECOMMENDED ACTION:
Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution
No. $Y-/Y~ , CERTIFYING EIR 91-04 and APPROVING GPA 91-06 and HDP 91-17, as
approved by the Planning Commission, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. &-dg?‘,
APPROVING MP-139(E).
ITEM EXPLJINATION
On April 7 and 21, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on and
recommended approval (6-O-l) of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan project. The project
requests the following discretionary approvals:
1. The Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan
Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Hillside Development Permit. EIR 91-04
addresses the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project both on and off site.
2. The proposed Master Plan Amendment which involves changing the types and
locations of specific existing land use designations, and modifying the boundaries of
the Master Plan area. The amended Master Plan proposes a total of 20 planning area
villages, including 18 residential villages, 1 community facility site, and 1 elementary
school site. A public park, day care center, and a recreational vehicle storage area
would be included on separate sites within the 250 acres of open space. The
existing Master Plan allows 2,998 additional dwelling units to be constructed onsite,
while this amendment would lower that number to 2,091.
The proposed boundary modification would delete the industrial property to the north of
Palomar Airport Road and the existing developed single family homes (Carlsbad Tract 73-
29, Carrillo Estates), to the southwest of El Fuerte, from the Master Plan.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects the land uses of the Master Plan
Amendment and would adjust those boundaries on the General Plan Land Use Map.
All commercial designations are deleted, open space is increased by over 100 acres,
and while the overall residential dwelling unit total has decreased, residential
product opportunity has been augmented through an increase in RMH and RH
acreage.
4. Lastly, a Hillside Development Permit which analyzes the grading as proposed in the
Master Plan for conformance with Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning
Commission, dated April 7,1993 and the memorandum to the City Manager, dated May 10,
1993. The Growth Management Division has reviewed the project for conformance with
the adopted Local Facilities Management Plan and determined that due to the reduction in
impacts no revision is required.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /$%l
An EIR was processed addressing all the necessary discretionary approvals needed to
develop the project. The report was found by staff and the Planning Commission to have
been prepared in compliance with State and City regulations.
The study prepared by Onaka Planning and Economics titled “Fiscal Impact Analysis of
Amendments to Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan...“, revised February 8, 1993, indicates that
with affordable housing requirements the estimated annual expenditures would exceed
revenue by $20,000. This estimate is based upon an assumption of 304 units of low
income housing and 101 units of moderate income housing. Actual number of affordable
units will vary depending upon entitlements per the recently adopted inclusionary
ordinance.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
Facilities Zone I- I 18 II
Local Facilities Management Plan I- I Completed 1991 II
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Special Facilities
I- I
Community Facilities District
Number 1 II
EXHJBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
City Council Resolution No. *o&%
City Council Ordinance No. me&7
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3503, 3504, 3505, and 3506, dated 4/7/93.
Memorandum to the City Manager, dated May 10, 1993
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 7, 1993
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 7, 1993 and April 21, 1993
EIR 91-04 (&riarsb. d&ibu@)
MP-139(E) (&vious& di~6utaf)
Memorandum dated July 9, 1993 from Planning Director to City Manager with attached letter to Martin Burton dated July 9, 1993.
1
2
z
4
F *
E
'i
E
s
1C
13
12
12
14
1:
1t
l'i
1E
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
.
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-196
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING A .'MASTER-Pm AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, NORTH OF LCCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6, AND EAST OF BRESSI RANCH. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN CASE NO: EIR 91-04/MP-139(El/GPA 91-06/HDP 91-17
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1993, and April 21, 1993, the
Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04), a Master Plan
Amendment (MP-139(E)), a General Plan Amendment (GPA (91-06), and
a Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17), and adopted Resolutions
Nos. 3503, 3504, 3505, and 3506 respectively, recommending to the
City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
JULY 20 1993 * held a public hearing to consider
the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed
to EIR 91-04/MP-139(E)/GPA 91-06/HDP 91-17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04) on
the above referenced project is certified and that the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Resolution
No. 3503, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission
for the approval of MP-139(E) is approved and that the findings
and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Resolution
C
IJO. 3504, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
1 reference,,are the findings of the City Council and Ordinance No.
2 NS-247 I shall be contemporaneously adopted.
3 4. That the Planning Commission recommendation of the
4 General Plan Amendment (GPA 91-06)for this project is approved
5 and that the findings and conditions contained in Resolution 3505,
6 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference,
7 are the findings of the City Council.
8 5. ,That the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 91-17) for
9 this project is approved and that the findings and conditions of
10 the Planning Condition contained in Resolution No. 3506, on file
11 with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are.the
12 findings of the City Council.
13 6. This action is final the date this resolution is
14 adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the
15 Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall
16 apply:
17 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
26
27
28
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the
party f or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
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
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon
its adoption, except as to the General Plan Amendment, which shall
be effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
II City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
27th day of JULY I 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN:
1 TTEST:
E!THA J&#UT
,REN R. KUNDTZ,
City Clerk
City Clerk
3
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
EXHIBIT 2
ORDINANCE NO. NS-247
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE .RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (MP-139(E) ON APPROXIMATELY 690 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF PALCMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6, WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY BOUNDARY, AND EAST OF THE BRESSI ' RANCH PROPERTY (LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17), IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18. CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN CASE NO: MP-139(E)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed and considered a Master Plan for future development of the
site: and
WHEREAS, after procedures in accordance with the
requirements of the law, the City Council has determined that the
public interest indicates that said plan be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, MP-
139 (El t dated April 7, 1993, on file in the Planning Department,
and incorporated by reference herein, is approved. The Master Plan
shall constitute the zoning for this property and all development
of the property shall conform to the plan.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the
Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3504
shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City
Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Till.- .Jrdinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Sun within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
1
b arlsbad City Council on the day of I
and thereafter.
3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
4 ouncil of the City of Carlsbad on the day of
5 I 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
6 AYES:
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
rPPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
iONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
18
19 LETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
LOCATION MAP EXtitBlT 3
n
tity of c4rlsb4li
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN I EIR 9%04/GPA 9%067 MP 139(E)/HDP 91-17
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3503
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE’
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR
91-04, FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON
690 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS,
EAST OF BRESSI RANCH, AND NORTH OF LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: EIR 91-04
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of the southerly one half of Section 18 and a portion of Section
19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a
portion of fractional Section 13 and a portion of fractional Section 24,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
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 7th day of April, 1993, and
on the 21st day of April, 1993, 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, ex amining the Environmental Impact Report, analyzing the
information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the
Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Environmental Impact Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 91-04 will be amended to include the
comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses
thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the
minutes of said public hearings into the report.
0 That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact
Report EIR 91-04 has been completed in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, and the
provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning
Commission has reviewed, considered, and evaluated the information contained in
the report.
D> That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 91-04 as so amended and as evaluated
in the staff report (April 7; 1993) reflects the independent judgement of the
Planning Commission, is recommended for acceptance and certification as the
Final Environmental Impact Report and that the Final Environmental Impact
Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the
project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
J3 That each and every significant environmental impact identified in the
Environmental Impact Report would be overruled or counter balanced by changes
or alteration in the project which would mitigate against said adverse impact or
through the implementation of the requirements of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master
Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Conditions:
1.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit “A”, dated April 7,1993,
and should be &erred to for all conditions, mitigation measures, and monitoring
programs applicable to development of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Amendment Area.
PC RESO NO. 3503 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1:
11
If
1t
1:
ll
l!
2(
2:
2;
2:
21
21
2
2
2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2lst day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Welshons, Eqwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Savary.
aL
BAILEY NOB& Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLkNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3503 -3-
Exhibit “A”
April 7, 1993
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A. Agriculture
Impact. Possible soil contamination from agricultural chemicals formerly used or stored on the
site.
Mitigation. 1) Submittal of soils report with mitigation recommendations, if necessary, to City
Planning Department and County Health Department. 2) Mitigation to be made a condition of
tentative maps approved under the Master Plan. 3) Report on completed remediation to be
submitted to City Planning Department and County Health Department upon completion.
Master Plan Implementation. A soils report for the property owned by Continental Homes and
the property being dedicated for park purposes has been received by the Planning Department.
Any mitigation required for soils contamination indicated by this report will be remedied prior
to issuance of a grading permit. Impacts may occur if additional pesticide concentrations and/or
hazardous waste materials or containers are found during development, in which case the
referenced mitigation would be applicable. Soils reports for other properties within the Master
Plan will be required with the submittal of tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Master Plan. 2)
Approval of each tentative map under the Master Plan. 3) Completion of construction of each
tentative map subdivision.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No tentative maps to be approved without necessary conditions. 2) No final
maps, building or grading permits issued until remediation report submitted.
Impact. Possible conflict between earlier stages of Master Plan development and continued
agricultural use of other portions of the site, including agricultural chemical use, irrigation
runoff, and odor.
Mitigation. Each tentative map must provide a list of performance and impact criteria specified
in the EIR, such as access, drainage, and buffering, to ensure the phasing development is
compatible with continued agricultural use.
Master Plan Implementation. There will be no impact if applicant(s) indicates that consistent
with its practice since 1991, it intends to abandon farm use.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative subdivision map under the Master Plan. 2)
Approval of each tentative map under the Master Plan. 3) Construction of each tentative map
subdivision.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No tentative maps to be approved without necessary conditions. 3) Inspection
of construction by grading inspectors. No building permits issued until performance criteria are
implemented.
B. Biology
General Note. To ensure the implementation of all mitigation for potential impacts to biological
resources, the applicant for each tentative map proposed under the Master Plan shall prior to
approval of each tentative map, as appropriate, show evidence to the City Planning Department
that a qualified consulting biologist has been retained to monitor all relevant mitigation, assure
compliance with mitigation requirements, supervise implementation of mitigation, and file a
report on mitigation compliance with the Planning Director upon completion of major
components of biological mitigation requirements.
Impact. Implementation of the Master Plan will directly impact wetlands on-site and, by
construction of a sewer line in the right of way for Carrillo Way to the west, off-site.
Mitigation. The applicant for the project shall either restore and enhance riparian habitat at an
appropriate area ratio to impacts or shall participate in a city-wide mitigation program through
the City’s Habitat Management Plan. Mitigation shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
City and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and
Game Code and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Master Plan Implementation. No mitigation required for offsite under sewer alignment
currently proposed by applicant north of Carrillo Way alignment. Such alignment has no
wetland impacts.
Checkpoints. Approval of the first tentative map or grading permit affecting wetlands on- or
off-site under the Master Plan.
Responsible Party. City Planning and Engineering Departments, California Department of
Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Sanctions. No grading map under the Master Plan.
Impact. If the project is not reconfigured to substantially avoid populations of San Diego
thommint and thread-leaved brodiaea, development will significantly impact those species.
Mitigation. To partially mitigate impacts, the mitigation plans for San Diego thommint and
thread-leaved brodiaea shall be implemented, modified as specified in the EIR and after review
and acceptance by CDFG, as conditions of approval of tentative maps under the Master Plan.
To the maximum extent possible, mitigation shall be accomplished prior to construction resulting
in impacts.
Master Plan Implementation. Villages T and U have been reconfigured to avoid impact to
thornmint. Village G has been reconfigured to minimize impacts to Brodiaea.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) Approval of tentative maps. 3) Prior to
construction causing impacts.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments. 3) City Planning and Engineering Departments, consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps for Village G without acceptable mitigation
reviewed by California Department of Fish and Game.
Impact. Potential for future disturbance of open space areas.
Mitigation. Dedication of an open space easement over natural open space, biological mitigation
areas, buffer areas, and naturalized areas to avoid disturbance of the natural habitats as a
condition of tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Pam. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without depiction of acceptable open space
easements and condition to dedicate conservation easements over natural open space.
Impact. Possible predation or disturbance of California gnatcatchers or other sensitive wildlife
species by future residents or domestic pets.
Master Plan Implementation. No approval of Tentative Maps for affected Villages without
mitigation condition, if any, required by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mitigation. As determined by above referenced agency.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No Tentative Map approved without mitigation, if any, imposed by referenced
lead agency set forth as a condition.
Impact. Possible invasion of native plant areas by non-native landscaping species.
Mitigation. As a component of the landscaping plans for affected Villages, revegetation plan
for disturbed and mitigation areas shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, and landscaping
plans for tentative maps shall be reviewed by the biologist.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Completion of landscaping and revegetation.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments, consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without satisfactory landscaping and revegetation
plans.
Impact. Possible disturbance of native habitat areas during grading and construction.
Mitigation. The consulting biologist shall supervise surveying and staking of native habitat areas
and monitor grading and construction.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Report by consulting biologist.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without proper mitigation condition. 2) No
issuance of building or occupancy permits until consulting biologist’s report is submitted to the
Planning Department.
Impact. Potentially significant noise and activity impacts to Gnatcatcher during grading and
construction.
Mitigation. Due to conflicting biologist’s opinions regarding mitigation, final mitigation plan,
if any, shall be as approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and/or California Department of Fish and
Game, as appropriate.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Halt or redirect grading or construction in restricted area, if any.
Impact. Possible disturbance of wildlife species by outdoor lighting.
Mitigation. Outdoor lighting near native habitat areas should be shielded and directed away
from conservation easement areas.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Grading and improvement plan checks. 3)
Construction of improvements near conservation easement areas with report to Planning
Department by consulting biologist.
Responsible Putty. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting biologist.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without mitigation conditions. 2) No approval
of grading or improvement plans without proper mitigation specified. 3) No issuance of
building or occupancy permits without properly accomplished mitigation.
Impact. Potential for impacts to off-site sensitive habitat areas from erosion and sedimentation
from the project.
Mitigation. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Checkpoints. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Responsible Party. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
Sanctions. See hydrology and water quality mitigation.
C. Cultural Resources
Impact. Possible vandalism due to increased human presence to archaeological site SDI-
12,740B.
Mitigation. The site shall be capped with fabric, soil, and vegetation as a condition of the
tentative map including the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist retained
by the tentative map applicant.
Master Plan Implementation. This site is located on site to be dedicated to City of Carlsbad
for parkland. The capping of this site will be the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of development plans for park site. 2) Approval of such plans.
3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion
of work and prior to commencement of development of park site.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning
Department. 3) Consulting archaeologist, City planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of site development plan without mitigation plan. 2) No grading
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
Impact. Direct impacts of development on archaeological site SDI-4691B.
Mitigation. A data recovery program as specified in the EIR must be required as a condition
of the tentative map including the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist
retained by the tentative map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the site.
Master Plan Implementation. Mitigation of this site will not be required unless this area is
disturbed by onsite riparian mitigation.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting archaeologist
submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work and prior to any grading for
construction affecting the site.
Responsible P&y. 1) No approval of tentative map without mitigation plan. 2) No building
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
Impact. Direct impacts of development on archaeological site SDI-4687.
Mitigation. Capping of the site as specified in the EIR as a condition of any tentative map
affecting the site. Work must be supervised by a qualified archaeologist retained by the tentative
map applicant and completed prior to any construction affecting the site.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative map. 2) Approval of applicable tentative
map. 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon
completion of work and prior to any grading or construction affecting the site.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative map. 2) Approval of applicable tentative
map. 3) Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon
completion of work and prior to any grading or construction affecting the site.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting
archaeologist.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not complete without mitigation plan. 2) No
approval of tentative map without mitigation plan. 3) No building permits to be issued until
mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City planning Departments.
Impact. Encroachment of proposed development of the Master Plan on the rural, “early
California” setting of the Leo Carrillo historic site.
Mitigation. Establishment and implementation of a special design district as required under
Land Use Compatibility in this mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Checkpoints. See Land Use Compatibility section.
Responsible Party. See Land Use Compatibility section.
Sanctions. See Land Use Compatibility section.
D. Paleontological Resources
Impact. Potential destruction of significant fossils, especially in the Santiago and Lusardi
Formation, by grading and construction.
Mitigation. Monitoring of grading by a paleontologist, with recovery and curation of any
significant fossils discovered, as specified in the EIR. Monitoring is to be performed under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist retained by the applicant for each tentative map.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative map. 2) Report by consulting paleontologist
upon completion of grading.
Responsible Party. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Consulting
paleontologist.
Sanctions. 1) Approval of tentative map not complete without mitigation plan. 2) No building
permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is submitted to City
Planning Department.
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact. Major drainage facility design will be required to avoid potential adverse effects of
erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site.
Mitigation. As a condition of approval each tentative map, the applicant shall submit a
hydrology analysis addressing required flood attenuation, runoff flow reduction/siltation, and
proper sizing of drainage facilities.
Master Plan Implementation. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis for the entire
Master Plan area.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of each tentative map.
Responsible Party. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) Tentative Map condition of approval.
Impact. Major drainage facilities will have to be constructed to avoid potential adverse effects
of erosion, sedimentation, scouring, and flooding from the developed site.
Master Plan Implementation. Applicant may submit one hydrology analysis for the entire
Master Plan area.
Mitigation. The final decision-making body shall approve a Financing Plan addressing the
source and use of funds for the construction of all required drainage facilities prior to recording
the first Final Map or the issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever is first.
Checkpoints. Recording of first final map or issuance of first grading or building permit. each
tentative map.
Responsible Pa@. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No recording of final map or issuance of grading or building permit without
Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
Impact. Potential erosive or flooding damage to structures in Leo Car15110 Ranch Park due to
runoff from the developed site entering the drainage south of the park.
Mitigation. An hydrology analysis for the drainage south of the park shall be submitted with
the applicable tentative map or prior to issuance of advanced grading permit for Melrose
Avenue, and an appropriate drainage system shall be required prior to the issuance of the first
grading permit affecting the area and constructed concurrent with the grading of the affected
area.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative maps. 2) Issuance of first grading permit.
Responsible Party. 1) Engineering Department. 2) Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative map without proper drainage system shown. 2) No
issuance of building permits until drainage system implemented.
Hydrology and Water Quality 10
Impact. Installation of the proposed storm drain between Villages R and T in Open Space Area 13
would disturb sensitive biological resources in the open space area.
Mitigation. The storm drain shall be relocated to run south from Village Q to connect to a storm
drain in either El Fuerte Street or Chorlito Street.
Master Plan Implemen&tion. This storm drain has been relocated into areas that will be graded as a
part of the development of Villages Q and R wherever possible to avoid sensitive habitat.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative map for Villages Q and R including the storm drain. 2)
Approval of Village Q and R tentative map. 3) Completion of storm drain construction.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department. 3) City
Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not complete without showing storm drain in proper
location. 2) No approval of tentative map without storm drain shown in proper location. 3) No
issuance of building permits for tentative map until storm drain properly constructed.
Impact. Potential for increased on-site erosion and increased sedimentation downstream when ground
surface is disturbed during grading and construction.
Mitigation. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be prepared for each development
submittal, approved by the City Engineer, and implemented during construction.
Checkpoints. Approval of any grading or improvement plan in the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of any grading permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
approved by the City Engineer.
Impact. Potential impacts of urban pollutants from the developed site affection water quality in
Batiquitos Lagoon.
Mitigation. Discharge of runoff from developed areas into naturalized channels and public education
information distributed to property owners.
Master Plan Implementation. A detailed Hydrological Study must be approved prior to issuance of a
grading permit for the grading necessary to construct the Circulation Element Roadways.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of applicable tentative maps. 2) Completion of construction of drainage
channels. 3) Close of escrow to property owners.
Hydrology and Water Qua@ 11
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department.
3) Developers
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without proper design of runoff drainage facilities. 2)
No issuance of building permits unless runoff drainage facilities properly constructed.
Impact. Potential for grease, oil, and other traffic-related pollutants from paved surfaces to reach
Batiquitos Lagoon in runoff.
Mitigation. Best management practices shall be employed to prevent urban pollutants from entering
City waterways in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal
stormwater permitting requirements.
Checkpoints. Approval of any grading or improvement plan in the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of any grading permits without Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
approved by the City Engineer.
F. Geology and Soils
Impact. Geologic conditions potentially unsuitable for development on the site without remediation
include soils unsuitable for load-bearing or with adverse settlement potential, old landslide areas and
claystone beds, and high-groundwater in alluvial soils.
Mitigation. Remedial grading will be needed to establish firm footings for structures and fills and to
correct adverse settlement and alluvial soils over shallow groundwater. A soils engineer and
engineering geologist shall be retained by each tentative map applicant to review detailed grading
plans, prepare a detailed soil and geologic investigation, monitor construction, and assure compliance
with the Master Plan geologic investigation and the City Grading Ordinance.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of each tentative map. 2) Approval of each tentative map and issuance of
grading permit. 3) Completion of construction.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department. 3)
Consulting soils engineer and engineering geologist, City Engineer.
Sanctions. 1) Tentative map submittal not complete without detailed soil and geologic investigation
2) No tentative map approval without soil and geologic investigation and appropriate conditions. 3)
No issuance of building permits without evidence of proper mitigation.
Air QuaZity 12
G. Air Quality
Impact. Potential for significant direct impacts to regional air quality due to increases in pollutant
emissions caused by project traffic.
Mitigation. Implementation of Master Plan measures including bike lanes and pedestrian trails, and
requirement for applicants for future tentative maps to work with North County Transit District to
provide bus routes and stops as appropriate.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps. 2) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative maps not complete without appropriate mitigation measures. 2)
No approval of tentative maps without application conditions.
H. Land Use
Impact. Development of the Master Plan would encroach on the “early California” setting of Carrillo
Ranch Park, including the elimination of the northern entry to the ranch compound.
Mitigation. A Special Park Design District shall be established for development surrounding the park,
including special controls on setbacks, landscaping, and architectural details and an entry through the
park through Village S. The design district standards will be included in the Master Plan and
subsequent tentative maps will be evaluated for conformance by the Planning Commission.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of the Master Plan. 2) Approval of tentative maps that include part of
the design district.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning Department. 2) City Planning Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of the Master Plan without establishment of a park design district and
development standards. 2) No approval of tentative maps containing part of the design district
without setting forth district development standards.
Impact. The City of Carlsbad has no review authority over Village S, which is in the park design
district, if it is developed as a school site by the San Marcos Unified School District.
Land Use 13
Mitigation. Agreement with the school district on design standards is encouraged, but cannot be
enforced by the Planning Commission. Without review of all development within the design district,
it is not within the power of the Lead Agency to assure that possible impacts are mitigated or avoided.
Checkpoints. No Lead Agency checkpoints without agreement with the school district.
ResponsibZe Padies. Responsibility for mitigation is within the authority of another jurisdiction and
not the City of Carlsbad.
Sanctions. None available to the City of Carlsbad under present circumstances.
Impact. Dedication of the open space link at the southwest corner of the property, where the link
crosses from one zone to an adjacent ownership, is not assured under the proposed Master Plan.
Mitigation. Assure continuance of the open space link as part of the Master Plan.
Master Plan Implementation. Carlsbad’s Open Space Advisory approved the open space link
proposed by the Master Plan at their February 1993 meeting.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of Master Plan. 2) Approval of tentative map including Village T.
Responsible Parties. Planning Department.
Sanctions. No approval of Master Plan without open space link.
Impact. Applicants for the Master Plan must obtain a letter from the San Marcos Unified School
District accepting the site proposed by applicants as possible school site area in compliance with the
Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
Mitigation. Agreement with the San Marcos Unified School District as part of Master Plan approval.
Checkpoints. Approval of Master Plan.
Responsible Padies. Planning Department.
Sanctions. No approval of Master Plan without agreement with the school district that complies with
the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
Visual Aesthetics/Grading 14
I. Visual Aesthetics/Grading
Impact. Grading proposed by the Master Plan requires findings justifying grading volumes to be
approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer according to the Hillside Development Ordinance.
MzYigation. Approval of findings for the proposed grading volumes prior to approval of the Master
Plan.
Checkpoints. Approval of Master Plan.
Responsible Parties. Planning Director and City Engineer.
Sanctions. No approval of the Master Plan without the required findings.
Impact. Proposed grading for the Master Plan would exceed Hillside Development Ordinance
allowances for slope height and encroachment into 40 percent slopes without specified findings by the
decision making body.
Mitigation. Approval of findings for the proposed grading concurrent with approval of the Master
Plan.
Checkpoints. Approval of the Master Plan.
Responsible Parlies. Decision making Body.
Sanctions. No approval of the Master Plan without the required findings.
Impact. Potential impacts of Master Plan development on the visually sensitive Carrillo Ranch Park
site, including Villages S, 0, and Q.
Mitigation. Applicable tentative maps to indicate an acceptable detailed landscape plan to reduce
potential impacts. Implement Special Park Design District recommended in EIR Land Use section.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) Approval of applicable tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning Department. 2) City Planning Department.
Sanctions. 1) Tentative map submittal not complete without detailed landscape plan. 2) No
. approval of tentative map without appropriate detailed landscape plan.
Visual Aesthetics/Grading 15
Impact. Potentially significant impact of recreational vehicle storage in Open Space Area 13 on views
from existing residences.
Mitigation. Detailed landscape plan as part of tentative map for Villages Q and R to effectively
screen views of recreational vehicle storage.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative map including recreational vehicle storage. 2) Approval of
tentative map including recreational vehicle storage.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning Department. 2) City Planning Department.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of tentative map not complete without appropriate landscaping plan. 2) No
approval of tentative map without appropriate landscaping plan.
Impact. Potential significant visual impact of noise barriers over six feet in height,
Mitigation. Detailed landscaping plan for tentative maps to provide adequate cover, texture, and
variation of vegetation to screen walls.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of any tentative map showing noise barriers over six feet in height. 2)
Approval of any tentative map showing noise barriers over six feet in height.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) Submittal of applicable tentative maps not complete without appropriate landscaping
plan. 2) No approval of applicable tentative maps without appropriate landscaping plan.
J. Circulation
Impact. The intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real is projected to have a level of
service F in the year 2000 afternoon peak hour. No additional improvements to this intersection are
currently proposed in the LFMP.
Mitigation. The City will continue to monitor traffic to determine conformance with LFMP standard
and to identify and implement improvements necessary to meet the standard.
Checkpoinfs. Construction of improvements.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Visual Aesthetics/Grading 16
Sanctions. No issuance of building permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of
service are not met.
Impacts. Spacing of the first intersection on Palomar Airport Road is 200 feet closer than City
standards allow.
Mitigation. Tentative maps shall comply with City road alignment and intersection spacing standards
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Master Plan Implementation. The location shown on the proposed Master Plan has not been revised
and has been approved by the City Engineer.
Checkpoints. Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. No approval of tentative maps that do not comply with City road alignment and
intersection spacing to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Impact. As proposed, development of the Master Plan would require traffic signals at Palomar
Airport Road/access road to Village E and at Melrose Avenue/entrances to Villages H, 0, and L.
Mitigation. Condition tentative maps to construct the necessary signals and improvements, or
determine the need for signals in traffic studies for tentative maps.
Checkpoints. 1) submittal of applicable tentative maps. 2) Approval of applicable tentative maps.
Responsible Pa&es. 1) City Engineering Department. 2) City Engineering Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions.
Impact. Certain revisions of the internal circulation system described in the EIR may be preferable
for environmental or circulatory reasons.
Mitigation. Traffk studies for applicable tentative maps shall determine in consultation with City staff
whether specified changes in the circulation pattern should be implemented as conditions of applicable
tentative maps.
Master Plan Implementation. Revisions to the Master Plan Circulation and proposed tentative maps
have already been made to address the recommendations of the EIR and approved by the City
Engineer.
Circulation 17
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions.
K. Noise
Impact. Certain areas adjacent to major roads in the Master Plan area could experience future traffic
noise in excess of the City standards of 60 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation. Tentative maps shall show appropriate noise barriers as specified in the EIR or to City
standards to attenuate noise. If grading shown in the Master Plan for development in areas of
excessive unattenuated noise is modified by tentative maps, the modifications shall be reviewed by the
City Engineer and a new acoustical study shall be performed and appropriate mitigation implemented
if indicated. Tentative maps applicants shall have the option of requesting a reduction in height of
barriers over six feet to no less than six feet to reduce visual impacts per City policy.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Engineering
Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barriers as a condition. 2) No issuance of subsequent
permits.
Impact. Second floors of some residential units adjacent to Circulation Element roadways could
experience interior noise levels in excess of the 45 dBA CNEL standard.
Mitigation. Proposed tentative maps shall be shown to have designs for multi-story residences next to
Circulation Element roadways which would achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for
second or higher stories. Acoustical studies to demonstrate compliance may be required by the City
Engineer.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps. 2) Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) Building Department.
Sanctions. 1) No approval without proper barriers as a condition. 2) No issuance of subsequent
permits.
Public Facilities and Services 18
L. Public Facilities and Services
Impact. There is a potential for the LFMP performance standard for park facilities to be exceeded
depending on the timing of development and the status of other future parkland in City Park District
4.
Mtigution. Prior to the recordation of any final map under the Master Plan, sufficient parkland shall
be dedicated within Zone 18.
Checkpoints. Recordation of first final map under the Master Plan.
Responsible Parties. City Planning, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation Departments.
Sanctions. No recordation of final map without dedication of sufftcient parkland within Park District
4.
Impact. The LFMP performance standard requires that a school site in Zone 18 be deeded to the San
Marcos Unified School district (SMUSD) and that a financing plan be approved by the SMUSD prior
to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading or building permit in Zone 18.
Mitigation. Compliance with the Zone 18 requirement.
Checkpoints. 1) Recordation of the first final map under the Master Plan. 2) Issuance of any
grading or building permit in the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. City Planning And Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. No Final map recorded without LFMP requirement being met.
Impact. Sewage generation could exceed treatment capacity if residential development occurs in the
Master Plan area after 2005.
Mitigation. Implement measures specified in the LFMP for any tentative maps causing the potential
impact to be realized.
Checkpoints. 1) Submittal of tentative maps after 2005. 2) Approval of tentative maps submitted
after 2005.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments. 2) City Planning and
Engineering Departments.
Public Facilities and Services 19
Sanctions. No approval of tentative maps after 2005 without conditions requiring conformance with
LFMP requirements.
M. Solid Waste Disposal
Impact. Depending on regional planning for the expansion of landfill capacity, there is a potential for
solid waste generated from the Master Plan area to exceed disposal capacity.
Mitigation. Applicants for tentative maps proposed in the Master Plan area shah demonstrate that
means of feasible solid waste disposal are available.
Checkpoints. 1) Approval of tentative maps for the Master Plan area.
Responsible Parties. 1) City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions. 1) No approval of tentative maps without demonstration of existing disposal capacity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3504
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER P&J ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH
OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6, EAST OF
BRESSI RANCH, AND WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MP 139(E)
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan for certain property to wit:
A portion of the southerly one half of Section 18 and a
portion of Section 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 west, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of fractional Section 13
and a portion of fractional Section 24, township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, City of Carlsbad,
county of San Diego, State of California.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of April, 1993,
and on the 21st day of April, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of MP-139(E), based on the following findings.
Findings:
1
1. 2 The proposed development as described by the Master Plan is consistent with the
provisions of the General Plan as identified within the iindings for GPA 91-06,
3 Resolution No. 3505 and all Endings of said resolution are incorporated herein by
reference.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2. All necessary public facilities can be provided con current with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital
improvement program applicable to the subject property. The Master Plan has
language in the text stating that all future development shall comply with the
public facility performance standards and phasing requirements of the Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18. Public facilities are required to
be constructed as development in the Master Plan creates demand for additional
facilities. A financing plan approved by the City Council for the Zone 18 LFMP
will provide the mechanisms for the Enancing of the required public facilities.
3. The residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony
with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and
that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds, and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to
the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
The Open Space plan provides 250 acres of open space within the Master Plan
which is to be used for the protection of biological habitat, the migration of
wildlife, trails for hikers and bicyclists, recreation, visual aesthetics, and buffers
from developed areas.
As noted by reference in Finding No.1, all development is in harmony with or
compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area. In recognition of the
communitys namesake’s element of heritage and provision of time and place, a
Special Design Park District has been established which covers the area
surrounding the Community Park site to ensure compatibility.
On February 22, 1992 the Parks and Recreation Commission voted in favor of
accepting the parkland dedication as offered by the property owners.
On February 23,1993 the San Marcos Utied School District E3oard directed their
staff to pursue the dedication of the school site as so identified within the Master
Plan
4. No commercial development is proposed for this site in keeping with the
Guidelines of the Land Use Element of the General Plan The industrial area that
is deleted from the Master Plan will be governed in the future by a Specific Plan
required for any development of that area due to its location within the Airport
Influence Area.
28
PC RESO NO. 3504 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
1e
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such
development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any
adverse effects from such development. The Ranch0 Carrillo Community Park, the
Public School Site, and the Day Care Site and Community Recreation Area are all
located adjacent to each other. They are bound to the north and east by Circulation Element roadways, on the west by Open Space, and to the south by
collector streets and significant landscaped slopes and setbacks to ensure that
SuIMunding areas are protected from any adverse effects.
The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon. Trafk studies have been completed for the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 and EIR 91-W. Compliance with the
mitigation conditions required by these studies and plans would ensure thatall
circulation infrastructure is in place to serve the trafk demands generated by
buildout of the Master Plan.
Commercikl development cannot be justikd economically at the location proposed
due to the proximity of multiple commercial land use sites within one and one half
mile radius of the Master Plan.
Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact
as noted in the adopted environmental impact report for the project. All findings
of EIR 91-04, Resolution No. 3503 are incorporated herein by reference.
The area suxxnmding the development is or can be planned and zoned in
coordination and substantial compatibility with the development. The project has
extensive open space bulks on the east, west, and south Where the project abuts
existing single family it is proposing single family. Where the project abuts
existing multi-family it is proposing multi-family or less intensive land uses. Where
the projects abuts Circulation Element Roadways it has been conditioned to comply
with the City’s adopted noise policies. The amendment is therefore consistent and
compatible with the surrounding land uses and with the policies of the General
PlalL
Conditions:
1. All conditions of EIR 91-04, MP 139(E), and HDP 91-17, as contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions Nos. 3503,3504, and 3506, respectively, are incorporated
herein by reference. Refer to thbse documents for all conditions and mitigation
measures applicable to development of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 3504
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2lst day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Welshons,
Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Savary.
BAILEY NO&E, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MtCHAEL J. HaLZMki,ER
Planning Director
I PC RESO NO. 3504 4
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
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONFtESOLUTIONNO.3505
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN WHICH DELETES ALL COMMERCIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, INTRODUCES A RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY
DESIGNATION, AND ADJUSTS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY, AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS, NORTH
OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6, AND EAST OF
BRESSI RANCH.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 91-06
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the General Plan
designation for certain property located, as shown on Exhibit GPA 91-06, dated April 7,
1993, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of April, 1993,
and on the 2lst day of April, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
1-Z
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
22
26
27
2E!
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of GPA 91-06, based on the following findings.
Findinns:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Goal "A" of the General Plan Iand Use Element encourages the preserva tion and
enhancement of the environment, character, and image of the City as a desirable
residential, beach and open space oriented community. The project produces a
quality residential and open space orientation.
Goal “F” of the General Plan Land Use Fhment suggests protecting and consenhg
natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural assets and historically
significant features of the community. Within the 250 acres of Open Space the
fragile unique natural assets and historicallysignifhnt features of the community
have been preserved.
Goal “I” of the General Plan Land Use Element encourages and promotes the
establishment of childcare facilities in safe and convenient locations throughout the
community to accommodate the growing demand for childcare in the community
caused by demographic, economic, and social forces. Such a site is located in a
safe, convenient location adjacent to Mdrose Drive along with the Community
Recreation area.
Goal lA1 of the Open Space Element delineates coordinating Open Space uses
with other land uses for mutual enhancement and creation of a “human” urban
environment, which includes, but is not limited to, development and expansion of
recreational land, conserva tion of natural and manmade amenities, and
preservation of options with regard to agricultural land. The Master Plan
amendment provides a synergistic experience between the passive open space, the
community park site, the school site, and the day care and community recreation
area. Agricultural opportunities, while not envisioned as part of the Master Plan
at buildout, are not precluded and phased development will be conditioned to
ensure compatiity and sustahbility of such activities.
Goal lJL2 of the Open Space Element requests preswa tion and creation of an
Open Space system of aesthetic value that will maintaiu community identity,
achieve a sense of natud spaciousne!ss, ad provide visual relief in the Cityscape.
TheinueaseinOpenSpaceofover1oOa<resfromtheexistingMasterPlan
achieves this feelirq: of Mhd spacioll!ness and provides for significant visual
relief to both the residents of the Master Plan, and the users of the public facilities.
Goal 2.~1 of the Open Space Element desires the exploration of all means of
providing for Open Space needs. The Master Plan Amendment is increasing the
Open Space by over 100 acres.
PC RESO NO. 3505 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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Goal 2.A2 of the Open Space Ekment is to assure that & development provides
for the Open Space needs of their occupants. The Master Plan includes passive
and active Open Space that exceeds the 15% standaxd required by the bocal
Facilities Management Plan and the Planned Community Ordinance.
Approximately 36% of the Master Plan is Open Space and that number will
increase as discretionary entitleme.nts are issued.
Goal 3.A.2 of the Open Space Element is to protect and p reservevisuallyattractive
and/or significant stud areas. Through the use of the ElR, the Master Plan has
been able to identify and preserve these areas in such a manner as to provide both
private and public viewsheds and access.
Goal 3.A.3 of the Open Space Element suggests preserving Open Space areas in as
natural state as possible. A review of the Open Space plan indicates this is the
intent and conceptual goal of the document.
Goal 4Al of the Open Space Fkment is to encourage larger and connected Open
Space areas rather than numero us and disconnected areas. The Master Plan has
continually strived to meet this objective by constricting development to congruent
conjoined discrete areas to allow for larger connected Open Space areas.
God 4A.2 requires the creation of ~tural and man-made hnks between Open
Space areas. In general with this plan, such linkages are not required because of
the codvity of the Open Space. However, where possible the linkages have
heen provided.
TheproposedOpenSpaceareais~ualtoorgreaterthantheareadepictedonthe
Open Space and Co nservation Map since the Map shows approximately 139 acres
while the General Plan Amendment identifies 250 acres.
The proposed Open Space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than
that depicted on the Open Space and Conserva tion Map as indicated by a review
of the Environmental Impact Report for the Ranch0 canill Master Plan, dated
February 1’993 and conformance of the Open Space with the proposed Habitat
Management Plan.
The proposed ad-t to Open Space, as depicted on the Open Space and
conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to Open Space as
shownontheOpenSpaceMapasconfirmedbyareviewoftheGenerzdPkn
Amendment Graphic.
CommunityCommercialestablishmentsusuallysenreamarketareauptooneand one half mile~radius. The CO~IIEIVM Guidelines of the Land Use Element limit
the type and amount of commerkl uses to those which can be f=ily supported
PC PESO NO. 3505 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
by the trade area. There are two exist& commer&lly designated sites within the
one and one half mile radius of the Master Plan. The deletion of the Community Commercial site from the Master Plan is in conformance with the guidelines of the
Land use Element.
The Recreation Commercial designation allows residential uses with densities
compatible with surrounding uses if the recreation area is part of a larger planned
community. The major recreation fature of the master planned community is the
passive open space through the central xiparian drainage. General Plan
designations of OS and RLM are a more clear expression of the intended land use
ofthisarea.
Residential Guideline 1 of the Iand Use Element is to retain the present
predominan ce of single fixmily residences throughout the community. Of the plans
420+ acres of residential land, 268 acres are proposed to be devoted to RLM (low
medium density, 04 dwelling units per acre) single family development.
TheHousingElementhasasGoal2newhousingdevelopedwithadiversityof
types, prices, tenures, densities and locations. This General Plan Amendment
increases the diversity of densities to meet that goaL
The Residential Guidelines of the Land Use Element limit multi-fimily development
to those areas where they are compatiile with the adjacent land uses, and where
adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as
streets, parking, park, schools, and utilities are adequate to serve them. The
Master Plan proposes a day care center, a community recreation center, the public
park, and the public school to meet these needs. All multi-family sites abut
Circulation Element Roadways. In the lone instance where a multi-family site
abuts an exist& multi-fimily site the sites are separated by a signifkant
landscaped slope and the Master Plan conditions the future development to ensuxe
compatiity through synonymous product type.
The Ranch0 Caillo Master Plan provides for adequate fkilities in conformance
to the development requirements established in the Zone 18 LFMP, as required by
Policy “A” of the General Plan Land Use Element which states that development
should only be pemitted after adequate provisions for public facilities have been
provided.
COIlditiOIlS:
Planninn:
1. All conditions of EIR 91-04, MP 139(E) and HDP 91-17 as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3503,3504, and 3506, respectively, are incorporated
PC RESO NO. 3505 4
herein by reference. Refer to those documents for all conditions and mitigation
1 measures applicable to the development of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan project
site. 2
3 2- Approval of GPA 91-06 is granted subject to the certification of EIR 91-04 and
approval of MP 139(E) and HDP 91-17.
4
5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Welshons,
Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Savary.
14
15
16
17 BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
18 ATTEST:
19 . 20
21 MICHAEL J. *LZM&LER
22 Planning Director
23
24
25
26
27 PC RESO NO. 3505
28
5
April 7, 1993
GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL PLAN
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
4
City of hrlabd
GPA 91-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3506
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, NORTH OF LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6, EAST OF BRESSI RANCH, AND
WEST OF THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS.
CASE NAME: RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: HDP 91-l 7
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of the southerly one half of Section
18 and a portion of Section 19, Township 12
South, Range 3 west, San Bernardino Meridian
and a portion of fractional Section 13 and a
portion of fractional Section 24, township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
24
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of April, 1993,
and on the 21st day of April, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
25
26 of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
27 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of HDP 91-17, based on the following findings,
and subject to the following conditions.
Findiqs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the Constraints Map for the
project. Proposed grading of 40% and greater slopes is in conformance with the
exclusions allowed by Section 21.95.090 of the Hillside Development Regulations.
Undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identified on the
Constraints Map for the project as well as in EIR 91-04 for the Ranch0 Carrillo
Master Plan Amendment.
The development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits
are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of the Hillside
Development &gulations since the EIR identiks that the hillside alteration will
not result in substantial damage or alteration of significant natural resource areas,
wildlife habitats, or native vegetation areas.
No development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which are
undevelopable pursuan t to the provisions of Section 21.53.230.
The project design and lot configuration minimha disturbance to hillside lands to
the greatest extent feasible given the impact of three Circulation Element roadways
traversing the natural topography of the site.
The project design substantially confoxms to the intent of the concepts illustrated
in the hillside development guidelines manual in that contour grading, the
screening of graded slopes by landscaping, buildings, and natural topographic
features is proposed, view preserva tion and enhancement is identified, and
roadway design is not de6ned by wide straight alignments with the exception of
the Circulation Element roadways.
EIR 91-04 was prepared for this project and has been recommended for
certikation by the Planning Co mmission EIR 91-W identified a number of
potentially significant impacts created by this project and possible mitigation
measttres to reduce these impacts to a level of ikgniiicance. These mitigation
rneasma have heen incorporated into the project through redesign or conditions
of approval.
The site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate cornxtive
work that may require significant amouuts of grading as indicated by a review of
the Geology/Soils section of the EEL
PCRESONO.3506 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
9. The site requires extensive grading to accommodate circulation element roadways.
Of the 6,950,700 cubic yards of cut, 3,148,400 cubic yards directly relate to the
circulation element roadways.
10. The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or
undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of 2190.060.
While the intent is to minimize the amount of modification to hillside propert&,
the measurement of relative sensitivity is accomplished by the grading volume
divided by the total area graded. This encourages grading of larger areas to lower
the overall grading volume per acre. Limiting slopes to thirty feet in height results
in greater horizontal areas required to cover the same vertical distances. By
allowing slopes over 30 feet the Master Plan provides more adequate buffers from
sensitive areas identified within the EIR as well as limits the physical extent of the
development.
11. Analysis of multiple alternatives for circulation element roadway alignments
indicates that due to both environmental and topographical constraints there is no
feasible alternative consistent with the Hillside Development regulations.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . . .
. . . .
AU conditions of EIR 91-04, MP 139(E), and GPA 91-06, as contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions Nos. 3503,3504, and 3505, respectively, are incorporated
herein by reference. Refer to those documents for all conditions and mitigation
measures applicable to development of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
Approval is granted for HDP 91-17 as shown on exhibits dated April 7, 1993,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shah occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
Approval of HDP 91-l 7 is granted subject to the certification of EIR 91-04 and the
approval of GPA 91-06 and MP 139(E).
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall deposit, at a fmancial
institution subject to regulation by the state or federal government, a certificate
of deposit or letter of credit made out to the City of Catlsbad or such other
security which is acceptable to the city. this document shall be for at least twice
the estimated cost of the proposed mitigation and landscaping for the portions of
the site requesting a modification to the design standards.
PC RESO NO. 3506
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, 1993, by
3 the following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Welshons,
Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Saw-y.
a
QftpJ&
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
15 ATTEST:
16
17
ma MICHAEL J. H&ZMIL%R I6 Planning Director
19 1
20 /I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 PC RESO NO. 3506 4
28
EXHBIT 5
JUNE lo,1993
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Planning Director @
FROM: Project Planner, Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan 3;
RE: PLANNINGCOMMISSIONPUBLIC HEARINGAPRIL7AND21,1993-EIR 91-04/MP139(E)/GPA91-06/HDP91-17 -RANCHOCARRLLOMASTER PLAN
The following issues of concern were raised during the public testimony at the Plating
Commission: the location of the school, arterial roadways, open space, offsite sewer,
recreational vehicle storage, and the connection between the County island and the City.
Additional concerns were identified regarding onsite park planning.
Staff’s response included the following: the City is not the entity that sites schools
(although the General Plan has shown this location since 1982), the arterial roadways
alignments were set to minimize environmental impacts, the open space meets the criteria
adopted by the City in the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan and
was certified by the Open Space Committee, the specific location of the offsite sewer will
be set with the first entitlement, the recreational vehicle storage area is located
approximately 800 feet from the nearest existing residence and will have landscape
buffering, while the roadway connection is required for traffic safety purposes. The Park
and Recreation Director indicated that park planning would begin in 1994 to include a
strategy for the permanent protection of the park site, while protection during surrounding
construction is the responsibility of the developer as indicated in the EIR.
The following additions or changes were made to the Master Plan and EIR as part of the
recommendation of approval (6-O-l) by the Planning Commission for this project and have
been incorporated into the documents distributed to the City Council:
1. A clarification of the process for architectural review of planned developments
within the Master Plan to correspond to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.160
(Amendments to Planned Developments). This action removed potential ambiguous
language from the Master Plan regarding both the City’s and the project proponent’s
rights and responsibilities within the review process.
2. The Master Plan previously required a secondary access from existing Redwing
Drive. The Commission altered the language to read, “...may gain secondary access
from Redwing Drive.” This allows either the County or the City to either gate or
not open Redwing without requiring an amendment to the Master Plan. This
MEMO - EIR91-04/MP 13(E)/GPA91-06/HDP 91-17
RANCHOCARRILLOMASTERPLAN -JUNE lo,1993 PAGETWO
amendment provides an alternative which allows a response to the concerns of the
majority of the speakers (see minutes of April 7, 1993) at the public hearing who
did not want a Redwing connection to occur.
3. The affordable housing section was clarified to clearly state that any alternative to
the provision of on-site housing may be allowed at the discretion of the City Council
and shall be included as part of the Affordable Housing Agreement approved prior
to the finaling of the first tentative map for development of the property.
c 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was amended to more accurately
. I indicate agricultural and hydrological mitigation and monitoring responsibilities.
BRIANHUNTFR
MJH:BH:vd
EIR914.mem
EXMBIT 6
AF’PLICA’I ,aN COMPLETE DATE:
October 4. 1991
STAFF PLANNER: BRIAN HUNTER
STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 7, 1993
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ElR 914WGPA 91-06/h@ 139~EWHDP 91-17 - RANCH0 CARRILLO MA!XER PLAN - Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact
Report; and the request for the approval of a General Plan Amendment,
Master Plan Amendment, and a Hillside Development Permit on property
located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits, east
of Bressi Ranch, and north of Local Facilities Management Zone 6, in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3503,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 91-04, and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolution No.‘s 3504,3505, and 3506 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 139(E), GPA
91-06, and HDP 91-17 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. PROJEa DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and approval
of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, and Hillside Development Permit
on 690 acres of property located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City
limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan was originally adopted by the City Council in 1972 and
subsequently amended in 1973, 1982, and 1984. The existing Master Plan includes
residential, open space, commercial, industrial, school, and park land uses. 100 of the 869
acres have been developed with residential and open space uses. The existing Master Plan allows for an additional 2,998 dwelling units to be constructed.
The existing use of the property includes agriculture (active and fallow), natural open
space, and the Carrillo Ranch future Community Park site. Surrounding land uses include
agriculture and native vegetation to the west, single and multi-family residential to the
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Grn 91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCHOCARRILLOMASTERPLAN
APRIL 7,1993
south, agriculture and Carlsbad Raceway to the north, and single-family residential, fallow
agriculture, and native vegetation to the east.
The applicant is requesting the following discretionary approvals:
1. The Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan
Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Hillside Development Permit. EIR 91-
04 addresses the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project both on and off
site.
2. A proposed Master Plan Amendment which involves changing the types and
locations of specific existing land use designations, and modifying the boundaries
of the Master Plan area. The amended Master Plan proposes a total of 20 planning
area villages, including 18 residential villages, 1 community facility site, and 1
elementary school site. A public park, day care center, and a recreational vehicle
storage area would be included on separate sites within the 250 acres of open
space. This open space acreage also includes riparian and wetland areas, biological
mitigation areas, fire management areas, hiking and bike trails, and constrained and
unconstrained open space. Proposed dwelling units total 1,816, consisting of single-
and multi-family residential on 354 net acres. Under certain conditions, both the
school and community facility sites could be developed to add 166 dwelling units,
and density bonuses could also increase the dwelling unit total. However, the Local
Facilities Management Plan limits the site to a maximum of 2,091 dwelling units.
The proposed boundary modification would delete the industrial property to the
north of Palomar Airport Road and the existing developed single family homes
(Carlsbad Tract 73-29, Carrillo Estates) to the southwest of El Fuerte from the
Master Plan.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan has been amended to reflect the goals of the
Growth Management Ordinance (including the adopted Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 18), the Land Use Element, Open Space and Conservation Element,
and Housing Element of the General Plan, the Hillside Development Regulations and
Guidelines, the Landscape Manual, the Planned Development Ordinance, and Noise
Policy #17. An Affordable Housing Plan has been added, in addition to an updated
Open Space section in conformance with the proposed Habitat Management Plan
and a Trail Exhibit that reflects the proposed Citywide Trail system.
3. A proposed General Plan Amendment reflects the land uses of the Master Plan
Amendment and would adjust those boundaries on the General Plan Land Use Map.
All commercial designations are deleted, open space is increased by over 100 acres
to a total of 250 gross acres, and while the overall residential dwelling unit total has decreased by a minimum of almost 1,000 potential units, residential product
opportunity has been augmented through an increase in RMH and RH acreage.
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gb,l91-06/HDP 91-17
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993
PAGE 3
4. A Hillside Development Permit which analyzes the grading as proposed in the
Master Plan for conformance with Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Growth Management Division has reviewed the project for conformance with the
adopted Local Facilities Management Plan and determined that due to the reduction in
impacts no revision is required.
III. ANALYSIS
Due to the complex nature of the proposed project, all discretionary actions and related
planning issues are discussed in individual sections of this report.
Environmental Impact Report - EIR 91X)4
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being requested. Besides the
onsite impact caused by the project, the EIR analyzes the offsite grading, drainage, and
other infrastructure improvements that are either required by this project or can be
reasonably assumed to occur due to the specific design standards of the City’s Enginee,ring
Department. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary
applications for the proposed project.
The EIR analyzed agriculture, biology, cultural resources, paleontological resources,
hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, air quality, land use, visual
aesthetics/grading, circulation, noise, public facilities and services, solid waste disposal, and
cumulative effects for their potential for significant impacts due to the project. Significant
but mitigable impacts occur in each of the areas analyzed. Through project redesign to
eliminate specific impacts identified within the environmental analysis and the
implementation of mitigation where impacts remain, the project as currently proposed and
conditioned has no residual significant impacts. The following issues were determined to
have no potential significant effects; light and glare, natural resources, risk of upset of
hazardous substances, population and housing, energy, and human health.
Fifteen (15) letters of comment were submitted during the public comment period on the
draft EIR. The letters and the response to the comments made are included in the Final
EIR for the project.
General Plan Amendment - GPA 91-06
Planning Issues
1. Are the proposed land use designations appropriate for the site and consistent with
the policies of the General Plan?
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Grn 91-06/HDP 91-17
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993
PAGE 4
2. Are the proposed land uses consistent and compatible with the surrounding land
uses?
DISCUSSION
Development of the land uses proposed in the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Amendment
requires the approval of a General Plan Amendment which changes the types and locations
of specific existing land use designations on the General Plan Land Use Map.
The existing General Plan Land Uses for the amendment area are divided as follows; RLM
204 acres, RM 272 acres, RMH 30 acres, C/RC 24 acres, and OS 139 acres (per the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18). The proposed General Plan Land Uses for the
amendment area result in the following totals: RLM 268 acres, RM 108 acres, RMH 42
acres, RH 6 acres, and OS 250 acres. The exhibit attached to the General Plan Amendment
resolution graphically illustrates the applicant’s proposal.
Five specific changes to the existing General Plan Land Uses are evident: an increase to
the Open Space of over 100 acres as well as a boundary adjustment; the elimination of
commercial designations from the area; an increase to the multi-family acreage; an increase
to the RLM single family acreage; and an adjustment to the alignment of Carrillo Way.
While the Open Space Element has as a goal the exploration of all means of providing for
Open Space needs (2.A.l), and as such the additional Open Space acreage is in keeping
with that goal, the following findings are required for the approval of a boundary
adjustment to the map titled “Open Space and Conservation Map”:
(1) The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the
Open Space and Conservation Map since the Map shows approximately 139 acres
while the General Plan Amendment identifies 250 acres; and
(2) The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than
that depicted on the Open Space and Conservation Map as indicated by a review of
the Environmental Impact Report for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan, dated
February 1993 and conformance of this open space with the proposed Habitat
Management Plan. The Open Space that is presently shown on the Land Use Map
indicates that while in general it may reflect habitat values, it is also used solely as
a means of ensuring land use compatibility with no regard to habitat or topography.
The proposed amendment takes a more holistic approach by relating the proposed
open space to topography and habitat; the design standards and mitigation measures
proposed for the amendment rather than a simple spatial reliance assure
compatibility; and
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gkri 91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993
(3) The proposed adjustment to open space, as depicted on the Open Space and
Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown
on the Open Space Map as confirmed by a review of the General Plan Amendment
graphic.
The Open Space Advisory Committee unanimously accepted the amendment as proposed
on December 17, 1992.
commercial
There are two types of commercial land uses identified on the existing General Plan Land
Use Map for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan; community and recreation commercial.
Community commercial establishments usually serve a market area up to one and one-half
mile radius (page 31, Land Use Element) and the Commercial Guidelines limit the type and
amount of commercial uses to those which can be feasibly supported by the trade area
(page 46, Land use Element). The Master Plan area is presently overlapped by two
additional community type commercial land use designations within that one and one half
mile radius; a ten to fifteen acre site within the University Commons Specific Plan at the
intersection of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Questhaven Road and a six acre site at the
northwest comer of Business Park Drive and Paldmar Airport Road immediately adjacent
to the Master Plan. The deletion of the Community Commercial site will more accurately
address the guidelines of the Land Use Element.
The Recreation Commercial designation allows residential uses with densities compatible
with surrounding uses if the recreation area is part of a larger planned community. The
major recreation feature of the master plan is the passive open space through the central
riparian drainage. General Plan designations of RLM and OS as proposed are a more clear
expression of the intended land use.
Multi-Family
The Housing Element of the City of Carlsbad has as Goal 2 new housing developed with
a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities and locations and in sufficient quantity to
meet the demand of anticipated City and regional growth. Section One of the Housing
Element reviews the previous element and concludes that the City failed to meet its goals
in producing projected units for all income categories. The City fell short of its goals due
to a variety of reasons; insufficient multi family vacant property availability being a
significant factor. A graphic illustration is that the amendment’s proposal for a 5.1 acre
RH (high density, 15-23 dwelling units per acre) designated site is an 8.5% increase in
Carlsbad’s vacant land within that category.
The Residential Guidelines of the Land Use element (page 44) limit medium and higher
density residential developments to those areas where they are compatible with the
adjacent land uses, and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public
support systems such as streets, park, schools, and utilities are adequate to serve them.
The RH site is adjacent to open space on the north and east, Melrose Drive to the west,
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gr-n 91-06/HDP 91-17
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993
PAGE 6
and a large graded slope to the south buffering it from the proposed single family village.
Across Melrose to the west is the day care center, community recreation center, the public
park, and the public school. The RMH (medium high density, 8-15 dwelling units per acre)
sites of the amendment are either located along Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
The Melrose Drive location has also included a graded, landscaped slope adjacent to the
developed multi-family properties and has been limited to product types of compatible
three and four-plex dwelling units.
Single Family
Residential Guideline Number One of the Land Use Element is to retain the present
predominance of single-family residences throughout the community. Of the plan’s 420+
acres of residential land, 268 acres are devoted to RLM (low medium density, O-4 dwelling
units per acre) single family development and a significant portion of the 108 acre RM
(medium density, 4-8 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designated property may also
be expected to develop as single family homes.
Compatibility
Where the project abuts existing single family homes it is proposing single family or open
space. Where the project abuts existing multi-family it is proposing single family, multi
family, and open space. Where the project abuts undeveloped property/agricultural
property it is proposing open space or single family homes; and the EIR conditions
development to ensure compatibility with continued agricultural use. Where the project
abuts Circulation Element roadways it has been conditioned to comply with the City’s
adopted noise policies.
Cadlo Way Alignment
The proposed alignment requires the least amount of grading and subsequent export of the
potential alternatives reviewed. The EIR shows there are no unmitigated impacts from this
proposed alignment. Carrillo Way at this location provides a compatible separation
between the school and residential development. At the same time the location adjacent
to the main open space corridor allows for public access and aesthetic enjoyment of a
natural riparian area rather than a developed view of private residences.
Master Ph Amendment - M’ 139@)
Planning Issue
1. Does the proposed Master Plan Amendment comply with all requirements of the
Planned Community Zone (Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)?
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gm 91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993
PAGE 7
DISCUSSION
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Amendment has been prepared consistent with the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 21.38, “PC Planned Community Zone”. The
Master Plan includes the following required elements:
a. Graphic plans of the proposed development including a map and legal description
of the property, the location of various land uses, a map of the open space area,
specific development provisions and standards, the location of major circulation
systems, the locations of facilities for water, sewer, and drainage, and a phasing
schedule for various public improvements.
b. A text to accompany the graphics that includes a description of each type of land
use, development regulations, a public facility plan, a phasing schedule, an open
space plan, measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, and a community
identification sign program.
The following findings of fact must exist prior to recommending a master plan for
approval:
a. The proposed development as described by the master plan is consistent with the
provisions of the general plan and any applicable specih plans.
This amendment would be consistent with the General Plan based on the discussion found
in the previous analysis of the General Plan Amendment. However there are other goals
that are also achieved by the implementation of this amendment as identified by the
following:
The Land Use Element Goals which are pertinent to this amendment include:
A. Preserve and enhance the environment, character and image of the city as a
desirable residential, beach, and open space oriented community. The project is
residentially and open space oriented.
F. Protect and conserve natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural
assets and historically significant features of the community. Within the 250 acres
of Open Space the fragile, unique natural assets and historically significant features
of the community have been preserved.
I. Encourage and promote the establishment of childcare facilities in safe and
convenient locations throughout the community to accommodate the growing
demand for childcare in the community caused by demographic, economic, and
social forces. A child care site is located in a safe and convenient location adjacent
to Mehose along with the Community Recreation area.
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Grn91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCHOCARRILLOMASTERPLAN
APRIL 7,1993
PAGE8
The following goals of the Open Space Element are also achieved with this Master Plan
amendment as documented by a review of the open space plan:
1.A.l
l.A.2
2.A.2
3.A.2
3.A.3
4.A.1
4.A.2
b.
Coordinates Open Space uses with other land uses for mutual enhancement and
creation of a “human” urban environment, which includes, but is not limited to,
development and expansion of recreational land, and conservation of natural and
manmade amenities, and preservation of options with regard to agricultural land.
The Master Plan Amendment provides a synergistic experience between the passive
open space, the community park site, the school site, and the day care and
community recreation area.
Preserve and create an Open Space system of aesthetic value that will maintain
community identity, achieve a sense of natural spaciousness, and provide visual
relief in the Cityscape. The increase in Open Space of over 100 acres from the
existing Master Plan achieves this feeling of natural spaciousness, and provides for
significant visual relief to both the residents of the Master Plan, and the users of the
public facilities.
Assure new development provides for the Open Space needs of their occupants. The
Master Plan includes passive and active Open Space that exceeds the 15% standard
required by the Local Facilities Management Plan and the Planned Community
Ordinance. Approximately 36% of the Master Plan is Open Space and that number
will increase as discretionary entitlements are issued.
Protect and preserve visually attractive and/or significant natural areas. Through
the use of the EIR, the Master Plan has been able to identify and preserve these
areas in such a manner as to provide both private and public viewsheds and access.
Preserve Open Space areas in as natural a state as possible. A review of the Open
Space plan indicates that this is the intent and conceptual goal of the document.
Encourage larger and connected Open Space areas rather than numerous and
disconnected areas. The Master Plan has successfully strived to meet this objective
by constricting development to congruent conjoined discrete areas to allow for
larger connected Open Space areas.
Create natural and man-made links between Open Space areas. In general with this
plan, such linkages are not required because of the connectivity of the Open Space. However, where possible the linkages have been provided.
All necessary public facilities can be provided concurren t with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital
improvement program applicable to the subject property.
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gm 91-06/HDP 91-17
RANCH0 CARRILLO IVIASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993 PAGE 9
The Master Plan has language in the text stating that all future development shall comply
with the public facility performance standards and phasing requirements of the Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18. Public facilities are required to be
constructed as development in the master plan creates demand for additional facilities. A
financing plan approved by the City Council for the Zone 18 LFMP will provide the
mechanisms for the financing of the required public facilities.
C. The residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an environment of sustained desirability qnd stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds, and parks,
are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public
authorities having jurisdiction thereof.
The Open Space plan provides 250 acres of open space within the Master Plan which is to
be used for the protection of biological habitat, the migration of wildlife, trails for hikers
and bicyclists, recreation, visual aesthetics, and buffers from developed areas.
As noted in the analysis of the General Plan Amendment all development is in harmony
with or compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area. In recognition of the
community’s namesake’s element of heritage and provision of time and place, a Special
Design Park District has been established which covers the area surrounding the
Community Park site to ensure compatibility.
On February 22, 1993 the Parks and Recreation Commission voted in favor of accepting
the 16.4 acres of parkland dedication as offered by the property owners.
On February 23,1993 the San Marcos Unified School District Board directed their staff to
pursue the dedication of the school site as so identified within the Master Plan.
d. The proposed commercial and industrial uses will he appropriate in area, location
and overall design to the purpose intended. The design and development standards are such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability. Such development wiU meet performance standards established by this title.
No commercial land use is proposed for this site in keeping with the guidelines of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. The industrial area that will be deleted by this
amendment will be governed in the future by a Specific Plan required for any development
of that area due to its location within the Airport Influence Area.
e. In the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected fkom any adverse elkts from such development.
EIR91-04/MP 139(E)/Gw91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCHOCARRILLOMASTERPLAN
APRIL 7,1993 PAGE10
The Ranch0 Car-r-210 Community Park, the Public School site, and the Day Care Site and
Community Recreation Area are all located adjacent to each other. They are bounded on
the north and east by Circulation Element roadways, on the west by Open Space and to
the south by collector streets and significant landscaped slopes and setbacks to ensure that
surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects.
f. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated trafIic thereon.
Traffic studies have been completed for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18
and EIR 91-04. Compliance with the mitigation conditions required by these studies and
plans would ensure that all circulation infrastructure is in place to serve the traffic
demands generated by buildout of the master plan.
g- Any proposed commercial development can be justifkd economically at the location
proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such location proposed.
It is because this finding cannot be made, due to the guidelines of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and the location of multiple commercial land use sites within one and
one half miles of the Master Plan, that no commercial development is proposed.
h. The area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the development.
The determination of substantial compatibility has been made previously within the
discussion of the General Plan Amendment.
i. Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the adopted environmental impact report for the project.
Mitigation where appropriate is identified in EIR 91-?4 as described in the analysis of the
EIR previously.
Upon approval the Master Plan will become the controlling document for the Ranch0
Carrillo area. It implements the General Plan and the Planned Community Zone by
establishing land uses and maximum development intensities based on a detailed analysis
of the opportunities and constraints of the site.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan Amendment is divided into separate planning areas and
multiple phases. Phase 1 is the grading requirements for the Circulation Element roadways
along with water, drainage, and sewer facilities. Additionally the Phase 1 grading will
remove the geotechnical problem areas, allow for the biological mitigation areas to be
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gm91-06/HDP 91-i7 RANCHOCARRILLOMASTERPLAN APRIL 7,1993 PAGE11
established as soon as possible, and allow for the grading needed for the community
facilities, school, and park sites.
Approximately 36% of the plan is Open Space. Residential development is proposed
throughout the remainder of the property. Each village or planning area is designed to be
compatible with surrounding development and product type. In addition to sites for a
community services facility, recreation vehicle storage, public school, and public park, the
Master Plan also provides for features similar to the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan,
including:
1. A community recreation and daycare center in addition to individual village
recreation areas; and
2. An extensive bicycle and pedestrian trail system.
The Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan includes General Plan and Land Use Provisions,
specifications for the Development Review Process, General Community Development
Standards, grading plans, an Open Space Plan, a Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan,
and Village and Open Space Development Standards.
Hillside Development Permit - HDP 91-17
Planning Issue
1. Does the proposed Master Plan Amendment comply with all requirements of the
Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)?
DISCUSSION
The project design is in conformance with the development and design standards of the
Hillside Development Regulations and the Hillside Development Guidelines, with the
exception of slopes over 30 feet in height. Modification to the development and design
standards may be approved by the decision making body if the proposed development
complies with the intent of this chapter and one or more of the following findings can be
made:
(1) The site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate correctiye work that may require significant amounts of g&ing as indicated by a re!view of the Geology/Soils section of the EIR.
(2) The site requires extensive grading to accommodate circulation-element roadwaysof
the 6,950,700 cubic yards of cut, 3,148,400 cubic yards directly relate to the
grading of circulation element roadways.
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/u-a-i 91-06/HDP 91-17 RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN APRIL 7, 1993 PAGE 12
(3) The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or
undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the requirements of 21.90.060.
While the intent of 21.90.060 is to minimize the amount of modification to hillside
properties, the measurement of hillside relative sensitivity is accomplished by the
grading volume divided by the total area graded. This encourages grading of larger
areas to lower the overall grading volume per acre. Limiting slopes to thirty feet
in height requires that greater horizontal areas are required to achieve the same
vertical distances. By allowing slopes over 30 feet, the Master Plan provides more
adequate buffers from sensitive areas identified within the EIR as well as limits the
physical extent of the development.
The applicant has submitted a detailed mitigation and landscaping plan which illustrates
the mitigation measures and landscaping utilized to screen the proposed grading for the
portions of the site requesting a modification to the design standards. The project has been
conditioned per the requirements of the design standards to perform this remedial work,
and therefore conforms with the intent of this chapter.
Areas where circulation element roadways must be placed and no feasible alternative
consistent with this chapter is available may be excluded from the requirements of the
hillside development regulations by the decisiomnaking body. Analysis of multiple
alternatives for circulation element roadway alignments indicates that due to both
environmental and topographical constraints there is no feasible alternative consistent with
the Hillside Development regulations.
After the allowable exclusion for grading for Circulation Element roadways the grading
amount per acre is 7,620 yards which is within the acceptable range allowed by the
Hillside development and design standards.
The project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the
hillside development guidelines manual in that contour grading, the screening of graded
slopes by landscaping, buildings, and natural topographic features is proposed, view
preservation and enhancement is identified, and roadway design is not defined by wide
straight alignments with the exception of the Circulation Element roadways. The proposed
grading concept maintains the undulating character of the site.
SUMMARY
The proposed project is consistent with all policies and ordinances governing the subject
site. In addition, it provides a development plan that is comprehensive, cohesive, and well-
integrated with the surrounding environment. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of
all the previously mentioned actions.
EIR 91-04/MP 139(E)/Gk ri 91-06/HDP 91-l 7 RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
APRIL 7, 1993 PAGE 13
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
;:
7.
8.
9
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3503
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3504
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3505
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3506
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Statement
Exhibit MP 139(E), dated April 7, 1993
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139(E)), dated March .9, 1993 (Previously
distributed
Ranch0 Carrillo Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-04), dated February 8,
1993 (Previously distributed).
BH:vd
March 8, 1993
A BACKGROUND DATASHEET
CASE NO: EIR 91-04/MP 139(EVGPA91-06/HDP 91-17
CASE NAME: Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan
APPLICANT: Rick Engineering
REQUESTAND LOCATION: EIR certification. Master and General Plan Amendments,
and Hillside DeveloDment Permit
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Southerly l/z of Section 18 and nortion of Section 19,
T12S. R3W and oortion fractional Section 13 and 24. T12S. R4W
APN: Various Acres 690 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 2.091
(Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Mixed
Density Allowed 2.091 Density Proposed 2.091
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoning Land Use
Site PC Open Space/Agriculture
North PM Racetrack/Agriculture
south RDMQ/R-l/PC Multi-family/Single-family
East CountyjCity of San Open Space/Single family
Marcos
West LC Open Space/Agriculture
PUBLIC,FACILITIES
School District San Marcos Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 2.091 ~1~s
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Julv 9, 12. & 15. 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
X Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Februarv 8. 1993
Other, BH:vd
DISCLOSURESTATEMENT
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PAR-T OF THE CtfY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMhMlEE.
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Amlicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Rick Engineering
2.
3.
1959 Palomar Oaks Way Ste. 200 -- Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attn: Bob Ladwig
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Woodward Ventures Ltd. A Calif. Merrill Lynch Private Capital Inc. Limited Partnership A Delaware Corporation 20301 Acacia St. World Headquarters, South Tower Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10080-0710
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
Don E. Woodward Lucille N. Woodward
20301 Acacia St.
Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization 0r.a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRMocm13 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drove l Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161
sclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past tvuelve months?
Yes - No 2 If yes, please indicate person(s)
PeNon ir defined u: ‘Any individud, firm, coputnonhip. joint vonturo, -idon, aid club, fr&md orgmkdon, corporation, ortate, t&t,
rscoivor, ryndictio, this Md uy other county, city wd county, CW municlpclity, dk&t ~0th~ poli&@~ r&dGrion, or UJY other group or
combination acting aa l untt.*
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
~+G9
Signature of Owner/date
Don E. Woodward Ruthorizcd Agent
Print or tyk name of owner
Robert C. Ladwig
Print or type name of applicant
FRhwoo13 w90
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCAKTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHlP INTERESTS ON AU APPUCATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
OlSCRf3lONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOIMED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMlITEE
{Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APolicant
List the names and addresses of ail persons having a financial interest in the application.
Rick Enqineerua 1959 Palomar Oaks Way Ste. 200
Carlsbad, CA 92009
attn: Bob Ladwiq
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Scripps Memeorial Hospitals
9888 Genesee Avenue
La Jolla. CA 92031
attn: Lauren W. Blagg
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10Y0 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnerst
interest in the partnership,
. .
4. If any person ideWed pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names al
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profti organization or as trustee or beneficia
of the trust. .
See attached list
FRMooo13 8/90
- - - .._ ----- . --- ,-*-. I-0 4.1c.l
4.
saums-m
BoARDOFTF3JSTE33
1990 - 1991
chairman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Vice Chahnan
S-W
EdDaneuer
Ames s. Early
Fr&kic C. Shean, M.D.
J. Frank Mahoney, III
Lauren W. Blagg
c3larles c. lXlwar&, M.D.
RichkD,~
Don W. Mitchell, Esq.
RcqerM.Stewart
Sam D. Young, Jr.
ADDRESS: SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITALS 9888 Genesee Avenue La Jolla, California 92037
p- ,’ -
closure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth Of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards.
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x - If yes, please indicate person(s)
Psnon i8 drfinod M: ‘Any individual, firm. coputnorhp, jointvwIturo. a8m6cirbion. a&al club. fratamal organ&tfon. corporation, l otate’trust.
r@%wr. syndicate, thir and any other county, city and County, c@ municipality. d&t&t or 0th~ poliiul rubdiviin. or any othrr group or
combination acting u l unit.’
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as flece%q.)
Signature of applicant/d~e
/y/q f. q
Print or type name of owner J d
Robert Ladwig
Print or type name of applicant
FRMooo13 8/90
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCAM-S STATEMENT OF DlSCtOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPUCAflONS WHICH WIU AEOUIAE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE Cl.W COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, CCMMl$iSlON CR COMMiTTEE
I
(Please Print)
I
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Amkant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Rick Enqineerinq 1959 Palomar Oaks Way Ste. 200
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2.
3.
attn: gob Ladwig
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Continental Homes I;Iz.
7001 N. Scottsdale Rd. Ste. 2050
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ant
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnershi
interest in the partnership.
Donald R. Loback
7001 N. Scottsdale Rd. Ste. 2050
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Robert. J-ad Kathleen R, Wade
7001 N. Scottsdale Rd. Ste. 2050
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
4. If any person identined pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organizatlon or a trust, list the names ant
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profd organization or as trustee or beneficiar!
of the trust. ,
FRMooo13 8/90
^^-- , - . -- I-L-2 _-..I --4-m -.-b-F. - sea-. “*a .4=-l
/- I
p\ -
i
closure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards.
Commissions, Committees and CoUnCii Within th8 past twelve months?
. Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is definmd u: ‘Any individual, firm, coputnonhip, jointvmturr. anocidon, social club. fratamal or~anizmtion. corporation. l tate.‘tfust.
~~mfer. syndicate, 0118 and any othr county, ciry and CoUny, cily munkip&ly, didrlct or oUtor poliical rubdhkion, or any 0th~ group 01
combination acting u a unit.’
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) m&
Signature of Owner/date
/ yG@+* .
SigflatLJr8 af apptiid
Donald R. Loback Robert Ladwiq
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
. .
FRMOOO13 8/90
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I 1
APPUCANTS STATEMENT OF OISCLOSURE OF CEKTAJN OWNERSHIP IMEREST! ON AU APPUCATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DISCAEIIONARY AC-l-ION ON THE PART’ OF THE cm COUNCIL OR ANY APPOIMED sOARo, CoMMl~fON OR COMM~E
[Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Adlcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Rick Engineering
1959 Palomar Oaks Way Ste. 200
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2.
3.
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Realty Dealers, Ltd.
438 Camino De1 Rio South
San Diego, CA 92108
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ant addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owninzzny partnership
interest in th8 partnership. .
Realty Dealers, Ltd., . I: general partner Is
UDC Advisory Services, Inc.
.
1. If any person identilled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ant
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profti organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust. ,
FRMcxm3 s/90 -
zfosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards.
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No x If yes, please indicate person(s)
h8On ir dofinod U: ‘Any individual. firm. copvtnonhip, jointvoM~ro, uroci~on. #o&l club. fr8Umal orgmbtbt, corporatb, l ato.‘trust.
rMW*r, yndicato, this and my othr county, ciy utd coUny, city municipality, d&kt or 0th~ poli-kal l &d%km, or fry 0th~ group or
combination sting u a unit*
(NOTE: Attach additional page as necessary.)
ffry
Real tY Dealers, Ltd.
Print or type name of owner
Signature of applicant/date /
Robert Ladwig
Print of type name of applicant
.
Village Tabulation
vllla~o IArld Uaa
A RY pddwul
B RU (44 duk)
C RU (44 d&c)
0 AU (44 du’ac)
E RNH (I-lSdrJu)
P RUH (Cl5dukc)
a RLN (04 ddac)
n AM (4adhc,
I RLM (M du’u)
J RLN (O-4 duki)
K RLN @-4dw’u)
L RH (1WJdu’r)
Y ALU (Wdu’ac)
N RMH (B-15 d&c)
0 RLN (O-4 duk)
P RLM (O-4 du’u)
0 RLM (OA duhc)
R RLM (04 du’ac)
S E w-0
T RY (cm. hc.)
TOUb:
Orou AC Mat AC
13.a 7.5
27.4 22.3
5.5 5.2
211.0 24.0
18.5 15.2
12.7 11 .s
20.0 10.4
283 24.5
5.0 4.0
27.0 20.0
41 .o 36.4
5.a 5.1
38.3 323
12.4 10.4
1 a.3 13.0
25.8 23.7
71.0 63.8
17.0 14.0
(17.1) we
(4.5) (3.2)
1(7.9 six5
, ’
Unb
ds
133
11 ..-
140 I
174
136
Y i
‘186
15
*es
116
@a
102
110
l Sl
l 71
204
47
(147)
(W
iJTz
MASTER PLAN VILLAGES
NOTES:
1. Notacra#eaairiunbuot~a~~~~
PNP~~~V conborpolnz oxaptt#unlLImarhdbym~ The unit count* kr thorn m 8ro w/thin th0 Imrd ua density rmga
2. Acr~nl& #rr pamWWae m not
hdudedbl um tot&.
2, molk?2owlngvn~hmwppotrndw communttyf8cMlty~: vnhge 8: Em- vmgo r: cornnwnay-cmtw’
Dated April 7, 1993
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN MP 139(E)
EXHBtT 7
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 7
issioner Hall replied that he doesn’t want to change anything that is attached to the dwelling unit.
uired if it would be better to continue this item to allow staff some time to rethink the requirements.
ne replied that staff did think this through pretty thoroughly. One of the reasons they arrived at the
requirements is that it is extremely difficult to put an accessory structure on a PtJD lot, which is
n 7,500 s.f., if one has to observe setbacks. A PUD lot might have a 15 ft. x 15 ft. rear yard,
II inquired if we are guaranteeing the right to have an accessory structure. Mr. Wayne
the case. However, many times, on the smaller lots especially, there is no place for
d an accessory structure is the only answer.
Chairman Noble inq d if the height could be limited to 10 ft. when the accessory structure is not located
within the setback ar his would only be 4 ft. over a fence line.
an accessory structure to
the dwelling, since it has no whatsoever on what is being discussed. Mr. Neu replied that if an
accessory structure were to hed to the dwelling unit, it would have to meet the setbacks for a
Commissioner Schlehuber still s
with the Com.mission’s ideas, he
staff to work out the details.
ommissioner Hall’s position but if staff wants more time to work
willing to push it back to the end of tonight’s calendar to allow
Mr. Neu requested a ruling from the City ey as to whether or not renoticing would be required.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied t he changes are minor in nature and would not require
renoticing.
Commissioner Hall restated his proposal, i.e that a
setbacks, with a maximum 14 ft. height limit.
cessory structures must observe the required
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner ehuber, and duly seconded, to trail this item to
the end of the meeting, to continue th
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, avary, Schlehuber, Schramm, and
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECESS
4. EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-l 7 - RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN - Request
for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report; and the request for the approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, and a Hillside Development Permit on property
located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits; east of Bressi Ranch, and
north of Local Facilities Management Zone 6, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
Commissioner Savary advised the Chairman and Commission that she had been noticed on this item
because her home is 600 ft. from the property line. To avoid a conflict of interest, she left the meeting.
Chairman Noble stated, for the record, that he had received a document from 29 property owners of
Redwing Road, in the Meadowlark Ranch Homeowner’s Association, opposing the Redwing Road
connection to the Carrillo Ranch. He noted that the document could not be considered as an “official”
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 8
petition because it lacked addresses and dates, however, the names will be on file in the Planning
Department.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is
requesting certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approval of a General Plan Amendment
(GPA), Master Plan Amendment (MPA), and Hillside Development Permit (HDP) on 690 acres of property
located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of
Local Facilities Management Zone 6..
Using maps on the west wall, he described the existing Master Plan which is currently reflected on the
City’s General Plan. He stated that the proposed Master Plan has a combination of land uses, including
residential, open space, commercial, industrial, school, park, and circulation roadways. The industrial uses
are located immediately south of the Palomar Road alignment. The existing Master Plan allows for an
additional 2,998 du’s to be constructed, with 100 acres of open space. The only difference between the
current plan and the one adopted in 1982 is the location of Palomar Airport Road. The history of
discretionary approvals on this Master Plan go back to 1972 and this will be the fifth amendment to it.
Mr. Hunter stated that the 1982 amendment requested an alignment of Melrose Avenue which was a little
bit east of where it presently stands. However, because Melrose was mapped to go through a significant
riparian area, the California Department of Fish & Game opposed that alignment and Melrose now runs
through the most disturbed area where human presence had been, downstream and west of the dam. At
the same time, the Parks & Recreation Commission had been offered additional land dedication adjacent
to the park site. That was also rejected by the Commission for in-lieu fees and, subsequently, Carrillo Way
‘was moved up to the north and a school site was placed immediately adjacent to the park site.
Mr. Hunter went into detail about how the amended Master Plan modifies land use designations, reduces
the dwelling units to 1,816, and increases the open space to 250 acres. He discussed the EIR which
addresses the foreseeable environmental impacts of the project both on and off site. Mr. Hunter stated that
the proposed GPA deletes all commercial designations and modifies map boundaries while the HDP is
required for grading to accommodate circulation-element roadways and other development.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Chris Chambers, representing the applicant, Continental Homes, addressed the Commission and stated
that they own 450 acres and have been involved in the planning process for over five years. All entities
who own parcels within the Master Plan have worked together as a group for the’past three years, along
with a myriad of local consultants, and they have had to work with between 15 and 30 public agencies.
They have had to deal with a school, a park, the Melrose alignment, and a beautiful valley which falls down
into a pristine riparian area. They have made many compromises along the way, including the reduced
density of approximately 1,000 units. He hopes that the Commission will take into consideration the
constraints they have dealt with and he requested their approval of the project before them. He closed his
presentation by requesting time after the public input for a response.
William Daugherty, 2600 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, President of the Buena Vista Audubon Society,
addressed the Commission and described the peaceful surroundings when one is standing in front of the
caretaker’s cottage at the Carrillo Ranch, looking out towards the hacienda, the old bridge, and the dam
and willows in front of the grassy hill. He asked the Commissioners to envision a four story tall
embankment running across the valley, erasing the dam, woods, and grassland from view, over which
many noisy trash trucks will travel on their way to the dump. The resulting noise level will exceed the code
for residential property (approximately 65 dBA), which is the average for a very noisy office. The noise, air,
water, and visual pollution produced by Melrose and Carrillo Way will destroy the tourist and visitor values
of the Ranch, as well as destroy the riparian habitats. Many people think that since SANDAG designated
Melrose as a regionally significant arterial, there is nothing that can be done to change the alignment.
However, he is a member of SANDAG’s Regional Transportation and Open Space Citizen’s Advisory
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 9
Committee, he broached the subject at a recent meeting. He found out that it is not SANDAG’s policy or
intent to cause cities to ignore ordinances or compliance with the Endangered Species and Clean Water
Acts. He is very concerned about the water pollution to the stream bed which will result from the
residential development, not to mention the fill slopes in this Master Plan which will exceed 130 ft. in
height. He noted that the developer doesn’t want the road segment, the Historic Preservation Commission
doesn’t want it, the National Fish & Wildlife Service and the State Fish & Game Department are against it,
and he is sure future residents wouldn’t want it. He is also concerned that no EIR has ever been prepared
for the total route of Melrose. Furthermore, no construction has begun for the Vista segment of it. There
are endangered plant and animal species on the site and no habitat conservation plan has been submitted
or approved. He thinks it is time to review the problems of Melrose with SANDAG and the circulation
committee and select a less damaging alternative before going forward with this project.
Robert Olislagers, Manager of the McClellan-Palomar Airport, 2198 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
addressed the Commission and stated that he represents the County of San Diego Public Works
Department, owner/operator of the airport. The County has gone on record since 1981 about overflight of
jet airplanes, helicopters, and warbirds (older aircraft) and their noise effects on schools and parks. He
stated that McClellan-Palomar Airport is the second busiest single runway airport in the United States and
on weekends they are having to stack aircraft to accommodate landings and takeoffs. Patterns have been
extended out to five miles and they currently receive complaints from that far away. He appreciates the
noise mitigation for the housing which is being required by staff. However, he is very concerned about the
proximity of the proposed school which is well within the flight plan. He cited studies which show a
diminished learning capacity as a result of noise exposure. He realizes the County has no legal authority
to oppose the school, nevertheless, they believe it is a poor location for a school due to the noise. If the
school remains at this site, he requested that the City and developer consider additional noise pollution
standards than are presently planned.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what specific additional mitigation the County would like to see at the school
site. Mr. Olislagers replied that double pane windows and additional insulation should be required which
would add about 12% to the construction costs.
Commissioner Erwin requested him to speak to noise spikes versus CNEL since most people tend to judge
things on an average 24 hour period. He understands that most damage from aircraft noise occurs as a
result of singular events or spikes of very high decibels. Mr. Olislagers replied that CNELs are based on
averages. Most noise complaints that he receives are the result of single events. He requested that noise
mitigation for the proposed school address single event levels rather than averages.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if he was aware that the City cannot impose standards on the school.
Mr. Olislagers is aware of that, However, it is his understanding the the Planning Commission can make
certain recommendations. Unfortunately, because the proposed school is just slightly beyond the two mile
limit of the airport, the County is unable to impose additional noise mitigation. In any event, Mr. Olislagers
feels the Commission should deal with the realities of noise and safety impacts on the school.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that schools are an independent entity controlled by the State of
California and the City has no right to impose standards. Mr. Olislagers replied that while this is true, he
understands that the City can deny the school site altogether.
Commissioner Schlehuber conceded that this may be correct but feels it is a different issue and it is too
late in the process to do that. He inquired why this issue was not brought forward long ago. Mr. Olislagers
replied that the airport has gone on record against the school since December 1981 and he would be more
than happy to provide the Commission with a letter to that effect.
Larry Nau, Kinglet Road, San Marcos, representing the Meadowlark Ranch Homeowner’s Association,
addressed the Commission and stated that the Association is strongly opposed to the addition of a
connection to Redwing Road from the Ranch0 Carrillo development due to the impacts of the intersection
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10
of Redwing and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. By connecting Redwing to the Ranch0 Carrillo development, it
will greatly increase the traffic at Redwing and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road because it will create a shortcut
between Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Melrose. At the present time, motorists have to wait at least 10
minutes to enter Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The additional homes will further impact that already stressed
intersection. For example, there currently is a field between Meadowlark Ranch and Melrose. Boulders,
birms, and other hazards have been placed in the field and people still drive through it all as a shortcut
between Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Melrose. He urged the Commission to reconsider the connection
being proposed to ensure the safety of the residents currently living on Redwing. He submitted a traffic
study to staff for the record.
Commissioner Welshons stated that since it is so difficult to access Redwing Road, perhaps it would be a
good idea to allow people to use Redwing as a shortcut out to Palomar Road via Melrose. Mr. Nau stated
emphatically “no.”
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he had seen the letter from the City of San Marcos dated April 7, 1993
supporting the residents of Meadowlark Ranch and two mitigation proposals which they would consider,
i.e. (1) that the developer contribute money to a future signal and improvements at Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
and (2) that the developer be required to construct improvements at the Ranch0 Santa Fe intersection prior
to the Redwing connection. Mr. Nau was given a copy of the letter and told he could comment on the letter
a little later in the meeting, if he so chooses.
Commissioner Schlehuber was curious about the number of persons attending the meeting from
Meadowlark Ranch. Chairman Noble asked them to stand and the count totaled 42 people.
Susan Denny, 1725 Redwing Road, San Marcos, also representing the Meadowlark Homeowner’s
Association, addressed the Commission and stated that she has lived in Meadowlark Ranch for 17 years.
Redwing has many blind, winding curves. There are no street lights. There are 30 driveways to the street
and many of those are also blind. The road is stressed and in poor repair. Lastly, there are no sidewalks
for the children to traverse getting to a bus stop. She urged the applicant and the Commission to find
another route, possibly through Village “M.”
Ken Brady, 1930 So. San Marcos Boulevard, San Marcos, Chairman of the Meadowlark Community
Church’s Traffic Safety Committee, addressed the Commission and stated that their Church is located at
the intersection of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and Redwing. The congregation urges the Planning
Commission to deny the proposed connection between Redwing Road and Carrillo Ranch to prevent an
already hazardous situation from becoming worse.
Alan Kindle, 2622 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad, representing the Friends of Carrillo Ranch, addressed the
Commission and stated that they are very concerned that no security has been planned to protect the
Carrillo Ranch historic structures, a delicate and vulnerable multi-cultural treasure, while much protection
is being given to gnatcatchers, flora, and fauna. The Friends have made a number of appeals, only to be
ignored. The Friends are also concerned about access into the park since the proposed entrance
originates from a residential side street off Melrose. This street requires descending and ascending on an
estimated 8% grade teetering on the edge of the steep 50 foot slopes of Melrose Avenue. It will be
especially cumbersome for school and tour buses. The citizens subcommittee which evaluated Ranch
issues, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Carlsbad Historical Society, the Friends of Carrillo
Ranch, and a score of other citizens have made detailed responses to the EIR and have pleaded with the
powers that be to create a suitable entrance to the ranch which will serve the generations to come. Mr.
Kindle believes that one solution would be to adjust the alignment of Carrillo Way, or Melrose Avenue, or
both, by approximately 100 ft. in order to provide an adequate roadway into the park. The Friends are
concerned that there will not be adequate parking to accommodate visitors because the joint use
agreement with the school would allow overflow parking in their lot on weekends only. Finally, Mr. Kindle
is also concerned that Conquistidor’s grave will be desecrated when construction begins. He urged the
Commission to consider the issues he presented and come up with some solutions that will serve the
MINUTES
April 7, 19.93 PAGE 11
citizens of Carlsbad. Mr. Kindle’s written comments were given to the Minutes Clerk for inclusion in the
record.
Commissioner Schlehuber acknowledged that Mr. Kindle has been involved with Ranch issues for many
years. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the staff or the developer have made any concessions, based
on what has been presented. Mr. Kindle replied that one improvement he has noted is that additional
landscaping has been proposed to buffer DeDe’s house. That is the only concession that he can think of.
Commissioner Erwin stated that the testimony presented sounds as though the Ranch will be a very active
tourist attraction. Mr. Kindle agreed that it will be an active attraction and he feels it will compliment Lego
Land. It will be a family place to go. However, the real use of the Ranch will be as a multi-cultural
resource. He stated that programs are currently presented in the schools and the third and fourth grade
students, especially, are overjoyed that one day they will be able to visit Carrillo Ranch.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the plans are to restore the historic buildings and open it up to tourists.
Mr. Kindle replied that this is correct; once the City has completed the retrofit, the Ranch could be opened
to visitors.
Commissioner Welshons inquired as to who the Friends feel should be responsible for security. Mr. Kindle
replied that the developers are causing the condition and therefore they should be responsible for it.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about what means would be used to create a northerly entrance across
the bridge. Mr. Kindle replied that the City currently holds an easement.
Commissioner Welshons commented that, as she understands it, no plans have been made yet on an
entrance to the park. Mr. Kindle acknowledged that there is no Master Plan for the park itself.
Commissioner Welshons stated that since no entrance has yet been established, there is no plan at this
point regarding where people will park. This is at the choice of the City Council. Mr. Kindle acknowledged
that this is correct.
Commissioner Welshons stated that in her packet for the meeting tonight she had received a report on E
recent meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. She asked staff to clarify when the Commission
actually met. Mr. Hunter replied that they had a special meeting on March 30, 1993. The report in the
packet, dated March 31st, was a report of that meeting. The staff report had already been prepared which
is why the Historic Preservation’s comments were in a separate document.
Commissioner Welshons inquired whose vision Mr. Kindle was referring to when he stated that the park
would be a multi-cultural site serving school children and tourist groups. Mr. Kindle replied that he could
not speak for the City.
Commissioner Hall inquired if he had any ideas as to how security could be provided. Mr. Kindle replied
that the Friends have recommended that the perimeter of the site be fenced with dense planting so that it is
impenetrable. He feels this arrangement could be permanent and the Friends are not promoting any type
of wall.
Commissioner Hall inquired if there needs to be something in the interim until the Master Plan is
completed. Mr. Kindle replied that the main concern of the Friends is what will happen when the
bulldozers start their grading. He feels the permanent fence with dense planting, aesthetically pleasing
and impenetrable, should be completed in advance of the grading.
Marjorie Howard-Jones, 4823 Argosy Lane, Carlsbad, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission,
addressed the Commission and stated that many of her ideas have already been covered. She did point
out that the Historic Preservation Commission’s response to the EIR was submitted during the EIR
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 12
reporting period and should have been included some place. The reason that the special meeting was
called on March 30th was because the Commission suddenly noted that they were not included. Their
concern about the entrance to the park has been one of long standing. The Historic Preservation
Commission is also concerned about the water which will have to be diverted as a result of the Melrose
Avenue construction. This diversion will rearrange the water shed which is near the traditional entrance to
the Ranch. At that point, there is a beautiful handmade weir which carries the water and drops it down six
or eight feet. The Commission feels that is an important part of the whole historic fabric of the Ranch and
they don’t want to see that lost. If the water is diverted, the weir will still be there but it will be decorative
only. The final concern of the Historic Preservation Commission is that the Master Plan for the
development has been expedited and has left the planning for the park way behind it. They have
constantly expressed their apprehension that the park will not receive adequate planning and that is, in
fact, happening. The Historic Preservation Commission would like to work more closely with the Planning
Commission and the Parks & Recreation Commission in order to create a balance between the
development and the park planning.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Historic Preservation Commission envisions the park as an active
tourist attraction. Ms. Howard-Jones replied that they see it as a cultural resource. They would like to see
as many people as possible avail themselves of the education opportunity to visit the park.
Janet Mayhue, 298 Greenwood Place, Bonita, California, addressed the Commission and stated that she
owns property at 2920 Capazo Court which is directly adjacent to the proposed development. She was
unaware of this action until just two days ago when she received the notice of this meeting. She has a
major concern with regard to the drainage and the steep slope next to their property. They have
experienced many problems already and she is concerned that they will be exacerbated.
Dr. Michael Salour, 6311 Chorlito, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he purchased his
property six years ago and was advised that there would not be any development in the area. He thinks it
is a disgrace to destroy the area with new development. He feels the Commission has the responsibility of
preserving this beauty for future generations. He is concerned that the applicant is pushing development
right to the very edge and he is registering his objection on behalf of himself and many of his neighbors
who were unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
Commissioner Erwin asked him to restate who told him that the area would not be developed. Mr. Salour
replied that the salesman who sold him his home advised him that he (ihe salesman) had received that
assurance from City Hall.
Janet Mayhue spoke up from the rear and said she was told the same thing.
James Bradley, 2824 Cacatua Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is
concerned about the ravine just below his home where people will park their RV’s. He feels this RV parking
area will be an attractive nuisance because it will be unguarded and will invite theft. He would like to see
RV parking in an industrial-type area rather than destroy the beauty of this canyon.
Kay Christensen, 2802 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she has
lived in Carlsbad for 67 years and has a parental interest about the things that go on in this community.
She is speaking not only on behalf of the Historical Society, but also for the citizens of Carlsbad who are
aware of the Carrillo Ranch and have never had an opportunity to see it unless they had a special invitation
from a City official. This park goes back many years, long before Leo Carrillo bought it. It is an important
part of the heritage of Carlsbad. She is appalled at the lack of security for these historic structures which
are on the National Register and is especially concerned that the City is not giving this cultural resource
more attention. She implored the Commission to protect this resource. The citizens pay taxes yet they
have no access to the park. As a result, many young people today don’t even know who Leo Carrillo was.
She feels that is a tragedy.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 13
Eitan Aharoni, 1824 Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, a licensed architect and member of the Historic Preservation
Commission, addressed the Commission and stated that he sat on the subcommittee that worked on these
plans. Most of the people he has worked with are very concerned that access to the Ranch has been lost
by the plan presented tonight. There is some conjecture that there may be a possibility of working
something out regarding access with the school district. However, because the State has the final
authority, that cannot be relied on. From an engineering point of view, the access being proposed will not
work. He would bet his license on it. The access is too steep for buses and heavy traffic. In addition, the
termination point of the street is 30 ft. from the Ranch house. Since a parking lot cannot be built on a
slope, it will require additional grading which will further deteriorate the park. However, he stated that
there are many other solutions which will work. He feels that some engineering studies need to be done to
achieve a more viable entrance.
Commissioner Erwin inquired where he would want the entrance to be located. Mr. Aharoni replied that if
Carrillo Way were moved 40-70 ft. to the east, there would be room for a dedicated street along the
boundary of the school site. He is aware that to do so the developer will lose some units and he would
propose giving them some density consideration in another area to compensate for the lost units.
Commissioner Erwin inquired where he would propose parking the buses which will bring visitors to the
park. Mr. Aharoni replied that 50 parking spaces in the school parking lot should be set aside for the parks
use.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if what he is proposing is 40 additional feet for the roadway plus land
for 50 parking spaces. Mr. Aharoni replied that he is speaking about two different things. He is concerned
with the providing an adequate access to the park. He is also concerned that there will be insufficient
parking for visitors.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the impact that heavy traffic around the school would create.
Mr. Aharoni replied that he cannot speak for the school board. As far as the Historic Preservation
Commission is primarily concerned with the park and a lack of adequate parking.
Delores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that
she has spoken before on three previous projects i.e. Sammis, Aviara Hotel, and the $1.9 million parking
lot at Ponto which is rarely used. She stated that there are many unfinished documents in this City which
reflect on this project-- an unfinished habitat management plan, an unfinished General Plan, an open
space and conservation element, and scoping for an EIR. It seems to her to be a rush to plan this project
when there are so many overriding documents yet to be discussed and approved. She knows that the City
is not in need of housing because Arroyo La Costa has 1,600 units approved and ready to be built when
demand occurs, Aviara has 2,000 units approved, and tonight’s project would add another 1,800 units to
the housing stock. She noted that in 1992 the City of Carlsbad issued only 52 building permits. Quoting
staff, they have stated that “the City needs a project to support Melrose.” Everyone knows that the cost of
providing infrastructure requires developers to use every available inch of property they can in order to
support the huge bank loan or Mello-Roos bonds that will pay for these roads. She is concerned that there
is presently a 30% failure to pay Mello-Roos taxes. If the City forecloses on those Mello-Roos lands, the
remaining citizens of Carlsbad are obligated to pay the outstanding debt. She is concerned that the City is
more worried about development than making plans for mass transit.
Chairman Noble asked if the Ponto project she referred to is the parking lot at La Costa. Ms. Welty replied
that that area is commonly referred to as Ponto Beach.
Chairman Noble countered that the City had no control over that parking lot because it was built by the
State of California. As far as the Aviara Hotel, construction was stalled because the Japanese pulled their
money out of the project. The City of Carlsbad is not to be blamed for either problem. Ms. Welty replied
that the intent of her testimony was to show there is plenty of time to approve new housing developments
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 14
because the ones already approved haven’t even begun.
park in advance of approving more development.
She feels there is time to adequately plan the
Doug Avis, representing the Fieldstone Company, a neighbor of the Carrillo Ranch, addressed the
Commission and stated that the issue he would like to address is the sewer line and pump station as it
enters their property. Typically, sewer lines are placed in roadways. However, in this case the alternative selected was to take the sewer line out of the road and run it in the most direct line. If the sewer line is not
placed in the road bed, when Fieldstone gets ready to develop their land, they will have to go to great expense to relocate the line to the roadway so that it will not impact their property. He passed out copies of
a letter to staff dated April 2, 1993 which objects to the off-site sewer alignment.
Kathryn Daugherty, 2600 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is
President of the Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation which has been active for six years and has 3,500
supporters. Although staff announced that there would be 100 additional acres of open space, she noticed
that no extra open space was put into habitat. It is basically the same as it was before.
Dr. Nora La Court, 2507 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is
appalled that the City would even consider building a school and park so close to the airport. She noted
that there was a crash recently and she feels it is the responsibility of everyone if people are killed or
maimed as a result of a plane crash.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:56 p.m. and reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
Commissioner Erwin requested the Chair to JvbtiW let Mr. Nau respond to the letter he had given him from
the City of San Marcos. Mr. Nau stated that he and the other homeowners from Meadowlark discussed the
letter during the recess. One of the proposals was to make the turn from Redwing to Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road a right-turn only. He feels that would be very problematic and not a good idea. People want to
make a left turn to go to into San Marcos. Basically, it would result in people turning right and then, down
the road a ways, making a U-turn. The second proposal was to make Redwing cumbersome to travel and
he doesn’t think the developers would like that either.
Chris Chambers, representing the applicant, Continental Homes, returned to the podium for his response
to the public comments as follows:
* Redwinq Road Connection - They first proposed making this an emergency access but had to change it
as a result of the EIR and City concerns. He still thinks the emergency access idea is the best way to go.
l Fieldstone Sewer Issue - They had the same concern voiced by Bressi Ranch, who has also started
their planning. Both Fieldstone and Bressi want the problem solved to their advantage which would cost
Carrillo five times as much as the project proposal.
* Carrillo Wau - The road alignment has been moved once already about 70 ft. which was done at the
request of the San Marcos School District. This resulted in extra parking at the west end of the school
site. There are now 160 parking spaces available there. He has discussed the joint parking issue with
some of the school board members and they would be amicable to both using the parking lot like the La
Costa School does. He feels there is plenty of parking for both.
l Chanaes to the Access to Benefit the Park - The area around the access road at Melrose was originally
slated for residential high density. That was completely taken out of residential to avoid noise impacts to
the park. The access road was changed from a 15% grade to an 8% grade, which is acceptable for bus
traffic. There are also northerly and southerly pedestrian access ways as part of the Citywide trail
system: The meadow, prime development acreage, was included as part of the park land dedication.
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 15
They would like to grant access to the Ranch from Carrillo Way but were prevented from doing so by the
school district.
* Park Planninq - They have not been given any direction regarding park planning and presumed it was
because the City has a commission which controls that issue.
Commissioner Hall inquired as to what type of security would be installed during the construction phase.
Mr. Chambers replied that Continental plans on constructing some type of fence during construction. No
consideration has been given to walls or landscaping. They are currently negotiating an agreement with
Parks & Recreation.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the day care facility had been removed. Mr. Chambers replied that the
two acre site has not yet been planned.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how many extra parking spaces are being provided for the school. Mr.
Chambers replied that there are 60 extra spaces. The school asked for 150 spaces but the standard is only
90 parking spaces.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if there is any way access to the Ranch could be at the edge of the site. Mr.
Chambers replied that there is no way. The school has already accepted the site. They need 10 acres
square but accepted an 11 acre rectangular parcel.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about his response to the Fieldstone issue and asked him to explain the 5:l
cost effectiveness comment. Mr. Chambers replied that there is an existing three-line Vallecitos 15 ft.
easement to the west of Carrillo Way. Fieldstone would like our sewer line as well as the Vallecitos lines
moved in so that they can claim more development acreage. Conversely, Carrillo Way could be moved to
coincide with the sewer line. Those options are still available in the planning stages. He is not concerned
where Carrillo Way goes after it leaves their property. They are currently faced with the same issue that
will ultimately face Fieldstone and Bressi. The difference between tying into the existing sewer easement
and moving the sewer to the Carrillo Way road bed is $500,000 versus $5 million. He does not feel that is
a burden his project should bear.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he has strong feelings about the Melrose alignment. Mr. Chambers replied
that he could be talked out of it.
Commissioner Welshons would like to see four of the homes in Village Q as one-story rather than
two-story to avoid the massive look. She is referring to the homes immediately west of DeDe’s house.
Bob Wilkinson, Rick Engineering, replied that the houses are set back 200 ft., so eliminating the second
story would not matter. Commissioner Welshons replied that the four houses she is looking at are the ones
Bob pointed out on the corner, one across the street, and two adjacent to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wilkinson
replied that the house across the street are set back 200 ft. FIB Chris Chambers doesn’t feel that deleting
the second story would be beneficial but he could accept that condition.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the trails which are part of the Citywide system. If the Citywide
trail system never materializes, those trails would go nowhere. She believes that there are other projects in
the City which have been required to put in the trails and ultimately deed them to the City. She asked if
that would be acceptable. Mr. Wilkinson replied that they have considered constructing those trails at the
time of construction. However, the plan for maintenance and use of the trails is up in the air at this time.
Their plan is to grade in and have the trails ready for use. They can only assume responsibility for the
grading and not the fencing or how they will be maintained.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if provisions have been made for the trails for which the homeowner’s
association will be responsible. Mr. Chambers replied that those decisions will be made on a case by case
basis as the tentative maps come forward.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 16
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the elimination of the commercial property. She noticed that
between the old Master Plan and the new Master Plan there has been major shuffling as to where the
residential development will be done. She inquired if a commercial center could have been placed in lieu
of a village somewhere, i.e. where Carrillo Way leaves Melrose. Mr. Wilkinson replied that the topography
for that site would only accommodate a 7-l 1 or similar store due to the topography.
Glen Rick, representing UDC Homes, replied that any moderately successful commercial center requires a
super pad and to create that pad it would have violated the City’s grading ordinance.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how many square feet would be required for a super pad. Mr. Rick
doesn’t recall the square footage needed but he pointed out a 12 acre parcel where it was thought a
commercial development could be located.
Commissioner Schramm inquired if the proposed planned industrial could be changed to commercial. Mr.
Rick replied that this Master Plan primarily confirms the alignment of Melrose. Much of the planned
industrial is located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road. There are two spots which could ultimately
be rezoned as commercial sites--one just inside the San Marcos city boundary, and another across the
street near the entrance to the raceway. Both sites have been talked about as possible commercial sites.
Commissioner Schramm was more interested in something within the boundaries of Carlsbad. There is
also a spot near Melrose and Palomar Airport Road which is under consideration as commercial but that
property is not within this Master Plan.
Commissioner Schramm inquiring about how quickly they want to begin work on this Master Plan. Mr.
Rick replied that, at the present pace, it could be ready for grading late this summer or early next spring.
Commissioner Schramm stated that she has not seen a draft plan yet for habitat management. How does
one go about making sure that all of the species are protected. Mr. Rick replied that they have been
working closely with Don Rideout, who is very knowledgeable regarding habitat management.
Commissioner Schramm hopes that neighboring cities are working as hard as Carlsbad to protect the
habitat.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Hall inquired how many lanes Ranch0 Santa Fe Road will have between Carlsbad and San
Marcos. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that it will be a prime arterial, six lanes with a
median. Staff has been working for some time to construct Carlsbad’s portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
which is just south of where Redwing connects to it.
Commissioner Hall inquired if this means that regardless of what San Marcos or the County does, that
Carlsbad will have their built to six lanes. Mr. Wojcik replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the ADT on a six lane roadway. Mr. Wojcik repliedthat it would be at
least 40,000 ADT.
Chairman Noble requested staff to respond to the public comments.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, responded to Mr. Daugherty’s comment about the noise on Melrose.
Melrose will be a prime arterial. Vehicles and trash trucks riding on that road will make noise. As far as
the urban pollutants, there is a requirement in the Master Plan for a detailed hydrology study to be done
when the grading begins to determine desiltation and urban pollutant basins. As far as nobody wanting
Melrose, it is a regional roadway. SANDAG projections project a low of 38,000 ADT and a high of 48,000
ADT. If Melrose isn’t built, that traffic would. transfer to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, which may exceed its
capacity. It is not our policy to ignore traffic needs and we are only planning for what is needed.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 17
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, responded to Mr. Olislagers concerns and stated that Commissioner
Schlehuber’s comment was correct. To have or not to have a school is not our decision. The General Plan
has shown this school site for over 10 years. As far as Dr. La Courts comment, the City’s General Plan
recognizes the fact that there is an airport in the middle of the City, which is why we have an airport
overlay zone.
Mr. Wojcik responded to the objections regarding the Redwing Road connection. As the applicant
indicated, it was not their preference to connect it, it was a requirement of the Engineering Department.
One of the reasons is the 103 residential units planned for Village M with only one way in and out. Our
cul-de-sac policy requires.that number of units have a secondary access. Staff looked at both Kinglet and
Redwing and determined that Redwing was the most circuitous route which might discourage people
looking for a shortcut. Staffs consultant has projected that there will only be 100 ADT going in and out of
Carrillo Ranch at that connection. He did concede that there may be additional traffic if some choose to
use that connection as an alternative to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. He noted that Redwing Road is a very
long cul-de-sac which would not be approved under Carlsbad’s policies. However, should there be a
problem at the Ranch0 Santa Fe intersection, the residents might be thankful someday that there is
another exit. Since the Ranch0 Santa Fe intersection is so dangerous and stressed, we are providing a
safe, signalized intersection as an alternative. Staffs intentions were governed by safety concerns. He did
note that in order to open up Redwing, it will take action by the County Board of Supervisors, because they
own a strip of land needed for the connection. As a result, Carlsbad does not have the final word. If the
County does not give their approval, an emergency gate would be the second best solution.
Mr. Hunter spoke to Mr. Kindle’s comments that intruders would vandalize the historic buildings at the
Ranch. The actual park planning is done by the Parks & Recreation Commission and they had the same
input from Mr. Kindle, as did the Historic Preservation Commission. Any fencing at the park will require its
own environmental review because the State Fish & Game Department considers this area to be an animal
corridor. Their permission will be needed for a fence. As far as the access issue is concerned, the EIR
required that the access be maintained, and it will be. Vehicles can drive down the road and pedestrians
can also gain access via the trail system. He noted that Leo Carrillo’s vision did not envision trails and
buses. As far as Conquistidor’s grave is concerned, the EIR does contain mitigation and the grave
contents will be moved to a site suitable to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Mr. Hunter addressed Marj Howard-Jones’ comment that staff has not responded to the Historic
Preservation Commission’s comments received on the EIR. Staff did consider the Historic Preservation
Commission’s comments which were passed on to the Carrillo Ranch subcommittee, of which Mr. Aharoni
was a member. The security issue has been raised many times but, as stated previously, any fencing must
be reviewed by the Department of Fish & Game.
Mr. Wojcik discussed Ms. Mayhue’s concern regarding drainage problems caused by the steep slopes near
her property. Those problems will be eliminated by grading for the proposed development.
Mr. Wojcik responded to the access issue and stated that staff had looked at the possibility of moving
Carrillo Way further to the north but since 60 ft. is needed for a dedicated roadway, it would be taking away
developable lots and therefore is a question of property rights. Mr. Hunter added that moving the school
site would only put it closer to the airport.
Mr. Wojcik spoke to Mr. Avis’ concern regarding the sewer line and stated that easements will have to be
secured with the first tentative map. This map will be another discretionary action. If it is determined that
there is a better location for the sewer easement, an additional environmental review will be done at that
time.
In response to Mrs. Daugherty’s comment regarding the open space being the same, Mr. Hunter stated that
the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan are definitely different with regard to open space.
The location and type the open space was directed by the Open Space subcommittee.
MINUTES
i
PLANNING COMMISSION April 7, 1993 PAGE 18
Mr. Hunter then discussed the RV parking issue and stated that the original plan showed a residential
subdivision with RV parking at the south end. With the elimination of the residences, the RV parking has
now been moved down the hill and around the corner. The mitigation proposed for the RV parking lot is
extensive landscaping but it will not be completely shielded from view. If the Planning Commission wants
the RV parking moved to an industrial site, staff could work with that direction.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if he understood correctly that the fencing around the historic buildings is
a decision for the Parks & Recreation Commission. And even if fencing is recommended, that an
environmental review would have to be done to ensure that the habitat is not endangered, which could be
a problem for the Fish & Game Department. Mr. Hunter replied that this is correct.
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director, addressed the Commission and stated that the Carrillo
Park will be a passive park which means that there will be no ball fields, tennis courts, or similar uses.
However, the uses to be allowed still need to be worked out and a subcommittee is helping with the design
of the park. Planning is in progress and he would like to hire a consultant to help but fiscal restraints have
prohibited doing so. The Kindles have been very instrumental in pushing for CIP funding for this park
ahead of schedule. It was originally scheduled for 1996 and beyond. Planning is now scheduled for
1994-96. We will be receiving $125,000 in 1994-95 and another $125,000 in 1995-96. However, it
should be noted that the funds to build the park will not be available until the year 2002 or later. It’s still a
long ways away. Staff has applied for some grants for construction and has also done some stabilization
+r) protect the buildings from earthquake. As far as a security fence is concerned, Parks & Recreation
wants the developer to put in a temporary fence. Normally, in planning a park, we don’t want to put in a
fence around it. In this case, however, we will probably need a fence. As far as access goes, Parks &
Recreation has done everything we could to get access off Carrillo Way. However, the school district
picked that site and we had no control over it.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if land was specifically requested for parking when staff accepted the
additional acreage around the park dedication. Mr. Bradstreet replied that Parks & Recreation requested
the meadow land, which was the prime piece of property. The buffering was also requested because that
was very important. Parking off Melrose will have to be done on the existing 10 l/2 acres.
Mr. Bradstreet then stated that another big issue was the daycare which was removed. They also removed
some dwelling units. They will be providing a trail from the school to the park and they will be installing a
pedestrian bridge over the sewer line. The developer was only required to give us five acres and they gave
us 16 acres, of which 8 l/2 acres are developable. Finally, the joint use parking agreement with the school
will be worked out at a later date.
ACTION : Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to continue the
LUTE:
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan to the meeting of April 21, 1993.
6-O
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber, Schramm, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
c. ZCAZ-07 - ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ZCA - Request for recommendation of approval of:
(1) a Negative Declaratendment to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to
define habitable space, and amend the development stancry structures in the
residential zones of the City.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 2
ly seconded, to continue the
Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
chlehuber, Schramm, and
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-l 7 - RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN - Request
for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report; and the request for the approval of a General
Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, and a Hillside Development Permit on property located
south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of
Local Facilities Management Zone 6, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
Chairman Noble announced to the gallery that the public testimony for this item had been closed at the last
meeting. Should the public feel that additional comments need to be made, they will have to present that
testimony at future public hearings when they are held.
Commissioner Savary stated that she had been noticed on this item because she lives within 600 yards of
the old Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. She asked to be excused and left the room.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the staff report for
this item was given at the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1993. After public testimony, due to
the lateness of the hour, the item was continued to this meeting. Mr. Hunter stated that he was ready to
respond to questions by Commissioners.
Commissioner Hall inquired how staff sees the security issue of the historic buildings being handled during
the construction phase. Mr. Hunter replied that the EIR contains a condition to provide security fencing
around the existing park site and all othersensitive environmental locations which have been identified.
Those sites will be fenced, staked, and flagged and it will be obvious that those areas are secured. In
addition, as part of the pre-grading conference, staff will meet with the grading contractors to make sure
they understand where the security areas are and that no incursion into those areas may take place. Staff
feels that they have made adequate provisions to protect the sensitive areas.
Commissioner Hall inquired if someone is currently living on the premises. Mr. Hunter replied that there is.
Commissioner Hall inquired if they will continue to live on the premises during the construction phase.
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director, replied that a caretaker would continue to live on the site
during construction.
Commissioner Hall stated that it is common for many developers to have their own on-site security and he
inquired if that is a standard condition or if the developers routinely provide security. Mr. Hunter replied
that staff does not require it, but most developers provide security without being asked.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
-4
CORRECTED
April 21, 1993 PAGE 3
Commissioner Erwin stated that during public testimony it was stated that there would be a lot of noise as
a result of the Melrose connection and that 25% of all trash trucks in North County use it to access the
h%fW~‘rPICi’hBr’Btt landfill. He asked staff if any mitigation has been proposed to counteract some of the
noise. Mr. Hunter replied that the proposed mitigation is consistent with the City’s noise policy No. 17.
Basically, the mitigation will consist of sound walls and other buffers.
Commissioner Erwin referred to the comments made by Mr. Avis of Fieldstone regarding the offsite sewer
alignment. Commissioner Erwin was advised that he had been told that staff was comfortable not
requiring an offsite sewer alignment at this time. At his request, Fieldstone provided Commissioner Erwin
with two variations of a condition regarding the offsite sewer alignment as follows:
Condition Alternate #l
The offsite sewer alignment is expressly not approved as a part of this Master Plan, but shall be
determined as a part of the first tentative map.
Condition Alternate #2
The offsite sewer alignment is expressly not approved as a part of this Master Plan, but shall be
determined as a part of the first tentative map, and shall in any event be located so as to create the
minimum impact possible to the developable portions of the adjacent property.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to respond to the proposed conditions. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil
Engineer, replied that at the last meeting he had stated that the easements for that sewer line would have
to be obtained from the property owners (Bressi and Fieldstone) with the first tentative map (basically the
same as Condition Alternative #l). Mr. Wojcik feels that the first tentative map would be the appropriate
time to fix the alignment of that sewer line. As far as Condition Alternative #2, Mr. Wojcik would not
recommend using that wording because it limits the staff review and there may be overriding
considerations that could have implications on sensitive habitat, etc.
From Mr. Wojcik’s comments, Commissioner Erwin has ascertained that proposed Condition Alternative #l
already exists since this Master Plan does not specifically approve the sewer alignment. Mr. Wojcik replied
that this assumption is correct.
Commissioner Erwin stated that normal school parking requirements would be 90 spaces but they have
asked for and received 150 spaces. He does not feel that shared parking between the school and tourists
would be a workable situation due to the increased vehicular activity in the vicinity where school children
would be present. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the possibility of segregating the west end of the
proposed school parking and making it a separate parking lot, with a separate entrance, for approximately
50-60 vehicles, dedicated to tourists. Visitors to the Ranch could then have a separate pedestrian access
and they would not impact the school parking. Mr. Hunter replied that the school district has indicated that
they will require that entire area for parking and they need it dedicated to themselves.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the school has a nexus to support the additional parking. Mr. Hunter
replied that his expertise does not extend to the nexus required by the school district.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he does not believe shared parking with the school will work and the
ultimate result will be that tourists will be shut out of the park except for weekends.
Commissioner Erwin is concerned about noise issues that will impact a school at the proposed site. He
stated that noise impacts to that school are the result of peak single events rather than constant noise such
as the freeway. Although he realizes that the Planning Commission or staff has no power over the school
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 4
district or the State, but he would like to send a letter to the San Marcos School District and the State
Department of Education as follows:
The Carlsbad Planning Commission is concerned about the location of the proposed school site due
to its proximity to the airport. As a result, the Carlsbad Planning Commission requests that, prior to
construction, additional sound studies be conducted to identify peak “single event” noise impacts to
the proposed school site.
The Carlsbad Planning Commission requests that adequate noise mitigation be included in the
design of the proposed site to mitigate peak “single event” noise impacts to a maximum of 45 dBI in
the classrooms.
Commissioner Erwin addressed Commissioner Welshon’s agreement with Mr. Chambers of Continental
Homes regarding the two-story houses which he agreed to reduce to one-story. In his opinion, since Mr.
Chambers agreed to that concession, approval of the Master Plan should reflect that change.
Commissioner Welshons requested staff to explain the wording in the Master Plan which ensures that the
tentative maps must also be approved by this Planning Commission. Mr. Hunter replied that all maps
come before this Commission. On Planned Developments (lots smaller than 7500 sf.), the Master Plan
allows a delayed architectural review. Therefore, architecture and floor plans of PUD’s are reviewed by the
Commission after the Tentative Map has been approved. This allows the developer leeway to define a
product type which is marketable, closer to the beginning of construction.
Commissioner Welshons referred to page 26 of the Master Plan which states that these items would come
before the Planning Commission as non-noticed discussion items. Mr. Hunter replied that this is
ambiguous and would be less confusing if it referred to Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.45.160 which speaks
specifically to that process.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if this means that the items would come before the Commission as
Consent items and, if changes are needed, the item could be pulled and opened to a public hearing. Mr.
Hunter replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if staff would concur with a correction to page 26 which changes that
reference to Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.45.160. Mr. Hunter replied to the affirmative.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the Redwing Street connection. The four options he sees are:
(1) Do nothing. The street is not extended and cul-de-sac and connection are not constructed.
(2) Construct a road from Melrose up, which has major problems.
(3) Open up Redwing with a gate.
(4) Open up Redwing totally.
In the case of Option #3, he understands that there is a sub-option that Redwing could be opened and,
after one year, if the residents are unhappy, an emergency gate could be installed.
For the record, Commissioner Erwin stated that residents of Redwing Street, sitting in the gallery, nodded
their heads yes.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on Option #l . Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer,
replied that Option #l also has a sub-option per our Cul-de-sac Ordinance. The entrance to the
cul-de-sac could be widened to a sufficient width which would allow the length proposed. It may have an
impact on Village M because of the required right-of-way. It may require the elimination of some of the
proposed homes if the right-of-way is widened. Another problem might be additional slope heights. If the
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 5
road were not widened, the number of units would have to be reduced from 103 units to 50 units, which
would be a significant reduction in that village.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the road is widened, what width would it be. Mr. Wojcik replied that staff
recommends two 24 ft. lanes with a median island in between.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if this would be for the access only and not the entire length of the road. Mr.
Wojcik replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on Option #2, coming up from Melrose. Mr. Wojcik
replied that there is a 30-40 ft. slope between Village M and Melrose. It would require a lot of grading and
would eliminate some of the proposed lots as well as add another intersection to Melrose which would not
be desirable. If the Planning Commission prefers this option, staff would recommend that the connection
be gated and used for emergency only.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on opening up Redwing but with a gate. Mr. Wojcik
replied that, in his opinion, this would be the second best alternative. Staff needs the approval of the
County Board of Supervisors to have the connection, with or without a gate. If the Board of Supervisors
doesn’t want the connection, the gate would be an automatic.
(4) Open up Redwing totally.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on the sub-option to open the road and, if the people are
still opposed to it after one year, install a gate. Mr. Wojcik replied that if a trial period is desired, it would be
preferable to do traffic counts and track accident histories, both on Redwing and at the intersection of
Ranch0 Santa Fe, to prove with facts that there is something wrong with the connection.
Commissioner Erwin commented that, in order to open the road and make an arrangement with the
residents that if the connection is unacceptable after one year an emergency gate would be installed to
block the connection, the City would have to make a deal with the residents, which would involve the City
Attorney. He inquired as to who that arrangement would need to be made with. Karen Hirata, Deputy City
Attorney, replied that this could not be done by a formal agreement. The City could take the action and
decide to review it in one year to determine if the action was appropriate. A formal agreement would place
the decision of a governing body on the shoulders of an outside public citizens group who could decide at
a later date that they don’t want the road. That would not be acceptable.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if an agreement could be made with the County. Ms. Hirata replied that
government agencies do enter into agreements. It would be complicated, but something could probably be
done in writing between government agencies. However, you would not want to restrict the
decision-making power.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if a condition could read that “The County has the option to replace the
connection at some future date with an emergency gate, if they so choose.” Ms. Hirata replied that this
would be merely a statement of fact rather than a condition. The City of Carlsbad can talk to the County
and negotiate with them, but we have no control over their actions.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if we have coordinated with the County over this conhection and if they have
given us an opinion. Mr. Wojcik replied that he had spoken with two different members of the County
Engineering Department. One indicated that it would simply be a matter of submitting improvement plans
and getting a right-of-way permit. Subsequent to that, he talked to that person’s supervisor who indicated
that it would be a political decision. Therefore, he would not offer an opinion one way or the other.
MINUTES
A
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993. PAGE 6
Commissioner Erwin stated that this sounds as though we could create a vehicle which would make it
easier for the Board of Supervisors, representing the people in that area, to make the appropriate decision.
Ms. Hirata replied that staff would have to look into the proper way to accomplish that result. There are
many approvals granted by the City and County; staff would need to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with
any of those approvals. She could not answer yes or no at this point.
Commissioner Erwin believes that the primary issue with a gate option is who would pay for the gate. Mr.
Wojcik replied that it is not necessary to make that decision with the Master Plan. He referred to page 154
of the Master Plan, Village M, special design criteria, which states that the Village shall gain secondary
access from existing Redwing Drive. It is staff’s intent that the actual design of that connection would be
done with the tentative map. The wording on that statement could be changed to “The Village may gain
secondary access...“. Commissioner Erwin could accept that change.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the energy dissipater and the weir issues need to be covered in the
Master Plan or if they are something which need to be dealt with during the park site development. Brian
Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that the issue with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Friends of
Carrillo Ranch is that those structures be saved. The existing design is such that in a 100 year flood the
the structures would be destroyed. They would also be destroyed with a 20 year flood. It is not this
project, but the existing natural state that threatens the weir and bridge. Staff has specific standards to be
used in designing the infrastructure (roadway and drainage) so that it can save the structures, However,
those decisions will probably not be made until formation of the Melrose assessment district, unless the.
Council directs staff to put something in place prior to that time. In any event, resolution of the energy
dissipater and weir issues are not specific to the Master Plan.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the four recommendations from the Parks & Recreation
Commission. The first condition states that if the San Marcos School District does not construct a school
on the proposed site, the 9+ acre parcel would revert back to the developers and sufficient land would be
dedicated to the City to provide public access off Carrillo Way with adequate parking for 50 cars
immediately adjacent to the north bridge area, etc. Does the Planning Commission need to incorporate
these conditions in our approval tonight or are they taken care of elsewhere? Brian Hunter, Senior
Planner, replied that Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance which applies to
planned developments, requires that a parks agreement be completed prior to the Master Plan being taken
to the final decision makers. All of this will be incorporated into the parks agreement prior to taking this
document forward to City Council. Therefore, this doesn’t need to part of the Planning Commission’s
resolution.
Commissioner Welshons thanked Commissioner Erwin for bringing the issue of the four homes being
reduced to one story. The reason she brought that issue up is because when reading, Title 21 regarding
approval of Master Plans, she noted the following statement:
“Development of property within the area of each such zone shall be subject to the regulations of the
indicated zone unless specifically modified as a part of the Master Plan approval. A Master Plan
may impose a lower building height limit than those needed in these development standards.”
Commissioner Welshons stated that the reason she brought that issue up is because of the efforts to create
a visual buffer for screening and protection of the park site from adjacent buildings. She referred to the
Day Care Community Center in Open Space #l 1 and inquired what types of height restrictions or
limitations are being imposed. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that the height limit will be 25 ft. for
that structure and there will also be additional setbacks from the slopes adjacent to the park site. There will
also be additional landscaping required on the slopes. Staff was aware that the structure could impact the
park site if it wasn’t treated in a sensitive manner. Other structures in the City can be as high as 35 ft.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993
CORRECTED
PAGE 7
Commissioner Welshons is also concerned about the trails and feels they are an integral part of this Master
Plan (reference Goal #2 of the Master Plan). On page 101, the Master Plan discusses the trail and the
responsibility for maintenance of the trails as shown on Exhibit 31. HB She inquired if this Exhibit is in
error and should be Exhibit 35. Mr. Hunter replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the statement that the R~fiMbIC&W?kYPbtk trails shall be
maintained by the City of Carlsbad’s Parks and Recreation Department. Trails and slopes in the individual
villages shall be maintained by individual homeowner associations. All other open space areas shall be
maintained by a City maintenance district, if approved, or a master homeowner’s association.
Commissioner Welshons proposed that the developer build all of the proposed trails up front and that a
master homeowner’s association maintain those trails. Then, if and when the City builds a Citywide trail
system, the master homeowner’s association may request annexation to the City’s trail system and the-City
may request annexation to this system.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he has a problem with the proposed letter to the San Marcos School
District and the State Department of Education. He does not feel qualified to make the decision on whether
or not the school is too close the the airport. In regard to the sound studies, since he is not familiar with
what studies will actually take place, he cannot determine if additional studies are actually needed. As far
as requesting additional noise mitigation goes, he feels that should be an architectural decision. He does
not believe that our Planning Commission is composed of experts in noise impacts and that the school
district should rely on their own noise experts who will no doubt be consulted in the construction process.
Speaking to the Redwing connection controversy, Commissioner Schlehuber cannot support any type of
agreement whereby the citizens can determine a roadway. He feels that all decisions on roadways must be
based on safety and engineering standards.
ChWn~ Commissioner Erwin requested permission to respond to Commissioner Schlehuber’s
comments. However, Chairman Noble felt it his duty to remind the Commission that these issues are not
being decided tonight. The issues under consideration are certification of the EIR, request for approval of
the General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, and Hillside Development Permit.
Nevertheless, /.XWrW Commissioner Erwin commented that the Commission had received expert
testimony on the noise impacts from the airport manager at the last meeting. In response to Commissioner
Schlehuber’s comment on an agreement about the Redwing connection, Commissioner Erwin stated that
the City Attorney has already determined that this has to be determined by the County Board of
Supervisors.
Commissioner Hall responded to Commissioner Welshon’s comment regarding who should pay for the trail
system and the open space. He believes that if those trails and open space are for the betterment of the
entire community, then the City must bear the cost of it. When Aviara was approved, the master
homeowner association fees were approximately $100 and he feels that is an exorbitant burden when it is
added to the development’s homeowner fee in each area. Commissioner Hall cannot support having a
select few people be required to maintain a public trail system.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he understood that Mr. Chambers planned to grade the trail system
However, he did not remember Commissioner Welshons stating that the trails would become public trails
until the City decides to take them over. Until that time, the trails would be owned by the homeowner’s
association and would not be public trails.
If that is the case, Commissioner Hall can accept maintenance of the trails by a master homeowner’s
association until such time as they become public trails.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 8
Commissioner Welshons stated that the trails are an integral part of the community. She doesn’t want to see them graded and then lost because they are not used. She feels the trails need to be maintained until
the City connects to them for public access.
Commissioner Hall would like the wording to remain as it is and let the City Council make that decision.
Commissioner Welshons could accept that but, if the other Commissioners agree, she would like to send it
forth to the Council with a recommendation.
Commissioner Welshons commented that she would like to eliminate all of the natural resource fencing
around the park and upgrade them to village fencing. The fence design is covered on page 23 of the
Master Plan and Map #20. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that natural resource fences are to
protect sensitive natural resources; they are controlled by either the Department of Fish & Game or the
Department of Fish and Wildlife. He feels there may be obstacles trying to redesign the fence.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the Master Plan requires addition language to cover the grading of
the trails by the developer, since Mr. Chambers volunteered to do that. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil
Engineer, replied that staff has discussed this with the developers and they did reiterate that they would
grade the trails at the time they grade the site. Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, stated that the Master Plan
already shows the trails. The maps themselves will create the trails. When the maps come forward, they
will contain the grading plans.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what happens if this developer sells to someone else. If the City
Council makes the determination that the trails don’t have to go in unless the City picks up the
maintenance and liability, they could be removed from the Master Plan. The existing plan, however, would
hold the developer to at least grading the trails.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if there was anyone in the gallery from the San Marcos School Board. No
person came forward.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Resolution No. 3504, Finding #7, page 3, which states that the
conclusion indicates that commercial development cannot be justified economically at the proposed
location due to the proximity of multiple commercial land use sites within a one and one-half mile radius of
the Master Plan. Based on the proposed revisions, land uses have changed dramatically. It is her
understanding that commercial development has been eliminated not because of economics but, rather,
because that piece of land is too small to contain a viable commercial center. Commissioner Welshons is
uncomfortable that the commercial site has been removed.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, replied that staff wants to adhere to that finding. The Land Use Element
directs us to place commercial development at the intersections of two arterial roadways. The existing
Master Plan showed the commercial site located where there was a steep slope that would require
extensive grading. Because the road was realigned in order to require less grading, the commercial site is
now across the street from the school site, an unsuitable location from a land use standpoint. The only site
left would be where Melrose intersects Palomar Airport Road. Staff went to the property owner, Scripps
Hospital, and discussed designating that site as commercial. Scripps Hospital advised staff that San
Marcos had already picked up the potential commercial development for this area with an off site location.
As a result, staff was able to make this finding.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if we have any knowledge of what is being proposed on the Bressi
property. Mr. Hunter replied that staff’s only knowledge is that it is non-residential reserve, although it may
meet the criteria for a commercial site.
Commissioner Welshons does not like the idea of sending our residents out to another city to shop.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 9
Commissioner Schramm has a problem with the school site and she would like to see the school district
encouraged to provide additional noise protection. She is concerned that there will be no commercial site
in the development since it may take many years before the Bressi Ranch is developed. She feels it is nice
that we are giving the school extra parking but she doesn’t think the park site will be able to get much use
out of the additional parking. She would like to have seen some of that extra parking dedicated to the park
itself. She hopes that some type of living fence will be built around the park in the near future so it will
contain mature plants by the time the public gets to use the park.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the amendments presented at the last meeting regarding pesticides,
etc. have been incorporated into the Master Plan and resolution. Mr. Hunter replied that it was a
clarification to the EIR implementing Proposition 65. In addition, there were some other minor corrections
which should be included in the motion.
Commissioner Schlehuber is still concerned about access to the Ranch but realizes that it is difficult to deal
with school districts when they are autonomous. He would like to see the school have a segregated
parking lot so the tourist traffic is separate. However, he will deal with that and other concerns as a Minute
Motion after the regular motion. On the Redwing connection, he would like to see the wording changed
from “shall gain secondary access...” to “may gain secondary access...“. He will support the plan with
those changes. He also hopes that there will be some way to deflect the noise to residential homes as a
result of the Melrose traffic. He doesn’t think it is fair to require homeowners to keep their windows and
doors locked to avoid excessive traffic noise. In regards to the Fieldstone request, their preference of
Alternate Condition #l is a matter of public record and will be resolved with the tentative map. He would
like to bring up the proposed letter issue in a Minute Motion after the regular motion.
Chairman Noble suggested that he propose the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
they send the letter.
Commissioner Welshons would like to see the language amended on the architectural review, per her
handout. She would like to see the word “or” removed from the trails section so that the master
homeowner’s association maintain the trails. She wants to make sure that the four homes in
Village Q are built as one-story as Mr. Chambers agreed at the last meeting. Finally, she would like
to see the EIR corrections included which were passed out by the Engineering staff.
Commissioner Schlehuber can accept the amendment on the architectural review but he hopes the
applicant will have an opportunity to comment on it. As far as the four homes being reduced to
one-story, the developer’s public testimony should be considered a commitment to make that
change and it should not be a part of the Master Plan approval. Mr. Hunter concurred and stated
that the Master Plan does not designate product type or style.
Commissioner Schlehuber is satisfied with staff’s comments regarding the weir. As far as the
Historic Preservation Commission wanting to leave this area in its natural state, staff has Stated
that it will be destroyed with a 20 year flood. If the weir is that important, it should be taken down
and displayed elsewhere on the site. On the Redwing connection, he would prefer the second
option, that of an emergency gate. He will support the plan.
Commissioner Hall believes that what staff has proposed with regard to the roadway is Correct at
this time. He believes that the County will be the ultimate decision-maker. As far as
Commissioner Welshons’ suggestion that the master homeowner’s association maintain the trails,
he would like the wording left as it is, that the City or the homeowner’s association will maintain
the trails. The City Council is the ultimate decision-making body and that decision must be made
by them. He could not support Commissioner Welshons’ recommended wording. Commissioner
Hall feels that the most important issue is how the Carrillo Ranch can be protected over the next
several years. If staff feels there is sufficient protection, he can go along with it. However, if Staff
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 10
feels that additional protection is needed, he would appreciate their input. He can support the plan
with those changes.
Chairman Noble asked the applicant if he would like to respond to any of the comments which have
been made.
Chris Chambers, representing Continental Homes, addressed the Commission and stated that he
can accept the revised wording on the delayed architectural review. As far as the sewer alignment
is concerned, that should be fixed with the first tentative map and those plans have already been
submitted for staff review. In the case of the trails, he would like the present wording in the Master
Plan lo remain and the maintenance issue decided by the City Council. If the City wants those
trails for the citizens, then it should be the responsibility of the City to maintain them.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he could accept the wording change that Village M “may” gain
secondary access. Mr. Chambers could accept that change.
Commissioner Welshons requested Commissioner Hall to restate his position on the change from
“shall” to “may.” Commissioner Hall replied that staff needs the strongest wording possible
because they can always step back from their position. Commissioner Welshons supports this
position and would like to see this issue voted on separately.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the word “shall” remains and the connection is
not made, it will require a Master Plan Amendment to be processed. The word “may” would save
the developer from costs to process an amendment. If the County does not wish a connection to
be made, an amendment would still have to be processed but the City might waive the fees.
Commissioner Hall inquired how the cul-de-sac policy would then pertain lo that village. Ms.
Hirata replied that our policies can only be enforced by our decision-making bodies. If the
cooperation of another agency is necessary, and they don’t want to cooperate, then it becomes our
problem.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that using the word “may” would allow the City to install a
gate if they choose. He thinks that is the best solution because the County can’t stop us from
putting in a gate because the gate would be on our side.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3503, recommending certification of EIR 91-04 with the
amendments provided by staff, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3504,
3505, and 3506, recommending approval of MP 139(E), GPA 91-06, and HDP 91-I 7,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following
additions: (1) the change to the second sentence of paragraph 2, Delayed Architectural
Review, page 26, to read, “After reviewing these plans and determining that they are in
conformance with the design guidelines that were approved as part of the Tentative
Map, staff shall present the floor plans and architecture to the Planning Commission per
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.160.“; (2) amending Village M to read that “the
Village may gain secondary access from existing Redwing Drive.“; (3) removal of item
14 on page 86 per the handout by the Engineering staff; and (4) changes to the EIR
handed out by Engineering staff at the previous meeting.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber, Schramm, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Savary
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993
CORRECTED
PAGE 11
Commissioner Erwin asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission can send the letter to the San
Marcos School District or if it is something that the City Council should send. Karen Hirata, Deputy City
Attorney, replied that since the action being taken is on a group of decisions on which the Commission
only makes a recommendation, with final decision being made by the City Council, the appropriate thing to
do would be to recommend to the City Council that they send the letter.
Minute Motion
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, that the City Council
consider sending his proposed letter regarding noise impacts to both the San Marcos
School District and the State Board of Education, with an inclusion requesting that they
incorporate segregated parking in the western section of the parking lot, to be used for
the Carrillo Ranch, and that shared parking not be used because of possible danger to
students.
VOTE : 2-4-l
AYES: Commissioners Erwin and Schramm
NOES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Schlehuber, St9’1thtnh-1 Hall, and Welshons
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Savary
Chairman Noble acknowledged the amount of work which went into this Master Plan by everyone involved
and stated that it makes everyone’s job much easier. He thanked those who assisted in the work.
ing Commission recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
ary returned to the Council Chambers.
Chairman Noble ac the presence of Council Member Stanton sitting in the gallery.
- Request for a Master Plan text amendment to
allow the Planning Co ove Site Development Plans for residential developments with
50 or more units in Lot agement Zone 19.
Michael Grim, Assistant Planner, revi
requesting an amendment to change
according to Section 3.8 of the Master
the building elevations and locations of those eleva
whether or not the map has already gone through
development standards and design criteria have al into the Master Plan. The request
tonight is to allow the Planning Commission decision-maki for those subdivisions that have
already been subdivided and approved by the City Council, nning areas that have already
had development standards and design criteria approved b . Some examples of this
authority that the Planning Commission already has in every other p
would be the Pavoreal subdivision which was originally approved as a 9
When it came back later, the Planning Commission had the authority to
and locations. Another example of the Planning Commission approving building ons is under the
Q overlay Zone. Regardless of the size of the project, a Site Development Plan with
already been subdivided, can be approved by the Planning Commission. Staff has r
amendment and feels that the level of review which staff and the Commission would perfo
pre-subdivided area within Aviara, with development standards already established, is adequa
recommend approval.
MINUTES
JULY 9,1993
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
RE: FdR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-17 - RANCH0 CARREL0
MASTERPLANAMENDMENT
A letter was received by the Planning Director and the City Council from a representative
of the Bressi Ranch Trust indicating five specific concerns with the Draft Environmental
Impact Report and its responses; feasibility of identified mitigation measures within the
Biological mitigation section; mitigation for offsite impacts of Carrillo Way and the sewer
alignment; stormwater runoff; landslides; and impacts from slopes required for the
construction of Melrose Avenue. The comments are analyzed on a case by case basis on
the attached letter. These comments represent a meeting between the trustee for the Bressi Ranch’jxoperty and City staff on July 9,1993. The trustee has stated that they will review
the written response and construct a reply prior to the July 20, 1993 public hearing.
mt44h,lw*irccr
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER -vb%Glu- l
Attachment
MJH:BH:vd
CARBRE.mem
July 9,1993
Martin Burton
Parker, Mill&en, Clark, O’Hara & Samuelian
333 So. Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED JULY 1,1993 REPRESENTING
THE TRUSTEE FOR THE BRESSI RANCH PROPERTY
Dear Mr. Burton:
Thank you for meeting with staff today to allow us to discuss your concerns with the
potential effects of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan on the Bressi Ranch property.
Hopefully all parties came away from the meeting with a clearer understanding, if not a
consensus, on future action. Your questions were a thoughtful reminder that the
safeguards staff takes for granted within our existing ordinances and standards are not
universal knowledge. At the meeting we provided you with a copy of our Engineering
Standards and under separate cover we will provide you with the Citys Grading Ordinance
and Standards Grading conditions. The following is a synopsis of our discussion.
concern: Feasibility of identified mitigation measures within the Biological mitigation
section.
A full reading of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicates a complex
interrelationship between the project, the mitigation, the environment, and all responsible
agencies. The mitigation meets the test for practical feasibility, that is, it is feasible to turn the specific site into a riparian area and that mitigation is sufficient to lower the impact
to a level less than significant. However there are a number of actions which will occur
after the consideration of the project by the City to include the jurisdictional analysis and
permit process by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, the archaeological mitigation of the cultural resources present, and the
advancement of the City’s Habitat Management Plan. All of these represent mitigation
required by the Environmental Impact Report which may have some technical impact upon
the project, and therefore that potential has been disclosed to meet the intent of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Mitigation for offsite impacts of Carrillo Way and Sewer Alignment.
The Trustee states that the Environmental Impact Report does not consider mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts resulting from the location of the sewer and road
easements through Bressi Ranch. This is because the alignments traverse disturbed
agricultural property and no impacts were identified. It should be noted that the Master
Plan Amendment does not adopt a specific alignment through Bressi Ranch nor does the
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161
EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-17 -
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
JULY 9,1993
PAGE 2
proposed offsite roadway alignment suggest a preference by the City. No requirement for the construction of Carrillo Way offsite exists for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan. The EIR
examined a corridor in which the Carrillo Way extension may be located. Future planning
of the Bressi Ranch and Fieldstone property will determine the exact location of the Carrillo
Way extension.
The only requirement for the Master Plan is the construction of the sewer line which has
no environmental impact due to its placement within a disturbed environment and
therefore requires no mitigation if located immediately adjacent to the existing sewer
easements through the property. The specific alignment for the sewer will be set with the
first tentative map within the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan.
Concern: Adequacy of Storm Water Runoff impacts Analysis.
The project that is analyzed by the EIR is a Master Plan Amendment for Ranch0 Carrillo.
Contents of Master Plans are specified in Title 21.38.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
A Master Plan does not require and therefore does not provide the level of detail demanded
which would allow the level of analysis requested by the comment.
However the overall concerns embodied in the comment are adequately addressed in the
mitigation section of the EIR and in the response to comments. On page 99 and 100 of
the EIR the applicant is required to prepare a hydrology analysis prior to the fk-st final
map, grading permit, or building permit for the City Engineer’s approval. It is at this stage
of development that the applicant will have the detailed grading plan necessary to complete
the analysis requested by the comment.
Implicit in any analysis of potential impacts is the effect the existing Municipal Code and
adopted Engineering Standards would have on the project. The City Engineer’s approval
is governed by the City of Carlsbad’s Grading ordinance, Title 11.06 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, and the City Council adopted Engineering Standards. Both of these
documents require the control of storm water discharges to protect downstream properties
(pages 20-21 of the Standards and CMC sections 11.06.120 through 11.06.160).
concern Analysis of Landslides.
The Trustee relies on dated material (1982) that “suggests the presence” of landslides. No
comprehensive exploratory excavations were performed to con&m the presence of these
landslides. The work was done as part of a planned two part study proposed for Bressi
Ranch. The second part of the study which would have included the excavation of large
diameter borings in the area of the suspected landslides to con&m their existence was
never completed. Therefore the existence and/or location of these two slides was not
verified.
A 1992 field study carried out by the original authors (Geocon) indicates ‘I... that these
landslides do not exist or at least do not extend to within the Ranch0 Carrillo on-site or
EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-l 7 -
RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
JULY 9,1993
PAGE 3
off-site areas of planned improvements.“(Geotechnical investigations for Ranch0 Carrillo
Project - Major Roads, Carlsbad, California, dated January 15, 1993).
COIKm: Analysis of Impacts resulting from Grading slopes over the maximum height
allowed by City Ordinance (Melrose Avenue).
Section 21.95.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows for the exclusion by the decision
making body of circulation element roadways from the requirements of this chapter. The
City’s standard engineering practices will ensure slope stability and erosion control. The City’s landscape manual details the specific landscaping requirements for the roadway and
slope which adds not only to the slope stability and erosion control, but provides for visual
relief and interest. The Master Plan itself contains a detailed landscaping plan that has
been reviewed and commented on by the Ciws Landscape Consultant. In part, due to all
of the above, the Environmental Impact Report indicates there is no significant impact to
views. Finally, the request to shift the alignment to the east so that all grading is on the
Ranch0 Carrillo property speaks to a development rather than an environmental concern.
It is my understanding that today’s meeting and this letter meet the requirements of your
July 1, 1993 correspondence and that you will in turn provide a response to the
information provided. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or need
further information please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Brian Hunter, at
(619) 438-1161, extension 4457.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:BH:vd
BRESICHMI.llI
JULY 23, 1993
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
RANCBO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
Attached are three items for the continued City Council hearing on the Rancho Carrillu Master Plan. First is a bullet point list of
the remaining concerns/issues/questions which resulted from the
July 20th Council meeting (Attachment 1). Second is a memorandum
to you providing a response to each point on the list (Attachment '
2). Staff will be prepared to respond in greater detail to each point on the list at the continued hearing if the Council so desires. The final item is a list summarizing some of the more major changes/modifications made to the Master Plan in order to respond to concerns raised by staff, citizens and interest groups during the review process (Attachment 3). Although there are a few concerns or issues which still remain, I believe that staff, the
applicant and the involved commissions and committees made every
effort to address as many of these concerns or issues as possible.
MICHAEL J. ~HOLZMILLER Planning Director
arb
Attachments
JULY 23, 1993
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM : Planning Director
STAFF RESPONSES - REMAINING ISSUES/CONCERNS/QUESTIONS - RANCHO
CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
The City Council at its meeting of July 20, 1993 continued its consideration of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan one week to the meeting of July 27, 1993. A list of remaining issues, concerns or questions were prepared. Following are the responses prepared by
Planning, Parks and Recreation and Engineering Staffs.
1. Connection to RedwincVMeadowlark Ne iahbor * ho 04
Staff Response: The Master Plan presently allows the option
of providing a secondary access/connection from Village M to Redwing Drive which is located in the Meadowlark community in the County. A representative of the Meadowlark community
indicated at the July 20th Council meeting that they could
support an emergency only connection. The City Engineer has
indicated that he can support this. If the City Council
agrees, staff is recommending that the present wording of the Master Plan be modified to state that Village M may gain secondary, em eraency onlv access from Redwing Drive. This
would allow an emergency gate to be installed across the connection subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
the County of San Diego.
2. Aimort Noise ImDacts on School and Residential Uses
Staff Response: The proposed school site, as well as all of
the Master Plan except a very small portion of Village B near the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road are located outside of the Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone as shown on the presently adopted Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) . In addition, none of the
Master Plan is located within a noise impact area as identified by the noise contours contained in the CLUP. The
CLUP has no established standards for one time single event noise impacts.
At the July 20th Council meeting a representative from the County Airport indicated that they wish to restrict school sites as well as all residential development within a three mile radius of the airport. This is not consistent with the
existing CLUP nor the proposed update of the CLUP which is
currently being processed by the County and reviewed by the City. The existing plan as well as the update only recommend
a form of disclosure or legal notice that a property is within the Airport Influence Area. Prohibiting residential
development within 3 miles of the airport has never been an
ATTACHMENT 2
JULY 23, 1993
CITY MANAGER
PAGE 2
acceptable land use consideration. Attached as an exhibit is a map that would show the impacts of this proposal. Only a 'very small area in the northeast and in the southwest portion
of the City would be left for any development.
The location of the proposed school site as well as the entire Master Plan is in compliance with the existing and the
proposed, updated CLUP for the airport.
3. ImDact of Master Plan on Arboretum Pr ooosaL
Staff Response: The amount of area designated as open space in the central valley portion of the Master Plan was increased
by over 50.acres during the review of the Plan. This was done for a number of reasons one of which was to provide a better
opportunity to accommodate an arboretum if that use is deemed
to be appropriate in the future. Staff facilitated a meeting between the Rancho Carrillo property owners and the Arboretum Foundation during the processing of the Master Plan at which
time the matter was explained in detail. At this meeting, the property owners offered to allow the open space to be used for an arboretum in the future if the Foundation can gain all necessary approvals and permits from the wildlife regulatory agencies and the City.
peed/Alianmen t/Classification of Melr ose Dr ive
Staff Response: Melrose Drive is classified as a prime arterial within the City and is recognized as having important Citywide as well as regional significance. The need for Melrose and its alignment have been comprehensively studied and analyzed on at least four occasions over the past ten years. It was reviewed in 1982 when the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan was last updated, again in 1984 when the Circulation Element of the General Plan was updated, when Scripps Hospital was processing an application to develop on a portion of the Ranch and finally, as a result of the present, pending update of the Master Plan. Each time the need for Melrose as a prime arterial in its presently proposed alignment has been confirmed. Staff believes that Melrose is essential to making circulation work in the easterly part of the City and in complying with the circulation performance
standard of the Growth Management Plan. The buildout traffic volumes on Melrose between Palomar Airport Road and proposed Carrillo Way are anticipated to reach approximately 46,000
vehicles per day. The projected volumes drop off to 30,000 between Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road. Without the
Melrose connection between Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road,
it has been projected that there would be an increase in'the
projected traffic volumes of approximately 10,000 vehicles per
day on each of the following roads: Palomar Airport Road, El
4.
JULY 23, 1993 CITY MANAGER PAGE 3
Camino Real, and Alga Road. A volume drop of 10,000 vehicles per day would occur on Melrose Drive North and Rancho Santa Fe would experience a drop of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Though no figures are available it would be expected that El Fuette and Carrillo Way would each experience significant traffic increases. The net effect would be a traffic failure on Alga Road and increased traffic congestion
on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. In addition, it is anticipated that there would be unmitigable intersection failures along these same streets.
Given the need for Melrose, its alignment particularly where it crosses the valley was thoroughly analyzed from an environmental standpoint. The present location of Melrose Drive is based on input from the California Department of Fish
& Game. Moving the alignment to the east would greatly
increase its impacts on the most sensitive riparian vegetation in the valley. Moving the alignment to the west would impact the existing park site property. The Environmental Impact
Report examined an alternative alignment for Melrose and determined that the proposed alignment was the best from an environmental standpoint. Prior to the actual construction of Melrose Drive, the applicant will be required to obtain permits from the Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish C Wildlife and California Department of Fish C Game in addition to permits from the City of Carlsbad.
Regarding consistency with the Habitat Management Plan, it has always been assumed that some of the wildlife corridors will
be bisected by Circulation Element roads. One of the purposes
of doing the Plan and providing larger blocks of natural habitat is to offset the impacts associated with the construction of the Citywide infrastructure and the public facilities required by the City's Growth Management Plan and the General Plan. It would be totally cost prohibitive and have an adverse impact on drainage to construct Melrose as a bridge. The present design of Melrose Avenue with four 5' x
7' box culverts will help control the flow of water through the valley to prevent flooding and the erosion of the existing park site. If a bridge was used in this area it would make it much more difficult to control drainage and to prevent flooding caused by increased runoff from future development outside the City of Carlsbad. The City Engineering Department has already allowed for special design standards to reduce the impacts of Melrose on the riparian areas. The special design allowed the road to be lowered 30' which reduced the width of the bottom of the fill 130'.
JULY 23, 1993 CITY MANAGER PAGE 4
5. Potential Floodina/100 Year Storm I mpacts on Residential and
School Site
Staff Response: Under the present design, there is virtually
no possibility for flooding or erosion damage to occur on either the school site or, any of the proposed residential units within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan przject. In fact
no part of the Rancho Carrillo property lies within the officially designated floodplain and thus a Floodplain Special Use Permit is not required. To make certain that no flood damage will occur from a 100 year storm within the Carrillo Master Plan area or to any properties downstream, the Master Plan developers are required as a condition of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan to prepare a detailed hydrology study and to install any needed flood control improvements prior to development of the site.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan requires the developer to comply with the City's erosion control policies and the Federal Clean Water Act requirements. Prior to grading permit issuance the Master Plan developers are required to submit an erosion control plan to the City for
approval and must prepare a siltation/pollutant control plan as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In
addition, each individual tentative map will be conditioned to
implement Best Management Practices for the control of urban pollutants in their developed state.
6. mrri 110 Wav Offsite Se wer t Road Alianme nt
Staff Response: An issue was raised by the property owners of
Zone 17 and 10 (Bressi and Fieldstone respectively) regarding
the proposed alignment of the offsite gravity sewer line needed to serve the Rancho Carrillo properties. The Rancho
carrillo property owners propose to construct a new gravity sewer offsite through Zones 17 and 10 to a proposed pump station in Zone 10 on Fieldstone owned property. The proposed
alignment would follow and be adjacent to existing sewer line easements owned by Vallecitos Water District for their force main and emergency outfall lines. The sewer easements are located north ofthe currently proposed alignment for Carrillo Way which itself is proposed just to the north of the Carrillo Way riparian corridor. An exhibit showing this is attached.
The Bressi property owners have expressed an interest in moving the proposed Carrillo alignment north to coincide with the sewer easements. The Fieldstone Company has expressed a
desire to move the proposed sewer line and, ultimately the Vallecitos lines into the proposed Carrillo Way alignment.
JULY 23, 1993
CITY MANAGER
PAGE 5
The Fieldstone proposal would require extensive grading to bring the existing grade up to the level of the proposed Carrillo roadway and thus add considerable expense to
construction of the sewer line. The issue i,as not been
resolved and was not expected to be resolved until approval of the first final map within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. At the present time the three property owners seem to be content with the idea of resolving the matter before tentative
map approval.
7. Status of Parks Planninq
Staff Response: Considerable time and effort has been expended in the planning for the Carrillo Ranch Park site. Attached is a report from the Parks and Recreation Director which outlines the status of the park planning efforts to date (Memorandum to the Planning Director dated July 21, 19s \.
8. Access to Carrillo R anch/Park Site
Staff Response: As was indicated in the July 21, 1993 memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Director, considerable time, effort and input from individuals has taken
place in planning for the future park site including access.
The present Master Plan provides for primary vehicular access from the south off of Melrose Drive. It is possible to gain access across the old bridge into the park from the proposed parking area located off this southerly access. The applicant
has carefully designed this access road to be able to connect
to a parking area that then provides pedestrian access directed across the old bridge. A plan will be available at
the Council meeting to demonstrate this and to show that it provides for handicap access. In addition, the proposed Master Plan has always included the possibility of secondary, pedestrian access off Carrillo Way starting from the school site's overflow parking area, along the northerly edge of the
riparian creek to the old bridge entrance. The Master Plan
has been designed to allow the opportunity for the City and the school district to enter into an agreement for joint use of this parking area, however discussions with school district representatives have indicated that they do not desire to consider having the City acquire this area. The specific site
dimensions and acreage for the school site have already been
approved by the state as well as the school board.
The Rancho Carrillo property owners have agreed with the recommendations of the Carrillo Ranch Subcommittee, the Parks
and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission that if the San Marcos District decides not to acquire the proposed Village S school site in the future, a secondary vehicular access and parking lot could be constructed by the City in this area.
JULY 23, 1993
CITY MANAGER
PAGE 6
Staff still supports the use of the southerly access as the primary vehicular access to the park site. With the recognition that the school district had accepted Village S for school purposes, the southerly access was supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. However, if the City Council determines that a southerly
access is not acceptable, a plan has been prepared which will be available at the Council meeting which shows how a
northerly vehicular access could be provided. A northerly
access with parking has several significant ramifications and
impacts on the presently proposed Master Plan. These include:
1. The school district would have to agree to move the school site to the north.
2. Carrillo Way would also have to move to the north which impacts the usability and development of Village J.
Approximately 14 lots in the village would be lost.
The open space, hillside area north of Village J would be impacted. The engineer for the developer of this village
has done a preliminary review which shows that the City would need to grant a variance for excessive slope grading. This grading would also impact approximately one acre of coastal sage scrub.
The City would need to acquire the northerly access and parking area from the property owner. The property owner has done a preliminary analysis .of the cost to acquire
this area including the impacts to Village J as a result
of moving everything to the north and has indicated an
estimated minimum cost of approximately &7 million
dollars. This cost would need to be added to the City's
cost of developing the Carrillo Ranch Park site.
If the City Council determines to require a northerly access, staff
would recommend that the southerly access also be retained at this time since: 1) it provides useable access and 2) the school district may not agree to move the Village S school site to the
north.
3.
4.
MICHAEL J. pHOLZMILLER Planning Director
Attachments: 1) Map Showing Airport 3 mi/radius: 2) Carrillo Way
Offsite Sewer Map: and 3) Memorandum from Parks & Recreation
Director to Planning Director, dated July 21, 1993
7
I
PROPOSED \ 1; / \\
July 21, 1993
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Parks and Recreation Director
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
In response to the questions regarding the status of park Planning and park sccuritv of the
future Camllo Ranch Community Park site, the following is offered €or your information:
STATUS OF PARK PLANNING
Over the past eighteen months, Department personnel has staffed a Carrillo Ranch
Subcommittee consisting of representation from the following City Boards and Commissions:
0 Parks and Recreation Commission
0 Planning Commission
0 Arts Commission
0 Historic Preservation Commission
0 Open Space Advisory Committee
0 Carrillo Ranch Volunteer Curator
In addition, the following community -organizations were involved to varying degrees:
0
0 Carlsbad Historical Society
0 Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation
The Friends of Canill0 Ranch
The focus of the subcommittee was to make recommendations relating to preliminary park
planning efforts. The attached final report (Attachment A) of the subcommittee has offered
recommendations on the following:
0 Rccommendations for the dedication of additional parkland related to the
Rancho Carrill0 Master Plan/Zone 18 LFMP
Recammendations for the future development of the Carrillo Ranch Park,
qcdkdly, statements relating to a number of uses and issues which the
subcommittee felt would be a part of the future planning process. Thosc
issues/uses are:
0
1. Openspace 5. AdYiw!sandEiwatbn
2. Historical 6. Arboretum
3. Parks & Recreation Concepts 7. Circulation
4. Arts and Cultural 8. Privatization
9. Operation Issues
July 21, 1993
Page Two
On May 17 1993, the Parks and Recreation Commission received the subcommittee’s final
report and un&ously directed staff to utilize the document during the implementation of
the park master planning process for the Carrillo Ranch.
Funding as identified in the 1993-94 CIP for design and development of the Camllo Ranch
project, is as follows:
0 Design 94-95 PFF $125,000
0 Design 95-96 PFF 125,000
0 Development 8.5 acres 96-2003 PFF 1,150,OOO 0 Development 10.5 acres 962003 PFF 2,~,~
It should be noted that the expenditure of those funds for the actual implementation of
professional park design work will be based upon 1) the availability of funding and 2) the
progress of the Zone 18 Master Plan infrastructure development, Le. access to the park site.
Notwithstanding the most recent subcommittee endeavors and CIP funding, for several years,
a myriad of efforts have been applied to the eventual development of the park site. Most
notably those efforts have resulted in receipt of over $500,000 in grant funding from the
State office of Historic Preservation to retrofit the ranch buildings to meet earthquake
standards, provide a structure stabilization report, maintenance manual and ultimately a plan
for the continued restoration of the ranch when funding becomes available. In addition, the
Carrillo Ranch will receive 1.5 million dollars for park development if and when a proposed
park bond act is supported by the voters in November.
As part of the park planning process, staff has also prepared a parks agreement between
the City and a contingency of developers representing Zone 18 Master Plan which outlines
each parties responsibilities. This agreement (Attachment B) was reviewed and approved
by the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 17,1993.
PARK SE-
Since February 1979 the City has been responsible for security and maintenance of the Carrillo Ranch From February lq9, through December 1984, 24 hour security and
maintenance waa provided by a resident caretaker employed by the City’s Park Maintenance
Division. During this period, not one act of vandalism had occurred and numerous
renovation projects were completed with the assistance of City work crews and thousands
of man hours performed by the California Conservation Corps.
July 21, 1993
Page Three
Since 1984, security of the ranch property has been provided by another resident caretaker
employed by the Park Maintenance Division. Although the current caretaker performs City
park maintenance responsibilities outside of the ranch property approximately 30 hours per
week, a minimum of 10 hours per week is performed at the site as part of a regularly
scheduled maintenance routine. All emergency maintenance issues at the ranch are performed immediately. The resident caretaker and his family (wife and two sons) provide
for security of the Camlld Ranch on a 24 hour basis. During times when the caretaker is
performing maintenance duties away from the ranch, he regularly returns during lunch
periods or to retrieve necessary maintenance materials. In addition, members of his family are typically on site if their daily routines allow. Communication is always available should
any issue require immediate attention.
As of this date, the only known act of destructionhandalism within the ranch compound has
been damage to a "pipe gate" at the north bridge location caused by a motorist trying to
evade capture by a San Diego County Sheriff officer.
Because there is no permanent safe entrance and/or exit to the ranch facility, for liability
reasons, it has not been open to the public. Permission has been granted on a case by case
basis for miscellaneous groups and individuals to tour and view the ranch facilities.
When the master plan development begins around the ranch, staff will determine at that
time if it is necessary to have the caretaker on site on a 24 hour basis.
Attachments: 1 - Subcommittee Final Report
2 - Parks Agreement
c: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Community Development Director
Senior Management Analyst - Parks & Recreation
.. -
April21, 1993
i
TO: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
H(ST0RIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AFcrs COMMISSION
PUNNING COMMISSION
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
FROM: Carrillo Ranch Subcommittee
CARRILLO RANCH SUsCOMMllTEE FINAL REPORT
In October 1991, the Parks and Recreation Commission reactivated the Carrillo Ranch
subcommittee to assist with initial park master planning efforts. The reason the
subcommittee was reactivated was that the property owners and their consultants for
development within Zone 18 LFMP had submitted preliminary master plans for review by
the Planning Department. Concurrently, discussions with the Park and Recreation
Department began with the property owners regarding park dedication requirements
associated with this development.
A long standing goal of the Parks & Recreation Commission is that any future park
dedication requirements in Zone 18 be acquired and situated immediately adjacent to the
existing city-owned Carrillo Ranch Park site. Due to the wide variety of interests in th@
Carrillo Ranch from a number of City boards and commissions, the Parks & Recreation
Commission requested that the subcommittee consist of representatives from those
respective boards. In order to address concerns and receive input from various
community organizations also having interests in the future development of the Carrillo
Ranch, all meetings were open to the public. Open communication was encouraged and, in fact, did occur.
The make up of the subcommittee consisted of representation from the following city
boards and commissions:
Parks and Recreation Commission
0 Historic Preservation Commission
Arts Commission
I PlaMi Commission
Open Space Advisory Committee *?: wuo Volunteer Curator
In addition, thdrkm& and concms of the following community organizations were
openly communicated to, and considered by the subcornmillee:
The Friends of Carrillo Ranch Carlsbad Historical Society
The Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation
ATTACHMENT 1
Page Two
April 21, 1993
Over the couw of eighteen months the subcommittee addressed and considered a
number of issue$ relative to the future of Carrillo Ranch. The recommendations
forthcoming from the subcommittee result as a culmination of numerous subcommittee
meetings, community input, field reconnaissance, staff reports and presentations,
developer/consultant presentations, and Rancho Carrillo Environmental impact review and response. The recommendations of the subcommittee are twofold:
Part 1
The subcommlrree made recommendations regarding the parkland dedication
requirements for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan/Zone 18 LFMP. Although this phase of
the report was finalized February 8,1993, it was considered by the Parks and Recreation
Commission relative to their action on February 22, 1993 regarding the park dedication
requirements for ’the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan.
As part of this report, the subcommittee has also made recommendations relating to the
future development of the city-owned Carrillo Ranch Communw Park. SpectRc recommendations have been made on a number of uses and issues which the
subcommittee felt would be confronting the future development of the site, including:
Open Space
Historical
Parks and Recreation
Arts and Cultural
Archives and Education
Arboretum
Circulation/Traffic
Privatization
operations
Although wbcomrnitteet member has been keeping their respective
boards/- abreast of the committee proceedings, this memo and attached
recomrnmddmu wi# be sent to kw personnel staffing those boards in order that the
report might be dbcuswd ab part of each commission’s agenda. Notwithstanding future
responses or commissions' actions, this report shall be presented for consideration
during the Master Plan development process of the Carrill0 Ranch Communw Park.
\
a 1 Page Three
April 21, 1993
All recommenddona made by the subcommittee members in the attached report were
made by co
AlTACHMENT
C: Carrillo Ranch Subcommittee
Assistant City Manager
Parks & Recreation Director
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Carrillo Ranch Park Development File
-w
_-
CARRILLO RANCH SUBCOMMl7TEE REPORT
PART 1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARKLAND
DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE RANCHO
CARRILLO MASTER PLANEONE 18 LFMP
(FEBRUARY a, 1993)
FebNary 8,1993
TO: RANCH SUBCOMMIITEE
FROM: Senkr Management Analyst
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/ZONE 18 LFMP (RANCHO CARRILLO)
BACKGROUNQ
During the January 15, 1993 Carrillo Ranch Subcommittee meeting, the issue of park dedication requirements for Zone 18 was discussed. Specifically, the former recommendation as outlined in the April 23, 1992 memo (Attachment 2) was reconsidered. The principal reason for reconsideration was due to an understanding that the park dedication requirement previously believed to be 8.5 acres has been revised to 5,739 acres. This cunent dedication requirement has been established by the following criteria:
1. The original Camllo Master Plan dedicated up front, 10.53 acres This acreage is the
amount of the existing City owned Camllo Ranch Community Part
2. Initial development in the original Carrillo Master Plan required park land dedication of 1.73 acres based upon the number of dwelling units constructed (253) in
Ponderosa Homes (C.T. 73-29).
3. Based upon a memo from Growth Management, it is recommended that future park dedication requirements from Zone 18 (Rancho Camllo) be based upon "2,091 dwelling units as a maximum and 2.3178 persons per dwelling unit". Therefore, the
park dedication requirements for Zone 18 at this time, equate to 14.539 acres.
The equation for determining the cunent park acreage requirements of the Rancho Camllo
Master Plan is as follows:
a.
b.
d.
f.
8-
C.
t.
1 h.
(dwelling unita in Zone 18, pet Growth Management)
(penom s= hw unit) (POP-) (park mq&ed pct 1,000 population) (acre8 dpk lurd required for Zone 18) = 14.539 .
(park &&ation rclquirtd of Ponderosa Homes) 3 . +1.73 (total park requirement for Zone 18 and Ponderom Homes) 31
(credit for up front dedication of city owned Cadlo Ranch) -10.33
wr x 2.3178
3) 4,846.5 198
x3.0
16.269
(remaining acres to be dedicated) 3.739 ac
* Page Two
After review and dktmsion Of the current revision to the park dedication requirement, the
subcommittee hU to a consensus and recommends the following:
1. The proposal'fof land dedication to meet the park requirement, as presented to the subcommittee (Attachment 1) on or about July 30, 1992 is acceptable. The offer as presented indicated a park expansion area of approximately 16.1 acres, the
breakdown of which is as follows:
I
. . Net Usable 9 ac . Manufactured Slopes 4.9 ac . Natural 40% Slopes .1 ac . Remaining Natural Riparian 1.1 ac - New Riparian Jus
16.1 ac
Based in part upon the offer to dedicate 9.0 net usable acres and in consideration that tho
actual requirement b 5.739 net usable acres, the subcommittee b recommending that the constrained lands.ah being offered for dedication be accepted by the City for park
purposes. In their consideration, the subcommittee did evaluate the additional and on-
maintenance and operation impacts of this constrained land. Howevet, the consensus is that
the benefit of City ownership and ultimate control of this property for landscape enhancement and park buffering outweighs the perpetual maintenance cost particularly in
light of the excess dedication of net usable land.
2. To extract from and/or require any land offered for park dedication to be used as required sites for pible future mitigation as a result of Zone 18 Master Plan
development is unanimously unacceptable.
As depicted on the conceptual park development plan, access to the park site born
the culdesac of 8 residential street is acceptable as an entrance and exit to the park
site. Huuewr, it ir not acceptable as the singular primary access point. The
rwoniqlor thb amessmcnt ir:
0
3.
rE'-
ths historical significance and inteflty of the site in terms of
accem at the original and traditional point of entry to the ranch (is.
An expectation was created by the former Master Plan and Camllo Rancho
Parks agreement that access to the park site would originate from Poinsettia Lane (canill0 Way).
tb north bridge, north and east of the gate house).
0 The anticipation of future neighborhood disruption issues
0 Questionable Traffic Engineering design to allow for safe access.
: Page Three
dation of the subcommittee that public access and parhng
on the north side of the riparian area to allow for pedestrian
itcd and/or emergency vehicular access to the park site at an
o Way), other than the culdesac east of the barn.
oppndry be ptavidtd
It is therefore a re= w
C: Assistant City Manager
Parks and Recreatiorr Director
Carrillo Subcommittee Members (memo only)
Planning Director
Brian Hunter, Growth Management
_I
April 23, 1992
TO: C-IUO RANCH SUSCOMMITIEE
FROM: Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARKLAND DEDICATIONlCARRILLO RANCH
During the March 27, 1992 Carrillo Ranch Subcommittee meeting, the results of plannrng
efforts to accommodate uses and concerns identified during the February meeting (Attachment 2) were presented to the committee for consideration. Specifically what was presented is a recommendation for the land requested of the developers of Zone 18 to meet their park dedication requirement of .8.S acres immediately adjacent to the existing 10 acre
Carrillo Ranch site.
By consensus the following Parcels (outlined in Attachment I), and recommendations €or parkland dedication are forthcoming from this committee relevant to the Camllo Ranch
Community park.
1. Primary accesa to the park site should originate off Camllo Way and proceed in the direction of themiginal entryway into the site at the existing Bridge and
Gate How.
2. Although numerous housing units are proposed for development in close proximity to the Dede House, it is the expectation of the committee that this
development will be precluded or reduced through the environmental review procev or by conditioru of development approvals of the Master Plan. Based
upon this presuppition the following Parcels have been recommended to
meet the park dedication requiremenu for Zone 1% of the local Facilities
. Manapment Ptra.
A rpproDdmate 2.2 - 2.3 ac Parcel ty~ng immediately west of
tb pooVcrbrl5a area between the 2 riparian creeks to the north - ad soutb (identified ar Parcel A on Attachment 1).
?b rQproodmote 3.2 - 3.3 ac Puce1 lying immediately east of
thc &sting site, north of the bun ad out buildinp (identified as Puccl B on Attachment 1).
a
c. The reminder of acreage (approximate 2.S - 3.1 ac) is to be
located immediately north and parallel to the northern property
bounds of the existing site (identified as Parcel C on Attachment 1).
ATT'ACHMENT 2
Page 2
3. For ths purpose of meeting the 8.5 ac park dedication requirement, all Parcels as previously outlined must be free and clear of any and all constraints which
would otherwise preclude development as outlined in the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chapter 20.44, "Dedication of Land €or Recreational Facilities"
(Attachment 3). In addition, the processing of park dedication should follow
the procedureas outlined in the Carltbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.38 "P-C Planned Community Zone", (21.38.060(5) contents of a Master Plan), 0 (fitachment 4).
c: .Assistant city Manager
* Parks and Recreation Director Senior Planner/Brian Hunter Park Development Coordinator
Friends of Cam110 Ranch Senior Management AnalyWatricia Cratty
Ptanning Director
, Rick Engineering - Bob Willtinson
,Ladwick Design Group - Bob Ladwick
-
1 I
I
I
CARRILLO RANCH SUBCOMMllTEE REPORT
PART 2
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
DURING THE CARRILLO RANCH COMMUNITY
PARK MASTER PIAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
(APRIL 15,1993)
CARRILLO RANCH APRIL 15, 1993 SUBCOMMIITEE
1. OPEN SPACE
2. ' HISTORICAL
3. PARKS AND RECREATION
4. ARTS AND CULTURAL
5. ARCHIVES AND EDUCATION
6. ARBORETUM
7. CIRCUIATIONflRAFFIC
8. PRIVATIZATION
9. OPERATIONS ISSUES
1 * Unlm O#!UW&M deffned, th. term "park" within thb document shall refer to the
entire City mod parkland in Zone 18, including the originally designated 10.5
acre historic site and any additionally acquired areas of park dedication.
All bues related to open space must first conform to all Federal, State, and Local Environmental Regulations and Standards.
The park site should be included in the habitat linkage/corridors system when and if the program is implemented.
Park development should be sensitive to view corridors within the ranch to maximize isolation of the park.
Watershed drainage and upstream runoff must be designed, engineered
and managed in such a way as to prevent further erosion of existing
parkland while supporting existing riparian habitat.
Trails shall be provided and connect to any City wide or Zone wide
characteristic.
Development around the park should be buffered so as not to intrude upan
the seclusion of the park.
2. HISTORICAl,
When a master plan is prepared, it shall be comprehensive and include, but
not be limited to, protection and preservation of all historic structures,
botanical collection, original or period artitactS, design criteria for
rehabilitation, adaptive uses, new construction and compatibility.
Permanent security means should be provided for the historic structures,
' artkt8 and/or botanical collection.
01 pUbd aftifacts should be catalogued, stored and/or displayed
matthorn.
7.
0 Fsdlitka may be usd for purposw om than museum which are
compatible with tho historical integrity of the structures, the securlty of
artifacts and collections.
presewed as the primary access to the ranch.
The historical entrance at the northeast =,mer of the ranch shall be
2
3. PARKS AND RECREATION
Tho primary emphasis of the park site shall be for passive recreational use.
0 Facility use should be compatible with uses cited elsewhere within the park.
4. ARTS AND CUL TURAL .
0 Emphasis on the aesthetics of the site, whether natural or developed, shall
include, in particular, well-planned and maintained landscape materials
incorporating native botanical specimens.
Provisions should be made for classrooms, lecture, exhibition and
Provision of space for studio(s), storage, rehearsal for us8 by visual and
Residential and/or studio accommodations should be provided for artist-ifb
performance spaces.
performing arts groups.
residence programs.
0
0
5. ARCHIVES AND EOUC ATION
0 Provisions for on-site informationalbducational programming, including but
not limited to facilities (kiosks and meeting places), curator, docents, and
staff personnel.
0 The educational program shall present a balancirof historical, cultural,
botanical, artistic, and archeological dimensions of the ranch.
6. AR-
e kr VbOraWn concept focused upon tho. parksite's histodd botanical
cdktbrl and native flora is considered to be a compatibk use for this facility.
3
-
, (' 7. CIRCUU TION/? t FIC
0 The original entrance at the east corner of the ranch should be ved for primary access, emphasizing pedestrian, but not excluding vrhiarlar or other modes.
0 Pmkhg areas outside of the historic 10.5 acre site should.accommodate schad and tour buses as well as provide for adequate parking for
passenger vehicles.
0 P edestrian flow patterns throughout the site shall be well-planned and
Vehicular access within the 10-acre site should be limited to delivery,
include a self-guided route.
maintenance, and shuttle services.
0
0 Safe pedestrian access to the park site, including access across major
aRerials should be provided.
0.
9.
PRIVATIZATION
a The site shall not include commercial uses which conflict with the hmorhl
character of the site as described by the State office of Hist&
Preservation and the National Park Service criteria for evaluation.
0 A development philosophy which emphasizes a high degree of commercial
development similar to that of Old Towne, San Oiego would be considered
undesirable.
0 Childcare facilities within the boundaries of the park site are also
undesirable.
0 Docmom rgarding maintenance, operation and scheduling of the parksite
acwtsbact.
5 owrdght committee should be appointed to mediate among competing
..
urd its tacilitka must be under the control and sole jurisdiction of the City
.* .-
intOm8b for use of the park facilities, buildings and grounds.
artifacts and/or botanical collection.
0 Permanent security means should be provided for the historic structures,
4
Recording Rec\utsted By
When Recorded Return To:
and
.
PARKS AGREEMENT
FOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD - MP 1390
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
ATTACHMENT 2
.* -
DRAFT
RANCHO CARRILLO PARKS AGREEMENT
THIS 1993 PARKS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this - day of 1993 between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California
(hereinafter referred to as :City") and L&W Investments, Inc., a California corporation, dba
Continental Homes (hereinafter referred to as "Continental Homes" or Developer) and Realty
Dealers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "UDC" or Developer).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 1977 the City entered into an agreement (the "1977 Agreement") with the
Camillo Ranch Partnership for the dedication for park purposes of a (i) 10 acre parcel of land
and (ii) structures situated thereon valued at 597,500.00. The City accepted ownership of this
parcel on . This agreement established that the amount of land dedicated and the value
of the improvements on this land will be maintained on account by the City to be drawn upon
as a credit against park-in-lieu fees required by subsequent subdivisions in the Rancho Carrill0
Master Plan; and
Whereas on July 1, 1986 the City of Carlsbad adopted Ordinance 9810 which established its
Growth Management Program which requires public facilities concurrent with need; and
Whereas on September 23, 1986 the City of Carlsbad approved Resolution No. 87-97 adopting
the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 87-96 which established
performance standards for parks and other facilities; and
Whereas on March 3, 1991 the City approved Resolution No, 91-76 adopting the Zone 18 kal
Facilities Management Plan which provided a detailed ddption of the buildout potential of
Zone 18 including the area of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and established the public
facilities nquir#mnu for the development of this area including the requirement for the
dedication of U acres of park land based on a maximum buildout of 2091 units with a
population g- rate of 2.471 residents per unit; and
Whereas the City's 1992 Growth Mashgemcnt Monitoring Report reduces the population
generation rate from 2.471 residents per unit to 2.318 rcsidurts per unit, based on the maximum
number of units, 2091, permitted by the Zone 18 LFMP there could be up to 4,846 residents
within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, with a quiremcnt of three (3) acres of park land per
1,OOO residents this would generate a necd for 14.5 acres of park land dedication based on these numbers; and
1
Whereas there is an existing park credit of 8.8 acres from the 1977 park land dedication, this
results in the requirement for a maximum dedication of an aditional 5.7 acres of park land,
based on the maximum buildout of 2,091 units allowed by the Zone 18 LFMP. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan only permits a maximum of 1,982 dwelling units, while the actual number
of units being umstxucted may be substantially less thereby significantly reducing the dedication
requirement; and
Whereas, Section 21.38.060(5) of the City's Municipal Code establishes a procedure and
guidelines for the dedication of park land in Master Plans; and
Whereas, on February 15, 1993 the City's Parks and Recreation Commission recommended
approval of the acreage proposed for dedication as shown on Exhibit A, attached; and
0
Whereas, on , the City duly adopted, as Ordinance No, -, the Rancho Carrillo Master
Plan which designates the area to be dedicated to the City for park land and requires the Developers of the Rancho Camillo Master Plan to enter into an agreement with the City
regarding said dedication; and
Whereas, it is the intent of the Developers of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to comply with
the requirements of all of the previous recitals.
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to implement the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, Ordinance
No. J and in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of the parties set out
herein, it is agreed as follows:
A. Owners' Responsibilities
1. Concurrent with the approval of the Master Plan Amendment, the developers of
the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan will offer for dedication approximately 16.4
acres free and clear of any liens as generally shown by Exhibit "A" and identified
as "Site Plan' by Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Bill K293-4. This
&dka!ion shall buaccepted by the City and appropriately recorded on or before tkrppnwal of the first finai map within the Master Plan.
2. nit Master Plan applicaats shall ensure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
that utilities remain availiibk to the park site at all times during the Master Plan
development unless prior approval is secured from (he City. Joint trench and wet
utilities shall be accessible to the park from Melrose Avenue or the cotlector
street Serving Village 0 adjacent to the future entry foad into the park site. A
reasonable effort shall be made to locate the stubs to the satisfaction of the City.
The costs to bring the utilities into the park will be the responsibility of the City.
2
3. Vehicular acccss to the park will be provided by the Master Plan applicants
during all phases of development of the Master Plan to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Parks and Recreation Director. After the completion of grading in the
vicinity of the park, permanent vehicular access to the site shall be provided by
the Master Plan applicants from Melrose Avenue via an access easement through a cul-de-sac on property owned by Continental Homes as generally shown on Exhibit A. This access shall be graded to City standards with sufficient width to
accommodate a 36' curb-to-curb road and improved with decomposed granite, to allow for an all weather access to the park site, until the City develops a permanent &trance at this location.
4. If Village S is not utilized by the San Marcos Unified School District for a school
site, then a portion of Village S, approved by the Parks and Recreation Director, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and suitable to provide non-
exclusive park access from Carrillo Way, emergency vehicular access to the park
and parking for 50 cars near the traditional entrance to the park site shall be
dedicated as additional park land.
5. The Master Plan applicants shall provide an all weather emergency
vehicular/pedestrian access, as shown on Exhibit A, between Village S and the
park site at the base of the slope created by the construction of Melrosc Drive,
subject only to minor field adjustments nasonably approved by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
6. For purposes of maintaining public utilities the Master Plan applicants shall
provide access roads, acceptable to the City, as shown on Exhibit A.
7. Temporary security arrangements for the ranch compound and historic structures
shall be provided during grading to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation
Director.
8. The Master Plan applicants shall construct a sewer line (shown on Exhibit A) to
provide sewer &e to the park site. If this sewer line must cross the creek to
' enter the patL site adjacent to the gate house, it shall be concealed by a pedestrian
bridge or other manner acceptable to the City.
3
B. City’s Responsibilities .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. 7.
Upoa accepting the 16.4 acres, which includes dedication of unconstrained land
in excess of the Master plan maximum requirement of 5.7 acres as shown on
Exhibit A, the City shall accept all maintenance and liability of all land, slopes,
trails and drainages within the dedicated area upon recordation of the transfer of
ownership, except for areas required to be maintained or monitored by owners
such as riparian mitigation. The City shall accept maintenance and liability
responsibility upon conclusion of such maintenance and monitoring obligations. a
Upon or prior to commencement of physical development activities within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan the City shall quitclaim or vacate as appropriate any
interest in the existing access kment from Palomar Airport Road.
The City shall accept all access easements described in Section A (Owners
Responsibility) and shown on Exhibit A as bdng adequate to sene the City’s
needs.
As part of the park development process, if deemed appropriate, it shall be the
City’s responsibility to provide permanent perimeter fencing.
Reasonable requests for access, temporary casements and other items related to
the construction of Master Plan infrastrucrn such as sewer, roadway culverts
and storm drains shall be granted by the City.
By this agreement, the City acknowledges that the Master Plan applicants have
met their park land requirement through the 1977 park land dedication, the value
of the improvements on that land and the additional dedication of 16.4 acres. No
park-in-lieu fees will be required for the development of up to 1,982 units. This
figure is based on the assumption that the school site and community facility site
are developed for residential purposes. Credits for the school site (Continental
Homes 43 units plus UDC 104 units) and the community facility site (Continental
Homes - 19 units) shall not be used unless and until those sites arc developed for residentialpurposes.
mdling unit credits have been allocated among o Exhibit B, attached. No distinction between trnitr is intmdal. ,
the property owners as shown attached or detached dwelling
4
f *= -
8. Credit Transfers and Termination - The credits may be transferred among the
above named parues or to their sucrplc~rs. A hausferring party shall not accept
pyment for such dits in excess of the park-in-lieu fee in effect at the time of
such transfer. Evidence must be presented to the City by any party wishing to
mxrd a Final Map that it has or has acquired park-in-lieu fee credits in an &out equal to the number of dwelling units OIL such Final Map. It is the
intention of the Master Plan applicants and the City that the credits will be uscd
in connection only with the 1,982 dwelling units allowed by the Master Plan.
Therefore, any "unused" credits shall tumimte after all units allowed by tk Master P1m have been developed.
This text and exhibits constitute the entire agreement. This agreement may be enforced by an
action for specific performance andor other action(s) permitted at law or in equity. The
przvailing party in such action(s) shall be entitled to attorney's fees and costs of litigation
provided that the parties first agrce to submit any dispute to he City Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have accuted this Agreement of the date
first hereinabove set forth.
CITY OF CARISBAD
A Municipal Corporation of the
state of California
ATTEST:
L & W DIVESTMENTS, mK., a California
corporation, dba. Continental Homes
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CHRISTOPHER J. CHAMBERS BY
vi president
RONALD BALL, City Attorney
BY HERBERT PALMTAG
.
EXHIBIT B
DWELLING UNIT CREDIT ALLOCATION
Pursuant to the 1977 Park Agreement 10 acres of park land with structures valued at $97,500
were dedicated to the City of Carlsbad. Of this 10 ams, 1.73 acres wen credited to the
existing Ponderosa Homesproject nsulting in a remaining credit of 8.27 acres. The Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan Amendment will provide, at a minimum, 5.7 net acres of unconstrained
park land for a total of 13.97 net acres of park land. Per agreements between the property
owners, the following credits have been established for this park land and structufts dedication:
Woodward/Merrill Lynch: 4.38 acres
Continental Homes: 8.59 ams
UDC: 1.00 acres
scrims: 0.00 acres
Total 13.97 acrcs
31.35%
61.50%
7.15%
. 0.0096
100.096
The Rancho Carrill0 Master plan allows for a maximum of 1982 residential units assuming the
school site and community facility site are developed for residential purposes. For purposes of
calculating park credits, the following formula will be utilized:
Maximum number of units allowed by the Rancho carrill0 Master Plan (1,982) dividd
by the net dedicated perk acreage, 13.97 acru equals 141 units per acre of park credit for each of the property owners of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan:
WoodwadMerrill Lynch: 621 dwelling units
Continartll Homes: 1,219 ddhg units UDC: 142 dwelling units -n= OdWdhgunits
Total 1,982 dwelling units
<
Pagelof2
No distinction between single family and multifamily units shall be made for purposes of
applying the above credits. For example, if UDC wished to build 50 condominium units and
50 single family units they would pay no park-in-lieu fees and their remaining dwelling unit
credits would be reduced from 142 to 42.
Credits for the school site (Continental Homes 43 units, UDC 104 units) and the community
facility site (Continental Homes 19 units) shall not be used unless and until those sites are
, developed for residential purposes.
Agreed and Acknowlcdgd.
L & W INVESTMENTS, INC., a California Corporation, dba. Continental Homes
BY CHRISTOPHER J. CHAMBERS Date
Vice President
BY LAURIE. E. WILDEN Date
Assistant Secretary
REALTY DEALERS LTD.
BY HERBERT PALMTAG Date
SCRIPPS HOSPITAL
BY JIMLBARY Date
f f.
WOODWARDIMERRILL LYNCH
BY DON WOODWARD Date
Page20f2
FEATURES OF MASTER PLAN INCORPORATED INTO PLAN
TO ADDRESS STAFF AND CITIZEN CONCERNS
,CBpk
/ PROTECTION 0 F CARRILLO RANCH/PA
0 EXCESS PARK ACREAGE BEYOND NORMAL CITY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED
TO ACCOMMODATE RANCH ACTIVITIES AND LARGER BUFFER AREA
0 DRAINAGE FACILITIES UNDER MELROSE REDESIGNED TO PRESERVE
EXISTING BRIDGE TO RANCH
0 ADJACENT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE DELETED SO THAT ACCESS
TO RANCH WOULD NOT HAVE TO DIRECTLY PASS-BY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND UNITS WOULD NOT OVERLOOK THE PARK
0 PROPOSED DAYCARE FACILITY RELOCATED OUT OF PROPOSED PARK SITE
0 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PROVIDED FROM SCHOOL PARKING SO THAT JOINT
USE AGREEMENT COULD BE PURSUED
0 SPECIAL DESIGN DISTRICT ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THAT THE
ARCHITECTURE OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITHTHE
RANCH
OPEN SPACE
AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE INCREASED BY loo+ ACRES FROM EXISTING
MASTER PLAN
0 OPEN SPACE CONSOLIDATED TO CENTER OF MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE:
1)
2)
3)
4)
GREATER PROTECTION OF VALLEY AND RIPARIAN, CREEK CORRIDOR
URGER BUFFER AROUND CARRILLO RANCH
BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR POSSIBLE ARBORETUM
LARGER BLOCK OF LAND FOR NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
0 3 MILES OF PUBLIC TRAILS PLANNED-FOR
ENVIRONMENTAI,
0 APPROXIMATELY 150 LOTS DELETED AND SEVERAL PLANNING AREA
BOUNDARIES MODIFIED TO PROTECT SENSITIVE PLANTS AND TO FURTHER
BUFFER EXISTING RESIDENCES FROM THE RV STORAGE SITE
SPECIAL DESIGN CRITERIA USED FOR MELROSE TO MINIMIZE AND REDUCE
IMPACT TO RIPARIAN, CREEK AREA
ATTACHMENT 3
SCHOOL SIX
0 EXCESS ACREAGE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO ACCOMMODATE MORE
STUDENTS AND SPECIAL EVENT PARKING
0 CARRIUO WAY REALIGNED TO PROVIDE MORE USEABLE PAD
SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS SITE PROPOSED FOR RELOCATION TO
INCREASE USEABLE AREA
AFFORDABLE HOUS ING
0 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CONDITION ADDED - 3 POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SITES IDENTIFIED
DENSITY
0 REDUCTION OF OVER 1 ,OOO DWELLING UNITS FROM EXISTING MASTER PLAN
TO ADDRESS ISSUES PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, LAND
USE COMPATIBILITY OPEN SPACE, AND PROVIDING COMMUNITY FACILITIES
.- I -- c .C a
I# YOU UAVX ADTY PROBLEN W~TIS TMIS ~~RA#~XISSIOM, PLEASE
CALL (213) 891-0318
0 fEBr IGI AL
July 19, 1993
..-.
VIA FACSIMlLE AND US MAIL Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, California 92009-48S9
RE: RANCHO CARRILLO MASER PLAN EIR
RESPONSES TO JULY 1 LETTER
Dear Mr. Holrmiller:
I am writing in response to your letter dated July 9, 1993, addressing concerns which I advanced in a JuIy I letter on behalf of the Trustee €or the Bressi Ranch
Property. In a meeting last Friday with representatives fron the City, the Rancho
Cardlo Master Plan applicants (the "Rancho Camllo Owner"), the Trustee, and the
beneficiaries of the Bressi Trust, we agreed that the Trustee would respond in writing to
your July 9 letter. This letter is that response.
The Trustee agrees that the meeting last Friday was very profitable for all parties,
and thanks City staff for taking the time to attend and participate. The comments and
responses of City staff and the Ranc3o Carrillo Owner were made in good faith and in earnest and helped to cIarify many items contained in the EIR. The Trustee believes
that the City and the Rancho Carrillo Owner genuinely desire to take no action that will
adversely impact the Bressi Ranch property.
The City and the Rancho Carrillo Owner declined to make the changes to the EIR and conditions of approval which the Trustee requested. However, the City and the
Rancho Carrillo Owner have given many assurances to the Trustee that its concerns will
be addressed as the Rancho Carrillo project progresses. The Trustee therefore believes
that its most appropriate course of action for the present appears to be to monitor the
future development activities as development of the Rancho Carrillo site goes forward.
The Trustee's specific understandings are set forth bdow, in the order in which
they were originally raised.
' PARK~R, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
L ATTORN"fS AT LAW
a FAC23IMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Michael J. Hobmiller July 19, 1993
Page 2
1. Feasibilitv of Recommended Mitigation - Measures
The Trustee appreciates the complex coordination which must take place among overlapping local, state, and federal authorities in order to implement mitigation
measures. In your July 9 letter, the City indicates that an on-site mitigation is feasible.
However, the possibility of off-site mitigation remains, and the Bressi Ranch property may be implicated in various alternative mitigation scenarios. Until the Rancho Carrillo Owner and the Trustee can meet to talk about this potential, the issue of feasibility of
identified mitigation measures remains a concern.
2. Mitigation of Irnnacts from the Carrillo Wav~ ExtensioL.an.d Sewer Aliunment
The Trustee acknowledges the City's response, relying in particular upon your statement that
The Master Plan Amendment does not adopt a specific alignment through Bressi Ranch nor does the proposed offsite roadway alignment suggest a
preference by the City.
3. Adeauacv of Storm Water Runoff Im~acts Analysis
The Trustee acknowledges the provisions of the City's Engineering Standards, relying in particular on paragraph 5.K which provides:
Protection of downstream or adjacent properties from incremental flows
(caused by change from an undeveloped to a developed site) shall be provided. Such flows shall not be concentrated and directed across unprotected adjacent properties unless an easement and storm drains or channels to contain flows are provided.
The Rancho Carrillo Owner agreed at the July 9 meeting to a side letter
agreement whereby the Trustee will be provided with copies of grading and improvement plans for development units adjacent to the Bressi Ranch property for 3n opportunity to comment, prior to or concurrent with submittal to the City Engineer.
Prior to approving any such grading and improvement plans, the City has agreed
that the Trustee will be provided this opportunity to review and comment on such plans.
PC’J BV:XERO>< TELECOPIEF: 7010 ; 7-19-33 3:07FP’ ; -13 391 0326- 6194386834; # 4
*--19-1993 15:Q6 FROrI RKER 1‘1ILLIkEN LI~ T M8E~916194380894 P. 8041Q86
+ PARISER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
b
VIA FACSW AND U.S. MAa, Mr. Michael J. Halwniller
July 19, 1993 Page 3
4. Analvsis of Imnacts from Occurrence of Two Maim -- Landslides
The Trustee acknowledges and relies on the June 29, 1993 letter to Ray Martin
from David E hake and Ali Sadr of Geocon referenced in the July 9 letter, which
concludes in pertinent part:
The results of the investigation indicated that these landslides do not exist
or at least do not extend to within the Rancho Cad110 on-site or off-site areas of planned improvements.
The Rancho Carrillo Owner agreed at the July 9 meeting to a side letter
agreement whereby the Trustee will be provided with copies of grading and improvement
plans and soils and geotechnical reports for development units adjacent to the Bressi
Ranch property for an opportunity to comment, prior to or concurrent with submittal to
the City Engineer.
Prior to approving such grading and improvement plans and soils and geotechnical reports, the City has agreed to see that the Trustee is provided this opportunity to review
and comment on such plans and reports.
Should any Iandslides on the Rancho Cam110 property be discovered during later
grading which may impact the Bressi Ranch property, the Rancho Carrilb Owner will
take such measures as will protect the Bressi Ranch property from damage associated
with the landslides.
In such event of the later discovery of landslides, the Trustee relies, in particular, upon the City enforcing that section 1 l.Oe.O7O( 1) of the City’s Grading Ordinance which
provides in pertinent part:
The city engineer shall not issue a grading permit in any case where he
finds that the work as proposed by the applicant is likely to adversely affect
the stability of adjoining property .... If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the city engineer that the hazard can be essentially eh~inated by the construction of retaining structures, buttress fills, drainage devices, or by
other means, the city engineer may issue the permit with the condition that
such work be performed.
BYiXEROX TELECUPIER 7018 ; 7-19-93 3:88PM ; 117 50’ Q3261 6194380894; # 5 RC -11-19-1993 15: 06 FPDM RKEP MILLIKEN LB T 0 ?006916194380894 P. 005‘006
PA’RKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FACXMLE AND U.S. MAIL, Mr. Michael J. Holvniller July 19, 1993 Page 4
Should remedial or other grading on the Bressi Ranch property become necessary, the Trustee further relies upon the provisions of the City Council-approved Standard
Engineering Conditions, particularly paragraph 56 which provides in pertinent part:
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the (SVBDMSION/PRDJECT) unless a grading or slope easement is
obtained from the: owners of the affected properties. If the applicant is
unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit Will be
issued.
5. Consideration of Impacts Resulting from Grading of Slop.es for Metrose
The Trustee understands that responsibility for maintenance of landscaping for
slope stability, erosion control, and visual relief and interest will not fall upon the owner of the Bressi Ranch property, but will be the responsibility of the City or the Rancho
Carrill0 Owner.
The Rancho Carrillo Owner agreed at the July 9 meeting to a side letter
agreement whereby the Trustee will be provided with copies of grading, improvement,
landscape and irrigation plans for Melrose Avenue for an opportunity to comment, prior
to or concurrent with submittal to the City Engineer.
Prior to approving such grading, improvement, landscape and irrigation plans, the City has represented that the Trustee will be provided this opportunity to review and
comment on such plans.
If these responses and the Tmstee’s understandings are not consistent with the City’s understandings, please notify the Trustee immediately.
R~RKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIAFACSlMaE~ Us. MAIL, Mr. Michael J. Holder
July 19, 1993 Page 5
Thank you again far your time and that of your staff. The Trustee believes that,
in this case, the purposes of CEQA have been served and have worked to the benefit of
all the parties involved.
cc: Mr. Brian Hunter (via telecopier) Mr. Chris Chambers (via telecopier)
c
8 '
FRIENDS OF CARRILLO RANCH, INC.
2622 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009 0 619/438-1666
July 20, 1993
. ARECOMMHWAl7ON TO COUNClL:
0 Require entry and parking off Carrillo Way
0 Make instructions clear to staff
a Insure preservation has a voice in the solution
0 Reconfiguration of the school site
0 Historically relevant entry
0 Partial relief from the "Black Hole"
0 Revalidation of commitment to preservation
0 The public's best interest
Please see reverse side
for acreage calculations ++++
A 501 (c) (3) California Educational Corporation
Acreage Calculations:
0 One acre = 43,560 sq. ft.
0 Length of 60 ft street to equal one acre =
43,560 + 60 = 726 lin. ft.
a Length of northern boundary of school site on Carrillo
Way = 1,500 lin. ft.
43,560 + 1,500 = 29.04, i.e. a northerly shift of 29
ft. will create one additional acre for park access. A
shift of 43.5 ft. will create 1.5 additional acres for
park access.
0 Length of eastern boundary of school site on Melrose
Avenue = 1,000 lin. ft.
0 A combination of northerly and easterly shifting of
less than 30 fi. on both boundaries may
produce dramatic access improvement and potential
accommodation of entry and parking off Carrillo
Way.
FOCR 7/20/93
' FRIENDS OF CARRILLO RANCH, INC.
COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL - 7/20/93
Mayor, Members of Council, City
2622 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad. I am
Incorporated.
We appreciate the Mayor's courtesy
to present our opinions. We apologize
fbture character of the Ranch is in sign
Our views are pertinent only to
owned 10.5 acre Carrillo Ranch histori
2622 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009 0 619/4381866
Manager and staff. My name is Alan Kindle,
repiresenting the Friends ofcurriflo Ranch,
and fairness in allowing us sufficient time
for the harsh tone of these remarks but the
ficant jeopardy.
elements that directly impinge upon the city-
structures zone as listed on the National
We will discuss access, the school
and offer a recommendation.
In this and succeeding drawings
will be as high as an eight story building
illustrate how they will dominate the
We have consistently, repeatedly
entranceway proposed for the Ranch.
Commissioners remarked, "The access
Please consider these twelve
site, the role of state and federal agencies
note the anticipated slopes, some of which
or more. We have colored them brown to
Ranch.
protested the insensitive "backdoor"
One of your courageous and candid Parks
stinks." And we couldn't agree more.
objections:
A 501 (c) (3) Califdmia Educational Corporation
* Leo Carrillo, his family and guests approached the Ranch and the main
hacienda from the north by the route shown in yellow. The Master Plan brazenly
reverses history by 180 degrees.
The entranceway originates from a residential side street - the epitome, we
believe, of poor planning.
This Melrose side street has been called a "non-loaded collector" but no
such collector is shown in the Traffic Circulation Plan or the E.I.R.
The entranceway does not meet the very specific published criteria of the
General Plan.
Regardless of signage, lost or inquisitive drivers of cars and busses may be
tempted to wander through Village Q looking for shortcuts to Alga Road or El
Camino Real or back to Melrose.
* Future neighborhood discontent with these intrusions is almost a certainty
and residents will likely organize to restrict Ranch operating hours and programs.
* The estimated 8% grade for the entrance road is potentially hazardous for
school and tour busses.
* Vehicles grinding their way into and out of the Ranch will add to the
substantial noise and air pollution already forecast for this area.
* The city will bear the cost for construction and maintenance of a safe, all-
weather roadway clinging to the side of a precipitous, perhaps
Visually incompatible guardrails will surely be required
unstable, slope.
by your traffic
2
engineer.
Associated complexities will again indefinitely delay the public's long-
awaited privilege to visit the Ranch.
At the base of the backdoor entranceway the public will find a dark, ugly,
bewildering abyss where the sun will never rise again ..... a blunder born of sheer
expedience, a chilling disregard for the Ranch's fhdamental ambience and a take-it-
or-leave-it posture.
One result is for sure. Descending into a "Black Hole" near the historic north
bridge will greatly diminish visitor enjoyment and cause the public to question
Carlsbad's vision and respect for a national landmark. A succeeding Council will have
to take the heat for this someday.
Instead, the Primarv entry should be from Carrillo Way, including a dedicated
street and parking lot with a pedestrian trail to the bridge - as seen in this example.
This approach was emphatically recommended by a blue ribbon Carrillo Ranch
subcommittee comprised of members from each of the interested city
commissions .... by your entire Historic Preservation Commission .... and by the Friends
ofCurri!ro Ranch in their responses to the E.I.R. The Carlsbad Historical Society
independently concurred.
These collective, clearly articulated positions were the work of a large
coalition of talented volunteers. They devoted countless hours to the task of
meticulously evaluating the Master Plan and its interface with the Ranch. If the city
3
tried to hire them on as consultants, you couldn’t afford them.
Yet their recommendations on access were pushed aside by an admitted
mutual agreement between the city and the applicants. Why were preservation
voices given so little credence? These are your constituents speaking - not out-of-
town opportunists - and each one loves the Ranch as much as we know you do. It is
imperative that staff give greater weight to conscientious, intelligent citizen input.
Two physical barriers stand in the way: the alignments of Melrose Avenue and
Carrillo Way and the regrettable positioning of an elementary school in the worst
possible place, shown here in blue. Anyone can look at this map and instantly
conclude that these obstacles arose with little concern for the irreversible damage
they would inflict upon a designated historic rancho.
Let’s talk about the school. It’s interesting that in the 400 page Zone 18 Local
Facilities Management Plan dated December, 1990 - approved by City Council - the
school site (again noted in blue) was east of Melrose and out of the way. We have
approximated the proposed route for Carrillo Way in red. The dust has barely
settled on this expensive masterpiece; alas, what we saw was not what we got.
The state criteria for a K-6 elementary school is 9 to 10 acres, including
existing topographical features. San Marcos school administrators stated that they
were shown several potential sites but picked the one across from Carrillo Ranch
because it would require less grading and the price was the cheapest.
But that didn’t quite cut it. They wanted something even bigger to
4
accommodate so-called "overflow parking" - an interesting twist in educational
priorities. The applicants obliged (presumably with staffs concurrence) by moving
Carrillo Way 70 feet to the north - closer to the airport flight path, by the way -
thereby creating an expanded 12 acre site. This explains the curious bubble at the
property's west end.
Meanwhile, lest we forget, the city holds a crucial easement through the east
end of the school site. It commits the property owners to a guarantee of future
access from Carrillo Way - or by some "acceptable" alternative route. The backdoor
entry is unacceptable. Thus, it is our view it is the applicants' responsibility to come
up with a way to satisfactorily fulfill their access obligation.
To achieve this end, we believe Carrillo Way must be moved further north
(again, that is) - or Melrose must be moved further east - or both.
At their final Public Hearing on February 23rd when the school site was
approved, the San Marcos Board of Trustees carefully established that they were
accepting the location in concept and not a legal description of the property lines.
The precise perimeter definition would have to await Carlsbad's decision on the
Master Plan.
We reject any pre-conceived notion that the San Marcos Trustees will refuse
to consider a modest re-shaping of the school site to allow Ranch access from
Carrillo Way. It is impossible to believe the Trustees would not want to cooperate in
the enhancement of a unique, passive educational resource - one that will serve
5
students from San Marcos, Carlsbad and all of our neighoring communities. In fact,
the answer to this dilemma is well within our reach. Right now.
A 40 foot street with a 60 foot right-of-way entering from Carrillo Way can
run for 726 linear feet - exceeding the length of two football fields - and yet require
but a single acre, With bike lanes omitted or assigned to the right-of-way, street
parking will be possible for at least 100 cars near the old historic bridge.
At our existing community parks and Senior Center, one-half acre
accommodates more than 80 Full-sized parking spaces including islands and aisles.
Thus, a total of one and a half acres could work wonders and provide sensible
access and parking off Carrillo Way.
Is it true that some determined fine tuning cannot provide an extra one and a
half acres in the area north of the bridge? In a huge Master Plan of nearly 700
acres? The Friends simply do not find that credible.
Speaking of credibility, at meeting after meeting, Public Hearing after Public
Hearing - including before the Planning Commission - we were told that the
alignments of Melrose and Carrillo Way could not and would not be changed
because that’s where the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish & Game said they must be.
These pronouncements had an intimidating, demoralizing, paralyzing effect
on Ranch supporters. So, during these darkest of times, we elected to contact these
agencies directly.
6
Fish & Wildlife told us they had issued no such mandate and did not have
enough information with which to make any kind of judgement.
Fish & Game told us they were shown three distinct alignment options.
Understandably, they picked the one that did the least damage to the natural
resources and required the least mitigation. They were unaware of the strong
opposition to this Plan from preservationists and did not take into account the
negative impacts on a designated historic site; that's not their field of expertise.
They are willing to re-open the earlier negotiations if invited to do so by the lead
agency - the city of Carlsbad.
Fish & Game also opposed the location of the school site and the
construction of Melrose but reluctantly surrendered to what they concluded was the
inevitable.
Mere citizens are baffled by such revelations and rise to challenge a process
so arcane and convoluted. As for privately held "negotiations" on alignment,
qualified preservationists were evidently never invited to the table. The exclusion of
knowledgable Ranch advocates and their counsel is a major oversight and again
begs the question: why?
We talked to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which will be asked to issue a
Section 404 wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act. We were advised that,
because of Carrillo Ranch's national standing and its proximity to the wetlands, it,
too, is protected by federal law. An exhaustive Section 106 review may be required
7
under the long-established National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Other
participants and signatories would include the State Ofice of Historic Presewation
and the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
And we might mention that the National Trust For Historic Preservation may
well take an interest in this matter.
The consequences of a Section 106 review have not been disclosed or
discussed in the E.I.R. or at any public stage in the Master Plan process. It is the
Friends' assessment this review could be a long, rocky, expensive road, exposing the
city again to a potential embarrassment.
The Planning Commission carefblly stonewalled the Section 106 question. No
mention of our serious concern appears in-the Commission minutes for May 7 which
are included in your agenda packet. Once more, why?
Let's get real. The true issue boils down to the dollar impact on the
applicants. They have described their project as being ''...on the cusp of
unprofitability." We hold that Carrillo Ranch should not be compromised on the altar
of shaky developer economics. Surely there is a happier middle ground between
bringing business, jobs and income to the city and protecting a rare cultural
resource.
Certainly, if ways can be devised to stimulate affordable housing in or near
luxury subdivisions, ways can be devised to do what's right for Carrillo Ranch.
Furthermore, if we're going to be so crisisdriven to save the gnatcatcher, the
8
San Diego thornmint, the willows, the coastal sage, the riparian habitat and open
space, we can bloody well do a better job of sticking up for this Ranch. If there ever
was an endangered species, Carrillo Ranch fits the definition.
We realize all of us are affected by hard economic times but there will be a
long-term price to pay for thinking only of today's fiscal woes. The children - the
real beneficiaries of history - will be the big losers. And so will the local merchants
who do not yet grasp what a visitor attraction like Carrillo Ranch could mean to
them.
Believe it - this has not been an easy task for the Friends. Our Board of
Directors has diligently tracked this project for nearly two years. Now we sense
we're "...on the cusp ...'I of failing our mission and our 225 weary, frustrated, dues-
paying members. Ironically, we're not sure even the historic north bridge and weir
will survive; there are those seated in this chamber who want to tear them out. This
is very sad indeed.
We do not disapprove of this Master Plan in total - only the willfully stubborn
and myopic way we feel the access issue has been treated. We ask you tonight to
condition this Master Plan to require a dedicated, primary entryway, parking and
pedestrian trail off Carrillo Way. Make your wishes crystal clear to the staff, with no
equivocation. Insure that preservation has a voice in the solution - don't just listen
to a few insiders.
Your foresight will reap these benefits: a much needed reconfiguration of the
9
.. . ..
school site, a more historically relevant entry to the Ranch, partial relief from the
ugliness of the Black Hole and a re-validation of your commitment to meaninghl
preservation. You will also be acting in the public’s best interest - the most
important of your many responsibilities.
Concurrently, we would encourage the city to find funding sources to
mitigate or eliminate unreasonable burden upon the applicants - to the extent
legally and ethically acceptable - by concessions elsewhere in the Master Plan or
through a conservancy arrangement.
Please give advocates like the Friends a welcome opportunity to stand by the
side of Council, your staff and the applicants to endorse a better Master Plan.
We look to you as our Court of Last Resort. For our political leaders and
Carrillo Ranch, the time for words is ending; the time for decision has arrived.
Thank you, Mayor, Council, staff and applicants for your patience and for, we
hope, your understanding.
RV18i7117
10
July 20, 1993
Speaker: Samuel Chereskin, AIA Commissioner of Historic Preservation
816 Del Riego Leucadia, California
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
I am speaking to you tonight at the request of and on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission has been an active participant in the planning for Carrillo Ranch in the past few years. We have worked extensively with Parks and Recreation,
Friends of the Ranch, City staff, the Developers and other Commissions and Committees.
The Commission, with its able staff, has been the lead entity in procuring the status of the Ranch on the National Register of Historic Places and gaining federal funding to date.
The Historic Preservation Commission is satisfied with the resolution of many original issues which were addressed; however, two major concerns having a major impact are still haunting us. These are:
1. the loss of the historic northerly access to the ranch,
and,
2. the deficiency of the proposed "rear access"
Please allow me to explain: from the outset, the Historic
Preservation Commission has requested that the northerly, historic
approach to the Ranch, over the bridge and past the gate-keeper's
cottage, be preserved. We believe that the loss of the northerly
access is an HISTORIC ISSUE. It represents a loss of "Historic
Value". The historic ambiance and perception of the Ranch will be drastically affected. In other words, their is an intrinsic value
to keeping the pathway to the Ranch, the topography, the bridge,
the water, the unique planting, the gate-keeper's house, the interior trails leading to the gate post, and from there, to the main Hacienda and all the way to the stables and other attractions.
While the proposed rear access represents a loss of historical value, so too does it represent an engineering dilemma. The rear access will not work from an Engineering point of view. The street provided by the developer terminates at elevation 300'. Implementation of this street will dictate the location of the parking lot for the Ranch. This elevation (where the proposed street terminates) is fifty feet higher than the current point of entry to the Ranch (elevation 250' by the bridge). We will have a major design problem attempting to bring people in and out of the park. We don't foresee a reasonable solution short of constructing
steep ramps and monumental steps. Meeting the requirements of accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will be difficult if not impossible.
Before you, you will find a colored map delineating three
approaches to Carrillo Ranch. The green line signifies the existing, historic pathway to the Ranch. The red line signifies the access road proposed by the developer, and the blue line represents the Historic Preservation Commissionls suggestion as an alternative approach to the park that would be accessed from
Carrillo Way. The road suggested by our commission does have an elevation differential with the entrance to the park within the general vicinity of the bridge.
In conclusion, the Historic Preservation Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the *'rearf1 access to the Ranch unless the City Council is satisfied that:
a) there is no significant historic value loss,
b) that the llrearll access is adequate and will not pose accessibility problems to the general public and to the
disabled,
c) that the city is aware that a parking lot, stairs and ramps will require more than reasonable expenses for this
location, and,
d) that the potential loss of historic value, and increased level of architectural barriers will not diminish the
City and the Commissionls effort in obtaining additional
grants.
To illustrate the 501 elevation differential between the
developer's proposed access road and the entrance to the park, I have prepared, with the help of staff, an overhead transparency.
At this time I would like to present that transparancy and answer any questions the Council may have.
Sincerely,
4d&flU Samuel Chereskin, AIA
Representing the Historic Preservation Commission
Draft prepared by Eitan Aharoni and Samuel Chereskin, HPC Commissioners
July 18, 1993
Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis
Administrative Office
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing this letter to you and the other council members
since I am unable to attend the council meeting on July 20.
I write in regard to Carillo Ranch.
For the good of our city, I hope you will do all possible to
help the Ranch become a showplace in the city. Points of
historical interest in Carlsbad and lacking. This one place
is THE site which can be developed to commemorate our city's
past. It is not so much because of Leo Carillo that it is of
historical interest, but that it represents a ranch of the type
which once made California. San Diego has its Old Town. We
can have our "Old Ranch". To me, this is much more interesting than the proposed Leg0 Park, although I feel that too will be a good addition to our city. Since the Carillo Ranch is already in place, why not develop it and make it a place of beauty to
commemorate our past?
Thank you for your consideration. Please circulate this letter to the other council members.
Sincerely,
Barbara Otwell
2040 Ave. of the Trees
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
JOHN MACDONALD
SUPERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRICT
(619) 531-5555 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. ROOM 335. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-2470
July 12, 1993
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
My office has received correspondence from residents of Meadowlark Ranch expressing concern over the possible connection of the Rancho Carillo development with Redwing Street. As you know, Meadowlark Ranch is a small island of unincorporated territory located between the City of Carlsbad and San Marcos.
It has come to my attention that the Master Plan for this development is coming before the City Council on July 20, 1993. I have also been advised that City staff continues to recommend that a connection onto Redwing Street be maintained to allow, at some point in the future, for traffic from the Rancho Carillo project a shortcut to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Meadowlark Ranch residents feel such use of Redwing Street is unacceptable. Instead, residents have indicated they would support Ira one-foot stripgg road opening allowing for emergency access only.
Before Redwing can be connected to the Rancho Carillo project, however, dedication for road purposes of Lot A, Map Number 4443, must occur. As this property is in the unincorporated area, a hearing by the Planning and Environmental Review Board (PERB) and the Board of Supervisors is required. I, therefore, ask that the City Council formally express its intention in regard to opening Redwing Street. This would allow the County to review the merits of this proposal.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to call me.
Sincemy,
Jo@acDonald Supervisor, Fifth District
JMD:ab
cc: Chairman Brian Bilbray Vice Chairperson Pam Slater
Susan Denny flayor Bud Lewis, City of Carlsbad
June 28, 1993
To: Mayor Buddy Lewis and members of the Carlsbad City council
Re: Upcoming consideration of Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Dear friends,
As I will not be able to attend your July 6 meeting, I want to
express my concerns regarding the impact of the proposed master plan
on Carrillo Ranch.
The main problem, as I see it, is the construction of Melrose
Avenue along major cuts and/or a 40 ft. berm that will completely
alter the geography of the valley and overshadow Carrillo Ranch. The
placement of this road has been unofficially deplored by
representatives of the applicant and city staff members. The Carrillo
Ranch Sub-committee recommended against it in its final report.
Officials of the California Fish and Game Department and SAMDAG have
also questioned its validity. Still, there it is in the plan,
threatening to destroy the traditional approach to the ranch and the
preservation of the riparian area that has endured through sixty years
of floods, droughts and earthquakes.
For those of us who have looked forward to the development of
Carrillo Ranch as a beautiful and unique city facility, it is
perplexing to see it shown as an apparent afterthought to the entire
master plan. If Carrillo Ranch is to realize its full and proper
potential as the jewel of the valley, it must have the proper setting.
I hope that you will be able to determine the real facts about why
Melrose Avenue is still shown in a location that may have looked good
on paper in the '60s but is completely out of tune with today's
recognition of environmental, social, economic and aesthetic concerns.
July 6, 1993
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Mayor Bud Lewis
COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT - CARRILL0 RANCH ITEM
Based on City Attorney Ron Ball's review, and my discussion with him, we should postpone
the public hearing on this item for at least two weeks plus. This would allow staff to
respond to the five points regarding the Rancho Carrillo EIR brought forth in the letter
from the attorneys representing the Bressi Trust.
At tonight's meeting I will ask for public input only from those who cannot attend the
public hearing when it is rescheduled. I will not accept public testimony twice from the
same parties.
Sincerely,
CLAUDE d. %UD" LEWIS
Mayor
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
-
Lb-d-2 - 2/3? Mark and Patricia Moyer
1816 TOWHEE STREET
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
Parcel No: 222 142 05 00 Addreas: 01816 Towhee St
Des property; Lot 10
Map Number: 004443
Subdivision: Meadowlark #1
July 6, 1993
Carlsbad City Council Attn: Ann Kulchin
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: cas^ File: EIR 91-04/OPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-17
Case Name: Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
This letter is to address three wncums over the Carrillo Master Plan (and subsequent Tentative Map).
1) Although the CURRENT plan das not indicate view obstruction by grading/filling, fencing,
landscaping, and/or suuctures; the Planad Village M Special Design Criteria includes; "Where fwible, units shall be derigned to take advantage of views in@ to open space area to the at". Taking advantage
of the view wit can obstruct existing views to the ocean,
obatnrctlon of ckean view fmn Property
2) Traffic Safety at the fntmsectlon OCRedwhg & Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Vtllage M secondary
Current traffic on Redwing baa already made the existing intc-on dangerous. Regardless of Master Plan traffic study findings, any added traffic to Redwing will exacerbate the exidng dangerous
conditions. This is contrary to Plan Goal # 7, "Create an attractive, buffered circuhdon system that provider for the safety n&s of automobiles and pedestrians". (On April 6th, Tbe Planning Commission
amended the plan from Village M
acce6s via Redwring)
to m~y connect to Rsdwing.)
If the connection to redwing 18 permitted, there is nothing to stop construction acccss to tho development via Redwing, Taking this to an extreme, the potential would exist for the entin development to be graded and constructed u8iq Redwing access (Le. trucks, equipment, and materials would pass over
Redwing almost immesliately, without improvements to existing strtetll and intersections).
3) S-hY Meadowlark Ranch is currently protected by the County Sheriff and receives little if any cooperation
ffam Carlsbad Police coordinating caws related to the neighborhood (e+ the '92 case against Sean Dtnaldo, burglary & auto theft). With direct traffic acwss to the City of Carlsbad, crime will inevitably increase, with no foresew! imprpvement in protection.
Sincerely,
Ih
Patricia Moycr
cc All Council Members
City Manager
Z'd S3I~OlW~O8Wl ONIWU3 Wd&t:PB E6t 90 lnf
SACRAMENTO OFFICE:
CAPITOL PLACE
915 L STREET, SUITE iiao
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE (916) 443-6500
FACSIMILE 19161 443-8156
ALL RECEIVED
PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET. 277* FLOOR
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-1488
TELEPHONE (213) 683-6500
CMUDE I. PARKER 11871-19521
JOHN 0. MILLIKEN Il893-198ll
RALPH KOHLMEIER. 11900-19761
FACSIMILE 12131 683-6669
July 1, 1993 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
(213) 683-6678
MARTIN N BURTON
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
The Honorable Buddy Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: RANCHO CARRILLO EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing to you on behalf of Bank of America, as Trustee of the Mary E. Bressi
Trust (the "Trustee"), to summarize certain critical concerns of the Trustee with regard to
the above-referenced EIR, as detailed in the attached letter to Planning Director Michael
Holzmiller. I am also writing to request that the hearing on the project scheduled for July 6
be continued for at least one month to give sufficient time to address the issues raised by the
Trustee.
The Draft EIR and Responses to Comments fail to address adequately the following
five areas:
1. The Draft EIR fails to analyze the feasbility of recommended mitigation
measures, particularly the "Rancho Carrillo Riparian Mitigation Plan."
2. The Draft EIR fails to mitigate impacts from the Carrillo Way extension and
sewer alignment; the Trustee suggests a feasible mitigation measure.
3. The Draft EIR lacks an adequate analysis of stormwater runoff impacts,
impermissibly deferring detailed evaluation until after the EIR is certified.
4. The Draft EIR fails to analyze impacts resulting from the occurrence of two
major landslides, and ignores that the landslides ever happened.
5. The Draft EIR fails to consider impacts resulting from grading of slopes over
4 times the maximum allowable under City Ordinance.
PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Bud Lewis
July 1, 1993
Page 2
Please seriously address these legitimate and grave concerns of the Trustee. Please
continue the hearing on the Rancho Carrillo EIR until after these matters have been resolved.
. - -_ .-
MARTXN N. BURTON
MNB:yb
Enclosure
REPORT OF PHASE I GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
FOR
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
For
WATT INDUSTRIES
Rancho Santa Fe, California
BY
GEOCON, IKORPORATED
San Illego, California
June, 1982
File No. P2714-TO2
June 4, 1982
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Ancient Landslides
1. In general, the suspected ancient landslides depicted in our earlier
reconnaissance report have been confirmed. In addition, two and pos-
sibly a third slide were discovered. The two which were confirmed are
in the vicinity of Trench Nos. 19 and 35 (see Geologic Map). The third
is located northeast of Trench No. 46.
2. Of the three additional slides observed, the sllde vithfn the southeast
corner could present the greatest impact to the project. It appears
that the majority of the slide extends off the property to the east
and, hence, remedial grading measures may require the cooperation of
the adjacent property owner. In addition, sewer line distress and
tilted fence posts have been reported along the east property lfne sug-
gesting that same movement of the slide may have occurred in recent
times . We did not observe any physical evidence suggesting. recent
movement .
3. The various preliminary grading schemes prepared by HCH and Associates
sugsest that the slide in the vicinity of Trench No. 19 will be totally
buried by proposed grading. To a lesser degree, this is true with the
third slide where some fill is planned near the surpccted toe area and
some cutting is proposed within the head of the slide.
4. From the test trenche8 excavated in the Delmar Formation along the
steeper side slopes and further field observations, it is apparent that
. .. ir
- 1-
I
SOIL AND G&OLOCIC BECONNAISSANCE
SAN DECO COUIRY, CALrPOBNu
cktch, 1982
*
File NO. D-2716-TOl
Karch 23, 1982
Within the Eocene-aged formatieus appear to be dU0r and it is our opinion
that the existing faults do not represent a significant geotechnical con-
sideratiou to site development.
The nearest known active faults are the Elsinore 8nd San Jacfnto Faults
which lie approximately 22 mires and 46 miles to the northeast, respec-
tively. It io our oplniou that the site could be subjected to moderate to
severe ground shaking la the event of a major earthquake along tha Usinore
Fault or other active faults in the Southera Callfonfa region, hoveorr,
the selsmic risk at the site is not rigulficurtly greater than that of the
nearby devcloppcntr.
Ancient Landslides. Topogrqphlc features a8 vell as observed ~xposures
of disturbed formational rolls suggest the presence of several ancient
Iandslider principally loc8ted rithin the Dehr Formation rlong the canyon
rideslopas. The estimated lfmits of the suspected laudslides are depicted
on the Geologic Nap, Figure 2. Those suspected landslides which are less
certain, are querried on the Geologic Nap. Zn addition, other ancieat
landslidor whose characcrrlstic topographic featauar have been obliterated
by erosion, may also b. present along the canyou side slops. &.rice, dc-
velapent ulthin tha Ddmr Formation and, La particular, the major crnyorr
sideslopes will require extensive subsurface geotechrdeal Lme¶tigation.
-12-
File No. 0-2714-TOl
March 23, 1982
corner. Where in-filling of canyons or ravines might be planned, the La-
stallation of subdrrlas to relieve the potential build-up of hydrostatfc
pressure should be considered.
-14-
4.
File So. D-2714-TO1
March 23, L982
geocechnical studies are performed for rite specific developent, the
presence of oasite faulting can be addressed in greater detail.
Land Use Planning - 2W Acre Parcel
5. No unusual or signfficant geotcchnlcal constraints are anticipated mith
the develomenc of the rep8rate 2% acre parcel. -nu presented here-
inafter relating to the characteristics of the Torrcy Sandstone Formation
are applicable to the 29+, acre parcel as vcll.
Laud Use Planning - Xajor Parcel
6. Bered upon'our flndingr and observations during this prellmina~ study,
it io our opinion that, Ln general, dsvelopent of the propert7 ahve
roughly the 30% foot elevation (vlthin the Torzey Sandstone Foruation).
will encounter the fewest geotcchnical problems. Potentially adverse
conditions, such 88 exparuive rofls, ancient . lrndslldes , shallow
groundwater, comprersibh colluvial/8lluvfal soils and weak clapstonas, are
generally located below the 275 to 300 foot elevation.
7. The upper ruches of the tributary canyons rad ravines may b. developed
with miairpal temeu gr8ding. Porentirlly cooprer8ible colluvirl/llluvlil
deposits cypfcally decrease La thickuess rad axtent with an increase la
elevation. Additionally, the complete in-f illing of the narrow tributary
..
1
. .-I-.
-16-
. .. . -_. .
11. Fill slopes should be provided with an erosion resistant ground cover
and a well designed and maintained irrigation system as soon as practical
to reduce the erosion potential.
Future Studies
12. Any e8rthen dams which will be retained will require a geotechnicll
investigation which addresses the r:ability 02 the embankment.
13.. As lrnd-use plans become amihble, Geoco~, hcorporated should be ,
consulted to provide inf omation relative to the 8nticipated geotechnf crl
impac t s .
14. Prior to the finalization of the tentative MP(S) for the property, a
detailed soil and geologic investigation addrer8ing the proposed plan
should be .perfomed.
-18-
, PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA 6 SAMUELIAN
A PROFESSIONAL COPPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SACRAMENTO OFFICE: 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET. 277H FLOOR
CAPITOL PLACE
915 L STREET. SUITE 11ao
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA SS8M
TELEPHONE (916) 443-6100
FACSIMILE (9101 443-81S6
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1408
TELEPHONE (213) 683-6500
July 1, 1993 WRITER'S OIRCCT OlAL HUMBCR:
1~13) ea3-6678
MARTlN N. BURTON
VIA TELECOPIER
Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad , California 92009
RE: RANCHO CARFULLO EIR
AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
I am writing to you on behalf of Bank of America, as Trustee of the Mary E. Bressi
Trust (the "Trustee"), to identify critical concerns of the Trustee With regard to the Rancho
Carrillo project draft and final environmental impact report. I am also writing to request that
the hearing on the project scheduled for July 6 be continued for at least one month to give
sufficient time to address the issues raised by the Trustee.
A courtesy draft of this letter was sent to the developer of the Rancho Carrillo project
on June 18. Representatives of the Trustee and the developer met earlier today to discuss the
issues raised. While some progress has been made, much remains to be done.
As you may know, one of the principal assets of the Trust is an approximately 560
acre parcel of land known as the Bressi Ranch. The Bressi Ranch is located at the southeast
comer of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The Rancho
Carrillo project lies immediately east and south of the Bressi Ranch.
On December 14, 1992, the Trustee submitted written comments to the Draft EIR
through Mr. Anthony G. Ambrose of HCH Partners. On April 20, 1993, Mr. Ambrose met
with representatives of the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in order to discuss issues
related to the project and the Draft EIR. The City subsequently released written Responses
to all the comments received on the Draft EIR.
Generally, the City's written Responses to the Trustee's Comments did not address
the concerns raised by the Comments. In many cases the Responses simply echoed the very
' PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA 6 SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 2
language in the Draft EIR which concerned the Trustee, without amplification or explanation.
The Trustee is extremely concerned with this apparent dismissal of the very real and
legitimate issues raised by the Trustee.
While there are many areas in which the Trustee believes the Responses do not
adequately address the Trustee's Comments, the Trustee is most concerned with the fact that
the Draft EIR and the Responses: fail to assess adequately the feasibility of identified
mitigation measures in the Biological impact section; fail to consider mitigation measures to
reduce the impacts of the Carrillo Way extension and sewer alignment; fail to acknowledge
the Trustee's concern over stormwater runoff; dismiss, without discussion, the impacts
resulting from landslides which the Trustee brought to the attention of the City; and fail to
consider impacts resulting from grading of slopes over 4 times the maximum allowable under
City ordinance.
*
The Trustee's concerns, and the inadequate Responses to the Trustee's comments, are
set forth in detail below:
1. The Drafi EIR Fails to Analvze the Feasibilitv of Recommended Mitieation
Measures
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that a lead
agency determine whether hsible mitigation measures are available to lessen substantially
the significant environmental impacts of a project.' While the Draft EIR identifies certain
mitigation measures, it specifically indicates that such measures may not be feasible, but
gives no basis on which to determine their feasibility. Identifying mitigation measures which
may be infeasible negates the purpose of CEQA.
In Comment 59, the Trustee raises questions as to whether the wetland
mitigation section of the Draft EIR is feasible. Response to Comment 59 fails to address this
concern. The Response merely cites the original wetland mitigation plan discussion
contained in the Draft EIR. In fact, the Draft EIR at page 77 concedes that its own
recommended on-site wetland mitigation plan may not even be feasible:
' "[Plublic agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are . . . feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects ...." Public Resources Code 0 21002; 14 California Code of
Regulations 5 15021(a)(2)
--
' PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 3
It appears that the on-site Rancho Carrillo Riparian Mitigation
Plan (Ogden 1992a) could fully mitigate on-site impacts to
wetlands jf it is shown to be technicallv feasible and to be
adequate in terms of mitigation area ratio.
(Emphasis added.)2 There is no discussion as to why the wetland mitigation plan, the
premier mitigation measure for the project's most severe biological impacts, may not even be
feasible, nor what factors would be considered necessary for a determination of "technical
fea~ibi1ity.I'~ Without a discussion on feasibility, the City has inadequate information to
make a determination whether the measure is feasible. The City Council may actually
determine at a later date that this mitigation measure is, in fact, infeasible, effectively
rendering the mitigation measure meaningless.
In the event that the on-site mitigation plan is found not to be feasible, or does not
provide for sufficient wetland replacement area, any program approved by the state
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will, under existing
government policies, require off-site mitigation. Yet the Draft EIR does not even dikuss
off-site mitigation areas. No potential off-site wetland mitigation areas are identified, and the
Draft EIR does not discuss whether suitable sites are even available, how much such a site
would cost, or the quality or biological make-up that might be required. There is thus no
basis to determine whether an off-site mitigation program would be feasible.
The same deficiency occurs in the Draft Em's discussion on additional mitigation
measures. The Draft EIR recommends that a conservation easement be dedicated (page 80)
but leaves out details on feasibility, such as the location, biological make-up, and other
features of a parcel which would be subject to such an easement.
The Rancho Carrill0 Riparian Mitigation Plan is not attached to the Draft EIR
received by the Trustee.
The last paragraph on page 77 deals only with determining the mitigation ratiQ for
replacement wetlands, not with the Jechnical feasibility of the mitigation measure. &g a Comment and Response to Comment 11 , in which the Response impermissibly defers to a
later date any meaningful examination of specific U.S. Fish and Wildlife concerns regarding
biological impact. Response to Comment 11 in fact admits that "further analysis of the
wetlands and mitigation will occur," thereby conceding that full analysis has not yet taken
place, as it should.
’ PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA 6 SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 4
2. Sewer Alignment
e Dra ft EIR Fails to Mitigate ImDacts from the Cam ‘110 Wav Extension and
An EIR must discuss all reasonably foreseeable consequences of a pr~ject.~
While the Draft EIR discusses several reasonably foreseeable aspects of the project, it fails to
identify mitigation measures for the adverse impacts such features will generate.
For example, among the off-site improvements which are reasonably
foreseeable consequences of the project, and which are discussed in the Draft EIR, are the
extensions of Camillo Way and sewer lines off-site. Pages 71, 129 of Draft EIR, Response
to Comment 6.
The Draft EIR proposes an alignment of Carrillo Way which is south of the
already-set alignment of the sewer line, such that Carrillo Way and the sewer line will be
constructed along two entirely different easement paths for approximately half the length of
its traverse of the Bressi Ranch. While the Draft EIR discusses impacts resulting from the
location of the sewer and road easements on divergent paths, the Draft EIR does not consider
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, as required by CEQA. The Trustee’s concerns
on ways to mitigate these impacts were not addressed by Responses to Comments 80 and 81.
As a means of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with these
divergent easements, the Trustee proposes, as a mitigation measure, that Carrillo Way be
aligned over the existing sewer easement. Aligning Carrillo Way over, or at least parallel
and adjacent to, the sewer line will prevent the biological disruption resulting from
construction of two separate paths; only one easement path will be disturbed. The Trustee
requests that the City adopt this mitigation measure.
3. EIR Lacks an Adequate Analvsis of Storm Water Runoff ImDactS
CEQA requires good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments;
conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice? Response to
14 California Code of Regulations 8 15126; Laure 1 Heights Ho meowners Associatioq
v. Regents of the Universitv of California (1989), 47 Cal. 3d 376.
14 California Code of Regulations $15088(b); Peode v. County of Kern (1974), 39
Cal.App.3d 830.
' PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 5
Comment 70 provides virtually no analysis of stormwater runoff impacts or mitigation
measures.
The Trustee's Comment 70 recommends that the project implement measures
to mitigate impacts from storm water runoff. Response to Comment 70, however, dismisses
the Trustee's concern and summarily concludes that "no adverse impacts to off-site
properties" will occur. No factual supporting data are provided to back up this claim; on the
contrary, Response to Comment 70 concedes that a complete assessment of stormwater run-
off has yet to be performed:
[A]n Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the project
must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
grading permits.. . . An analysis of stormwater runoff is required
by the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan prior [to]
grading permit issuance.
Thus, the Draft EIR rejects the Trustee's request for mitigation measures
because the project lacks a meaningful analysis of stormwater runoff in the first place. This
practice of deferred analysis is impermissible.6 Adverse impacts must be assessed during
the environmental impact report review, not afterwards. To defer meaningful analysis until
after the EIR is certified defeats the purpose of CEQA.
The Trustee's Comment 70 points out that Figure 19 on page 97 of the Draft
EIR shows three drainages entering the Bressi Ranch, yet only one drainage is analyzed.
Response to Comment 70 ignores this Comment, and refers to Responses to Comments 27
and 40. Response to Comment 40, however, is simply irrelevant', and Response to
Comment 27 implicitly admits that there will be off-site water flows.* Response to
Comment 70 itself implies an increase in water flows, when it concludes there will be "no
net increase in runoff in the two northerly drainages." Without conceding the accuracy
Sundstrom v. cou nty of Mendocino (1988), 202 Cal.App.3d 296.
The reference is erroneous, and probably is intended to apply to Response to
Comment 41, the substance of which is virtually identical to Response to Comment 27.
"The proposed check dams are intended to reduce flow volumes and velocities of
runoff. and pote ntial scou r and erosion. from the develod s' ite to of f-site areqgj. "
(Emphasis added.) The dams, therefore, apparently reduce but do not eliminate adverse off-
site impacts from run-off.
PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA 6 SAMUELIAN
ATTORN EY S AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July I, 1993
Page 6
of this conclusory remark, the statement strongly implies that the Bressi Ranch will be
impacted by runoff, albeit not “peak” runoff.
The Trustee finds this level of analysis unacceptable, and requests the
following by qualified experts:
a) A full estimate of water flows for all three drainages entering
the Bressi Ranch:
b) A complete Erosion and Sedimentation Plan prior to approval of
the EIR;
c) mitigate stormwater impacts, and if so, where;
A determination whether drainage basins will be necessary to
d) A determination whether installation of underground storm drain
pipes will be necessary to divert stormwater runoff and carry it through the Bressi Ranch;
e) Full analysis of impacts resulting from check dams, as requested
by Comments 27 and 41.
4. The Draft ETR Fails to Analvze Impacts Resulting from the Occu rrence of
Two Major Lands lides
The Trustee, in Comment 71, submits information regarding the past
Occurrence of two landslides on the Bressi Ranch at its common boundary with the Rancho
Carrillo property. Just as other serious concerns raised by the Trustee were downplayed or
effectively ignored by the Responses to Comments, Response to Comment 71 hardly
addresses the point. No historical investigation is conducted in response; no aerial
photographs are studied; no new soils studies are performed; the Trustee is not so much even
contacted by telephone. Rather, the Response to Comment reflexively points to its original
text:
The presence of the landslides referred to was not confirmed by
the geotechnical study for the Master Plan (Appendix E).
To the extent the Response implies that the referenced geotechnical study
specifically set out to confm or not confirm these particular landslides, the Response is
misleading at best.
PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O’HARA 6 SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 7
Copies of relevant portions of the geotechnical reports performed on the Bressi
Ranch are attached hereto, confirming the Occurrence of the landslides and resulting soil
conditions. The Trustee is not fabricating these facts. Nothing in the Rancho Carrillo
geotechnical study refutes or remotely contradicts the findings set forth in the Bressi Ranch
study.
The Trustee requests that the Draft EIR incorporate these sections by
reference, analyze fully the impact of the landslides and resulting soil conditions on Village
H and the future Melrose Avenue, and analyze fully as well the impact of Village H and the
future Melrose Avenue on the soil conditions and future possibility of additional landslides
caused by the development.
5. The Dra ft EIR Fails to Co nsider ImDacts Resulting from Grad inp of Slopes
Over 4 Times the Maximum Allowable Under City Ordinance
In Comment 77, the Trustee raises several questions regarding two fill slopes
to be placed on the Bressi Ranch. These fill slopes, the Trustee points out, will range from
110 to 130 feet high, yet the City’s maximum identified slope height is only 30 feet. The
Trustee states, in particular, that there is an inadequate discussion of impacts and mitigation
measures arising from these fill slopes.
Response to Comment 77 picks and chooses the questions of the Trustee which
it answers, and neglects to respond to the Trustee’s concerns regarding impacts and
mitigation measures. The Trustee requests a full and accurate analysis of impacts resulting
from such enormous slopes, including analysis by qualified experts to determine the
following:
a) Impacts to view;
b) Impacts to vegetation;
c) Impacts to landscaping;
d) Mitigation measures to ensure safety, stability;
e) Mitigation measures to prevent erosion;
f) Mitigation measures to enhance landscaping.
- PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
July 1, 1993
Page 8
Finally, the Trustee requests that the EIR analyze, as a mitigation measure,
shifting the alignment of Melrose slightly to the east to eliminate the proposed fill slope on
the Bressi Ranch and to minimize environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION
The Trustee has raised serious and legitimate environmental concerns for which the
Trustee is a most interested party. The Trustee has no personal or political "ax to grind".
The Trustee is genuinely concerned with regard to several features of the development which
may result in grave environmental impacts to the Trust property.
Finally, the Trustee is also concerned that the City may not be exercising its
independent judgment and analysis in the process, as required by recent court mandate.9 In
Mr. Ambrose's April 20 meeting with Carlsbad Planning Department representatives, staff
declined to address the concerns raised by Mr. Ambrose's December 14, 1992 letter, and
instead referred him to the developer for further discussion. The Trustee believes that the
City must play a much more integral role in reviewing the environmental impact prOc'ess as it
affects the Bressi Ranch, and looks forward to cooperating with the City and the developer in
this endeavor.
The Trustee therefore requests that the hearing on the EIR be postponed until these
serious matters have been addressed and the Trustee has had adequate opportunity to review.
VL yor Bud Lewis
MNE3:yb
Enclosures
cc + encls.
Councilmembers:
Ms. Ramona Finnila
Ms. Ann Kulchin
Ms. Julianne Nygaard
Ms. Margaret Stanton, Mayor Pro-Tem
Friends of La Vina v. Countv of Los AngeleS (1991), 232 Cal. App. 3d 1446.
Carlsbad SUN
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
- -- preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN PROJECT - EIR 914 GPA Ql4/MP-l39(EVHDP 91-17
, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carl- sbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers. 1200 Csrlsbsd Village Drive, Carlsbad. California, at 600 P.M., on Tuesday, July 6, 1893, to consider a request , tor certification of an Environmen- tallmpact Report,and toconsider a request for a General Plan Amend- ment. s Master Plan Amendment and a Hillside Development Permit on property located south of Palo- mar Airport Road. west of the east- :,ern City limits. ’east of Bressi ’,. pnch. and north of Local Facili- ties Management Zone 6. in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, and more particularly described as: A portion of the southerly one half of Section 18 and a portion of
,” Section IS. Township 12 Strulh. Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of fraction- al Section 13 and a portion oPfrac- tional Section 24. Township 12 1 South, Range 4 West. San Bernard- sino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of Csll- fornia. If you have any questions regard- ing this matter. please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Depart-’ ment at 438-1161. extension Mi’. ’ If you challenge the Environm - tal Impact Report, General PI i n Amendment, Master Plan Amend- ment and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limitid 1 to raising only those issues rai@ ~ by you or someone else at the phb- lie hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence deli. vered to the City of Carlsbad Ciiy Clerk’s Office at. or prior to, the public hearing. Applicant: Rick Engineering CITY OF CARLSBAD : CITY COUNCIL IX
W
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
June 24 19 93
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Die 0, State of California on the 24&
uurie, day of
I/ Clerk of the Printer
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN PROJECT - EIR 91-4/GPA 91-6/MP-l39(E)/HDP 91-17
I
LOCATION MAP
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, July* 1993, to consider a
request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and to consider a
request for a General Plan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment and a Hillside Development Permit on property located south of Palornar Airport Road, west of the
eastern City limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of Local Facilities
Management Zone 6, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18,
described as:
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4457.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
.A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN PROJECT - EIR 91-4/GPA 91-6/MP-l39(E)/HDP 91-17
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, to consider a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and to consider a request for a General Plan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment and a Hillside Development Permit on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of Local Facilities Management Zone 6, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, and more particularly descri bed as :
A portion of the southerly one half of Section 18 and a portion of Section 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of fractional Section 13 and a portion of fractional Section 24, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Cal i forni a.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4457.
If you chall enge the Environmental Impact Report, General P1 an Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Rick Engineering PUBLISH: June 24, 1993
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
LOCATION MAP
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m.
on Wednesday, April 7,1993, to consider approval of a request recommending the certification of
an Environmental Impact Report; and the request recommending the approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, and a Hillside Development Pennit on property located south
of Palomar Airport Road, west of the eastern City limits, east of Bressi Ranch, and north of Local
Facilities Management Zone 6, in Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
J
A portion of the southerly one half of Section 18 and a portion of Section 19,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian and a portion of
fractional Section 13 and a portion of fractional Section 24, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 31,1993. If you have any questions,
please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at 438-1161, ext. 4457.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact RepoWGeneral Plan AmendmenVMaster Plan
AmendmenVHillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP 139(E)/HDP 91-17
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH:
RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN
CARLSBAD SUN - MARCH 25,1993
BLADE CITIZEN - MARCH 26,1993
CIn OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
BH:km
(Form A)
IFFICE
RE:
ITMENT
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the' materials necessary for you to notice
EIR 91-04/GPA 91-06/MP-l39(E)/HDP 91-17 - RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER
for a public hearing before the City Council. PLAN PROJECT,
#
Please notice the item for the council meeting of .
Thank you.
Assistant. Crty Mbfager
JUNE 1, 1993
Date
,LABELS
I
- PROPERTY OWNERS 5 JOB NUMBER 11348
SECURITY PAC NTL BANK FIELDSTONE/LA COSTA ASS CONTINENTAL HOMES INC PO BOX 90610 C/O THE FIELDSTONE CO PO BOX 60010 PASADENA CA 91109 14 CORPORATE PLAZA PHOENIX AZ 85082 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
REALTY DEALERS LTD WOODWARD VENTURES LTD PONDEROSACOUNTRYHMOWNRS
C/O UDC HOMES LIMITED C/O DON WOODWARD 1 PARK PLAZA 800
438 CAMINO DEL RIO 112B 20301 ACACIA ST STE 200 IRVINE CA 92714 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 SANTA ANA HGHTS CA 92707
FIELDSTONE/LA COSTA ASS LA COSTA HOTELLSPA CORP NO COMMON LAND C/O THE FIELDSTONE CO 2100 COSTA DEL MAR RD LAND DIVIDED BY
14 CORPORATE PLAZA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CONDO OWNERS NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
MICHAELCANN BEAUCHEMIN PETERtJENNIFER SARA ARNOLDLHOLLY MICHELS
2606 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2604 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2602 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WMLCATHERINE DAUGHERTY JAMES C SHIELDS I1 DADECALYSSA MYRES
2600 LA GOLONDRINA ST C/O EADS COREL 2530 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 2532 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARYLMARY AMSTUTZ DENNISLJOANNE PARADISE ALVINLDIANE PIERCE
13169 AUTUMN HILL LN 2526 LA GOLONDRINA ST 6406 EL PATO CT HERNDON VA 22071 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARRYLLINDA MC DEVITT CAROLYN MUNDY TRUST EDWARD&MAUREEN MOWRY
6404 EL PATO CT 6402 EL PATO CT 6400 EL PATO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRANTLJANET DUNLAP JAMESLPAMELA WEATHERFORD EDLLYNN SPENCER TRUST
6401 EL PATO CT 6403 EL PATO CT 6405 EL PATO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GENELINGER HUBER ROBERTLRENE VANHORNE MICHAELLCHRISTINNA HALL
6407 EL PATO CT 6409 EL PATO CT 6411 EL PATO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 1
.LABELS - PROPERTY OWNERS JOB NUMBER 11348
JULIA TESCHLER JAMES&KIMBERLY GRANT WERNER&DORIS MARKUS
6413 EL PAT0 CT 2514 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2512 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&VALSA STEPHEN MICHAEL GITTLEMAN MICHAEL&KAREN WILL 2510 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2508 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2506 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEON&FLORENCE GREENBERG
2629 OBELISCO PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&A” HILL
2517 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN&CINDA COE
6417 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBtTERRY PURDY
2612 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&BARBARA OERUM
2618 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
S FROSTROM & G GIBSON
2624 LA GOLONDRINA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNISCLENORE HENDRICKSON
2502 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERTtMONICA KLATT
6415 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
S BROSTOFF & T WHITE
2608 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&CARMELA MCNIFF
2614 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
FERNANDOtLYDIA MONROY PO BOX 2442 DEL MAR CA 92074
FRANK&LENORE CARR
2626 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
H G & MANDIE STEVENS
2500 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETHtTHRESIA MAY
6414 CAYENNE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFREY&PAMMY GLICKMAN
2610 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWRENCE&ROSE FIRSTEN
2616 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREGORY KUSNER
2622 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENT ANDERSON
2627 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETHtWINONA TAIT WM&GRACIELA EWASKIW DAN&CAROLINE COOPER
2625 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2623 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2621 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 2
LABELS ,
- PROPERTY OWNERS
DALE&ELSIE GARDETTO MELfPHYLLIS LEVIN
2619 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2286 BOCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOB NUMBER 11348
DENNIS&ARLENE SHERREITT
2615 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WE&CAROL HORSCHEL GARRY&MARTHA GRACE HAROLD&MARJORIE GOLDEN 2613 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2611 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2609 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFREY&JAN GRELL PAUL&SALLY RINGWOOD
2607 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2605 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN CUTLER R DUGGAN & J SAROFF
2601 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2702 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT ETHERTON BRIAN&MARY MCKEON FRANK&RUTH ETHERTON 2708 LA GOLONDRINA
11506 25TH ST NE CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAKE STEVENS WA 98258
MICHAEL KARR JAMES&BARBARA RUECKL KATHLEEN KENEDY 2714 LA GOLONDRINA ST
2712 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAStKATHLEEN EVANS
2603 LA GOLONDRINA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&IRMA CAMPBELL
2704 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARDCLYNN KILLION
3694 COPPER CREST RD ENCINITAS CA 92024
MICHAEL&JANET PUCCIO
2716 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&NONA GRIFFITH B&ADELINA GALINDO MIKHAIL&ELLEN ALAKA
2718 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2720 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2722 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIC&LUCILLE OLSON JOHN SWOPE KARLE JOHNSON
7089 MURILLO LN 6426 CHIRIQUI LN 6428 CHIRIQUI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
W FELBER & L VOSS PHUC HW TRUONG STEPHEN&JANET CARRO
6430 CHIRIQUI LN MY-DUNG THI NGUYEN 6428 EL PERICO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 6432 CHIRIQUI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 3
.PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
A&SEHILA KHANIJOW BETTILOO OLSEN
2713 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2715 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER&KARIN BRAEMER HARRY&CYNTHIA CESENA
2719 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2721 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARSHALL&LAUREN CLOW JAMES&DEBORAH YAGER
2703 LA GOLONDRINA ST 2701 LA GOLODRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN&YONG FENLON JOHN&DALYS STEVENSON
2816 CACATUA ST 2820 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN W LEWIS 111 WM&BARBARA HESS
2828 CACATUA ST 2832 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL HOFFER MORRISCSHIRLEY ALTERS RONA WEBB 2844 CACATUA ST
2840 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY&ELLEN ANDERSON GEORGE&CYDNEY SHINN
2852 CACATUA ST 2854 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GOSHTASB HAMSAYEH JOHNCBETTY BRUCE PARIZAD BAGHEGOULESTANI 2902 CACATUA ST
2445 LA AMATISTA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEL MAR CA 92014
JK&BARBARA RYAN JERRYLGLENDA GRIFFIN
2841 ESTURION ST 2833 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOB NUMBER 11348
JOHN&MICHELLE MONTROY
2717 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&PATRICIA BARRON
2314 RUE ADRIANE LA JOLLA CA 92037
CLARENCE&MARY BOYD
2812 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMESfLYNN BRADLEY
2824 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENT&SHARON LARSEN
2836 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANKCMILLICENT SARVARY
1232 MONCADO DRIVE GLENDALE CA 91207
ARTHURGELSIE WILSON
2856 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT&BRIDGET WUESTE
2849 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&HAZEL HORWITZ
2825 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 4
- ,PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
NEILCDIANE OPENSHAW
2819 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANK&FRANCES MESSANO
2813 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOB NUMBER 11348
MICHAEL&ADELE LAPADULA
2809 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
OMAR ORR HOWARD&SALLY TADLOCK DWIGHT&DONNA JOHNSON DAVID&DONNA ORR 2801 ESTURION ST 6327 CHORLITO ST
2805 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THEOfVIRGINIA ERLER MICHAEL SALOUR LVG TRST MICHL&JENNIFER STEIDLEY
6319 CHORLITO ST 6311 CHORLITO ST 6303 CHORLITO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY&MARGARITA HOLT ROY&DANA PRICE MICHAEL&DIA”E HURT
1464 9TH ST 6312 CHORLITO ST 2802 ESTURION ST MANHATTAN BCH CA 90266 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD&KATHLEEN BLOK GLEN&LORI FISHMAN DIANE BERRY
2806 ESTURION CT 2810 ESTURION CT 2814 ESTURION CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALLEN SPOUSTA JAMES&EMIKO HINKLEY DAVID&JULIA GUTHRIE
2818 ESTURION CT 2822 ESTURION PL 2826 ESTURION PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
J&FREDERICA ROSENFIELD EDGAR&LEONORA REPP CHRISfCYNTHIA PHILLIPS
2830 ESTURION PL 2834 ESTURION PL 2840 ESTURION PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
HERMAN&ADELINE WADLEY NEIL&ANITA TIPPLE BEHZAD&JALEN SAMIMI
2844 ESTURION PL 2848 ESTURION ST 2852 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT DOUGHERTY ARTHUR& JOAN MARKOVITS STEVEN&SHEILA TREBBIN
2858 ESTURION ST 3002 UNICORN10 ST 3006 UNICORN10 ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 5
PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
CECIL&LYDIA DUNCAN PAUL GOFORTH DAVID&TERRY SITTNER PO BOX 3104
3010 XANA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALLAN&BARBARA HARRIMAN WM&EVELYN BUSTER
13 MARSHALL LN 781 SW BAYPOINTE CIR OCEAN CITY NJ 08226 PALM CITY FL 34990
ESCH FAMILY TRUST
3022 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILBUR&LIDA STEPHENS
2939 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOM&MARIANNE CANDELA
2921 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SATISHtPADMINI KADABA
3024 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
J MEROD & M OBERLANDER
2933 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
HYUNGtYOUNG YANG
2915 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVIDGPATRICIA CORTINA FRANK&MILLICENT SARVARY
2903 CACATUA ST 1232 MONCADO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 GLENDALE CA 91207
VERNONhBEFtNICE PLANE ROBT&JENN POPPLETON
2914 CAPAZO CT 2920 CAPAZO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&JULIA KLAERICH RUBY KEWLEY
2928 CACATUA ST 1736 CATALPA RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
COLE FAMILY TRUST NEIL&SUSAN RAPPAPORT
3454 E FLORENCE AVE 3102 UNICORNIO ST HUNTINGTON PK CA 90255 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOB NUMBER 11348
MARJORIE KAHN
3014 XANA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
GER&PATRICIA MACALUSO
3020 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHASCPATRICIA OSTERHOUT
3028 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
C&N GRAZIOLI & L GRAZIOLI
C/O GRAZIOLI
PO BOX 3333-186 ENCINITAS CA 92024
ENGEL FAMILY TRUST
2909 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
W&IRENE DJOBADZE
4200 PARKSIDE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008
DON&JANET MAYHUE
298 GREENWOOD PL BONITA CA 91902
RICHARD&ANN SPOONER
2936 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL&KAREN FORINO
3106 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 6
,PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER
ANDERSON FAMILY TRUST
3110 UNICORN10 ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS&JUDITH CATTELL MLEE&JAC COTTERMAN
6573 BIA BARONA 6571 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&LOUISE MC BREEN BEN&BETTY SIGLER
5960 N HUMINGBIRD 6563 VIA BARONA PARADISE VLY A2 85253 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&MARGARET SCHERNER ALEX&MAYA ZELITSKY
6559 VIA BARONA 1640 VIA CANCION CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
VERN&WANDA MARTIN JERRY&ALICE FARROW
12521 SAFFORD ST PO BOX 9000-137 GARDEN GROVE CA 92640 CARLSBAD CA 92018
H&JUNE ZIMMERMAN
1220 SHERIDAN RD WILMETTE IL 60091
KULJIS FAMILY TRUST
6541 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
FASACK LIVING TRUST
6516 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&SHARON NEMMERS
2304 DUNSTAN ST OCEANSIDE CA 92054
JOB NUMBER 11348
FWK&ALICE FREDA
6575 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&JANICE BALOG
6567 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARL&JOYCE HILL
6561 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JACQUELINE DAVIS TRUST
6555 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHL&CYNTHIA KOOPSEN
6549 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&DOROTHY OHARA GARY&IRENE RUBEN
6545 VIA BARONA 8900 KEYSTONE ST 1066 CARLSBAD CA 92009 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46240
ELLIS&BARBARA DIAMOND MARILYN STOVER
2513 LA GOLONDRINA ST 6512 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD6rORA RENALDI CLAIRE FITZPATRICK TRUST PO BOX 9926 1732 CATALPA RD SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 95731 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL&CAROL KURZEJA
6520 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANNE DHUNJISHAW
6524 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 7
PAIJCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER
CARLOS&VERA ARECCO ALAN BLACKBURN
1225 BENT OAK TRL 5134 BSRRACUDA CT ALTAMONTE SPR FL 32714 WALDORF MD 20603
HOWARD&JOAN MEES ARTHUR&BERNICE TILTON PO BOX 428 6532 VIA BARONA BONSALL CA 92003 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL&LINDA DOOLEY
6540 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMY BOWERS
6546 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
THEODOREtLORNA JACK
6552 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN&SHARON CORY
6558 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
HJ&WANDA WARNER
6538 CORTE MONTECITO CARLSBAD CA 92009
HELEN NOONAN
6544 CORTE MONTECITO CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&LYDIA CARVER
6541 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARRY&TONIA LAGRANGE
6542 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM "LON
6548 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOIE&JILL POWELL
6554 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COSTA MCA
C/O PACWLRD&LOOMIS INC
5670 EL CAMINO REAL F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&MADELINE SLATTERY
6540 CORTE MONTECITO CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHEILA BARROW
6545 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY SCHNEIR
6539 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOB NUMBER 11348
D NEWKIRK & D KAMERER
6530 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL&KRISTINE JUNG HIROSH MIMURA & KIYOKO
1683 ORANGE BLOSSOM WAY ENCINITAS CA 92024
DARLENE DORSEY
6544 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LORETTA&GERALD HOFFMA" CHRISTINE HESS
6550 VIA BARONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&CECELIA MICHELA
6556 VIA BARONA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY ELLEN NEWETT
6542 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARDLMARILYN TRAUB
6543 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL&MARY HARRISON
6537 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 8
PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
EM&RACHEL FITZGERALD EUGENE&CHRISTINE HUMPHREY JEFFREY BRADLEY
6513 CORTE MONTECITO 6515 CORTE MONTECITO 6514 CORTE MONTECITO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALE WEDGE JR JOHN BRODSKY PETER STEVENS
6518 CORTE MONTECITO 6516 CORTE MONTECITO 6520 CORTE MONTECITO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
222: APN 222-470-03-15
CATH&MARTHA MCGAVIN BRADLEY&KELLY CATCOTT ROBT&JANICE BALOG
265 CLIPPER WAY 6522 CORTE MONTECITO 6526 CORTE MONTECITO SEAL BEACH CA 90740 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANKtMILLICENT SARVARY ALBERT ADICKES JR LOUIS NEIHEISEL 2906 CAPAZO CT 6530 CORTE MONTECITO ANN&HERB&CARROL VONGAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 6532 CORTE MONTECITO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
R GREEN & C DITTMAR RANDtBARBARA SWENSON
6536 CORTE MONTECITO 5645 WHITE MOUNTAIN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARTINEZ CA 94553
LAWRENCE®INA RIGGS JOSEPHtMARGARET FROST
6537 CORTE VALDEZ 6535 CORTE VALDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFFREY&DIANE JENSEN JOHN&CATHY PRAAMSMA
2232 VISTA VALLEY LN 6531 CORTE VALDEZ VISTA CA 92084 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANCES SCHLACK KEVIN&VALERIE SPOUSTA
6534 CORTE VALDEZ 6536 CORTE VALDEZ CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVIDtCHERYL FALK
6539 CORTE VALDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIRGINIA BONAGURA
6533 CORTE VALDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEILA HEYLAND
6538 CORTE VALDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALE DALTON WILLIAM&SHIRLEY MCPHAIL JOEL GOODRICH
6540 CORTE VALDEZ 6542 CORTE VALDEZ 6544 CORTE VALDEZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 9
PARCEL NUMBER AND. PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
FRANKLKARLA STOUDEK SHARON TOL
1014 CHRIST1 LN 6548 CORTE VALDEZ FALLBROOK CA 92028 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&MARY BROWER
6552 CORTE VALDEZ CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICH&JUDY SEVIER
215 S VALLEY DRIVE
MANHATTAN BCH CA 90261
CLINTON PETERSON WM&NANCY CAHOONE PO BOX 4136 6545 CORTE VALDEZ LK SAN MARCOS CA 92069 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES KNISLEY GRANA FAMILY TRUST LA COSTA MCA 6543 CORTE VALDEZ 83 6541 CORTE VALDEZ C/O PACKARDCLOOMIS INC CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 5670 EL CAMINO REAL F CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM WEAVER JR EMO&YOLANDA PORRO 3104 VIA OSTRA 3106 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD SIVIY BOB&MARGARET ANTHIS B HOOVER & M MOODY
3108 AVENIDA CHRISTINA 33252 BIG SUR ST 3112 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009 DANA POINT CA 92629 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN&KATHLEEN FULMER NORA KNIGHT
3114 AVENIDA CHRISTINA 3116 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM&DONNA SMITH RICHARD&MARY RIEDEL
3120 AVENIDA CHRISTINA 6502 VIA OSTRA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFF&SALLY HOPKINS THOMAS&LINDA HARDY
6506 VIA OSTRA 3159 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FEROL BECKER JOSE&DOROTHY ROCHA
3155 AVENIDA TOPANGA PO BOX 9000 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92018
KENNETHCCOLLEEN FLOYD
1346 ORIBIA RD DEL MAR CA 92014
R ANDERSEN & B TILT
6504 VIA OSTRA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&BEVERLY SIBLEY
1481 GRANITE SHDWS DR PRESCOTT A2 86301
TESFAYE HAILEMICHAEL
6508 VIA OSTRA CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 10
PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
MARY WAITE NORMtDONNA DEWEY
6510 VIA OSTRA 6509 VIA OSTRA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JESUS&MASAKO FLORES
1574 VILLAGE VIEW DR ENCINITAS CA 92024
DENISE DORRICOTT
3109 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERESA BURR
502 ROCKPORT CT LEUCADIA CA 92024
MARGARET W
855 SANTA ROSITA SOLANA BCH CA 92075
STANLEY LUTY
6510 CAMINO CAPISTRANO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICIA SNYDER
3107 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROLE POSLADEK
3113 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHtRONALE MCCLURE
3119 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JD&JAYNE LOVIG STEPHEN MADDOX
3127 AVENIDA TOPANGA 3125 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICKY ALDRICH =&PAUL NOLL
3133 AVENIDA TOPANGA 3131 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONCCHERYL WOLFE SUE SALISBURY
3139 AVENIDA TOPANGA 3137 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
C FITCH & J KRAMER LAUREL PLAGGE
22801 NORBERT ST 3143 AVENIDA TOPANGA PERRIS CA 92370 CARLSBAD CA 92009
E’OATES & G QUEEN
6511 VIA OSTRA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNCFRANCES MARROW
3105 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARILYN HENLEY
3111 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&INESE SPOTTS
3117 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEO&KIM DOUILLARD
3123 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL&RITA TRIST
3129 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUISE PAUL
3135 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM SWAFFORD
3141 AVENIDA TOPANGA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOM&MARI CANDELA
2921 CACATUA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 11
- PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
HECTtSUSANA AGUIRRE CHRIS OSTERGAARD
3152 AVENIDA TOPANGA F&PENELOPE OSTERGAARD CARLSBAD CA 92009 3150 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
KORBER FAMILY TRUST TIM CONNETT
2240 LAGOON VIEW DR 3156 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARDIFF CA 92007 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COSTA MCA C/O PACKARDtLOOMIS
5670 EL CMNO REAL F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL MILLER PAUL'MILLER
26042 DANA BLUFFS E 26042 DANA BLUFFS E
CAPSTRNO BCH CA 92624 CAPSTRNO BCH CA 92624
JON1 ETUE JEAN&ROS MARTIN
3120 AVENIDA OLMEDA 3124 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARMDO&ANA PALOMO WILLIAM WIEHL
3132 AVENIDA OLMEDA 2465 PRIMROSE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 VISTA CA 92083
CAROL NAISMITH JUDITH LAIRD
3144 AVENIDA OLMEDA 3148 AVENIDA OLMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOA" MICHAEL MOHAMAD HALAWI
3154 AVENIDA OLMEDA 3158 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD SPOONER PATRICIA SNOW LYNNE SEGUINE SPOONER 3155 AVENIDA OLMEDA
3159 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON KENEDY
3154 AVENIDA TOPANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COSTA MCA C/O PACKARDtLOOMIS
5670 EL CMNO REAL F CARLSBAD CA 92009
KERR FAMILY TRUST
833 E MARGARITA ROAD RIALTO CA 92376
R ALLEN & T TRAVERS
1 NIMITZ DR D CEIBA PR 00735
W NEFF & K RUT"
3128 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAQUETTA URTNOWSKI
3140 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&BERNA KORETKE
3152 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
B CORNELL & B SCHAFER
3156 AVENIDA OLMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EVELYN SORENSON
3157 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 12
PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
R CISSEL & M STEVENS
3153 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIRANI 1989 TRUST C&ARUNA VARMA
1084 CIRCLE DR ESCONDIDO CA 92025
G&JENNIFER GOTTESMAN
3141 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARL BOGDAN
3135 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY SMITH
4365 SHASTA PL CARLSBAD CA 92008
WMtANNETTE MALONEY
3123 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
TAKAKYOKO CHICHIDA
3117 AVENIDA OLMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ED&JEANNETTE PASCHALL
1932 LAHOUD DR CARDIFF CA 92007
JAMES6DIANE PHILLIPS
2022 VISTA GRANDE DR VISTA CA 92084
GREG&CLAUDIA BARNETT
3143 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
EUGENE ZADRA
3137 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHtLORRAINE YBARRA
3131 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
S GREENWALT & P GARDNER
3125 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN&TERRI CORNELL
3119 AVENIDA OLMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
R VERRY & K LACKEY
3591 WINDSPUN DRIVE HUNTNGTN BCH CA 92649
R VERRY & K LACKEY
3591 WINDSPUN DRIVE HUNTNGTN BCH CA 92649
SAIEDtNORANIEH ATAIE R VERRY & K LACKEY
3378 WATERFORD DR 3591 WINDSPUN DRIVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HUNTNGTN BCH CA 92649
JOB NUMBER 11348
DAVID&TAMI HOCKER
3151 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICH&JOA”E MOFFETT
3145 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
H&LYNNE MARGENAU
1102 DEER RUN N PINE BLUFF AR 71603
MARK ANDRADE
3133 AVENDIA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUSAN SALATA
3127 AVENIDA OLMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SIMS FAMILY TRUST SANDRA MAES
3121 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&WENDY LANDRY
3115 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL NETT & JANET SYMONS JAMES MADERE
3109 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID SPIELMAN
3103 AVENIDA OLMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 13
PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
BRIAN DICKTER
4515 SALISBURY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
SELMA FROMBERG TRUST
3069 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARGARET ADELIZZI
6545 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
B&JALEH SAMIMI
2852 ESTURION ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANELY KELTS
6546 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLINE KENNEY
6568 CORTE CISCO CARLSBAD CA 92009
BETTY YABU C/O MARY WATANABE
7501 W 91ST LOS ANGELES CA 90045
MARTINCTHERESA BROWN
3067 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY&MICHELE MAY
6549 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
CP&SHARON OWEN
6543 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALE CARDER
6550 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
6544 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&MICHIKO KAHL FRANK&VERA FEDERICO
C/O NSSEA 1941 SUMMIT DR
PO BOX 62499 ESCONDIDO CA 92027 SUNNYVALE CA 94088
D&B GOSSETT ELWOOD&LINDA HIGLEY RUTH MC MICHAEL 3018 AVENIDA CHRISTINA
1940 LEUCADIA SCENIC CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 LEUCADIA CA 92024
I JOB NUMBER 11348
MYLTREDA BARKER
361 WEATHERLY TRAIL GUILFORD CT 06437
MILLtJUBICA TOMICH
3071 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COSTA MCA C/O ES ROSENFELD
16133 VNTRA BL 1270 ENCINO CA 91436
LLtRUTH NELSON
6547 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL MORGENLANDER LINDA MORGENLANDER
6541 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANGELO&SANDRA GALASSO
6548 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICIA&CHAS CONNOLLY
6542 PASEO ADELANTE CARLSBAD CA 92009
RON6tSANDRA FREEMAN
3016 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
TONY&COLLEEN AUSILIO
5437 CHERRY AVE
LONG BEACH CA 90805
PAGE 14
.PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER
PAUL CORIGLIANO
3020 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOAL&AKIKO MILLER
247 AVENIDA ESPERANZA OLIVENHAIN CA 92024
JULIA FISCHER
3032 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOLORES RUHLAND BRADLEY RUHLAND
3111 CALLE FUEGO CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYNTHIA STALHEIM
3044 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARIA" BILLINGSLEY
PO BOX 1897
SAN MARCOS CA 92079
ROBT~~SHARON' RIEDY
3056 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARY&KIMBERLY BROWN
3062 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&BETH EICHHORN
6543 CALLE VALPERIZO CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOEL WOOD MOQ 3106 CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28542
DAVID&LAURA JOHNS
3030 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
NANCY SEXTON
MICHAEL BARRETT
3036 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM HARD
3042 AVE CRISTINA 112 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEITH&CAROLE ARMITAGE
3048 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN FISHER
3054 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARBARA CASTLEBERRY
3060 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERRY&ALICE FARROW PO BOX 9000-137 CARLSBAD CA 92018
MARIO LOMBARDO ANTONIO LOMBARDO
100 VIA NAVARRO GREENBRAE CA 94904
JOB NUMBER 11348
ROBT&MARGARET FALLON
3028 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHELLIE EDMAN
3034 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALEtJULIE BLASIUS
3040 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
B LOCKWOOD & K JAY
3046 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAXINE ALLEY
3052 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LONNA HOWARD
3058 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONN&KELLY DAGGETT
3064 AVENIDA CHRISTINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHELDON BARRETT
6541 CALLE VALPERIZO CARLSBAD CA 92009
KARILYN MONTANTI
6547 CALLE VALPERIZO CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 15
PARCEL NUMBER AND PROPERTY OWNER
JOHN QUAKENBUSH CHAS&IRMA LACKEY
6549 CALLE VALPERIZO 6551 CALLE VALPERIZO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRED&MAE HILDEBRAND HAZEL NETHERTON
6548 CALLE VALPERIZO 6546 CALLE VALPERIZO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAUL&CATHY ROJAS DAVID&DIANA FRANKLIN
6542 CALLE VALPERIZO 3014 CAMINITO SAGUNTO CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEL MAR CA 92014
CHRISTOPHER MYERS TANNENBERG & DELGRANDE
6537 VIA ALCAZAR 6539 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BARBARA HAHLBOHM DUANE&JANELLE GOODRICK
6543 VIA ALCAZAR 6545 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOAN PETER JOHN&KATHRYN NEWMAN
6549 VIA ALCAZAR 6551 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANNE DEWOLFE DOUGLAS KOSTY
4170 ADMIRALTY WAY 3G 6548 VIA ALCAZAR
MRNA DEL REY CA 90292 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRENDECKE FAMILY TRUST MARY MORRIS
25795 DELTA ST 6542 VIA ALCAZAR MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOCKE FAMILY TRUST
3070 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
- JOB NUMBER 11348
GEORGIA HAMILTON
PO BOX 370774 MONTARA CA 94037
RWIN&RAISA DORFMAN
1159 HAVERSTON ROAD LYNDHURST OH 44124
RICHGGENEVIEVE BABCOCK
2533 SW MANOR HILL DR PALM CITY FL 34990
ANDREWCMARGIE WILSON
6541 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&ANDREA SIEBENS
6547 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JENSON FAMILY TRUST
6552 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009
J&A MARK LIVING TRUST
19400 WYANDOTTE ST 5
RESEDA CA 91335
MJ&SUZA"E GURLEY
6540 VIA ALCAZAR CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINDA WEAVER
3068 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 16
,PARCEL NUMBER mr - PROPERTY OWNER
MARTIN&MAXINE ALTSHULER EITAN&MIRIAM DRORI
3066 CAMINO LIMERO 3064 CAMINO LIMERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARRY LEHMER SHARON ALTOTT KENNETH LEHMER NORMAN ADLER
3058 CAMINO LIMERO 3056 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIELtKRISTINE JUNG ROBT&ELIZ SKIBICKI RLT
R JUNG & K TINKER 3046 CAMINO LIMERO
1683 ORANGE BLOSSOM WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
MEADOWLARK C CHURCH KW REALTY GROUP
1832 MEADWLRK RCH RD C/O KLINGBEIL DEV GROUP
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 650 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108
JOSLRAETTE STEPHENS
1720 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MARY BURGESS
1704 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOS&JOHN BROWER GEO&RUTH BROWER
1828 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MARK&PATRICIA MOYER
1816 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LARRY GRISMER
1817 VIA GAVILAN
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
STEPHEN KOTFICA VERA TAYLOR
1716 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
KEN&ISABEL MAYES
1700 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
TERRY HENDERSON
1824 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SOPHIA HAYNES
LILIA OSPINA
1812 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ROD&MARTHA MILLER
1800 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOB NUMBER 11348
KEVIN&CHRISTINE CURRY
3060 CAMINO LIMERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICH&ELIZABETH BRAMAN
3054 CAMINO LIMERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RON&AI MINKOW
3044 CAMINO LIMERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
KW REALTY GROUP
C/O KLINGBEIL DEV GROUP
650 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108
VA&BARBARA FISCHER
1710 KINGLET RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
STEVEN ELLIOTT
KAREN FRASER
1832 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
DE&MICHELLE GILMORE
1820 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ANGEL0 LICCIARDI
125 11TH STREET
DEL MAR CA 92014
LARRYKAREN ROSEFELD
1803 TOWHEE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PAGE 17
PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
JOHN&RACHEL SUYDAN JESS GONZALES MICHLWANE KURTH 1807 TOWHEE ST BETTY HENRY 1819 TOWHEE ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069 1813 TOWHEE ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
DONALD ECKARDT KATHRYN JUDD DAVID BRATTEN
3157 PALM CREST TER 1831 TOWHEE ST 206 4TH ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
BOB&LISA RICE
1830 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JON&MARILYN FOWLER
1818 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JAMES KILEY
1806 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
STEVEN&PAMELA SAVAGE
1732 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PAUL&KATIE WHEATLAND
1714 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NO MAILING ADDRESS
SAN DIEGO CA
DON&SUSAN DENNY
1725 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
RICHARD SAUERHEBER
1826 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ROBTtLORRAINE BARNES
1814 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ELIZABETH CADELL
1744 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GREG&MERCEDES WILSON
1726 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MARY BOYLES
1708 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PATRICIA VANDERBECK
1713 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JAMES&LILIA STURGES
1731 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
KEN&KATHY BROACH
1822 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MARV6tDOROTHY WEST
1810 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOAN THOMPSON
1738 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GERARD ANDERBERG RHONDA BRANT
1720 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LARRY GRISMER
1819 VIA GAVILAN
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JAMESbrANNA BULAY
1719 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEBEDEFF FAMILY TRUST
1737 REDWING ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PAGE 18
,PARCEL NUMBER AND - PROPERTY OWNER JOB NUMBER 11348
R&S MASON TRUST PHILLIPhWENDELLEN CRABTREE CARLCMARCELLA KOLATA
1743 REDWING ST 1745 REDWING ST 1823 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
VIVIAN KENCK WALTER&SUSAN MOISE LT&NANCY CARLIN 1827 REDWING ST 1727 KINGLET RD 1905 REDWING ST SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GEORGE HELVIN CHRIS ESTRADA CONTINENTAL HOMES INC 1911 REDWING ST 1917 REDWING ST PO BOX 60010
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 PHOENIX AZ 85082
MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT US COMMUNITY SAVINGS BNK GABOR&ILONA REH
7825 FAY AVE 200 C/O MONICA GREENE M NAMIKAS TRUST ET AL LA JOLLA CA 92037 515 ENCINITAS BLVD 1551 SANTA SABINA CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 SOMA BCH CA 92075
GABOR&ILONA REH GABOR&ILONA REH CITY OF CARLSBAD M NAMIKAS TRUST ET AL M NAMIKAS TRUST ET AL NO MAILING ADDRESS
1551 SANTA SABINA CT 1551 SANTA SABINA CT CARLSBAD CA SOLANA BCH CA 92075 SOLANA BCH CA 92075
REALTY DEALERS LTD CONTINENTAL HOMES INC CONTINENTAL HOMES INC
C/O UDC HOMES LP PO BOX 60010 PO BOX 60010
438 CAMINO D R 112B PHOENIX AZ 85082 PHOENIX A2 85082 SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CONTINENTAL HOMES INC MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT CARRILLO RANCHO PRTNRS PO BOX 60010 7825 FAY AVE 200 C/O WHITE&ROBINSON PHOENIX A2 85082 LA JOLLA CA 92037 591 CAMINO D L R 616 SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CONTINENTAL HOMES INC GENTRY WIMPEY INC
PO BOX 60010 9754 WHITHORN DR PHOENIX A2 85082 HOUSTON TX 77095
JACK E ADAMS INC
J E ADAMS INC
1234 ORANGEWOOD DR ESCONDIDO CA 92025
JACK E ADAMS INC JACK E ADAMS INC GENTRY WIMPEY INC
J E ADAMS INC J E ADAMS INC 9754 WHITHORN DR
1234 ORANGEWOOD DR 1234 ORANGEWOOD DR HOUSTON TX 77095 ESCONDIDO CA 92025 ESCONDIDO CA 92025
PAGE 19
LABELS PROPERTY OWNER - JOB NUMBER 11348
IC
9754 WHITHORN DR HOUSTON TX 77095
GENTRY WIMPEY INC PO BOX 33608 SAN DIEGO CA 92103
CONTINENTAL HOMES INC PO BOX 60010 PHOENIX AZ 85082
GENTR WIMPEY I
WOODWARD VENTURES LTD C/O DON WOODWARD
20301 ACACIA ST SANTA ANA CA 92707
REALTY DEALERS LTD
C/O UDC HOMES LP
438 CAMINO D R 112B
SAN DIEGO CA 92128
CARRILLO RANCHO PRTNRS C/O WHITE&ROBINSON
591 CAMINO D L R 616
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
SCRIPPS MEMORIALS HOSP C/O FACILITIES DEV DPT
9888 GENESEE AVE LA JOLLA CA 92037
CARLSBAD OAKS EAST LTD C/O TECH CONSTR CORP PO BOX 80036
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
CARLSBAD OAKS EAST LTD C/O TECH CONSTR CORP PO BOX 80036 SAN DIEGO CA 92138
CARLSBAD OAKS EAST LTD
C/O TECH CONSTR CORP PO BOX 80036
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
FIELDSTONE/LA COSTA ASS C/O THE FIELDSTONE CO
14 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
FIELDSTONE/LA COSTA ASS C/O THE FIELDSTONE CO
14 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
FRANK&JEAN MERCURIO
2503 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICH&MARGARET MCNAMARA
2505 LA GOLONDRINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORA LA CORTE
2507 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
RYUJI&KATSUKO OHNUMA KENT MOORE KEIKO OHNUMA 2511 LA GOLONDRINA ST
2509 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELLIS&BARBARA DIAMOND
2513 LA GOLONDRINA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN&JULIE MC FARLAND ZACKtDEBORAH MURRAY
2515 LA GOLONDRINA ST 6417 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEIICHIRO&MIEKO TANAKA
6419 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
TOM&MARY FRANDSEN MARTIN&DONNA LIBERMAN
6421 CAYENNE LN 6420 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL&LORRAINE ANDERSON
6418 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&SUZY RESCHKE
6416 CAYENNE LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD&LAURA MUSHIN
6419 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ATHAN&MARIA VLAHOS
6421 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 20
I .LABELS
HARRY&KATHY MARTIN
6423 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KRISTINA TAUB
2600 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENGEL FAMILY TRUST
2606 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHIVES FAMILY TRUST
2612 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
GUSSGJANE PENNELL
2618 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEVERIN MELBY TRUST CATHERINE MELBY
2624 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
TED&ELIZABETH KING
6426 LA VANCO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD&ORETA RADSICK
6431 LA VANCO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MERLE VAN ACKERE ARDITH DOUGLAS
6425 LA VANCO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
- PROPERTY OWNER 5-11348
HERBERTCELLEN HAFTER PONDEROSACOUNTRYHMOWNRS
6425 LA PALOMA ST C/O VIRGINIA IGOU CARLSBAD CA 92009 2082 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE IRVINE CA 92715
THOMAS&LEE MAGLIOZZI DALE&CAROL PETTIT
2602 EL AGUILA ST 2604 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JIM&CHERYL SKAALEN PETER&A"A LIO
2608 EL AGUILA ST 2610 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEN&FLORENCE SCHOENLEBER SCOTT&CHRISTINEBLESHENSKI
2614 EL AGUILA ST 2616 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAROLE RADER ALAN&JOAN KINDLE
2620 EL AGUILA ST 2622 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHfGERTRUDE BOYNTON BARFtY&DEBRA BEVIER
2623 EL AGUILA ST 6424 LA VANCO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NIEN TSONG CHAO MARIA MAVRIDOU JIIN JEN CHAO 6430 LA VANCO CT
65 N MICHIGAN AVE 13 CARLSBAD CA 92009 PASADENA CA 91106
MICHAEL&ROBIN CARDER EUGENE&CARYN ERZINGER
6429 LA VANCO CT 6427 LA VANCO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOE&JANICE GONZALES
6423 LA VANCO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY&BARBARA BOYD
6426 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAGE 21
, LABELS
THOMASLJANET FREEMAN
6428 LA GARZA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- PROPERTY OWNER
LISA GRILLONE
6430 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
- J-11348
LEO&KATHRYN DAMICO
6432 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
NAHID REYNAUD MARK&SHERRY FREISINGER ALAN&SUCELIA KENT 6434 LA GARZA CT 6436 LA GARZA CT 6438 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEO&SOCORRO STANOJEVIC YU SHENG LIU DANIEL BINER
6439 LA GARZA CT 960 SANTA ESTELLA KELLY KU" CARLSBAD CA 92009 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 6435 LA GARZA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ESTATE OF JOS TAVORMINA MILOR&LYNETTE TERZIC ELEANOR G CURRY TRUST
C/O PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR 6431 LA GARZA CT 26732 BASSWOOD AVE
5201 RUFFIN RD A CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO PALS VERD CA 90274
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
RLNANCY BOURCIER TRUST DENNISLTAEMON MOORE GEORGELHELEN SEIP
6427 LA GARZA CT 6425 LA GARZA CT 6423 LA GARZA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES COLLINS JR RUTH BILLINGSLEY TRUST JUDITH WESTFALL JAMES6rDELLA COLLINS 6425 CAYENNE LN LARRYLMAUREEN WESTFALL
6423 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 6427 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMESLSUE YATES LORRIN&FRANCINE MERONOFF DORIS RIOS
6429 CAYENNE LN 755 VAN NUYS ST 2725 N FLOWER CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 SANTA ANA CA 92706
KENNETHLSUSAN HUME STEVENLA" WALSH RICHARD CLEARY 6435 CAYENNE LN 6437 CAYENNE LN HARRYKYNTHIA CESENA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 6439 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK WISHNER ROBERT F LEARY EDWARDLDELORES TALICK
2521 EL GAVILAN CT ROBERT H LERRY 2525 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 2523 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 22
,LABELS PROPERTY OWNER J-11348
DENNIStJULIE MEAGHER STEPHEN INSCOE
6422 CAYENNE LN TONYA MANTOOTH CARLSBAD CA 92009 6424 CAYENNE LAN CARLSBAD CA 92009
BILL MANISHOR JOHN&MARIE DURKIN
6428 CAYENNE LN 6430 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&MARIA MC ADAMS
6434 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRIS&DONNA RONCA
6439 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JANET WINSTEAD
KEN&CYNTHIA FRALICK
6433 LA PALOMA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
M&BONNIE ATAIE
6436 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
AND&KRISTINE ALLER
6437 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JANIE RATELLE
6431 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE&MERCEDITA MATE0 CHARLES&JOYCE RYAN
PO BOX 371795 6426 LA PALOMA ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92137 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAYE FAMILY TRUST NORMAN&FRANCES MUNK
6430 LA PALOMA 6432 LA PALOMA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LIB&ROBERTA TORTORICI DAVID FISCHBACH
6436 LA PALOMA ST PO BOX 1454 CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO STA FE CA 92067
DILLON SMITH
7025 EL FUERTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BR&DOROTHY HENDERSON
1519 ELON LN
ENCINITAS CA 92024
EARL KROEKER
6426 CAYENNE LN LARLSBAD CA 92009
COMERCHERO FAMILY TRUST
C/O A&BARBARA COMERCHERO
6432 CAYENNE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALVINtFLORENCE ALEXANDER
2526 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
DERDERIAN FAMILY TRUST
6435 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ORV&ESTHER HITZEMANN
6429 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JUNGLYOO SONG
6428 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
LIB&ROBERTA TORTORICI
6434 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&KAREN TINCUP
6440 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WM&KATHLEEN BLAIR
2534 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 23
,LABELS
ROY LA FORGE JR
2536 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
- PROPERTY OWNER
CHUNG&PI CHENG
2538 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY R LEE JIEICMIDORI NAKAZONO BETTY LEE 2608 COLIBRI LN
2606 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES WANG S TEMPLE & K ARNONE HUE LIN LEE K MYERS & C MYERS
2230 N CATALINA ST 7605 GALLEON WAY LOS ANGELES CA 90027 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERRY&SUSAN GLEIFORST HEINZCCHRISTEL LUECK
2618 COLIBRI LN 2620 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICHOLAS KRIKES THERESA LOVERRO MARY BACHMAN-KRIKES 2626 COLIBRI LN
2624 COLIBRI LN H5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS CESEAR ERIK&THERESA LARSON
6501 LA PALOMA CT 6503 LA PALOMA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ED&GLORIA TSU PAUL& MARTHA GOYETTE
6506 LA PALOMA CT 6504 LA PALOMA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MORRIS TRUST SUZANNE SPURLOCK
2537 EL GAVILAN CT 2539 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD VARCAK RICH&JEAN FOELLMER
LYNN VARCAK 2603 COLIBRI LN
2601 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
5-11348
THOM&KATHRYN SCHEETZ
2604 EL GAVIOTA LN CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY P LEE RICHARD&JILL LEE PO BOX 9000-137 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMEStJAN CONNORS
2616 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBTLALYCE SAITO
2622 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
KLAUS-PETER MEINHARD URSULA HOLCROFT
2628 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&MARIA FEASEL
6505 LA PALOMA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS&MARIAN PEARSON
6502 LA PALOMA CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
BAKKEN FAMILY TRUST
2541 EL GAVILAN CT CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS&LISA STEPHENSON
2605 COLIBRI LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 24
. LABELS - PROPERTY OWNER
SCOTT PENFIELD JR ROBTbCATHERINE BARNES
2607 COLIBRI LN 2609 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY GULDJORD JUR&LINDSEY SCHULZ
2613 COLIBRI LN 2615 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ODLING FAMILY TRUST SAL&DORIE GALLUCCI
2619 COLIBRI LN 2621 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ED&DEBRA OCALLAHAN ADAM RUCK
2625 COLIBRI LN LAURA SNOW CARLSBAD CA 92009 2627 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAS&ELIZABETH DALE LAWRENCE SUKAY
6434 CHIRIQUI LN LINDA MC DANIELS CARLSBAD CA 92009 6436 CHIRIQUI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
JUAN&CEFERINA RUIZ VALERIO FAMILY TRUST
6809 FREED MANOR LN 2721 SOCORRO LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92114 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOM&ROCHELLE KU"S TOM&KARIN BEAUDIN
2720 SOCORRO LN 2718 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICHGGAYLE FULBRIGHT KEVIN&TERRY MILLER
2714 SOCORRO LN 6434 EL PERICO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNtJACQUELYN GROLLO JEFF&RENE WUSTMAN
6430 EL PERICO LN 2717 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
5-11348
JULI ILCHERT DAVID ILCHERT
2611 COLIBRI LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TORI HENRY NADER HEDJRAN
2617 COLIBRI LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RIC&HELMY CAMPUS
2623 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&PAULA MC CA"
2629 COLIBRI LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK ETUE
2725 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
DON&BARBARA ROCKWELL
2722 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHOLL FAMILY B TRUST
C/O ROSE SCHOLL
2716 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
DASHXAROL MEEKS
24048 ADAMS AVE MURRIETA CA 92362
PAUL&PATRICIA LAUBACH
2715 SOCORRO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 25
. .LABELS PROPERTY OWNER
JACK&JEWEL BRITTON A&VIRGINIA DE LOREN20
2713 SOCORRO LN 2711 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JANET MCDANIEL
2707 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAMMON FAMILY TRUST
2701 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS KORTE THOMGMARY WHATLEY
2704 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER GACH
6426 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIM&PAIGE "NKE
6432 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS GENTILE
6526 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
S&PADMAJA HELEKAR
6433 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOUG&ROBBI KNUDSON
2518 UNICORN10 ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
J-11348
MY&PAMELA MURRAH
2709 SOCORRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARGARET KINNEY DOM&JANIS ZIHLA 2705 SOCORRO LN 325 CYPRESS CREST TER CARLSBAD CA 92009 ESCONDIDO CA 92025
A&MAUREEN NEYLAN FERNANDEZ TRUST 2700 SOCORRO LN 3768 ALTA MESA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 STUDIO CITY CA 91604
WORRALL TRUST SUK&JAYSHREE SHAH
2706 SOCORRO LN 6431 EL PERICO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHNtMARY GOBLE CON&SEENA TRIGAS
6428 FLAMENCO ST 6430 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAT&DEBORAH KERINS JOANNE KEEPING
6434 FLAMENCO ST 6524 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
E&D WIENER-AVNEAR DONN&CHRISTINE WHITTEN
2631 COLIBRI LN 6435 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD0 VIANA BRADFORD HEAVEY
6431 FLAMENCO ST 2626 EL AGUILA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAYLDEVRA SHAFFER GLDIMITRA KAPRIELIAN
6553 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6547 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 26
LABELS - PROPERTY OWNER 5-11348
CURTISCMARIE BARNES JACQUELYN JOHNSON WM&DOROTHY DEMMERS
6543 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6539 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6535 AVENIDA DEL PARAISC CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIRK&JUNE FEENSTRA ROBIN WITT ROBRTLKAREN LATTIN
6531 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6527 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6523 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALPERT LIVING TRUST JOY PROWSE STEVEN&DOLORES HIGGINS
6519 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6515 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6511 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ED6tLINDA EBRIGHT BRIANLJOA" SZYMONIK JAMEShCONNIE ABSHER
6507 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6506 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6510 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAISOR FAMILY TRUST ROSE NEMETH ROBERT BREHM
6514 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO PO BOX 1531 LYNN BREHM CARLSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO STA FE CA 92067 6986 EL CAMINO REAL B473 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK&CATHERINE SEIBERT SCOT&AILEEN CHEATHAM CHAS&SHERRY PFEIFER
6534 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 6542 AVENIDA DEL PARAISO 15875 RIPARIAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 POWAY CA 92064
MILLER & KREINICK NORM&CHERYL SCOTT
2532 UNICORNIO ST 501 SAMPSON RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAHLGREN VA 22448
STEPHEN&BARBARA TILLETT VIRGINIA IZBICKI TRUST
2550 UNICORN10 ST 6519 ONDA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICH&MARY WALMAN ED6rGAIL HOFFMAN
6503 ONDA PL 6506 ONDA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GENE SINGH
2544 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REINMILLER FAMILY TRUST
6511 ONDA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENT HOWARD JOY HOWARD
6516 ONDA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 27
. -LABELS
EDWARD NORTHUP I1 PO BOX 747
DEERFIELD IL 60015
-- PROPERTY OWNER
MAGGIO FAMILY TRUST
2610 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VIN&SALLY CRISAFI DON&PEGGY SAVARY
2618 UNICORNIO ST 6528 PERSA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALE JACKSON PERPICH DGCARMELA ARBOLEDA
14044 MIRA MONTANA DR 6546 PERSA ST
DEL MAR CA 92014 CARLSBAD CA 92009
J&LINDA VANDERPLAATS JACK&SHARON YERINGTON
6547 PERSA ST 6541 PERSA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROG&KATHERINE BODEMER CHRISTINE BADDERS
2605 UNICORNIO ST 1501 ROBERTS ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RENO NV 89502
NAT&MARY BINKIN GEO&TANYA BLACKSHAW
2559 UNICORNIO ST 6526 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBTGJANICE ELLIOTT RON&GWENDOLYN YUMORI
6534 VISPERA PL 6536 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELIZABETH ZVONEK LEROY&BONNIE CATES
6541 VISPERA PL 6537 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TROY&ROBIN SUTTON JAMES WEEMS
6529 VISPERA PL ANNETTE HIRSCHI CARLSBAD CA 92009 6525 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
J-11348
WM&JOYCE COLE"
12415 HANGER ROAD
FAIRFAX VA 22033
RALPH SZARAS
6534 PERSA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVIDtSANDRA JONES
6553 PERSA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
IRENA KREID
6535 PERSA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL SHIRRA
2567 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL CLIFFORD
6530 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOEL6rJEA"E TOWART
6540 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANK&JOA"E RIZZO
6533 VISPERA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL SCHWAB
2535 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 28
. LABELS
CHARLES KERSHAW CONSTANCE ULRICH
2527 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PROPERTY OWNER
WCCHARLOTTE RESNICK
2519 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JACK&GAIL FRANK JOHN GRAVITT
2630 ABEDUL ST 2626 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&PAULA MC CA" MOHAMMAD SAMMAK
2629 COLIBRI LN 6544 CORINITIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
L&MARGARET MUHL JOHNtCHERYL ALLEN
6547 CORINTIA ST 6543 CORINTIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL&RINA THORNTON CHRIS&MARGO JOHNSON
6535 CORINTIA ST 6531 CORINTIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MONIQUE LANDUCCI RUDOLF SUTTER
2725 UNICORNIO ST 2717 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CAFUSBAD CA 92009
CHAS&KATHLEEN RUTH ROBT&SUSAN DEVIN
6538 BASALT0 ST 82 AIKAHI LOOP
CARLSBAD CA 92009 KAILUA HI 96734
DON&RUTH MC BRIDE DAVID ROGERS
774 N GRANADOS AVE 2731 ABEDUL ST
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&GF€ACE BUFFUM OM&VIMAL CHAWLA
2715 ABEDUL ST 2709 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
5-11348
JOSEPH PITTFIELD HEDY BREAKFIELD
2621 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARJORIE DUSEK PO BOX 533
SAN JUAN CAPISTRA CA 92693
E&PAMELA SOWINSKI
6548 CORINTIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEAN BAUMGARTNER
6539 CORINTIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAE LEFF PATRICIA HILDEBRAND
2733 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PENELOPE REGAN
2709 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
OM CHAWLA
2709 ABEDUL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&GINA POPPE
2723 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH KADANSKY
2701 ABEDUL ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 29
. LABELS
MOMCILO GRUBIC
2645 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
PROPERTY OWNER
SAM&BONNIE BRIEDIS
2641 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
J-11348
DALE&JOYCE WATLING
2637 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
R&JOA”E STODULSKI MICH&KRISTINE ROSTON ROBT&PATRICIA MC DERMOT?
2633 ABEDUL ST 2632 ABEDUL ST 2634 ABEDUL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SYLVIA BROKAW PIETI FAM REV LIV TRUST ANTHONY SCHMIDT
2638 ABEDUL ST 2642 ABEDUL ST TINA STRONG CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 6545 BASALTO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS&JOLI PRICE DAN&PATRICIA BERNSTEIN SHELIA WILSON LEICH & LEICHTAG TRUST 6537 BASALTO ST ROSIE WILSON
6541 BASALTO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 6531 BASALTO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSCDENISE MAURIELLO SAIYED ALI MICH&MARY RILEY
2639 UNICORNIO ST 2633 UNICORNIO ST 6540 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT MURASHIGE AL&JUANA SANCHEZ MARSHA RICHARDS 21423 S MARTIN ST
6546 FLAMENCO ST CARSON CA 90745 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWRENCE LANGLEY GRITZMAKER TRUST
400 IVES TERRACE 6535 FLAMENCO ST SUNNYVALE CA 94087 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FIRST INTRST BNK OF CA LINDA VEDDER C/O ASSET MGMT DEPT ERIC CADD
633 W 5TH ST 14820 EAGLE RIDGE DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90071 FOREST RANCH CA 95942
PETER SALAMEH MICHEAL DROUILHET ROY SALAMEH KRISTINE PICKARDS
2642 UNICORNIO ST 2646 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LESLIEtDIANE BROKAW
6547 FLAMENCO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&DONNA SOMMER
2624 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
VOIGT TRUST
2638 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICH&BARBARA BATCHELDER
2702 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 30
.LABELS " PROPERTY OWNER
MARTIN&ANDREA JOHNSTON DONALD&GINGER BOGERT
2710 UNICORNIO ST 2718 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
J-113 48
SAKUO&YASUKO OKAI
2822 ESTURION PL CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOM&VALERIE SZCZOTKA LA COSTA INDUSTRIES CORP WILLIAM BUCHER ANDREW SZCZOTKA 6986 EL CAMINO REAL B205 DEE BUCHER
2732 UNICORN10 ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92009 BLUE JAY CA 92317
PO BOX 5833
DOUGtMELINDA DIXON MARC CARLOS MARY CHILTON
2756 UNICORN10 ST PENNIE MCLAUGHLIN 2763 VISTA DEL OR0 CARLSBAD CA 92009 2761 VISTA DEL OR0 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STOCKTON LIVING TRUST AUDREY NORRIS THOMAS TRIMBLE JR
153 W TORREMOLINOS DR BELVEDERE 2769 VISTA DEL OR0 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 WOODLAND WAY KINGSWOOD CARLSBAD CA 92009 SURREY KT206NX ENGLAND
ANTHONY SIDLEY FRANK GOMEZ CHARLES URTNOWSKI
2773 VISTA DEL OR0 2775 VISTA DEL OR0 HQBN MCLB CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ALBANY GA 31704
DIANA EVANS CHRYSLER FRST FCL SVC CP ROG&DOROTHY PIGEON CLARICE DOLAN 5762 BOLSA AVE 201 2783 VISTA DEL OR0
2779 VISTA DEL OR0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEOLARLETTE POLLARD DORIS NUNSINGER RICHARD HAGGAR
12943 LONG BOAT WAY 31401 VIA LAS PALMAS 2787 VISTA DEL OR0 DEL MAR CA 92014 SAN JUAN CAPISTR CA 92675 CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOM&PATRICIA MAGGIORE STEVEN JOURNEY ELIZABETH ZVONEK
3808 E PASADENA AVE 2762 VISTA DEL OR0 6541 VISPERA PL
PHOENIX A2 85018 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
VITO GERARDO KENT&CYNTHIA FORGEON KENTLCYNTHIA FORGEON PETER GERARDO 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE PO BOX 260 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92018
Page 31
_LABELS PROPERTY OWNER J-11348
KENTCCYNTHIA FORGEON KENTtCYNTHIA FORGEON KENTCCYNTHIA FORGEON
185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENT&CYNTHIA FORGEON KENTtCYNTHIA FORGEON KENT&CYNTHIA FORGEON
185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 185 CHINQUAPIN AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENTiSCYNTHIA FORGEON IRV6rBONITA WEINSTEIN SITTNER FAMILY TRUST
185 CHINQUAPIN AVE 2802 LUCIERNAGA ST 2808 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&ANN MILLER
2814 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
BURHAN&RENEE ORAL
2832 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&SUSAN ROSS
2838 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAMUEL PERAGINE MARYANNE PERAGINE
3 ELDORADO COURT ROCHELLE PARK NJ 07662
ANGELA HAKE
2834 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEOLERMINY GIGLIOTTI
17952 AGUAMIEL RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92127
ROMAN CATH BISHOP OF SD FRANK&EVELYN BUTLER
C/O BARRY CRANE 2846 LUCIERNAGA ST PO BOX 80428 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92138
GINA ANTRASIAN JEROME PIETI ANN ANTRASIAN 2803 UNICORNIO ST
2801 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KARL&ADRI WEINFURTNER FRANKtKAREN AMELI0
2807 UNICORNIO ST 2809 UNICORNIO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TODD&JOA"E MITCHELL
2830 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEN CLAYTON
2836 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARRY MENEFEE
2842 LUCIERNAGA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SVOBODA FAMILY TRUST
38806 CHAPAROSA WAY PALM DESERT CA 92260
PHILLIP ARROYO K CRAWFORD & D CARROLL
2805 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUSAN YECK
2811 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 32
.. LABELS PROPERTY OWNER 5-11348
GREG&CHRISTINE HLAVATY MICHCGLORIA LIBONATE THEO&MARION STOKIEN
2815 UNICORNIO ST 2819 UNICORNIO ST 2813 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUZANNE BRADY COLLEEN BAUGHMAN JOHN MALMQUIST
2817 UNICORNIO ST 2821 UNICORNIO ST LINDA SEARCY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 2823 UNICORNIO ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
WAYNE MARKING KEVINCBOBBI HILL RONALD HAYS VIRGINIA CANLAS 2827 UNICORNIO ST 6110 LA JOLLA BLVD
6992 EL CAMINO REAL 104 CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA JOLLA CA 92037 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN TOBMAN BLACKBURN REV FMLY TRUST FERN&LINDA MARTINEZ 801 S MAIN ST 2833 UNICORNIO ST A 2833 UNICORNIO ST B LAS VEGAS NV 89101 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LARRY HOLLINGSHEAD WILLIAM PETTERSEN
2835 A UNICORNIO ST PO BOX 997 CARLSBAD CA 92009 JULIAN CA 92036
THOMAS DACQUISTO
2837 UNICORNIO ST 5 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES&DYANNA DULGAR MICHELE SCHWARZENBACH PAUL&LORI GLADSTONE
2841 UNICORNIO ST A 2841 UNICORNIO ST B 2843 UNICORNIO ST A CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
EUGENE&MARIA KELLEY JOVAN STOJIC YI&CAROLINE LIN
2843 UNICORNIO ST B 2845 UNICORNIO ST K PIERRE & I SULTANIAN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 598 PASEO LUCERO ANAHEIM CA 92807
SAM&PAULINE SUGINE KARI SCHULZ ANNE CARROLL 1748 N DILLON ST BERT&FRANCES SCHULZ 2824 UNICORNIO ST C LOS ANGELES CA 90026 2824 UNICORNIO ST B CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY GERSON
2824 UNICORNIO ST D CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBT&DIXIE RALSTON
2824 UNICORNIO ST E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERARD FERRARO
2826 UNICORNIO ST A CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 33
LABELS PROPERTY OWNER J-11348
KUBOTA FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 1095
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RON&JOYCE LEEPER WILLtVERA LEEPER PO BOX 2764
RANCHO STA FE CA 92067
GV PROPERTIES
3134 VERDE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY DENNEHY
2845 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAStNANCY NEU
2833 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAND&ALA"A WILLIAMS
2826 UNICORNIO ST C
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GV PROPERTIES
3138 VERDE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN&MARY MALLOY
2808 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&SHERRIE HARLOFF
2841 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOE&DIANE GARRISON
2821 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT FAGNANT MICHELE BARRIOS JOHN&CAROL FAGNANT PAUL&DELORES BARRIOS
2806 CACATUA ST A 2806 CACATUA ST B
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID&KATHLEEN STRESHLY ELEANOR BLOSCH
2804 CACATUA ST C 5815 LAKE VISTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 BONSALL CA 92003
MARTHA MALTER
2826 UNICORNIO ST D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GV PROPERTIES
3138 VERDE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORMAN SMITH
MONICA LAFLIN SMITH
2849 CACATUA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDERS FAMILY TRUST
2837 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HARRY&LAWANA MOORADIAN
2811 CACATUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS DYER
2806 CACATUA ST C CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN&EVELYN FROEHLICH
2804 CACATUA ST C CARLSBAD CA 92009
Page 34