HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-05; City Council; 12648; Ord NS-272MASERPLAN-Fm93-w
I- RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct
the City Attorney to prepare documents CERTIFYING EIR 93-02, and APPROVING GPA
93-01, MP 92-01, LCPA 93-06 and LFMP ZONE 87-23 as recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. Ng - ;2’?z , APPROVING
MP 92-01.
I ITF.M EXPWATION
The City Council is being asked to act on the certification of an Environmental Impact
Report, a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment and
a Local Facilities Management Zone Plan. Three associated applications, an 11 lot
Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Special Use Permit were approved
by the Planning Commission subject to City Council approval of EIR 93-02, GPA 93-01,
MP 92-01, and LCPA 93-06.
On January 19 and February 02, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a Public
hearing and recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the Master Plan and
associated amendments (5-2 vote). The two Planning Commissioners who voted no had
primary objections to the height and length of crib walls as shown on the Tentative Tract
Map and the clustering of residential development within the 17.9 acre Master Plan
Planning Area 3. Alternatives were suggested by the two Commissioners to (1) step the
crib walls and to (2) increase the size of Planning Area 3 so as to spread residential
development over an approximate 35 acres. Neither alternative was included in the
motion passed.
However, the Planning Commission chose to incorporate a fifth Planning Area at the
southwest comer of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real into the Master Plan with a
designation of Unplanned area. The recommended Planning Area 5, while allowing for
the continued use of the “Red Barn”, would not allow for any intensification or change of
existing use within the Planning Area without an amendment to the Master Plan. The
applicant has requested that the City allow an intensification of use at the same comer
through the approval of a Neighborhood Commercial designation with a maximum
development potential of 12,000 square feet of commercial development.
The remaining four Planning Areas are: 1 and 4 which are designated as Open Space, 2
which is designated as Extensive Regional Commercial allowing up to 600,000 square feet
of commercial development and 3 which is designated as Residential Density-Medium
allowing a maximum of 400 attached residential units. Fifteen percent of the total
approved number of residential units will be affordable to lower income households.
Access to the project is from El Camino Real via westerly extensions of Levante Street and
the future Calle Barcelona. Internal circulation is provided by Street “A” which runs north
and south, parallel to and west of the Encinitas Creek corridor. Future residential and
commercial development will include smaller private roads.
c-4 -
PAGE2OFAGENDABILLNO.L@%
Several people spoke during the public testimony. Concerns raised focused on the impact
to biological resources within the Encinitas Creek corridor, increased traffic and the
proposed residential clustering and density. A full record of comments and the response
to questions and comments from the public can be found in the Plamiing Commission Staff
Report dated January 19,1994 and Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19 and
February 2, 1994.
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
An EIR was processed addressing all 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.
FISCALIMPACX
It is anticipated that project would generate a positive net annual cash flow. Surplus
could range from $400,000 in the first year of project operation to almost $1.0 million by
the fourth year and thereafter. There is the potential of a cumulative net cash surplus to
the City over a ten year period of $8.8 million (in constant 1993 dollars).
Facilities Zone 23
Local Facilities Management Plan - 23
Growth Control Point 11.5 D.U./Acre
Net Density 11.5 D.U./Acre
Special Facilities C.F.D. No. 1
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
7. 8.
Ordinance No. rJS- 13’1 (MP 92-01)
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3598, 3599, 3600, 3601, and 3602.
Errata Sheets No. 1, 2, & 3 dated January 19, 1994, and amended on
February 2, 199
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 19, 1994.
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 19 and February 2,1994
Green Valley EIR (previo~slJI Di.~tiuced)
Green Valley Master Plan Text (&t&&y Di.~-&uced)
d
r m EXHBIT 1
ORDINANCE NO. NS-272
1
2
3
4
5
6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE GREEN VALLEY
MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH
OF LA COSTA AVENUE, NORTH AND EAST OF THE CITY OF
.ENCINITAS, AND,WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL’IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MP 92-01
7 I/ WHEREAS; the City Council of the City of C bad, California, has reviewed I 8
9
10
11
. ,l.e
13
1 1 14
15
16
‘17’
18
and considered a Master Plan for future
WHEREAS, after procedur
City Council
.*. . d .does ordain as
follows:
SEC&Q,N imav Green Valley Master Plan, MP 92-01, dated December
1993, on file in and incorporated by reference herein, is
v approved.. The ’ the zoning ,for this property and all
development of
N II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
ion Resolution No. 3600 shall also constitute the findings and
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to
25 at least once in a paper of general circulation in the City within fifteen days
2611 &er its adoption. I
27 . . .
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
.Ccjund. on the of day , 1994, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regul
of Carlsbad on the of day
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
RONALD R. BALL, City Attomef
/
Al-I-EST: /
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(So)
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
_- -
\Y/ //;) EXHIBIT 2
I
I EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/ LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23/
City of CaMa .
. I MP 92-Ol/CT 92008/’
I
HDP 92-%/SUP 92-05 GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3598
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, EIR 93-02, FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR ZONE 23, TENTATIVE T&XT MAP, HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON
281.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF LA COSTA
AVENUE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND EAST AND
NORTH OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: EIR 93-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a Portion
of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
City of Carlsbad, 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 19th day of January, 1994,
and the 2nd day of February, 1994 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, examinin g the Environmental Impact Report, anaIyzing the
information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the
Planning Commission considered ail 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.
B) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 wiII 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
1c
11
li
12
14
l!
lf
17
lf
16
2c
21
2:
22
24
2:
2e
27
2E
C>
D)
El
1.
2.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact
Report EIR 93-02 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.
That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 as so amended and as evaluated
in the staff report 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.
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 Green Valley Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The GreeuVaUeyMasterPlanJ?mironmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit “A”, dated January 5,1994, and
should be refimed to for all conditious, mitigation measmes, and monitoring
pqrams applicable to development of the Green Valley Master Plan Area. Exhibit
“A”shallberevisedtoproperlynenecttheplanningareaswithiotlzeMasterPlan
as adoped by the City CouuciL
Certi6cation of the Green Valley Master Plau Euvironmeutal Impact Report
includes the Emata sheet dated Jauuary 19,1994.
Conditions:
PC RESO NO. 3598 -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
A
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February, 1994,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble
& HaB.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtiM&&
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3598 -3-
EXHIBL’T “A”
Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Mit”lgation Monitoring and Reporting Program
LAND USE
Potential Impacts -
1. The project’s proposed 600,000 square foot retail area will function as Regional Retail which is not in conformance with the site’s Community Commercial/Office General Plan designation. Although this is less than the development potential previously allocated to this site by the City’s Growth Management Program (l,OOO,OOO square feet of non-residential development) it is not in conformance with the existing General Plan designations of Community Commercial and Office.
2. The proposal for a regional retail center at this site conflicts with a General Plan Guideline to “Limit future regional commercial development to the existing Regional Shopping Center, the downtown core commercial area, and the regional facility located southeast of the intersection of the San Diego Freeway and Cannon Road.”
3. Designation and/or development of Planning Area 4 as a neighborhood commercial site would conflict with the following General Plan Land Use statements and guidelines. Neighborhood commercial areas should: a) serve the immediate surrounding residential area and draw a high percentage of walk in patrons; b) be oriented to the immediate neighborhood, c) be centrally located within their service areas; and d) be generally located one mile apart.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures will reduce potential land use impacts to below a level of significance:
1. The site’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations shah be changed to reflect the Regional Retail/Residential Medium High/Open Space land use designations proposed by the Master Plan.
2. The City shall assess the General Plan guideline regarding regional retailing and consider revision based on updated economic and retail trends as well as current land use policies.
3. Planning Area 4 shall be designated as open Space because the use proposed in this area by the Green Valley Master Plan is in conflict with General Plan Land Use Statements and Guidelines for neighborhood commercial areas.
4. All areas designated as Open Space in the Master Plan shall be designated as such on the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map as recommended by the COSCRMP.
Checkpoint
Approval of the Master Plan.
Responsible Party
Planning Department
P
Sanction
No approval of Master PlZn without Open Space designation for Planning Area 4.
VISUAL QUALITYILANDFORM ALTERATION
Potential Impacts
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
3. Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
4. Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
Mitigation Measures
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad, will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These guidelines, when implemented in conjunction with the additional measures listed below, will mitigate the potential visual quality impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance.
1. The decision-making body must find as specified in Section 21.95.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that there is acceptable justification to allow manufactured slopes/crib walls greater than 30 feet in height in the commercial section of the project.
2. Residential or commercial development in Planning Area 4 of the Green Valley Master Plan shall be subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards including the approval of a Special Use Permit.
3. It shall be a condition of future discretionary development permits that the grading shall be in compliance with the guidelines of the Master Plan. If they are not in compliance, additional environmental review will be required.
The following mitigation measures represent criteria that shall be used in considering approval of the proposed Master Plan development standards.
1. Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with the bluff topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Escondido Creek through landscaping/revegetation and lower pads.
.-
Checkpoints
1. Approval of Mast& Plan (including development standards consistent with the above criteria).
2. Approval of discretionary development permits.
Responsible Parties
1. The decision-making body,
2. Planning Department.
Sanctions
1. No approval of commercial or residential development within the El Camino Real Corridor without Special Use Permit consistent with Section 21.95.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. No approval of the Master Plan without establishment of development standards consistent with the above criteria.
AGRICULTURE
Potential Impacts
Since there is no prime farmland existing on-site, there are no significant impacts to agriculture.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Checkpoints/Sanctions
No checkpoints or sanctions are required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
The following potentially significant biological impacts have already been anticipated by the Master Plan and shall be mitigated by the restoration and enhancement plans presented therein:
1. Approximately 1.6 acres (6.5 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly impacted by the project. Occupied habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and other potentially occurring sensitive sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are mitigated by the Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub. However, due to the presence of California Gnatcatcher in the south-central area (0.6 acre) of sage scrub to be eliminated by the project, impacts in this area should be avoided through project modification rather than restoration.
- -
2. Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodland will be directly impacted by the project. The:e impacts would occur along Encinitas Creek due to the proposed creek crossings and the widening of El Camino Real. The proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by incorporating 11.75 acres of riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement into the Master Plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts through project modification.
3. The project will increase the amount of area impacted by traffic generated noise by approximately 2.5 percent in the southern part of the riparian woodland and by 3.8 percent in the northern part of the woodland. The area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less than 0.75 acre. Although this impact is essentially mitigated within the 15.25 acres of riparian enhancement proposed by the Master Plan, the preferred mitigation option is impact avoidance through project modification.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the project are u mitigated by the proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master Plan:
1. Approximately 1.0 acre (13 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly impacted by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street.
2. Impacts to certain sensitive annual plant species in the south-central area of sage scrub (0.6 acre) to be eliminated by the project are unknown because it does not appear that adequate surveys were conducted in the upland bluff areas during the Spring.
3. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration of riparian and upland habitats, potentially significant impacts may still occur from implementation of the project. The Required Mitigation Measures, outlined below, would reduce to below a level of significance all significant impacts to biological resources, with the exception of impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. These wildlife movement impacts can only be acceptably mitigated through implementation of an alternate subdivision design or design modifications (see Mitigation Which Involves Design Modification/Revisions to Tentative Map, following page).
Required Mitigation Measures
General Note
To ensure the implementation of all mitigation for potential impacts to biological resources, the applicant for each discretionary development permit proposed under the Master Plan shall prior to approval of each permit, 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.
. . . -on Which Can be A&&d to the Prqiect as Prop&
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and natural areas should be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The planting of the buffer areas should be subject to the review and approval of the resource agencies.
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site.
3. The 0.6-acre of sagk scrub in the south-central portion of the site at the foot of the bluff shall be avoided through grading redesign.
4. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading permit.
. . 1hPation Which Involves Design ModificationlRevisions to Tentative MaD
Proposed here are four approaches, or options, to mitigate impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Each of these options involves design modifications to the proposed Master Plan, one of which must be incorporated in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to wildlife movement to below a level of significance. They are as follows, in order of preference:
1. Because the most preferable mitigation option is avoidance, it is recommended that both of the creek crossings be eliminated to reduce impacts to riparian areas/wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. An added benefit associated with this option is the reduction of impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. This mitigation option, however, may not be feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
2. If only one crossing can be eliminated, the greatest benefit would be attained from eliminating the creek crossing at Levante Street, provided that the remaining crossing at Calle Barcelona is redesigned to meet the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992; see following page) or to specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh by 0.4 acres. These reductions would allow for restoration of 1.2 acres of salt marsh within the riparian area designated by the Master Plan and would also reduce the amount of restoration required by the project for direct impacts from Levante Street.
3. If options #l and 2 are found to be infeasible, a third approach would be to eliminate the creek crossing at Calle Barcelona and build the remaining crossing at Levante Street to the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study or to specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game.
4. If neither of the creek crossings can be eliminated, the fourth mitigation option would be to include both of the project’s creek crossings but redesign each one to meet the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study or to specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. This would mitigate the wildlife movement impact to below a level of significance. Any impacts that remain after implementation of these redesign measures shall be mitigated by habitat restoration as outlined in the Master Plan.
e Wildlife Movement (Established by Otay Ranch Corridor Stldgyl
l Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length to width ratio of the underpass should be less than two (i.e. if the width of the bridge is 100 feet long, the width of the underpass should be at least 50 feet wide). Deviation from this ratio will rinly be allowed where the bridge/underpass is greater than 30 feet high.
l Bridge height should be at least 12 feet.
Preferred Mitigation
Although noise impacts a?e considered to be mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan, the preferred mitigation option is by project design. This may include noise attenuation structures and modifications in the plot plan to move noise sources away from sensitive habitat areas. For example, eliminating one or both of the creek crossings as described above would reduce both the noise and habitat fragmentation impacts.
Checkpoints
1. Grading permit.
2. Mitigation report by consulting biologist submitted to City Planning Department prior to any grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments
2. California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consulting biologist.
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permits without acceptable mitigation reviewed and approved by California Department of Fish and Game for creek crossings.
2. No approval of grading permits without satisfactory landscaping and revegetation plans.
3. No issuance of building or occupancy permits without properly accomplished mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., total removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological site GV-4.
Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to the archaeological resources on-site shall be mitigated to below a level of significance by excavation and analysis of a representative sample. This shall include one of the following:
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed upon analyzing the fauna1 remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn 1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The reason for the larger
sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of conventional archaeological excavation conducLed by hand. Alternately, controlled mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisitton of a significantly larger sample for substantially less cost.
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative work shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgement, there is nothing to be gamed by continuing.
Checkpoint
Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work and prior to any grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
2. Consulting archaeologist.
Sanction
No building permits or grading permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City Planning Department.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
The subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate any potential paleontological impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant concentrations of fossils are encountered.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of grading.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
2. Consulting paleontologist.
Sanctions .-
1. No approval of grading permit without mitigation plan.
2. No building permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is submitted to City Planning Department.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potential Impacts
1. The alluvium and slopewast&olluvium that underlies much of the proposed development area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials would be susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium underlying the area proposed for development is compressible and considered unsuitable, in their present state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
3. Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cutslope excavations.
4. Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary where the Dehnar Formation underlies the site.
5. The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water. Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas proposed for development.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate the potential geologic impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the gr&ng plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability. Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
Checkpoint
Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Party
City Engineering Department.
Sanction
No grading permit until measures are completed.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The proposed development will lower the loo-year water surface elevations of Encinitas Creek by up to 0.5 feet in some areas as compared to existing conditions. In one area, on the Kroblen property located directly upstream of the proposed Levante Street crossing of the creek, proposed development will raise the loo-year water surface elevations up to 8.7 feet above existing conditions. However, because the inundated portion of the property has development constraints, this is not considered to be a significant impact. The required construction of Basin “C” per the Chang study (1991) will further reduce the impact to the Kroblen property.
2. The proposed project will increase the lo-year peak runoff of on-site storm water by approximately 24%. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site if the storm drain system is built as proposed; see Mitigation Measures).
3. The proposed development poses a potential impact to water quality both during and after construction. During construction, there are significant areas of bare earth due to grading operations. The soils on the project are classified as having severe erodibility factors. This sediment poses a hazard to water quality both as a pollutant itself, and as a transport mechanism for other polhnants. After construction and the establishment of landscaping, the threat of erosion and sedimentation decreases significantly.
4. The development of the project will result in the covering of approximately 30% of the site with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Roofs of buildings allow airborne pollutants to collect and become concentrated during the long dry season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports them offsite. Paved areas collect airborne pollutants as well as pollutants transported or deposited by vehicular traffic. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located directly adjacent to the biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Without proper mitigation, the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
5. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils on-site. These materials can comejnto contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in the Master Plan, in addition to the following measures, will mitigate the potentially significant hydrology/ water quality impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March 1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be prepared and approved at the final design stage.
Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the existence of hazardous/toxic materials on-site, and to make recommendations for any remediation procedures.
No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal Commission.
Detention Basin “C” (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project access and El Can-ho Real.
Checkpoint
Prior to recording of first final map or issuance of first grading or building permit.
Responsible Parties
City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No recording of final map or issuance of grading or building permit without Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
2. No approval of grading permit without necessary conditions and proper drainage and depollutant system shown.
3. No approval of final maps or issuance of building or grading permits.
CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
1. At site buildout, the project is projected to generate the following approximate trip ends: 33,400 daily, 850 AM peak hour (495 In and 355 Out), and 3,075 PM peak hour (1,580 In and 1,495 Out).
2. Under year 1995 conditions, the intersection of El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue would be expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour under the “General Plan Land Use Alternative” (see Section 5.0). The El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour under alternative number four (roadway connections at Leucadia and La Costa only). These two intersections do not meet service level standards of LOS D or better given their respective scenarios and would therefore be considered significantly impacted. All other intersections are expected to operate acceptably.
3, Under year 1995 conditions, if the project is built without the Leucadia Boulevard connection, the La Costa Avenue road segment with a single lane in either direction, between I-5 and El Camino Real, would not operate acceptably for project alternatives 1 through 3 (see Circulation section for description of alternatives). These road segments would, however, operate acceptably with two lanes in each direction. Because project occupancy would not occur until La Costa Avenue is widened to two lanes in both directions, this potential impact would be mitigated. Additionally, if the project is built with the Leucadia Boulevard connection, all road segments would operate acceptably.
4. Under year 2000 conditions, all intersections would be expected to operate acceptably under the “With Leucadia Boulevard” scenario, with the exception of the P.M. peak hour at the intersection of El Carnino Real and Olivenhain Road for Alternatives 1 and 2. With the widening of the northbound, southbound, and westbound curb lanes to accommodate right turning vehicles, however, the intersection will then operate at an acceptable level of service. Under the “Without Leucadia Boulevard” scenario, however, the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour for the “without north access” scenarios utilizing both Project and General Plan Land uses. Operation at this level is considered a significant impact. The intersection is expected to operate acceptably during the P.M. peak period.
5. Under year 2010 conditions, the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour for Alternative 6 and a LOS E during the P.M. peak hour for Alternative 3, respectively. To reduce this otherwise significant impact to a level of service D or better it would require a third eastbound and westbound through lane on Olivenhain Road/Leucadia Boulevard. This leg of the intersection, however, is not within the City of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the ‘need for this lane is not necessarily generated solely by the proposed project. A second eastbound through lane is necessary at the year 2010 with or without the project.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate the potential circulation impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
-
Intersection of I-5 Southbound Ramps & La Costa Avenue: On the I-5 southbound ramp, construct one additional southbound left-turn lane for a total of two. On La Costa Avenue, construct one additional westbound left-turn and through lane for a total of two each and one additional eastbound through lane for a total of two. These improvements are required by the year 1995.
Intersection of I-5 Northbound Ramps & La Costa Avenue: On La Costa Avenue, construct one additional eastbound and westbound through lane for a total of two. Also, construct one eastbound left-turn lane. On the I-5 northbound ramp, construct one additional northbound right-turn lane for a total of two. .These improvements are required by the year 1995.
Intersection of El Camino Real & Calle Barcelona: Construct new intersection including: dual northbound left-turn lanes, one southbound through lane wide enough to accommodate right-turns, dual eastbound left-turn lanes, one eastbound through lane and one eastbound right-turn lane. These improvements are required by the year 1995.
Intersection of El Camino Real & Olivenhain Road: On El Camino Real, construct one additional southbound through lane wide enough to accommodate right-turns by the year 1995.
La Costa Avenue - Between El Camino Real & Interstate 5: Construct additional east and westbound through lane for a total of two in each direction by the year 1995.
La Costa Avenue - Between Interstate 5 Northbound & Southbound Ramps: Construct additional east and westbound through lane for a total of two in each direction by 1995.
El Camino Real - Between La Costa Avenue and Olivenhain Road: Construct additional southbound through lane by 1995.
Intersection of El Camino Real & Alga Road: On Alga Road, construct one eastbound right- turn lane. On El Camino Real, construct one additional northbound left-turn lane for a total of two by the year 1999.
Intersection of La Costa Avenue & El Camino Real: On El Camino Real, restripe southbound curb lane to accommodate right-turns by the year 2000.
Intersection of El Camino Real & Olivenhain Road: Complete construction of full intersection by the year 2000 including: dual northbound left-turn lanes, three northbound through lanes (curb lane wide enough to accommodate right turns), dual southbound left-turn lanes, three southbound through lanes (curb lane wide enough to accommodate right turns), dual eastbound left-turn lanes, three eastbound through lanes, dual westbound left-turn lanes and three westbound through lanes.
El Camino Real - Between Alga Road & La Costa Avenue: Construct one additional southbound through lane for a total of three by the year 2010 (only necessary if Leucadia Boulevard is not constructed.)
To create greater operational efficiency between the proposed project and the Encinitas Ranch proposed commercial center in the City of Encinitas to the south, the southerly connection of Street “A” to Via Cantebria in the City of Encinitas may be pursued. This would facilitate a natural circulation pattern between these two proposed major commercial centers. It should be noted, however, that jurisdictional boundaries and additional environmental consequences are associated with this southerly connection.
-.
Checkpoints
1. Construction of imfiovements.
2. Approval of tentative maps.
3. Building occupancy.
Responsible Parties
City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No issuance of building permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of service are not met.
2. No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions.
NOISE
Potential Impacts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under year 2010 conditions.
Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona east of El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real, depending upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in the project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts below a level of significance and insure compliance with applicable noise standards:
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation measures should be implemented:
--
l Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours specified by the City of Carisbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods.
l All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
l Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
l Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors.
l Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to the proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term should include:
l Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
l Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
l Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures wherever possible.
l Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations, building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has been provided.
l Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at more detailed levels of planning to minim& the potential for acoustic impacts to adjacent residential development.
Checkpoints
1. Discretionary approval of residential units.
2. Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No approval of discretionary development permits until noise report submitted and appropriate mitigation implemented.
--
2. No issuance of subsequent permits.
AIR QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust during soil movement.
2. The proposed project would generate: 4,970 pounds of carbon monoxide, 603 pounds of reactive organic gases, 525 pounds of NOx, 68 pounds of particulates, and 39 pounds of SOx daily upon build-out in the year 2000.
Mitigation Measures
Potentially significant short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance by implementing the following measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site, it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
l seed and water until ground cover is established;
l water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
l time activities to avoid windy periods;
l conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from the project site has been deposited by the wind.
Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover.
Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than gasoline- powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions.
Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
. --
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after each work day.
10. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of California Administrative Code.
Significant lonp-term air quality impacts would be primarily the result of cumulative project-related vehicular emissions. Mitigation outlined below and in the traffic section will partially reduce such traffic-related air emissions and secondary source emissions. However, due to the cumulative incremental nature of these impacts, mitigation to a level of insignificance cannot be fully achieved.
1. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood moulding and trim products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials wherever feasible.
2. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site.
3. Future tenants of the project site will adhere to all applicable SDAPCD Rules and Regulations.
Checkpoint
Grading permit.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanction
No approval of grading permits without applicable conditions.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Potential Impacts
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public facilities fees.
Mitigation Measures
All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the project applicant, including payment of public facilities fees.
Checkpoints and Sanctions
No checkpoints or sanctions are required.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3599
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 OFFICE USE AND INTRODUCES AN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION, CHANGES A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DESIGNATION TO EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL, AND DEFINES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM- HIGH, AND EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL DESIGNATIONS ON PROPERTY GENERAUY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE, EAST AND NORTH OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, AND WEST OF
EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 93-01
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the General Plan
designation for certain property located, as shown on Exhibit GPA 93-01, dated January
19, 1994, attached and incorporated herein, has been filed with the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for amendment
to the General Plan as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January, 1994,
and on the 2nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
I by law to consider said request;
I 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 GPA 93-01, based on the following findings:
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
Findins:
1. Goal “A” of the Geueral Plan Iand Use Element eucourages the preserva tion and
enhancement of the euviromueut, character, aud image of the City as a desirable
residential, beach and opeu space orieuted community. The project sustahs a
visual quality of open space.
2. Goal”F”oftheGeneralPlanrandUseElementsuggestsprotectingandconserving
natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique uatural assets aud historically
significant features of the community. Withiu the 166.5 acres of Opeu Space the
fmgilc unique uatural assets and historically significant features of the community
have been preservd
3. Goal lJL2 of the Opeu Space Fkment requests preserve lion and creation of au
Open Space system of aesthetic value that will maintain community identity,
achieve a sense of natural spaciousuess, and provide visual relief iu the Cityscape.
The provision of open space over the minimum Growth Management Plan
requirement achieves this feelixlg of Mhd spaciollsm!ss and provides for
significantvisualrelieftoboththeresidentsandcommercialusersoftheMaster
Plau, and the users of the public fkilities.
4. Goal 2JLl of the Opeu Space FJemeut desires the exploration of all meaus of
providiug for Opeu Space mxds. The Master Plan Amendment isin&the
Open Space by over 40 acres.
5. Goal2JL2ofthe!opeuspaceElemeutistoassure that new developmeut provides
for the Opeu Space ueeds of their occupants. The Master Plau iucludes passive
and active Opeu Space that exceeds the 15% staxuhl required by the M
Facilities Management Plau and the Planned Community Ordiuance.
Approximately 70% of the Master Plan is a combiuation of ~tufal and rewqpsated
open SP=-
s
6. c;oal3~2oftheOpenSpaceElementistoprotectandpreservevisuallya~~~
and/or -cant natud areas. The hkter Plan has identified aud preserved
theseareasiusucha mauner as to provide both private aud public viewsheds and
access.
7. Goal3JL3oftheOpeIlspaceElemeutsuggesBpITseW& OpenSpace-inaS
uaturalstateaspossiile. AreviewoftheOpenSpaceplanindicatesthisisthe
intent and conceptual goal of the document.
8. Goal4JLloftheopenspaceElementkto encauragelargeraQd=-open Spacea.masrathertbannumerousanddisconnectedareas. TheMasterPlaubas
contiuually sthed to meet this objective by coustxictiug developmeut to cougrueut
conjoined discrete areas to allow fix larger connected open space areas.
. . .
PC RESO NO.3599 2
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
. . .
. . .
. . .
Goal 4A2 requires the creation of natural aud man-made links between Open
Space areas. In general with this plan, such linkages are not required because of
the comlectivity of the Open space.
TheproposedOpenSpaceareaisequaltoorgreaterthantheareadepictedonthe
OpenSpaceandCo nservation Map since the Map shows approximately 95 acres
while the General Plan Amendment identifies approximately 166 acres.
Theproposedopenspaceareaisofenvironmentalqualityequaltoorgreaterthan
that depicted on the Open Space and conservation Map as indicated by a review
of the Ehironmental Impact Report for the Green Vaky Master Plan, dated
December1993.
Tlle proposed Open space is in co&mnanc ewiththeproposedCityofCarlsbad
Habitat Management Plan and the Countywide Master Habitat Chsezva tion Plan.
The proposed adjustment to Open Space, as depicted on &e Open Space and
Co-lion Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to Open Space as
shown on the Open Space Map as con&medbyareviewoftheGeneralPlan
Amendment Graphic.
The provision of a regional related commexial center is supported by a market
survey dated January l&1993, and vexified and documen ted by a report dated
rkcember14,1993. Bothd ocuments are on file with the Planning Lkpartment.
l-hi? Proposed anumbmtwill~reducetbeprojectedtrafficburdenon
adjacent roadways by approximately 15%.
The Residential Guidelines of the Laud Use Element limit multi-fkmily development
to those areas where they are compatible with the adjacent land uses, and where
adequate and convenient ial services and public support systems such as
streets, parking, pa& schools, and utilities are adequate to senve theu~ The
residential Planning Area of the Master Plan is located close to commerdal
opporrunities, is in close proximity to Circulation Element Roadways, and is
buffered on three sides by substantial open space cotidors.
The Green Valley Master Ph provides far adequate facilities in coxhmance to
thedevelapmentrequirementsestablishedinthe~23~,~~requiredby
Policy "A" of the General Plau Iand Use Element which states that development
should only be penuitted after adequate provisions for public fkilities have beeu
provided
PC RESO NO. 3599 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
2c
27
2E
Conditions:
Planning:
1. AU conditions of EIR 93-02 and MP 92-01 as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 3598 and 3600 respectively, are incorporated herein by reference.
Refer to those documents for all conditions and mitigation measures applicable to
the development of the Green Valley Master Plan project site.
2. Approval of GPA 93-01 is granted subject to the certification of EIR 93-02 and
approval of MP 92-01.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February, 1994,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble
& Hall.
Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons.
None.
None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HmMILkkR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3599
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA COSTA
AVENUE, NORTH AND EAST OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, AND WEST. OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 23. CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN CASE NO: MP 92-01
WHEREAS, a verified application for the Green Valley Master Plan for
certain property to wit:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bemardino 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 a Master Plan
as provided in Title 21 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January, 1994
and on the 2nd day of February, 1994, 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 Master Plan.
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 92-01, based on the following findings.
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The proposed development as desaii by the Master Plan is consist- with the
prwisions of the General Plan as identified within th fmdings for GPA 93-01
Resolution No. 3599 and all findiugs of said resolution are incorporated herein by
reference.
All necessary public facilities cau be provided con cument 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
~inthetextstatingthat~fitturedevelopmentccomplywiththe
public facility perfomxmce! standah andphasingrequirememoftheLocal Facilities Management Plan (L.FMP) for Zone 23. Public fkilities are required to
be constructed as development in the Master Plan creates demand for additional
facilities. A fhanciug plan approved by the City Council for the Zone 23 LPMP
will provide the mechanisms for the lhmciug of the required public facilities.
The residential and open space portions of the Master Plan will constitute an
environment of suhned desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony
with or provide compatible variety to the chamcter of the sumunding area, and that the sites proposed far public hilities, such as streets and flood control
structures are adequate to serve the anticipated populations
TbeOpenSpaceplanprovides166.5~ofopenspacewithintheMasterPlan
which is to be used for the protection of biological habitat) the migmion of
wildlife, trails for hilms and bicyckts, recreation, visual aesthetics, and buffers
from developed areas.
The-and &om@kespnrposedaresuitableaudadequatetocarrythe
anticipatedtrafEicthemon. T&htudieshavebeencompletedfortheLocal
Facilities Management Plan 87-23 aud EIR 93-02. Compliance with the mitigation
conditions required by tllese studies and plans would ensum that all circulation
~~isinplacetoservethetrafficdemandsgeneratedbybuildautofthe
Master Plan.
Approphte measmes arepmposedtomitigateauyadvexseenvironmentalimpact
asnotedintheadoptedemTiromnentalimpactreportfortheproject AllEndings
of EIR 93-02 Resolution No. 3598 are ’ n.lcopmtedhereinbyd-.
ThtE~~tbedevelaplnentisc#~beplarmeddZOMdiIl
coordhationandsubsta&alcompatiitywiththedevelopment. Theprojecthas
ti!XtdVt?apenspace~~OlltbeeastandWest.
The Master Plan has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 3600 2
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM TO AMEND THE LAND USE OF THE
GREEN VALLEY PORTION OF THE EAST BATIQUITOS
LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: LCPA 93-06
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in
conformance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of January, 1994
and on the 2nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider the proposed suggested modifications to the East Batiquitos
Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program as shown on Exhibit
LCPA 93-06, and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, or all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
~ WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines require a six week public review period
prior to fmal action for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on
December 9, 1993, and ending on January 20, 1994, staff shall present to
the City Council a summary of the comments received.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h.
Cl That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of LCPA 93-06 as shown on Exhibit LCPA 93-06,
dated January 19, 1994, attached hereto and made a part hereof based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Finditws:
1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable
policies of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the Local
Coastal Program.
2. The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment maintains consistency with the
legislative findings and declarations of the California Coastal Act, as stated in
Section 30001 of Division 20 of the Public Resources Code.
Conditions:
1. Approval of LCPA 93-06 is subject to the approval of GPA 93-01 and MP 92-01,
Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3599 and 3600 incorporated herein by
reference and on file in the Planning Department.
2. Approval of LCPA 93-06 is subject to approval of the California Coastal
Commission. Any revisions that may be required by the Coastal Commission must
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to approval of any final map, and may necessitate a formal amendment to this
approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 2nd day of February, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble
& Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
A’ITEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3601 -2-
Rl
CIW OF ENCINITAS .
SAN OIEGO
SPA (2.8) i:
;I
OS
i[
RRE
-.. ..w..-..m ::
\\
SPA (28)
CIRCULATION
- I Prime Arterial (126’) R/W
w I I Major Arterial (102’) R/W
. . . . . . . Seandaly Artenal
. . . . . . Coastal Zone Boundary
LAND USE
City of Cwlsbd
RMH Medium High Density Residential
RRE Extensive Regional Retail
N Neighborhood Commeraai
TS Travel Services Commercial
U Public Utilites
OS Open Space
City ot Encinitas
R-l Residential
0.51-1.00 W/AC
County of San Oiago
SPA
(28) Speck Plan Area
\ i . . . . \\ . @le _ - - \ ;.;;w%g;-L
; ; .:
OS $
‘I
. . .
i’: OS
’ : ’ .
I
-..-..a l
: j .
1
I
:
i TS
i :
I
---id
i
I
:
: i . . U i 1 :
ir- 1 : -?hah m
.
LCPA 93-06
Januafy19,1994 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A 44,
PLANNINGC0MMISS10NRESOLUTI0NN0.3602
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNl.& RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR ZONE 23 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE, EAST AND NORTH OF THE
CITY OF ENCINITAS, AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: LFMP 87-23
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting the 1986
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance
standards for public facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9808 requiring the
processing of a Local Facilities Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 and 9829
implementing Proposition E approved on November 4,1986 by the citizens of Carlsbad,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January, 1994
and on the 2nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the above 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 based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23, based
on the following findings and subject to the following condition:
Fink:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 is consistent with the Land Use
Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained in
Carlsbad’s General Plan.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 is consistent with Section 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), as amended by Ordinance
No. 8110 and Ordinance No. 9829 and with the adopted 1986 Citywide Facilities
and Improvement Plan.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 and the conditions contained
therein will promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities
will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards.
The Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 will control the timing and locations
of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and
improvements.
The Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 will ensure public facilities and
services are available in conformance with the adopted performance standards
prior to development occurring.
conditions:
1. Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 as contained in the
Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23, dated January 19, 1994,
incorporated herein by reference.
2. Approval of Local Facilities Management Plan 87-23 is subject to the approval of
the Green Valley Master Plan, MP 92-01.
PC RFSO NO. 3602 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
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 2nd day of February, 1994,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson &wary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble
81 Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PL&NING COMMISSION
A-I-I-EST:
4/ubQwm
MICHAEL J. HOtiIL.I.&
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3602 -3-
EXHIBIT 4
Page I-10:
Page I-11:
Page I-15:
Page II-10
Page II-10
Page II-12
Page 11-14:
Page 11-l 5:
Page 111-2:
Page 111-2:
Page IV-391
GREENVALLEY MASlZRPLeAN FiRRATA
JANUARY 19.1994
AMENDED FEBRUARY 2.1994
Table I-1 - Open Space Total should equal l%S
Planning Area 3 - Multi-familv Residential
. . . . ..may be approved in this area 7 l subject to a m
Development Plan or PUD. Additional units . . . . .
Precise Development Plan JpDPj - Precise Development Plans are
subject to approval by the Carlsbad City Council. Development
proposals which do not require either a PUD g nonresidential PUD
shall be processed by a Precise Development Plan.
Commercial
. . . ..designated commercial use. Planning Area 2 encompasses
approximately 56.2 WW&W@W& acres west of Street “A”. The
type of retail...
Residential
. ..residential use. The approximately 17.9 e acre area
is located to the west of Street “A” and north of the retail center.
Table 11-2; Green Valley Master Plan: Commercial Net acres is 56.2;
Units/S.F. is 0.6 MM S.F.; and Total Net acres is 74.1.
Non-vesting of Rights - . . . ..and the City Council for approval. Where . a conflict in development standards occurs,Y . m the more restrictive shall take precedence.
Approval and construction of a . . . . . .
Police Department Review - The Carlsbad Police Department shall be
consulted during the review of Site Development Plans (SDP),
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and Precise Development Plans
(PDP) regarding the application of of crime prevention principles.
The last sentence of paragraph e. should be a separate paragraph f.
The last three words, or Citv Council should be stricken from the
sentence.
14. I&numem signs should be positioned so that safe sight
ERRATA SHEET #1 39
. . distances are maintained. n+
w
Page IV-40: 0 Pole Signs
0 Hourescent lizhtin~ prowsed as an architectural element on
buildinzs in this development is strictly prohibited.
Page VI-I: This chapter of the Master Plan presents a set ,of policies and design
and development standards for each of the five individual planning
areas which comprise Green Valley.
Page VI-40: Lot Coverane
B. Maximum building coverage is 60%. A minimum of 15% of
the net developable acres shall be landscaped.
Page VI-22: 3. Designated employee parking may &aJ be comprised of no less
than 60% standard parking stalls (8% x 20). m
1 c\ A Id,
Designated employee parking may
comprise up to 15% of the total parking requirement.
Page W-40: 1. Residential Buildings shall not exceed 35 feet in height an*
three levels.
Page VI-40: 3.
Page VI-41 : Parking
3.
3. Development of residential units which include subdivision for
individual owne&ip shall provide:
2 covered resident spaces wr unit;
5 Ruest maces for the first 10 units: and
1 west mace for each 4 units over 10.
4. Development of residential units which do not include
subdivision shall provide:
2 resident maces KXT unit. 1 of which must be covered;
5 mest maces for the first 10 units: and
1 3zuest space for each 4 units over 10.
Page VI-42: Private Streets/Drivewavs
1. The minimum width of private driveways shall be 30 feet. At
the discretion of the Planning Commission internal private
driveways will be allowed at a minimum width of 24 feet.
Page W43: Vehicular Circulation
1. The primary vehicular circulation system for the residential
area will be a private street loop consisting of the two entry
streets from Street “A”.
2. The secondary vehicular circulation system may consist of
north and south extensions of the private streets along the
upland bluff area.
EXHIBIT “A” ERRATA
GREFNVALLEYIWSJXRPLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI’ REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING ANT.3 REPORTJNG PROGRAM
JANUARY 19.1994
AMENDED FEBRUARY 2.1994
LAND USE
Mitigation Measures
3. Planning Area 4 shall be designated as Open Space or mav be &ectively
maintained as Open Space with a non-conforming use (Bed Bard throuah
a designation of Unt&nned because the use proposed in this area by the
Green Valley Master Plan is in conflict with the General Plan Land Use
Statements and Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial areas.
Sanction
No approval of Master Plan without Open Space or Un&nned designation for Planning
Area 4.
VISUAL QUALITY/LAND FORM ALTERATION
Mitigation Measures
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any
bluff silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Encinims Creek
through landscaping/revegatation and lower pads.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Which Can be Added to the Proiect as Proposed
3. The 0.6-acre of sage scrub in the south-central portion of the site at the foot
of the bluff shall be avoided through grading redesign and the total reouired
mitigation acreage for Diegan Coastal Sane Scrub shall be reduced
acco rdindv to 2.0 acres.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permit without monitoring plan.
2.
2. No continued nradinn will be permitted until salvane operations are
ERRATA SHEET #2 4 >
mmleted uer the monitorinfz report if necessary.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
sanctions
3. No approval of final maps or issuance of building or grading pennits without
proper mitimtion.
CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measures / - -.;., the southerly connection of Street “A” to Leucadia Boukvard in the City
of Encinitas . . . .
43
ERRATA SHEET GREENVALLEYMASIERPL.AN
ENWRONMENTAL IMPACX REPORT
JANUARY 19.1994
Response to comment #Hl should be replaced with:
Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and
therefore no response is necessary. However, it should be noted that a wildlife
linkage does exist between the upland habitat and the riparian corridor within the
- Green Valley Master Plan at the north end of the site. In addition, wildlife water
devices are planned in three places at the foot of the bluff.
ERRATA SHEET #3
N
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 19, 1994
PLANNtNG COMMtSStON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP
92-15/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for certification of
an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities
Management Plan, and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development
Permit and Special Use Permit to allow for the future development of a 600,000
square foot commercial retail center and 400 attached multi-family dwelling units
on property generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
I. . RECOMMENDATION
h EXHIBIT 5
APPLlCATIOl \ L’OMPLETE DATE:
MARCH 12.1993
STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTER WESTMAN
STAFF REPORT 0 3 cd&-
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3598
recommending CERTIFICATION of the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3599, 3600, 3601, 3602, 3603, 3604 and 3605
recommending APPROVAL of GPA 93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP Zone 23 and
APPROVING CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is a Master Plan as required by the Planned Community Zone and East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the Local Coastal Program. The Master Plan
is divided into four subareas and will serve as the zoning for a 281 acre parcel of land
southwest of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. As stated in the
Master Plan text ” It is the intent of the Master Plan to serve as the development and
preservation policy and design guideline for the Green Valley property. A Master Plan is
an instrument under which development occurs in an orderly and positive manner without
creating significant impacts to the existing and projected infrastructure and setting. A
Master Plan document establishes land uses, delineates development areas, assigns density,
considers differing land use interrelationships, delineates specific design criteria, outlines
phasing, and provides implementation methodology. It is also the basis for future, more
detailed, project reviews, such as individual tentative maps, and Precise Development Plans.”
45
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/.-Z 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b/-23/ CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEYMASTER PLAN
JANUARY19,1994
PAGE2
The project site can be characterized by three different land forms. The western portion
is vegetated upland hillside with slopes generally greater than 15%, the central portion is
vacant gently sloping land previously used for agriculture and the eastern portion is a densely vegetated riparian corridor. Near the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue is the Red Barn which has been used by both Hillman Properties and The
Fieldstone Company as a sales office for their respective residential communities. It is
currently being used by San Diego Cellular as an administrative servicing center. No other
commercial or residential uses exist on the property.
Associated with the Master Plan and necessary for the creation of the Master Plan are:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
III.
LAND USE
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report addressing all of the
potential impacts to the environment created by the implementation of the
Master Plan;
A General Plan Amendment which will change the existing General Plan Land
Use designations of Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High
to Extensive Regional Retail/Open Space/Residential Medium-High;
A Local Coastal Program Amendment to the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segment land use designations for consistency with the General
Plan;
A Tentative Map which will subdivide the property into 11 parcels;
A Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 which assesses and identifies
all of the infrastructural needs associated with development within the zone;
A Hillside Development Permit required by Title 21 because the subject
property has an overall slope greater than 15 feet in height; and
A Special Use Permit which evaluates the effect of alteration to land form
within a floodplain.
ANALYSIS
General Plan/Zoning
The existing General Plan designation for the property is a mixed use district of Community
Commercial/Office/Residential Medium High (C/O/RMH) and the current zoning is
46
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol,,) 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b,-23/ CT92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 - GREENVALLEYMASTERPLAN JANUARY19,1994
Planned Community (PC). Uses allowed under those land use designations are commercial
operations which cater to the local community, office, and residential development with
a density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre and a growth control point of 11.5 units per acre.
The proposed land uses are Extensive Regional Retail (RRE), Open Space (OS) and
Residential Medium High (RMH). Uses allowed under RRE are commercial operations
which cater to a regional community. Open Space uses include passive and active
recreation/open space and RMH allows a residential density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre
and a growth control point of 11.5. Note that the applicant is proposing the area around
the Red Barn be designated for neighborhood commercial uses, however, staff is
recommending against this and a full explanation follows later in this report.
Distribution and intensity of land use within the Master Plan were in part determined by
the property constraints and in part on the General Plan Land Use assumption that the
developable portion of the property should be divided into equal thirds. The land use split
would therefore be 2/3 for Community Commercial and Office and l/3 for Residential
Medium High. As seen in Table I, the assumed net acreage within the Master Plan for
residential development is 34.8 acres.
LANDUSE
Neighborhood
Commercial
Extensive Regional
Retail
Residential
Medium High
Open Space 166.5
TOTAL 282.1 1 3.1 I 112.5
TABLE I
GROSS ACREAGE CONSTRAINED NET ACREAGE DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE
3.6 2.5 1.1
76.6 0.0 76.6
35.4 0.6 34.8
At 11.5 units per acre, a total of 400.2 units may be achieved. With the intention of setting as much open space aside within the Master Plan as is feasible, the area of
disturbance for the residential Planning Area was reduced to a little more than half of the
identified 34.8 acres, or 17.9 acres. However, the maximum number of units remain the
same.
47
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/l,.? 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b/-23/ CT 92-OS/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 4
The purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment relates to the definitions of
Community Commercial and Extensive Regional Retail. The existing General Plan would
allow, as determined by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23, approximately 1 million square feet of Community Commercial and Office combined (this projection is
derived from a net developable commercial acreage of 76.6 as seen in Table I, and an
assumed retail floor area yield of 30%). Assuming that half of that could be Community
Commercial, a total of 500,504 square feet would be allowed. However, by definition the
General Plan limits the collection of commercial uses to 300,000 square feet if it is to be
classified as Community Commercial. Anything over that amount is classified as regional.
The project proposes 600,000 square feet of commercial and must therefore be classified
as Extensive Regional Retail.
However, the overall development intensity of the proposed project is less than what the
General Plan would allow, considering 1.001 million square feet of commercial/office
development. The project is also proposed with significant natural buffers between the
‘project and existing residential and commercial development. The reduction in
development intensity which reduces impacts to the City’s Growth Management
Performance Standards and the specific development guidelines proposed through the
Master Plan are supporting factors for the General Plan Amendment.
The existing zoning is Planned Community (PC). The proposal is consistent with this
designation, through the submittal of a Master Plan. Properties of more than 100 acres
within the PC zone are required to be processed by Master Plan. Land uses within the
Master Plan are determined by the underlying General Plan designations.
Local Coastal Program: East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties sement
The existing land uses designated for this portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
segment were identified as those which are ” . ..pursuant to a Master Plan which is
consistent with the uses allowed by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted as of March 1,1988." Those uses are Community Commercial, Office, and Residential Medium High
K/O/RMH).
The project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment from C/O/RMH to Extensive
Regional Retail, Open Space and Residential Medium High. Because the LCP defers to the
General Plan for land use determination, the Master Plan’s consistency with the LCP will
be established through the General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment (LCPA 93-06).
Local Coastal Program (LCP) requirements include:
Master Plan - Prior to the issuance of’a Coastal Permit a Master Plan must be approved.
The project is a Master Plan;
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/1~’ 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b/ -23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 5 w-
Twenty-five percent (25%) or greater slopes - The intent of the LCP is to preserve and
enhance slopes with significant native vegetation that are greater than 25%. Planning
areas proposed for development within the Master Plan are primarily confined to disturbed
areas with slopes less than 15%;
Wetlands buffer - A 50 foot buffer preserved as open space is required upland of the
riparian corridor. A minimum 50 foot varying width buffer is proposed along the western
upland side of the riparian corridor;
Thirty-five (35) foot height limit - Both commercial and residential buildings are limited
to a maximum height of 35 feet, with an allowance for non-habitable architectural
elements up to 45 feet;
Agriculture conversion mitigation fee - Conversion of the non-prime agricultural lands
within Green Valley is subject to Coastal Act Section 30171.5 which requires a mitigation
fee. At the time of discretionary development approvals, the conversion mitigation fee will
be required;
3:l mitigation for riparian disturbance - The LCP identified a maximum of two crossings
of the approximately 40 acre riparian corridor subject to the replacement of any resulting
disturbed wetlands at a ratio of 3 acres replacement for every one disturbed. As discussed
in the EIR, disturbed wetlands as a result of the two proposed crossings will be mitigated
at a ratio of 3:l.
View protection: bluffs and lagoon - The project will not affect the viewshed to the lagoon
and proposed development will occur at the base of the bluffs. The generalized character
of the bluffs will not be adversely affected because the great majority of the bluffs will still
be visible from most public spaces and throughways.
Coastal Permit - A Coastal Development Permit will be required for any development with
the Green Valley Master Plan.
The Master Plan incorporates those specific criteria established in the LCP segment. As
discussed under General Plan/Zoning, the proposed project is less intense than what could
be allowed under the existing General Plan. The amendment to the LCP which designates
the Master Plan as the approved land uses will guarantee a lesser intensity of development
on the site.
Planning Area 5
As the Master Plan was originally submitted, there were four (4) planning areas proposed.
Land uses within those planning areas were designated as: Riparian Corridor, Retail Center,
Multi-Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. During early staff review the
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/h& 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8/-23/ CT92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREENVALLEYMASTERPLAN JANUARY19,1994 -- PAGE6
applicant was directed to separate the upland bluffs from the Retail and Residential
planning areas into a separate Open Space planning area thereby creating five (5) planning
areas. The Neighborhood Commercial site at the southwest corner of La Costa and El
Camino Real became Planning Area 5.
Staff and the applicant have differing opinions on the best use for that corner. As shown
in the attached applicant report, a limited commercial use is desired. Staff has based the
recommendation of Master Plan approval in part on exclusion of the Neighborhood
Commercial use from the corner and removal of the Red Barn and associated parking upon
construction of street improvements required for the larger project.
Support for exclusion of the use from that corner’include:
Intersection Spacing - City standards require a minimum intersection spacing distance of
1200 feet for a major arterial and 2600 feet for a prime arterial unless no other access to
the site can be obtained. In such a case, driveways can be established at one-half the
distance of the required intersection spacing provided that acceptable levels of service can
be maintained. In this instance, acceptable levels of service cannot be maintained.
Intersection Congestion - Intensification of the commercial nature of the site will
significantly increase the turning movements and thereby reduce the capacity of the
intersection. This, along with inadequate intersection spacing will negatively impact the
traffic movement at the intersection.
Visual Impact - Development at this comer would lessen the sense of the natural setting
created by the adjacent riparian corridor and Batiquitos Lagoon to the north.
General Plan - Policies within the General Plan regarding Neighborhood Commercial
encourage placement of such uses so that pedestrian traffic is encouraged. The site,
however, lends itself and would have to be directed toward high drive-by traffic in order
to be successful.
Open Space Resource Conservation Management Plan (OSCRMP) - A primary action
priority of the OSCRMP is the protection of open space alongside El Camino Real co form
a gateway into the City from Encinitas. Preservation of the comer as open space would
achieve that action priority.
Open Space
The project proposes preservation and restoration of significant natural open space areas as well as the inclusion of developed open space areas for onsite recreation. Nearly 70%
of the total land area is devoted to open space with the remaining area to be developed.
C ‘I
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-O~/IW’ 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8/-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994 ~
PAGE 7
Per the Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, 15% of the total unconstrained land
area within the zone must be set aside as open space. As shown in the following TABLE
II the project will provide more than two (2) times the minimum open space requirement.
TABLE II
OPEN SPACE
AREA DESCRIPTION: I ACRES
I required I proposed
LFMP 15% (Prior to a G.P.A.) 27.58 68.00
Developed area 86.40
Mitigation 29.50 29.50
Development constrained
Remaining unconstrained open space
97.30 97.30
68.00
I TOTAL I 281.20
The actual Open Space area within the Master Plan is approximately 195 acres which
includes the upland bluffs, riparian corridor, and mitigation areas. All of these areas are
placed into Open Space lots.
The preserved and revegetated areas provide for a substantial link from north to south of
the upland bluff and riparian corridor both with valuable natural plant communities. A
significant connection between the upland bluff and the riparian corridor is located at the
northerly end of the Master Plan paralleling La Costa Avenue. The majority of the open
space will be habitat conservation, however, a portion will be used for public trails
consistent with the Open Space Resource Conservation Management Plan and private trails
which connect the residential and commercial components of the Master Plan.
Open Space Advisor-v Committee
The Master Plan was presented to the Open Space Advisory Committee on December 9,
1993. The Committee concurred with the adequacy of the provision of Open Space and the public and private trail system and recommended that the project be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/l.,r’ 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b/ -23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN: ZONE 23
Reviewed concurrently with the Master Plan is a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
for Zone 23. The LFMP analyzes the public facility impacts of the project and recommends
appropriate mitigation, including a financing plan. Land uses used for determining facilities
impacts are reflective of the Master Plan; i.e. Extensive Regional Retail, Open Space,
Residential Medium High and Neighborhood Commercial. The LFMP does not designate
land uses as a General Plan or Master Plan, but makes land use assumptions for the sake
of facilities planning. Therefore, assumption of the Master Plan land uses, including the
applicant proposed Neighborhood Commercial site at the comer of El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue, is appropriate for a maximum facilities need analysis. As indicated.in Table
III, all Public Facilities will comply with the adopted performance standards through
buildout. A summary of the Zone 23 facilities needs analysis follows:
TABLE III II
LFMP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT II
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS
~ City Administrative Facilities I- ~~~ ~~ 1390 sq. ft. 1 Yes (CFD No. 1) -11
Library
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
867 sq. ft.
733.3 EDU’s
Yes (CFD No. 1)
Yes
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
2.78 acres
Basin D
33,400 ADT
Yes (Park In Lieu Fee)
Yes
Yes (See Discussion)
Fire I Station 2 I Yes
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
68.0 acres
212 studs.
733.3 EDU’s
Yes (See Discussion)
Yes
Yes
Water Distribution System 1 303,376 GPD ( Yes II
The project contains conditions of approval requiring various public improvements
including circulation system improvements to La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. All
facilities requirements of the Zone 23 LFMP have been made a condition of project
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/1.,x/ 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8, -23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994 w ;
approval. The LFMP for Zone 23 limits the buildout and phasing of the zone based on
compliance with the Growth Management Plan standards.
The growth control point for the residential portion of the Master Plan (Planning Area 3)
is 11.5. The maximum number of units allowed within the Master Plan is based on a net
development area of 34.8 acres which equals 400.2. The Master Plan limits the number
of units to 400. Therefore, the proposed residential development is consistent with the
dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRIa NO. 1
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 was formed by City Council in 1986 in order to
fund improvements of specific public facilities throughout the City of Carlsbad. All
property which is not located within Local Facilities Management Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, & 6 at
first discretionary approval, except Master and Specific Plans, must be made part of (CFD)
No. 1.
Submittal and action on the Tentative Map subsequently requires that Zone 23 be annexed
into CFD No. 1. The project has been conditioned to annex.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Five circulation alternatives were analyzed. The components of the circulation analysis
included proposed Street “A”, proposed Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions,
potential extension of Street “A” north to La Costa and the potential extension of Street “A”
south to the future Leucadia Boulevard extension.
As determined in the traffic analysis of the Green Valley Environmental Impact Report,
there is no significant advantage to any of the alternatives reviewed over the proposed
project. Average Daily Trips (ADT) change at specified intersections and times of day,
however, Level of Service (LOS) does not change at significant intersections. Traffic is
projected to flow at acceptable levels after development of the project as proposed with
conditions.
Biological constraints, City boundaries and property ownership reduce the viability of an
extension of Street “A” north to La Costa Avenue. The most significant connection between
the upland bluff and riparian corridors for the purpose of wildlife movement occurs at this
northerly section of the Master Plan. Bisecting the connection with a road would reduce
the value of both the upland and riparian habitats. In order to meet intersection spacing
standards, the extension of Street “A” would require an alignment westerly into the City
of Encinitas and through property under a different ownership.
53
-
EIR 93-02/GPA93-Ol/, _ 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE i. -23/ CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEYMASTER PLAN
JANUARY19,1994 PAGE10 .-
Alignment constraints, City boundaries, potential disturbance to wildlife movement, and
property ownership are considerations for the viability of a connection to the south. In
addition, no roadway Level of Service (LOS) benefits are realized with a southerly
connection of Street “A” to the future Leucadia Boulevard. Therefore, staff does not
recommend that the southerly connection be a condition of approval.
The project’s proposed extensions of Levante Street and Calle Barcelona will provide
sufficient ingress and egress to the retail center and residential planning areas. Streets are
designed at a width consistent with City standards in anticipation of the need at buildout.
Improvements conditioned to be in place prior to occupancy of any portion of the project
include the widening of El Camino Real to three (3) lanes for southbound traffic, the
widening of La Costa Avenue to two (2) lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic and the
improvement of the La Costa/I-S interchange.
Interior circulation will be provided through Street A and a network of smaller private
streets which connect all portions of the retail center and a separate private street and
driveway system for the residential planning area. Final design of the interior circulation
system will be established through subsequent discretionary review.
DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN STANDARDS
The Master Plan contains a full range of design and development standards and guidelines.
A focus of the guidelines is on architecture with the goal of creating development which
is rich in detailing and is reflective of the surrounding natural setting.
Standards have been established with the intention of limiting the intensity of development
and preserving a quality relationship between structures, parking, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation areas and natural open space.
Adoption of the Master Plan will establish the underlying zoning and development
standards. Following is a description of the planning area standards:
Planning Areas 1 and 4 - Open Space:
Development within these dpen space planning areas is limited to roadways, trails, flood
control structures and habitat enhancement. No commercial, residential or private recreation facilities are permitted.
Planning Area 2 - Retail Center:
Uses - Retail square footage is limited to a maximum of 600,000 and uses are typical of
a C2, General Commercial zone.
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/l\-,, 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b,-23/
CT92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP92-05 - GREENVALLEYMASTERPLAN
JANUARY19,1994
Building Height - Building height is limited to 35 feet with an exception for non-habitable
architectural features allowed up to 45 feet.
Lot Coverage - Lot coverage is regulated by the parking to building area’ ratio (one space
per 200 gross square feet of building), landscape requirements and setbacks. Setback
standards proposed within the Master Plan are more precise than what is found within
Chapter 21.28 of the Municipal Code (C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL).
All development proposals will require review and approval by the City Council.
Planning Area 3 - Residential:
Uses - Uses allowed within the Planning Area are limited to multi-family residential units
typical of the RD-M Zone. The maximum base number of units allowed is 400. The
Master Plan requires that 15% of those be made available to low income households.
Therefore, if 400 units are approved by future discretionary action, 60 units will be
designated as affordable. However, the applicant may also request a density bonus.
Should the request to increase the base number of units be approved by the City Council,
a greater number of affordable units would be required.
The following are reflections of the RD-M standards or adaptations of the Planned
Development and Parking standards.
Lot Coverage - Maximum building coverage is 60%. A minimum of 15% of the lot area
will be landscaped.
PARKING
Development of residential units which include subdivision for individual ownership shall
provide:
2 covered resident spaces per unit;
5 guest spaces for the first 10 units; and 1 guest space for each 4 units over 10.
Development of residential units which do not include subdivision shall provide:
2 resident spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered;
5 guest spaces for the first 10 units; and 1 guest space for each 4 units over 10.
55
-
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/n,,- 92-Ol/LCPA93-06/LFMP ZONE b/-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREENVALLEYMASTERPLAN
JANUARY19,1994
PAGE12
TAE5LEl-V.
400 units
Unsubdivided
Subdivided
Parking Comparison
Covered Open Parking
Resident Total
Spaces Resident Guest
400 400 103 903
800 103 903
Recreational Open Space - Such Open Space is to be provided at a ratio of 200 square feet
per unit regardless of whether the units are apartments or planned developments. A
minimum of 25% of that requirement shall be improved as active. A 10% credit of Open
Space may be granted for the provision of an onsite interior exercise facility.
Chapter 21.24 (RD-M) does not have open space criteria, therefore, the Master Plan has
modified standards from Chapter 2 1.45 (Planned Development). The amount of
recreational open space required has not been changed, however, how the space is
apportioned has been more clearly defined. A requirement for providing a balcony or patio
for each unit was not included.
Building Height - Building height is limited to 35 feet and/or three levels. Non-habitable
architectural features will be allowed up to 45 feet. Each of these standards are consistent
with current code requirements.
Streets/Drivewavs - Private residential streets or driveways will have a minimum width of
30 feet. At the discretion of the Planning Commission, internal private driveways will be
allowed at a minimum width of 24 feet. No on-street/driveway parking will be permitted.
Residential development proposals of greater than 50 units will require review and
approval by the City Council. Unless appealed, development proposals of 50 or fewer
dwelling units are subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
TENTATIVE MAP
An 11 parcel subdivision map has been submitted in conjunction with the Master Plan.
Subdivision’of the planning areas into independent legal lots allows for separate ownership
and development of each parcel. Lots 4 through 7 are Planning Area 2 (Retail Center) and
lot 9 is Planning Area 3 (Residential). Lot 11 is the applicant proposed Planning Area 5
(Neighborhood Commercial). Staff, for reasons stated earlier, is recommending that lot 11
should be designated as an open space lot, such as lots 1, 2, 3, 8 & 10.
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/L. .I 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b. -23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
All lots proposed are of adequate size and shape to allow for the future development of a
retail center and attached multi-family residential units.
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The project site has varying terrain which includes 40% slopes and a general topography
which has an elevational difference greater than 15 feet. Information has been provided
as required by the Hillside Development Regulations identifying hillside conditions and
areas of proposed development and undevelopable areas identified.
The intent of the Hillside Development Regulations is to visually preserve and enhance the
natural contours of Carlsbad’s hillsides. The project proposes preservation of the upland
bluffs which contain all of the continuous 40% slopes and nearly all of the slopes greater
than 15%. Development is confined primarily to the disturbed agricultural areas of less
than 15%. Total grading quantities are approximately a balanced cut and fill of 729,000
cubic yards over 115.9 acres of disturbance, including mitigation areas, which is
approximately 6289 cubic yards per graded acre. Up to 10,000 cubic yards per acre within
non-residential developments and 7,999 cubic yards within residential developments is
permitted by the Hillside Regulations. The proposed project grading falls within those
limits.
The Planning Commission may approve slopes greater than 30 feet within non-residential
developments. The Retail Center portion of the proposed Master Plan includes cut and fill
grading creating a crib wall with the maximum peak point of 40 feet. The proposed crib
walls are located along the western edge of Planning Area 2 at the base of the upland
bluffs. However, development of the retail center at the base of the bluffs will screen the
majority of the crib walls from public view. Therefore, the view of the bluffs by the public
will not be visually affected. The steep slopes requiring the crib walls are the result of a
need to grade large flat areas for commercial uses. The grading involves slopes generally
under 15% and without natural vegetation (i.e. the need for crib walls is m resulting from
the grading of steep slopes or natural areas). Therefore, the proposed -grading meets the
intent of the Hillside Ordinance and the restrictions of the LCP.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area having special flood or flood related
erosion hazard potential. Encroachment into an SFHA requires analysis and issuance of
a Special Use Permit (SUP).
The project is located in the Encinitas Creek Basin of the Batiquitos watershed and
encroaches into a documented SFHA as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/,. 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE t. -23/ CT92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREENVALLEYMASTERPLAN JANUARY19,1994
An integral part of the discretionary review process was the analysis of the potential
impacts to Encimtas Creek caused by the proposed development. Development of the
proposed project will cause significant increases in the water surface elevation of Encinitas
Creek during a 100 year storm. This impact can be mitigated however, in accordance with
the conditions of approval imposed on the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Potential environmental impacts have been reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 93-02). Action on the EIR will be certification that the document has completely and
adequately analyzed all potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Master
Plan.
Sections of discussion in the EIR are:
1. Land Use 2. Visual Quality/Landform Alteration
3. Agriculture
4. Biological Resources
5. Cultural Resources
6. Paleontological Resources
7. Geology/Soils
8. Hydrology/Water Quality
9. Traffic 10. Noise
11. Air Quality
1’2. Public Facilities and Services
As identified in the Draft EIR, impacts to each section but Long Term Air Quality are
potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation has been proposed in the EIR for each of
the identified impacts.
Specific Discussion
Air Quality - Although the EIR has identified Long Term Air Quality as being unmitigable,
staff concludes that the impact is significant but the proposed mitigation is adequate to
reduce the cumulative long term impacts to below a level of significance for the following
reasons: The Master Plan has been coordinated with regional transportation agencies;
provision of a pedestrian/bicycle trail system; bike lanes along adjacent major roadways.
All of these measures will help to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the number of vehicle
cold starts.
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/w1P 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE b/-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
At this time, the only available mitigation for cumulative air quality impacts is the
successful implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS), which have been
designed to implement all reasonable measures to try to achieve the State air quality
standards in the basin. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District is ultimately
responsible for implementing the RAQS and achieving the State and Federal air quality
standards in the San Diego basin. The Master Plan is in conformance with the General
Plan and has been determined to be in conformance with the requirements of the RAQS.
Encinitas Creek - Several alternative mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR
for the impacts associated with the two crossings of the Encinitas Creek. For reasons of
feasibility and traffic management, staff recommends that the fourth option be pursued.
That option requires that the applicant work with the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) to design a crossing system which encourages wildlife movement along the
creek corridor versus removal of either Calle Barcelona or Levante.
Staff, CDFG and the applicant have had preliminarymeetings to discuss just such solutions.
Historic Preservation Commission
The project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Commission
was in agreement that the measures proposed in the Green Valley EIR regarding Cultural
Resources are adequate mitigation.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3598
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3599
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3600
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3601
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3602
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3603
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3604
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3605
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Green Valley Master Plan (MP 92-01) (previously distributed)
Green Valley Master Plan Final Program EIR (EIR 93-02)(previously distributed)
Exhibit “xx”, Applicant Report regarding Mini-Commercial
Exhibits “A” - “N”, dated January 19, 1994.
CW:vd:lh
Nowmlm 30. 1993
BACKGROUND DATA SHEEl
CASE NO: EIR 93-OWGPA 93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA93-06/LPMP 87-23/m 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05
CASE NAME: GreehVallev Master Plan
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A reauest for certification of an Environmental ImDact
ReDort and apmoval of a Master Plan. General Plan Amendment. Local Coastal Promam
Amendment, Tentative Tract Map. Hillside DeveloDment Pennit. and SDecial Use Permit to
allow for the future develoDment of a 600.000 sauare foot commercial retail center and
400 attached multi-familv dwellinp units on 281 acres at the southwest corner of El
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Manazement Plan Zone 23.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Section 2, T13S. R4W: and a Dortion of Section 25. T12S. R4W.
APN: 216-122-24.36.37: 255011-08-12: 255021-05-08 Acres 281.2 proposed No. of Lots/Units 11 Lots
(Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Communitv Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-Hinh
Density Allowed 8-15 Density Proposed 11.5
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 Vacant
North OS Batiquitos Lagoon
south Ellcinitas Vacant
. East N/RMH/OS Neighborhood Commercial
Open Space, Condominiums
West Encinitas Vacant
PUBLIC FACIiITIES
School District Encinitas Union/San Die&to Water District Olivenhain MuniciDal Sewer District Leucadia County
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 733.3
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 6. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
X Final Environmental Impact Report, dated December 1993
Other, CW:vd:lh
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A?o’JCANTCT’f STAT~UE?-,T CF ZISCLCSURE OF CERTAIN OWNEilSHlP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLiCATlCt-dS WMICH WILL :ESI;,=E
;iSCRErlCNA;lY ACTION CN %E PART OF THE Cm CCUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSICN OR CCMMITEE
.fP\ease Pm0
The fcllowing information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a finaflcial interest in the application.
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Carlsbad Partners. ltd. Suite 2364, 1601 Elm St. Dallas, Texas 75201
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a dorporation or partnership, list the names ant
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannersnrq
interest in the partnership. . . -Bunt l.lwtinn _ Trust 8235Doualas Ave.. #1300. Dallas, T:
William Herbert Hunt T,iauidating Trust 8235 Douqlas Ave., #1300, Dallas, '
T. J. Curnes 8235 Douglas Ave., #1300,Dallas,Tx
Pacwes, Ltd. 8235 Douglas Ave., #1300,Dallas, T:
Penyen Partners, Ltd. t)ZJt> Douglas Ave.,#1300,Dallas,Tx.
75225
4. If any person identffied pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ana
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficrary of the trust.
FRMooo13 W90
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Car&bad. California 920094859 - (819) 438-l 161
-.
Disclosure Statement
iOver)
Page 2
5. Pave you had mere than S2SO worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. a-a?+- -w’-i r3 Commissions, CommIttees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No k - - If yes, please indicate person(s)
Gr~on 18 arfinod u: ‘Any Indwdual. firm. coo~%~rsh~~. lolnt vwlufo. USOCI~IIOA. roc~al club. trawnrl orgw~r~t~on. corporation. WM, :v,s~. I
W~IVW syne~cato, thlr rno any ofhw count+, city rnd county. cy munwMrty. QWcI or orhw polmc& ~UWNISIO~. or wy otnw jroko or 1
tombtnmon rctmg 4s 4 unit’ !
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
7-m //-6-j--
SignaKre of Owner/date
%hOrrlHJ x C&wJQ5
Print or type name of owner
DtuGL3p#&~r &E’/t@fqL
pA-c;7, CRPLs&~
?~n7/wRs, l! jc/
Signature of applicant&late
Print or type name of applicant
FRhdm13 a/90
-
ClTYOFCIXEBAD
GROWlI MANAGEMENT PROGRAM e
UlCALFACLlTESWACl.S-FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECTIDENTIIYANDIMPACI'ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: EIR 93-02/GPA93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA93-06/LFMP 87-23/CT92-08/HDP 92- 15/SUP 92-05
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:= GENERAL PLAN: C/O/R.MH ZONING: Planned Comm.
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Carlsbad Partners,Ltd.
ADDRESS: 1601 Elm Street Suite 23 bc. Dallas Texas
PHONE NO: (2141 979-9072 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 2X-122-24.36.37: 255-Oil-(0812): 255.021-(05-08)
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 281.2 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 1.390
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 867
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by stafl)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identity Sub Basin -
733.3 EDU
2.78
BASIN D
33.400
2
68
212 Students
733.3
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 303.376
The project is .2 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
cw:vd:lh
EXHIBIT “XX?
December 1, 1993
P&D Technologies 401 W “K’ Stree!
Sutte 2500 San Dlego CA 92101 FAX 6191234-3022
619:232-4466 ’
Planning Englneenng Fansporfat~on Environmental Economics Landscape Archdecture
An Employee-Owned Company
Mr. Bailey Noble, Chairman
Carlsbad Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576
Re: Green Valley Mini Commercial Site
Dear Commissioners:
City staff has requested the applicant, Carlsbad Partners, Ltd.,to delete Planning Area 5 land
uses from the Master Plan submittal. Planning Area 5 has accommodated a small commercial
facility for a numbers of years and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. The existing use on this site is commonly referred to
as the “Red Barn.” Attached is a copy of the Master Plan which deals with this site which
staff has deleted from the plan. The applicant disagrees with this modification of the Master
Plan document, and believes Planning Area 5 should be retained in the Master Plan. The
following is an overview of the issues.
BACKGROUND
The three-acre site is an existing commercial use comprised of the “Red Barn”, two small
parking lots and a graded pad. It has been used for commercial purposes for many years back
prior to the annexation of the parcel from the County of San Diego. The existing two access
points and parking lots were installed by the City of Carlsbad by agreement as part of the
widening of La Costa Avenue in exchange for the owner’s dedication of right-of-way for both
La Costa and El Camino Real.
The applicant and the City staff have a difference of opinion with respect to the future use
of this portion of the Green Valley property. This has resulted IT, a staf: ,ecommended plan
and an applicant’s requested plan alternative.
The applicant’s plan is to continue the commercial land use of the site but when economically
viable, replace the existing “Red Barn” structure with a building nearer the corner and possibly
a small second structure to the south. This is illustrated on the attached site plan. Existing
access would remain the same, and the property would additionally be subjected to a site plan
Planning Commission December 1, 1993
City of Carlsbad + Page 2
and architectural review process at a later date. At this master plan stage the central issue
is one of establishing the appropriate land use for this site.
The staff recommendation is that this entire area should be designated as open space and the
existing structure and parking areas removed.
ISSUES
There are three issues which have been put forward in discussions regarding this site; general
plan land use policies, specific types of land use, and traffic.
1. General Plan Land Use Policies
The issue regarding general plan land use is centered around the interpretation of
policies in the Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan
(COSCRMP).
The Green Valley EIR discusses the COSCRMP on pages 4.1-l 3 and 4.1-l 4. The
applicant feels that the discussion in the EIR of the COSCRMP is an incomplete
presentation of the plan’s provisions as it relates to Planning Area 5. The EIR focuses
on the idea that this is one of a series of strips of land located between the existing
riparian corridor and El Camino Real which should be open space. However, in addition
to the material presented in the EIR analysis the COSCRMP states that: “Although the
ultimate use for the property at this major intersection may be commercial, this would
not preclude the establishment of a secondary (trail) staging area.”
If the open space policies intended to include this existing developed areas as part of
the “additional .strips of land between El Camino Real and the riparian corridor” to be
included as open space, this would not have been discussed as a possible commercial
site.
In addition, there is no reasoning in the COSCRMP or in any other applicable plan or
policy, how an existing building, two paved parking areas and a graded pad would be
considered an integral part of a natural open space system.
The only reasonable conclusion from an analysis of the COSCRMP is that this area was
not to be include as part of these “strips” to be designated as open space. The “strips
of land” do exist in several places on the property south along El Camino Real, and
they are properly included in the project open space area.
There is no policy basis for changing the existing use and access.
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad W
December 1, 1993
Page 3
2. Specific Land Uses
The issue regarding specific land uses has centered around the potential for uses that
would be seen as inappropriate in this location. These might include a gas station,
liquor store, fast food outlet, etc. In response the applicant has restricted the kinds
of uses to the very narrow range listed on Page IV-54 of the attached document. The
intent is a relatively low intensity use with small scale structures, a landscaped corner,
and drive and parking located behind the building. From a purely locational perspective
the intersection of the major arterial roadways is both very desirable and extremely
valuable. In fact, this locational circumstance is not present anywhere else on the
28 1 -acre site.
The restricted types of land use, the master plan design criteria and the future site plan
and architectural review process allows protection such that the development of this
site will be an asset to Carlsbad.
3. Traffic and Circulation
The proposed site plan for Planning Area 5, which has been subject to further
refinements not included in the draft EIR analysis, does respond to all significant issues
related to compatibility with circulation at the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection.
A copy of the refined site plan is included in the attachment. The proposed site plan
has nowhere near the traffic impacts that the existing service station use on the
northeast corner of the same intersection as suggested on Page 4.1-l 6 of the EIR.
The two access points along El Camino Real already exist to serve the existing
commercial use and are much further removed from the intersection than the access
points into the existing service station.
Right-in and right-out movements are well established methods to solve access to
properties near intersections and along major streets. This is particularly true where
the amount of traffic requiring access is low. The original master plan proposal, plus
the subsequent refinements that have been suggested by the applicant, establish a
workable circulation system for this site.
SUMMARY
The applicant believes that the-issues cited by the staff have either been resolved through
changes to the land use and design criteria, or are applications of policy inappropriate to the
circumstances. The staff alternative to terminate the existing use and remove all improve-
Planning Commission December 1, 1993
City of Carlsbad + Page 4
ments from the site does not seem a reasonable response to the situation. We request your
approval of the applicant’s alternative for this site.
Very truly yours,
-
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
E. PLANNING AREA 5 - MINI-CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL
Description
Planning Area 5 is a small parcel (approximately 3.1 acres) in the northeast corner of Green
Valley. The planning area is bounded on the north by La Costa Avenue, on the east by El
Camino Real, and on the west and south by Planning Area 1. The site is in a very high
visibility location and is very well suited for a small convenience-type commercial use (Figure
VI-31 1.
Site Development Standards and Design Criteria
All development within Planning Area 5 shall be in conformance with the C-l Neighborhood
Commercial Zone (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.261, and the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Standards, except as otherwise noted in this chapter.
Use Allocation
A maximum of 12,000 square feet of gross floor area of convenience commercial uses shall
be allowed.
Permitted Uses
Any commercial use is permitted which is considered convenience commercial and appropriate
to the size and location of the site. Permitted uses may include the following:
Art store and gallery
Bank/savings and loan (with or without drive-thru’s)
Convenience food store
Florist
Offices (business and professional uses)
Restaurant (including sit-down, with or without onsite liquor sales, and drive-thru’s)
Uses which are not included in the previous list may be permitted upon approval of the
Planning Director if they are found to be uses normally associated with convenience
commercial use.
Heiaht
The maximum allowable height in this planning area is 25 feet for a building structure
including roof form and any other architectural elements.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-!54
-
. :
. . ) l&l P&D Technologfes
b,
Figure VI-31
Planning Area 5 - Illustrative Site Plan
Page VI-55
69
C
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
The minimum setback along La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for structures shall be thirty
feet (30’) from curb as in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards. The minimum setback for parking shall also be thirty feet (30’) from curb.
Parkinq
Parking shall be in conformance with the Carlsbad parking standards (Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chapter 21.44). Additional parking standards including parking lot landscape standards
are contained in the Special Design Criteria section which follows.
Architecture
General
1. The project design concepts shall reflect the key elements of the existing “Old
California/Hispanic” development along the El Camino corridor consistent with the
requirements of the El Camino Real Development Standards (February 1984).
2. All elements shall appear integrated into the overall project design concept. Designs
that appear arbitrary or are inconsistent in form or composition shall not be allowed.
Building Massing and Form
1. Building massing shall possess a balance in form and composition.
2. Building facades shall have a firm relationship to a human scale.
3. The arrangement and design of windows and doors, as a whole, shall be carefully
composed to compliment a building mass.
Building Entries
1. A relationship between site and building shall be firmly established. Site and landscape
features that create a link to the building entry shall be emphasized.
2. Primary building entries shall be from the parking area oriented away from the
intersection.
Green Valley Master flan P&D Technologies
Page VI-56
h
h
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Height of Buildings and Structures
1. The maximum total building height, including roof-mounted equipment and SCreenS,
shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height.
2. Unoccupiable structures such as tower-type architectural features and flag poles shall
not exceed twenty-five feet (25’).
Building Materials and Finishes
1. Exterior materials selected for a building shall exhibit a hierarchy of order and be
consistently applied throughout a project.
2. Corrugated, metal-sided, pre-fabricated, and high gloss contemporary buildings are not
allowed.
3. Color palettes shall be predominantly light in shade, warm in character, and sensitive
in the use of color accents.
4. The use of tinted and/or moderately reflective glazing (such as green, blue, gray, or
bronze) is encouraged. Untinted mirrored glass and highly reflective gold tinted glass
shall not be allowed.
5. Monolithic glazing shall not be used as a dominant design theme. “Glass boxes” shall
not be permitted.
6. Exterior wood may be used, but must be finished with paint or solid based stain.
Building Roof Design
1.
2.
The building may use parapet-screened, built-up flat roof forms. Sloped or curved roof
forms may also be used if they are expressed as part of the overall architectural
design. Mansard roof forms shall not be permitted.
Due to the grade differences between this planning area and surrounding areas, roofs
will be visible from some existing development. For this reason, all roofs, unless part
of a specific design element (e.g. a standing seam roof portion), shall be finished in a
uniform color regardless of whether it is visible from ground level. All roof elements;
including roof-mounted equipment and components, the inside faces of equipment
screens, and back side of parapet walls; shall be painted to match roof color. Roof
forms that are part of the architectural theme of the building may be colored in
‘conformance with the approved material and color palette.
Green Vale y Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-57
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
3. Built-up or membrane roofing shall be effecti.vely screened on all sides by the building
parapet. Parapet height must equal or exceed the height of the highest point of the
flat roofing.
Roof Drainage
1. Roof downspouts shall, in all cases, be routed internally.
2. A cover piece shall be required for roof overflow drains. This cover piece may be
either flush hinge-mounted or forward fixed-mounted. Cover pieces may be painted
to match the background building color or in a contrasting color and developed as a
design element.
3. Storm water from roof downspouts shall not be drained into landscape areas.
Mechanical Equipment Screening
1. Exterior components, whether roof- or ground-mounted, shall be screened on all sides
by the building itself, such as an extended roof or parapet wall, that shall be aestheti-
cally compatible with the architectural design of the building or screen walls designed
integrally with the building.
2. Equipment screening shall be at least the height of the exterior components to be
screened and shall effectively screen all such equipment as might be viewed from the
ground elevation.
3. Corrugated metal shall not be allowed as a screening material.
Screen Walls, Fences, and Retaining Walls
1. Screen walls and fences shall adhere to parking setback requirements along public
rights-of-way.
2. Screen walls and fences shall not exceed eight feet (8’1 in height.
3. Fencing and screening treatments must be designed as an integral part of the overall
architecture and landscape design.
4. All fencing shall be constructed of durable mate:ials and shall be maintained in good
repair. Painted wrought iron, metal picket, masonry block (split face, stucco-coated,
plaster-coated, or texture finished) or tilt-up concrete panels are examples of
acceptable fencing materials.
Green Vale y Master Wan P&D Technologies
Page Vi-58
-
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Loading Areas
1. All loading areas shall be located to be unobtrusive from view from La Costa Avenue
and El Camino Real.
2. Loading areas must be designed to not interfere with public streets.
Outdoor Storage
1. No outdoor storage shall be permitted.
Refuse Collection and Storage
1. Outdoor refuse enclosures shall be constructed of permanent materials aesthetically
compatible in scale, finish, and color with the overall project. Enclosures shall be of
sufficient height to completely screen the bins within and shall be provided with a
gate, in order to screen all refuse containers from adjacent public or private rights-of-
way.
2. Refuse collection areas shall be designed to contain all refuse generated on site
between collections.
Utilities and Communication Devices
1.
2.
3.
4.
Exterior on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage systems;
gas lines, water and sewer lines, and electrical and telecommunications shall be
installed and maintained underground. Exceptions to this provision are electrical
transformers and other similar equipment that is not typically placed underground.
Antenna and/or dishes for transmission or reception of any type of signals shall be
located so as to minimize their view from public areas. All such devices require
specific approval within the site development plan process.
Electrical equipment shall be mounted on the interior of a building wherever practical.
When interior mounting is not practical, such equipment shall be screened with walls,
berms, and/or landscaping.
On-site transformers shall not be placed within the building setback, nor where readily
visible upon site entrance. All transformer areas shall be screened by landscaping.
Green Valley Master Wan P&D Technologies
Page VI-59 73
-
Plannina Area Develoomen t Standards and Guidelines
5. All backflow preventers, including fire sprinkler backflow preventers and above-grade
utility connections shall be screened by landscaping and painted, when allowed by
code, so as to blend in with the adjacent background.
6. Fire sprinkler valves and alarms shall be placed to visually minimize their visual
presence.
Vehicular Circulation
1. The vehicular circulation system for the mini-convenience center is a through driveway
system connecting three entry points. Two entry points are limited to a right-in/right:
out movement. One entry point is a right-in only.
2. Two access points will be located along the El Camino Real frontage and correspond
to the existing points of access approved by the City of Carlsbad as part of the
previous dedications and improvements to La Costa Avenue.
3. The third access point is on La Costa Avenue immediately east of the crossing of
Encinitas Creek.
Pedestrian/Bicvcle Circulation
1. Efficient, safe pedestrian access shall be provided from the parking areas to the
building(s).
2. Where possible, the sidewalk along La Costa Avenue will be a widened sidewalk detail
consistent with the eight-foot (8’) wide pedestrian/bicycle trail designated for this area.
The pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the entry point to the commercial center will be
adequately marked and detailed to allow bicycles to avoid any curbs or drainage
structures.
3. Bicycle racks shall be provided in a convenient, yet unobtrusive location.
Parkinq
1. Parking shall be regulated in accordance with the current parking standards of the City
of Carlsbad and the standards described within this guideline.
2. All uses shall meet or exceed the City of Carlsbad parking count standards.
3. Onsite vehicular circulation shall be clearly marked, direct, and efficient.
4. Designated spaces shall be provided in convenient locations for handicapped parking.
Green Valley Master Wan P&D Technologies
Page VI-60
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
5. Designated bicycle parking areas shall be required. Bicycle parking areas shall have
racks and be unobtrusive.
6. Should drive-thru facilities be developed, circulation design shall preclude car stacking
into interior circulation driveways.
Utilities
Desiltation and Depollutant Plan
1. The Green Valley master plan for siltation and pollution control is contained in Chapter
V. The portion of the plan related to Planning Area 5 is illustrated in Figure VI-41.
2. The siltation and pollution control for Planning Area 5 will use an urban pollutant gravel
filter system. The urban pollutant gravel filter will use standards of the City of
Carlsbad or an alternate technique or design if approved by the City Engineer.
Green Valley Master Wan P&D Technologies
Page VI-61
EXl4Bl-f 6
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 8
desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared the
and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
\
Commission Resolution Nos. 3612, 3613, and 3614, approving CT 90-24, PUD 90-24,
and HDP 90-31, based on the findincs and subiect to the conditions contained therein,
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES: ABSTAIN:
53 ‘th the addition of a condition mai&ining access to the service road as requested by
SD FE. 6-l ‘,..
ChairmahSavary, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
Commissioner Erwin . None “\ \. Commissioner Erwin voted against theproject because of the right-of-way going through the SDG&E
easement. He likes the project but is concerned that people will use the powerline easement area for other
things. x
\
RECESS ’
nvened at 7:34 p.m.
3. EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-l!XUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for certification of an Environmental Impact
Report and recommending approval of a Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development
Permit, and Special Use Permit to allow for the future development of a 600,000 s.f. commercial
retail center and 400 attached multi-family dwelling units on 281 acres at the southwest corner of El
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the project
is a Master Plan, divided into four subareas, and will serve as the zoning for a 281 acre parcel of land
southwest of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, commonly known as the Green
Valley property. The Master Plan document establishes land uses, delineates development areas, assigns
density, considers differing land use interrelationships, delineates specific design criteria, outlines phasing,
and provides implementation methodology so that development will occur in an orderly and positive
manner without creating significant impacts to the existing and project infrastructure and setting.
The proposed land uses are Extensive Regional Retail (RRE), Open Space (OS), and Residential Medium
High (RMH). Development within the Master Plan is limited to Planning Areas 2 and 3. Planning Area 2
allows up to a maximum of 600,000 of commercial use and Planning Area 3 allows up to a maximum of
400 residential units. The Master Plan includes a full spectrum of development standards as well as for
each of the planning areas. Development of any of the planning areas will require future discretionary
action. Those approvals would include a coastal development permit by the Coastal Commission. The two
remaining planning areas (Planning Areas 1 and 4) are designated as open space. The intent of the
designations was to preserve and enhance the existing natural plant communities within each of the open
space planning areas.
The Environmental Impact Report was completed, circulated, and responses were prepared for the public
comments which were received. Several directed sections were analyzed in the EIR. The two most
discussed were traffic and biological resources. The average daily traffic (ADT) generated by the project is
determined to be 33,400. The project has been analyzed for levels of service and, as conditioned, has
been found to be in compliance. The analysis of biological resources encompassed the entire project and
there was a focus on the larger Encinitas Creek corridor which reviewed the project’s ability to provide
adequate area for wildlife movement through that corridor. The two crossings proposed for the project,
MINUTES 7b
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 9
Levante and Cake Barcelona, have been designed to allow movement along the natural floor. Staff and
the applicant have been in discussions with the Department of Fish and Game regarding these crossings
and have also been involved in the regional context with the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory
Committee. The plan proposes a change from the existing uses of Community Commercial/Office and
Residential Medium High to Extensive Regional Retail, Residential Medium High, and Open Space.
The Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment is the result of the General Plan Amendment. The LCP
identifies land uses as those allowed by the General Plan. Therefore, if the General Plan is changed, the
LCP must also be changed. The Tract Map subdivides the property into planning areas and lots. The
Hillside Development Permit is required for the proposed grading associated with subdivision of the
property. The Special Use Permit is required because the development will be within a flood plain.
Development will be directed so as not to negatively affect adjacent and surrounding properties.
Mr. Westman reviewed changes to various resolutions that were outlined in a staff memo dated
January 19, 1994 and also changes contained on three additional errata sheets. He turned the time over
to Don Rideout, Senior Management Analyst, Growth Management, to discuss the Local Facilities
Management Plan.
Mr. Rideout stated that the zone plan mirrors what is in the Master Plan regarding assumptions for
development. All eleven of the public facilities have been analyzed and all performance standards will be
met through buildout of the City. The LFMP also contains a complete financing plan which consists of a
combination of mechanisms and which meets all of the City’s requirements. The residential portion of the
project is well within the Proposition E cap for the southwest quadrant. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the project based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the accompanying
resolutions.
Commissioner Betz referred to page 2 of Exhibit “A” under subheading “Sanctions” and requested staff to
comment on the statement that there will be no approval of the Master Plan without Open Space
designation for Planning Area 4. Mr. Westman replied that when the EIR was reviewed, the Master Plan
had four planning areas: riparian, commercial, residential, and the proposed mini-convenience corner at
La Costa and El Camino Real. Planning Area 4 is the mini-convenience corner of the original EIR.
Commissioner Betz stated that she would refer to that as the Red Barn area to avoid confusion. She is
concerned that the wording in Exhibit “A” is far too restrictive. Mr. Westman replied that due to various
staff regulations and policies, it was difficult to design a convenience corner at that location.
Commissioner Betz stated that her question is more broad. Exhibit “A” states that the Master Plan cannot
be approved without an open space designation n6f~.t?/Cbhti&1~t3rcf?/~n,trY for the Red Barn area. She
has a problem with the restrictive wording. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that the
engineering reason had to do with traffic to the red barn area. Engineering felt that any type of
development at that corner could not be supported. Vehicular access is a problem due to the many
accidents which have occurred at that location. That intersection has been ranked in the top 10 for
number of accidents.
Commissioner Noble agrees with Commissioner Betz. The project already has 70% open space and staff
is now asking them to tear down the red barn. He inquired as to the number of acres in the red barn
parcel. Mr. Westman replied that there are three acres.
Commissioner Hall inquired how El Camino Real will be reconfigured. There are currently three points of
access to the Von’s shopping center. If a median is created along the entire length of El Camino Real,
without cutouts, how will motorists gain access to the shopping center. Mr. Wojcik replied that one of the
conditions of approval of that minor subdivision is that a median be installed with one opening and a traffic
signal. Von’s posted a bond which the City still holds. If Von’s wants to construct the median opening,
they need to discuss it with the Green Valley property owners.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19,1994 PAGE 10
Commissioner Hall inquired if it will be Von’s responsibility to come back to the City and state that they
want a cut and signal. Mr. Wojcik replied that he would need to revisit it to see if that is still viable.
Commissioner Hall inquired what the triggering aspect would be. Mr. Wojcik replied that a telephone call
to staff would be enough.
Commissioner Welshons inquired where the signal light would go to meet our intersection policy. Mr.
Wojcik replied that it is 1,450 ft. south of La Costa and 1,250 ft. north of Levante. It does not meet the
City’s 2,600 ft. policy. The location was established in 1981 and he would prefer not to have a signal.
However, if Von’s wants to install the signal, we would have to look into it further.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if a full median was required when the LFMP was approved in 1981. Mr.
Rideout replied that the LFMP does not approve construction or require it. The essence of the LFMP is to
require the applicant to provide mitigation in constructing facilities. Nothing in the LFMP precludes having
an opening if it is worked out between staff and the property owners.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he was on the Planning Commission in 1981 and he thinks that part
of El Camino Real is a nightmare and may well have been one of the bad decisions made by the
Commission. As a new Commissioner, he thought cutouts could be made anywhere. But as he has
become more wise, he sees the error of his decisions. He does not think we can compare decisions of the
past with the present situation.
Commissioner Welshons noted that the speed limit drops when you cross El Camino Real.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that regarding the errata sheet dated January 19, 1994,
page II-1 4, “Non-Vesting of Rights”, what staff has tried to say is that we want the more restrictive
requirements to apply to this Master Plan.
Commissioner Erwin agrees with Mr. Wayne. He is also concerned that there is an 18% yield on the
commercial acreage but there is a 143% increase in residential units which pencils out to 28 du/ac. He
feels the philosophy between the two are very different.
Commissioner Erwin also expressed concerns about the following:
* Retaining walls and crib walls - He would like to know if the crib walls could be sloped to make them
safe. Mr. Wojcik replied yes.
* He would like to see some sort of fencing along the top and he asked who makes the decision as to a
crib wall or a retaining wall. Mr. Wojcik replied that the applicant makes a proposal and staff either
agrees or disagrees. The Planning Commission can specify a condition regarding fencing.
. He passed out a drawing showing degrees of slopes and asked what angle on a crib wall would be safe
for a 40 ft. high wall.
* He inquired if the fire department has signed off on this master plan. Mr. Westman replied yes.
. Signage (page 4-39) - He would like staff’s opinion on the position for the monument sign. He would
like to see all signs installed at a safe site distance.
* Lighting (page 4-40) - He is concerned about neon lighting around the sides of buildings. He thinks we
had good conditions for the recent car wash which was approved. He would like to see the same
lighting condition imposed. Commissioner Welshons read aloud the condition used for the car wash.
MINUTES 7%
-
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19,1994 PAGE 11
* Temporary signs (4-44) - He is concerned about temporary signs which cause many problems. He
wants to see the most restrictive conditions for temporary signs. He feels that #9 on page 4-44 is
ambiguous. Mr. Wayne replied that these signs are allowed throughout the City for special promotional
uses.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if staff is happy with the condition. Mr. Wayne replied that if staff denies
the temporary signage, the applicant can come to the Planning Commission on appeal. Commissioner
Erwin wof~td could not find any place in the Open Space ordinance which talks about signage. He asked
the Deputy City Attorney if, by placing it in this Master Plan, would the Commission in essence be
granting a variance. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney replied that this is similar to a variance because
it varies from normal standards. The underlying ordinance is less restrictive.
* Parking (page 6-22) - He would like to delete the section which allows 40% of the parking for compact
cars, even though it may be employee parking. He does not feel this will benefit the applicant and will
only create confusion.
* Residential area (page 6-40) regarding building height, in the middle of the page - Under the 35 ft.
designation, he would like to delete “/or”. Under the 45 ft. height for RDM, he would like a maximum of
35 ft.
* Crib walls (Resolution No. 3598) refers to slopes which are in excess of 30 ft. He would like to know
where those slopes are and on what document they are shown. Christer Westman, Associate Planner,
replied that the hillside development and tract map includes a grading plan.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the requirement for game guzzlers. She stated that the location is
specified but the source of the water is not. Mr. Westman replied that the applicant can discuss this point.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the site will use reclaimed water. Mr. Westman replied that the
applicant must comply with the requirements of the Olivenhain Water District, who will be providing the
water.
Chairman Savary invited the applicant to speak.
Rinus Bask, Project Manager, 2111 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 100, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that as the project evolved, he and Tom Curnes, the principal, met with several
homeowner groups to make them aware of what was going on. He turned the time over to Mr. Curries.
Tom Curries, Carlsbad Limited, 2111 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and
stated that he has been waiting for the commercial market in Carlsbad to mature. He wants to build a
permanent employment center hero. He worked on the Pacific Rim project. He modeled this project to
eliminate controversies, He asked for the Commission’s approval but he stated that he doesn’t want to lose
the red barn site, especially after his family was granted use of the site by La Costa.
Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, 401 West “A” Street, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated
that many’Commissioners have had the opportunity to walk the property and get a better perspective.
Planning was based on a very strict assessment of environmental issues, including habitat conservation.
In reviewing the ordinance, they reached the conclusion that the project should be at a lower intensity in
order to maximize the biological benefits. Mr. Wood concurs with the staff report except the part about the
red barn site. He referred to his letter dated December 1, 1993 which addresses why the applicant would
like the area retained as a small commercial area. His letter is on file in the Planning Department. Mr.
Wood stated that:
MINUTES 77
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 12
* Residential development of 400 units - The analysis of 34 acres was based on density allowed. They tried to cluster the development in order to maximize the open space.
* Crib walls - There is only one small location were a crib wall will be in excess of 30 ft. and that is simply
because of topography issues. Crib walls should be landscaped and invisible. They will be located
behind buildings and people are not allowed behind the buildings because it is a loading area.
’ Safety issue - He feels that since the area is inaccessible, there should not be a safety issue.
* Game guzzlers - The runoff can be connected to a water source. He plans to run a line up to the game
guzzler. They will be located near storm drains for easy maintenance.
* Reclaimed water - They are installing separate piping for reclaimed water. When reclaimed water is
available, the system will be hooked up.
* Neon lighting - He could accept Commissioner Erwin’s condition.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he could accept the condition read into the record by Commissioner
Welshons. Mr. Wood thinks it is a reasonable exclusion.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the 45 ft. height allowance. Mr. Wood stated that he never felt it
should be included in the residential design.
Mr. Wood requested time for rebuttal, if necessary.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the density in the residential area would be similar to that on Levante.
Mr. Wood replied that it is a close approximation.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he had any input on the slope angle issue. Mr. Wood replied that the
typical slope for a crib wall is 70-80 degrees. There is no trail in that area and he feels there should be
very little intrusion. Commissioner Erwin responded that he doesn’t want an attractive nuisance in the
area.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he understands both the applicants and staffs point of view regarding the
red barn commercial area. He inquired if Mr. Wood could accept enlarging the commercial area from
600,000 s.f. to 612,000 sf. to compensate for putting the red barn area in open space. Mr. Wood replied
that the problem with that reasoning is that the two types of commercial are entirely different in nature.
The red barn area is the only part of the project which has direct visibility by arterial roadways and could
take advantage of the traffic. Increasing the interior commercial area would take away the unique
opportunity for retail at this intersection.
Commissioner Erwin told the applicant that he is concerned about the high density of 28 dus/ac in the
residential area. He inquired whose idea it was to reduce the residential acreage to 17.9 acres. Mr. Wood
replied that it was a joint discussion. The Master Plan allows for 400 residential units which must still
receive discretionary approval to make sure the plan makes sense. That particular site plan may never get
approved.
Commissioner Erwin advised the applicant that he is putting himself in a box. He, personally, thinks that
our standards are bare minimums and he doesn’t think this project will meet those minimums with that
particular density. Commissioner Erwin advised the applicant that he is very much opposed to carports,
which have recently been proposed on several projects to increase the density.
MINUTES gd
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 13
Chairman Savaty recognized some dignitaries from the City of Encinitas who were in attendance.
Councilman DuViuler and Craig Olson, a member of the Planning staff, were introduced.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Richard Barnes, 7623 Rustic0 Dr., Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is not against
development of the property but he thinks it is overly ambitious. He is concerned about the increase in
ADTs because it means a lot of cars. He thinks that should have an influence on whether or not the red
barn area should be built out. He thinks the density seems very high. If there are three people living in
each apartment, that means there will be 1,200 people living within a very small section of the property. He
thinks that is a problem and that the project should be redesigned. He is also concerned that there will be
no garages. He thinks it is very important that the units have garages and not carports.
William Dougherty, 2600 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, representing the Buena Vista Audubon Society,
addressed the Commission and stated that he is opposed to the concept of development. However, he is
concerned that there were major omissions in the report. We need to remember the Fieldstone project
which will add 7,000 ADTs, the City of Encinitas Home Depot project which will generate 8,000 ADTs, and
the Ecke development which will add 28,000 ADTs. That is a total of 140,000 ADTs. He is also concerned
that the Encinitas Creek is a potential corridor for habitat. The plan calls for two roads to cross the creek.
He does not feel that any road or pedestrian access should cross the riparian. He is also concerned that
the widening of El Camino Real and the extending of Leucadia Boulevard will decimate the habitat
preservation. He feels the project needs further study.
Ruth Lewis, 2001 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed
the Commission and stated that she has the same concerns as Mr. Dougherty. The League views land as
a resource and not as a commodity. The Green Valley property is a sensitive part of a flood area. It would
be appropriate as park land and the red barn could be used as a visitor’s center. When she visited the area
recently, she saw several gnatcatchers which flew into the Encinitas Creek area. If the property is
developed as proposed, there will be no way for them to cross to the creek. She thinks that Carlsbad and
Encinitas need to cooperate to protect the wildlife habitat corridor. She is not in favor of bridges to cross
the creek because it will disturb the wildlife. She provided the Minutes Clerk with a letter dated January 19,
1994 to the Planning Commission which contained her comments.
Karen Messer, 2399 Jefferson #18, Carlsbad, Conservation Chairman of the Buena Vista Audubon
Society, addressed the Commission and congratulated the City on planning for habitat. The next 3-4
years will be crucial to preserve our wildlife heritage. The Green Valley project is located within a corridor
which links the Batiquitos Lagoon to the back country. If the balance of nature is upset, coyotes and
bobcats will have no access to the lagoon, where they feed and water. This area is also important to
maintain the nesting capability of endangered species. She thinks that wildlife corridors need to be likened
to traffic. Careful planning is required so as not to interrupt the flow of habitat. She requested the
Planning Commission to consider having a real specialist review the wildlife corridors before they make
their decision on Green Valley. Two bridges may seem innocuous but the impact will be detrimental.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Department of Fish and Game will have some say as to whether the
buffer is.doveloped. Christer Westman, Associate Planner, replied that the applicant is required to obtain a
permit from Fish and Game. Fish and Game is also involved with the technical committee of MHCP which
is in the process of evaluating the criteria for buffers.
Commissioner Erwin asked Ms. Messer if she could accept the Fish and Game representatives as
specialists. Ms. Messer would prefer to have the project reviewed by a biologist.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if 400 ft. could be considered sufficient for a buffer. Ms. Messer replied that
it depends on the associated uses.
MINUTES 8 I
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 14
Commissioner Noble commented that we need to follow the law. This can be discussed all night long and
it will not change the law. Ms. Messer feels that this is the mechanism to activate enforcement of state and
federal laws.
George Sullivan, 2395 Terraza Panga, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a
homeowner, a registered voter, and has lived in the area for 18 years. He also owns two businesses and
rental property. He is very proud to live in Carlsbad because we are known for good government. He is a
consultant on crime enforcement and he travels all over the country on business. He feels the land use
mix is poorly designed. There will be 400 school age kids without a recreation area. Recent studies on
high crime areas have concluded that crime is caused by the intrusion of commercial areas into residential
areas. In this project, there is a high proportion of vacant land and also mixed land uses. Greater privacy
is needed for low crime. Approximately 50% of property crime is committed by juveniles. Because the
proposed commercial area is away from the main thoroughfare, a patrol car going by cannot see a crime in
process. It requires private security patrols on the premises. Furthermore, it is easy to move between the
commercial and residential areas. He thinks the Commission should be very concerned about the crime
issue because we are all ultimately affected through taxes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if his recommendation would be to separate the commercial and residential
areas. Mr. Sullivan replied that it should be one or the other.
Dolores Welty, 207 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, Conservation Chair for the Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon,
addressed the Commission and stated that she hopes the project will be conditioned to add cacti as a
deterrent. She would also like to see the creek crossings be eliminated in order to protect the wildlife. If
only one creek crossing can be eliminated, it should be the one at Levante. She would like to see access to
the project off Leucadia. Boulevard. Regarding the 400 ft. buffer, she stated that a trail cannot be put inside
the buffer zone because the buffer is a protected area. Regarding the development intrusion into the
bluffs, she stated that if the project were pulled back from the bluff, high retaining walls would not be
needed.
She told the Commission that it is not possible to replant Southern Maritime Chaparral. The only place this
plant species exists in the world is between Carlsbad and Torrey Pines. She recommended that cactus be
planted to protect this rare plant. She urged the Commission to be careful on this very strategic piece of
property. She provided the Minutes Clerk with a letter dated January 17, 1994 to the Planning
Commission which contained her comments.
lnez Yoder, 7738 Madrilena Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she has been an
observer at the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Committee for the past two years. This committee is
made up of staff, land owners, and citizens. The Committee has spent a lot of time and money to draw up
a fair and workable plan. Their goal is to create a plan which will be accredited by the California Natural
Communities Conservation Corps. The NCCC has been operating throughout the state and has been
commended by U. S. Secretary of the Interior Babbitt. A similar effort in Austin, Texas, has been offered
$5 million of federal funds. Ms. Yoder stated that the project before the Commission tonight threatens the
City’s HMP. She referred to a map which shows the most highly valued habitat in the City. The highest
rating has been given to the lagoon and riparian. Linkage to the lagoon is vital. The very important
east-west linkage lies across the Carlsbad Partners and Fieldstone’s Arroyo project. Approval of this
project should be deferred until the HMP has been completed and approved. A second issue is the traffic.
The 33,000 ADTs from this project is not the whole story. One of the other projects will generate
68,000 ADTs. These two total over 100,000 ADTs per day and that is only two projects. CEQA requires
the Commission to consider cumulative impacts. The projects which lie within the boundaries of Encinitas
cannot be disregarded. She hopes the Commission has the vision to do something about this.
The applicant was given an opportunity for rebuttal.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1994 PAGE 15
Gary Wood, P&D Technologies, 401 West “A” Street, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated
that he has been working with City staff and the California Department of Fish and Game on this project
since early 1993. Their latest consultation was three weeks ago. All types of habitat have been identified.
He is very comfortable with the wildlife corridor. The buffer will be even wider by about 50% once the
vegetation has been planted. In addition, open space has been increased from 42 to 60 acres. He
supports the staff recommendation and they will continue to coordinate with Fish and Game to make sure
the habitat is protected.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the potential this project will have on traffic. Mr. Rideout replied that it is
difficult to say. In terms of the growth management program, traffic circulation is based on level of service
and level of service is typically measured at peak hours. The total ADTs are not as important as what
happens at intersections during peak hours.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the reference to Level E service. Don Rideout, Senior Management
Analyst, Growth Management, replied that annual traffic monitoring reports do not show any intersections
in that area operating at Level E. The intersections analyzed in the LFMP are currently operating at Level
D or better. The ones operating at Level D are at that level largely because there are improvements
needed to those intersections. Those improvements will occur as a result of development from this and
other projects.
Commissioner Hall was surprised to hear that this project would only add 33,000 ADTs. He understands
the spike aspect but he still expected a greater figure, perhaps 40% greater. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil
Engineer, replied that if this project were changed totally to residential, the traffic would have far greater
impacts. Vehicular traffic from commercial development does not typically correspond to a.m.1p.m. peaks.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if “A” Street should connect to the Ecke property. Mr. Wojcik replied
that Condition #51 of Resolution No. 3603 indicates that the City Engineer and the Planning Director will
look at the possibility of extending “A” Street.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the comment regarding a wide lane for deceleration. Mr. Wojcik
replied that Mr. Wood’s reference to 19 ft. is actually an 11 ft. outside travel lane and an 8 ft. bike lane.
People do use the bike lane at intersections to make right-hand turns. The driveway for the red barn area
is beyond the intersection.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that there is also the problem of people trying to beat lights, and
this includes bicyclists.
Due to the late hour, Chairman Savary polled the Commissioners about a possible continuance in order to
adequately discuss the application.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to continue this
item to February 2, 1994.
VOTE: 7-O
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Savary announced to the gallery that public testimony had been closed on this item and would
not be reopened at the February 2nd meeting.
MINUTES /- 8s
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994 PAGE 2
VOTE: 6-l
r-win, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
ecommending approval of Administrative Variance
ard setback at 813 Windward Lane, based on the
s contained therein.
etz, Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
meeting and he still cannot accept it.
ot in favor of granting the variance at the last
PUBLIC HEARING:
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-lS/SUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for certification of an Environmental Impact
Report and recommending approval of a Master Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development
Permit, and Special Use Permit to allow for the future development of a 600,000 sf. commercial
retail center and 400 attached multi-family dwelling units on 281 acres at the southwest corner of
El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the project
is a Master Plan which identifies land use (600 s.f. regional commercial and 400 attached residential units)
and development standards for an approximate 281 acre parcel. Associated with the Master Plan are an
Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tract Map,
Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit (flood plain). The Master Plan includes two open
space planning areas (1 & 4) Planning Area 2 for regional commercial development, and Planning Area 3
for residential development. Access is made to the site through the extensions of Levante and Calle
Barcelona from the east, spanning Encinitas Creek and connecting to street “A” with a north/south
orientation.
At the last meeting of the Planning Commission on January 19, 1994 the full staff report was presented
and public testimony was taken. Comments received included concurrence with the project as well as
concerns regarding density, project mix, traffic impacts, alternative access points, potential degradation of
the Encinitas Creek riparian corridor, and visibility of the project for police surveillance. In response to the
public comments, Mr. Westman stated that:
* The LFMP identified a net developable acreage for residential of 34.8 acres. With a growth control point
of 11.5 du/ac, the total number of units is 400.2. Consistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and Title 21, the Master Plan implements the land use concept of clustering development within a
lesser disturbed area for the purpose of preserving greater natural and enhanced open space.
. The project is expected to generate 33,400 ADTs at buildout. In compliance with CEQA, a cumulative
traffic analysis was included in the draft EIR which included all existing, approved projects and also the
SANDAG model for anticipated regional growth assumed by existing General Plan designations. With
required street and intersection improvements, the intersections analyzed will operate at a level of
service D or better.
. Access to the site was reviewed under several scenarios, in some cases assuming buildout of Leucadia
Boulevard from El Camino Real to l-5. Each of the access combinations generally functioned efficiently
and there is a provision in the Master Plan to provide for the connection to Leucadia Boulevard if it can
be designed to the satisfaction of the City.
MINUTES
8Y
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994 PAGE 3
. The City has been an active participant in several habitat conservation programs. The project has been
reviewed as an important segment within both the HMP and the MHCP. Staff has met with the
Department of Fish and Game individually, and also with the recently formed ad-hoc technical
committee of the MHCP, regarding the location of the project within the Encinitas Creek corridor.
Adequate crossing design to bring the level of impact to insignificance has been a goal in this process.
* Regarding the land use mix, staff is unaware of any common planning principals which recommend
against locating multi-family residential adjacent to commercial development in new communities. The
Carlsbad Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has recommended considerations to be
incorporated into the physical design of the residential and commercial components of the Master Plan
should it be approved by the City Council.
* Text in the Master Plan and previously distributed errata has been amended to read “...whichever is
more restrictive.”
. A new condition has been added to Resolution No. 3603 requiring a Coastal Development Permit prior
to the Final Map.
Mr. Westman stated that a written response from the City’s environmental consultant regarding comments
about the Green Valley EIR, was passed out to Commissioners at the beginning of this meeting. In
addition, a letter dated January 28, 1994 from Karen Messer, Conservation Chair of the Buena Vista
Audubon Society, recommending several mitigation measures was also passed out. Both documents are
on file in the Planning Department.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to explain the traffic levels of service from A-F. Bob Wojcik,
Principal Civil Engineer, replied that:
* A indicates free flowing traffic.
. B indicates slightly heavier free flowing traffic requiring the driver to look before a lane change.
. C indicates still heavier free flowing traffic; driver must be aware of the traffic.
. D indicates traffic is in the stop and go mode.
. E indicates there is a lot of traffic and slow movement.
. F indicates a further deterioration.
Commissioner Hall inquired as to who designed the creek crossing. Mr. Westman replied that the
crossings were proposed by the applicant.
Commissioner Hall inquired if habitat friendliness was taken into consideration when the crossings were
designed. Mr. Westman replied that the pre-fab span system was proposed and is considered to be far
better than culverts because it is not necessary for the wildlife to walk on a concrete surface as they do in a
culvert crossing.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the span system will be reviewed by biologists before the design is approved.
Mr. Westman replied yes.
Commissioner Hall inquired if there had been any discussion with Von’s since the last meeting regarding
the signal. He heard they were sending a letter to the City. Mr. Westman replied there has been no
discussion and he was unaware of a letter.
Commissioner Hall inquired if there had been any discussion about the point of entrance to the Von’s
center while traveling south. Mr. Wojcik replied that the site development plan for Von’s shows the exact
location and design of the median break for Von’s. He passed the map to the Commissioners for review.
MINUTES
85
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2,1994 PAGE 4
Commissioner Hall inquired if the Green Valley project will trigger the Von’s median break. Mr. Wojcik
replied that it would not; however, it will trigger discussions with Von’s, the developer, and the Green
Valley property owner.
Commissioner Hall inquired if plans for a traffic signal are in place; he is concerned because he sees older
centers having difficulty retaining customers as the new centers come on line. Mr. Wojcik replied that the
“process” for securing a traffic signal are in place. Von’s needs only to start the discussion.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the City has the option to mandate a signal and opening. Mr. Wojcik replied
that we do have the option, but he is not sure we want a signal or median cut until it has been reviewed by staff and the City Council.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that he understands culverts fill up with debris and need to be
cleaned out, causing a maintenance problem. Mr. Westman concurred. In addition to debris, there is
frequently plant growth inside the culvert which could be a protection for endangered species. Plant
growth might be classified as wetlands, in which case Fish 8 Game would have to grant permission to
clean out the culvert. For this and other reasons, the span bridge is the most acceptable type of crossing.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page Ill-l of the Master Plan and sfated that he wants to make sure
everyone understands this refers to the ordinances in effect at the time the application is made, not the
present. Mr. Westman replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page IV-38, item 1, line 3 and stated that the wording on signage sounds
contrary to the statement requiring the most restrictive requirement to be enforced. Mr. Westman replied
that near the beginning of the Master Plan it states that the most restrictive requirement always takes
precedence.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page IV-39, item 14, and stated that at the last meeting the applicant
agreed to allow monument signs to be positioned to ensure safe site distances are maintained.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page IV-40 and stated that at the last meeting the applicant had agreed to
a condition restricting fluorescent lighting, similar to the condition recently imposed on the car wash
project. Commissioner Welshons read the condition aloud for the record, “Fluorescent lighting proposed
as an architectural element on buildings in this development is strictly prohibited.”
Commissioner Hall inquired if a name in neon would be permitted. Commissioner Erwin stated that he
could accept a name in neon; his main concern is to prohibit wrapping neon lighting around the building.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page VI-22, item 3, and stated that he would like the phrase “employee
parking may be comprised...” changed to “employee parking @aJl be comprised...“, deleting the reference
to compact parking. He would like an applicant response.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why he wants the reference to compact parking spaces deleted.
Commissioner Erwin replied that there is a 25% maximum which can be used for compact parking spaces
in this type of development. He thinks that removal of the statement altogether would eliminate confusion.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested a staff response. Mr. Westman replied that this change would clarify
the wording and would not change the standard. Staff would have no objection to the change.
Commissioner Erwin referred to page VI-40, item #l under Building Height, and stated that he would like
the phrase “residential building shall not exceed 35 ft. in height and/or 3 levels...” changed to delete the
slash and the word or. He would also like item #3 regarding nonhabitable architecture design elements
MINUTES
6%
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994 PAGE 5
extending to 45 ft. deleted. He stated that the applicant agreed to both of these changes at the last
meeting.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if it would be better to say “...with no more than 3 levels.” Mr.
Westman replied that the intention is a maximum of three levels and a maximum of 35 ft. Commissioner
Schlehuber would prefer to say “...with no more than 3 levels.”
Commissioner Noble commented that he has no problem with the way it is currently stated. He thinks we
are spending too much time picking the wording apart when the proposed change says the same thing.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the 45 ft. refers to residential. Commissioner Erwin replied that it refers to
residential only. The reference to 45 ft. for commercial would not be changed.
Commissioner Hall would like to know what kind of roof could be put on a 3 story home and still be within
the 35 ft. requirement. Mr. Westman replied that it would depend on how the project is designed. It is
more difficult to create a pitch roof on a 3 level building than on a 2 level building and stay within the
height limit. Commissioner Hall thinks we are almost guaranteeing a flat roof on a 3 story building if we do
not allow architectural design above 35 ft.
Chairman Savary stated that this is only a Master Plan. The Commission will have an opportunity to
review the Site Development Plan at a later date.
Mr. Westman commented that the 45 ft. reference for residential, which Commissioner Erwin wants to
delete, refers only to architectural elements which have no habitable space.
Commissioner Hall stated that his concern is the roof line. When creating clustered units, the builder
needs to be creative or else the project will look like a mass of blocks.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that when the building height regulations were amended,
staff tried to make residential heights agree with a comparable zone. In this case, multi-family residential
would compare to RDM, which is 35 ft. He doesn’t believe there will be confusion at a later date because
the ordinance is fairly clear.
Commissioner Erwin’s other areas of concern are as follows:
(1) The Red Barn area - He supports the staff position for open space but thinks the applicant should be
given an equivalent in square footage inside the project to compensate for the change.
(2) Residential densities - He believes the densities are too high. He understands the reason but would
like to see the units spread out more because there are too many impacts on children in high
densities like this. There are only two places for children to play, the open space and down at the
commercial center. He would like consideration given to restricting the residential development to a
retirement community, but he doesn’t necessarily want it to come in as “senior” housing. The
commercial services would be handy for seniors and there would be no children loitering around.
(3) Crib walls - The total length is 2,400 ft. or about one-half mile of crib wall. There is 900+ ft. that is
over 36 ft. tall. He is concerned about safety and thinks it needs some relief, i.e. stepping the wall
back. Stepping the wall back would result in a net loss of slightly more than one acre of land.
Commissioner Welshons requested staff to point out the areas where the clustered homes would be
located and where the open space would be located. Mr. Westman pointed out the various areas on the
map but stated that no specific site plans have been submitted yet telling exactly where the residential
development will be located. He only knows that the homes will be in Planning Area 3.
MINUTES c 7
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the need for a buffer is what pushed the residential area further north.
Mr. Westman replied that that would be a fair assumption.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the 34.8 acres were used to arrive at the number of units, then what
mechanism was used to cluster the units on 17.9 acres and raise the density to 20 dus/ac. Mr. Westman
replied that the PD Ordinance was intended to implement clustering to retain and enhance open space.
The density remains the same for the entire area, but attached units in any lesser area create a higher
density than detached units.
Commissioner Welshons stated that Section 7.11 of Title 21 could also be interpreted that multi-family
residential areas should be spread out over the entire 34.8 acres to ensure the health and safety of the
occupants. Mr. Westman stated that that would be true when there are issues of safety and welfare.
Commissioner Welshons stated that lay personnel might assume that all 34 acres are being used. She
thinks it is deceptive to cluster the units on 17 acres. Mr. Westman does not feel this is true. He stated
that one could also look at it from the point of view that centralizing development in the middle of the site
would optimize the availability of open space.
Commissioner Welshons is interested in preserving the quality of life and thinks that should be the primary
consideration. There is plenty of open space in that area. She stated there is a risk that the number of
units could jump to 500 if the applicant requests a density bonus. Mr. Westman replied that there are
several different philosophies as to what comprises an “adequate” density.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if it would be possible for the number of units to jump to 500 using the
density bonus. Mr. Westman replied that a minimum of 25% can be requested. It may be more than that
but it would require discretionary approval. Mr. Wayne stated that it is difficult to make the required
findings to deny a density bonus request. They are very special findings. It is even possible that the
density could go higher than 500 units.
Commissioner Welshons would like to see the units spread out. If she understands correctly, staff and the
developer took the position to cluster, but the Planning Commission could take the discretion not to cluster.
Mr. Wayne replied that is correct.
Commissioner Hall thinks the decisions being discussed need to be made when a product type is
presented in the site plan. At that time, the Commission could deny the clustering and the applicant might
end up with only 100 units. He thinks that valid points have been made by both Commissioners Erwin and
Welshons. Nevertheless, the Commission is being asked to vote on the concept which has been
presented. No project is actually being approved at this point. He thinks we should move on.
Commissioner Welshons stated that if every single reference in the Master Plan states that development
will be on 17.9 acres, she thinks we need to say No now. Otherwise, we should remove all those
references and make the decision when the site plan is presented.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she understands the police department reviewed the project after the
public comments about breeding criminal activity. She would like to see a condition that the police
department review the actual project before it comes to the Commission. Mr. Westman replied there is no
condition to do this currently but it would be easy to add one.
Chairman Savary invited the applicant to speak.
Gary Wood, P&D Technology, 401 West A Street, San Diego, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and stated that he can accept all of Commissioner Erwin’s changes. There was one which he
did not remember from the last meeting but he can accept it as well. He referred to the aerial photo on the
MINUTES
ti
-
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994 PAGE 7
west wall and stated that much of the area within the project boundaries are reserved for revegetation. He is working within constraints. He has planned residential development only in areas which were not
constrained for environmental purposes. He addressed the other comments as follows:
* Crime activity - He thinks the commercial mix is a positive feature. Teenagers can go get a soft drink or
walk to a part time job.
. Density - He could accept the possibility of a retirement community but would prefer not to have that as
a condition.
* Crib wall - If the City Engineer would like a fence at the top of the crib wall, he would be happy to
comply. He would like to leave the design of the fence up to the City Engineer.
* Red Barn area - He would be willing to accept a turn lane in the Red Barn area which Commissioner
Schlehuber proposed at the last meeting.
* Neon lighting condition - He could accept the condition which Commissioner Welshons read into the
record.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he is concerned about the massiveness of the crib wall and the safety
issue. If a person fell off a 40 ft. wall, it would kill them. He thinks it also needs architectural relief. Mr.
Wood replied that the buildings in the commercial center will be 35 ft. high. The crib wall would be no
taller than that. Most people think of the crib wall which they see alongside a freeway. They are not
landscaped. His intention is to camouflage the wall with vegetation, perhaps ivy, and the wall would be
less harsh. Furthermore, it is located in an area not available to pedestrian access. He would prefer not to
spend additional monies on the wall. When the project comes in for approval, the wall design will be
consistent with the development.
Commissioner Enruin stated that he was not implying there would be criminal activity, however he is very
concerned about having 28 dus/ac without a recreation area. Kids will be using the parking lot for
skateboarding. Kids are curious and have a lot of energy; they will find a way to use it. Mr. Wood replied
that the residential development will have passive and active recreation areas, even though it will not have
a ball field. There will be plenty of opportunities for young people to recreate.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the applicant would be willing to consider the retirement concept. Mr.
Wood replied that he would, but he would prefer it not be a condition of the project. Commissioner Erwin
stated that he is thinking in terms of a Lake San Marcos, not a senior development with people packed in
like sardines.
Mr. Wood stated that he would like to make a final comment regarding the bridges across Encinitas Creek.
There was a question raised as to how these proposals came forward. He stated that the original biological
studies for the EIR identified this as an important issue, and that the bridges needed to have certain
characteristics such as a see-thru capability which often doesn’t exist in a box culvert crossing. Animals
need to be able to see light on the other side or they tend not to go into what could be perceived as a
tunnel with no end. Therefore, a span needs to have a certain width. Also, a box culvert crossing is not
preferred because it has a concrete bottom. A lot of effort went into finding a solution for Green Valley
which would address the biological issues. He is confident that the plan being presented is the best
available and will preserve the habitat in the area.
Chairman Savary stated that the public testimony period was closed at the last meeting. She opened the
item for discussion among Commission members.
MINUTES
v
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994
Commissioner Schlehuber thinks it is up to the City to decide if a fence is needed along the top of the crib
wall. Professional planners seem to prefer clustering; he may not agree. On the Red Barn area, he
doesn’t think we should take away the applicants rights at this time. The Red Barn has been used for
years as a modest office and that use seems to fit well. He is not in favor of a 7-l 1 at the present time.
Eventually the whole corner will change and then a change to the Red Barn area could be considered. He
would like staff to comment on retaining the present use until the site plan comes forward. He does not
agree with Commissioner Erwin’s proposal to retain the corner in open space and give the applicant
additional square footage inside. Mr. Westman replied that another master plan was recently approved
with an unplanned zone--the exact use to be determined at a later date. Staff could accept that concept
again.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant would be able to continue the present use in an
unplanned zone. Mr. Westman replied yes.
Commissioner Hall doesn’t like the idea of a 7-l 1 at the corner either. He thinks it will downgrade the
Master Plan. He inquired what the present zoning is. Mr. Westman replied that it is currently zoned
Planned Community.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if separate votes would be taken or if they would all be lumped together.
Chairman Savary replied that she will see what the consensus is.
Commissioner Noble stated that he doesn’t want 2,000 cars going in and out until the intersection is fixed
to accommodate traffic. He agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber’s suggestion to continue the current
usage until the site plan comes in. He wants the traffic to be accommodated. He thinks that clustering the
residential development on the 17 acres will provide more room for parks. He disagrees with
Commissioner Welshons. When single family homes are spread out, there is no room left for parks. He
could accept the retirement community concept but thinks it should depend on the market.
Commissioner Betz stated that her problem with the original proposal was taking the Red Barn area away
from the developer and turning it into open space. She likes Commissioner Schlehuber’s suggestion to
hold the space for future use by the applicant without denying him the use of it now. Her other concern
was having a lot of children living in a small space. She likes the idea of having the development designed
for older people but she is not going to ask for that condition. She also likes the bridge concept and thinks
it will be a better thoroughfare for animals. She inquired if she understood correctly that there are two box
culverts being used on La Costa Boulevard now and that when it is widened, another will be added. Mr.
Wojcik replied that there are currently three box culverts and there will be a fourth when the street is
widened. The applicants proposal is preferable to the box culvert concept. Commissioner Betz doesn’t
understand why the widening of La Costa Boulevard should have less stringent requirements than this
development, i.e. the box culvert.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the crib walls will be more defined when the site plan comes forward. Mr.
Wojcik replied that the site development plan would include a more detailed grading plan and would define
the crib walls. Commissioner Hall thinks the wording of the Master Plan may be okay for now, but when
the site plan comes in perhaps the applicant should consider giving more sensitivity to those areas.
Mr. Westman commented that the grading plan which will come forward relates specifically to the tract
map and the hillside development permit. The other actions are not directly related to the grading. If the
tract map and hillside development permit are approved now, when the applicant comes back with a final
grading plan, it would have to be in substantial conformance to what is approved now by the Commission.
Commissioner Erwin stated that the hillside ordinance says you can’t exceed 30 ft. on the slopes. Since
this exceeds that, we are in effect granting a variance to go above that height. Mr. Westman stated that a
commercial development with a hillside development permit must be justified if it goes higher than 30 ft.
MINUTES
70
PLANNING commission February 2, 1994 PAGE 9
The ordinance doesn’t say you cannot go higher than 30 ft. It does say, however, that the Planning
Commission must justify going higher than 30 ft., using the three findings contained in the hillside
ordinance.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that right after our last meeting, a person was killed getting his
vehicle out of a driveway on El Camino Real. He thinks the Commission needs to be really careful when
considering traffic issues dealing with a major roadway where cars travel at a speed of 55 mph.
Commissioner Erwin would like to support the project because more commercial uses are needed in that
area. However, he is very concerned about the crib wall and thinks it needs to be stepped back. It is just
too high. He is also concerned about clustering the housing. It is very easy to support a concept now and
then vote against the project after the applicant has spent $100,000. He cannot see any recreation areas
designated on the Master Plan. He thinks kids need a place to play or they will find one on their own. He
likes the concept of a retirement village. In order for him to support approval tonight, he needs to have the
crib wall stepped back, the density reduced by spreading the units out over a larger area, and see some
designated park areas.
Commissioner Welshons would like to eliminate every reference to clustering units in the 17.9 acres. She
has serious reservations about the density. She thinks it is deceptive because of the growth control point.
She thinks that a good example would be the Monarch Villas. They are dense and clustered and she
thinks that is what this project will conceivably look like. There is very little room for recreation when you
consider that the area being developed with homes will also accommodate RV storage. The speakers at
the last meeting had some excellent points. She attended a homeowners meeting and they all stated that
they don’t understand how building can go forward without extending Leucadia Boulevard. She thinks
circulation must be addressed because it is a disaster now and we will only compound the disaster. She
hopes the City Council will consider the circulation effects of this project without the Leucadia Boulevard
connection. Regarding Encinitas Creek, she would like only one crossing but understands that two are
needed for development. She supports Commissioner Erwin’s comments on the crib wall; she would also
like to see the wall stepped back. A good example of a very high crib wall is the Boathouse on Encinitas
Boulevard. Lastly, she would like to see a new condition added that the police department review the site
plan for landscaping, lighting, and openness of the driveways, to deter the possibility of criminal activity.
Mr. Westman read a proposed condition: “The Carlsbad Police Department shall be consulted during the
review of Site Development Plan’s, Planned Unit Developments, and Precise Development Plans regarding
the application of crime prevention principles.” Commissioner Welshons can accept the condition.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that the design of the Master Plan into various
different planning areas incorporates mitigation. The crossing of the riparian habitat and the entire
development embodies mitigation which was factored in during the creation of the 17.9 acre site. If the
Commission spreads that out to 34.9 acres, it impacts the mitigation recommended by the environmental
documents and the mitigation may not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Commissioner Welshons doesn’t understand why the density calculation was based on 34.9 acres if the
residential development will only be allowed on 17.9 acres. Mr. Wayne replied that this is standard
practice all over the City. To change that would be a complete reversal of City policy.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, added that mitigation in the Master Plan goes beyond the minimum
which is required. The remainder net developable acreage identified for residential in Planning Area 3
includes mitigations not specifically required by the minimums. The applicant has opted to go that extra
distance and provide mitigation over and above the minimum requirement. If the planning area is
redefined and expanded to be developed to a greater extent, it would reduce the extra mitigation being
provided.
MINUTES Q/
PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 1994 PAGE 10
Commissioner Hall agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber’s idea for the Red Barn corner. As far as
density is concerned, the Commission needs to remember that everyone bases their ideas on what they
would like for themselves and not what may be practical for other income groups. There is a project in
Del Mar which is 40 dus/ac and it is absolutely beautiful. He thinks we need to see the site plan before we
condemn the project. Affordable housing also needs to be factored in, which is beyond everyone’s control.
He thinks that staff has done an excellent job in arriving at a proper planning concept with tradeoffs and
mitigation. He will agree with staff’s recommendation regarding the crib walls. He thinks we need to
consider that the total area is 280 acres and only one third of it will be developed. He thinks the applicant has gone far beyond anyone’s imagination and he looks forward to seeing the site plan. He thinks the
project at this point is a real winner and he will support it with the conditions proposed by Commissioners
Welshons and Erwin that the applicant agreed to.
Commissioner Noble agrees with Commissioner Hall.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the 17.9 acres will include all of the residential units, guest parking,
active recreation, bicycle pathways, landscaping, service driveways, storm drain inlet, debris removal area,
and RV storage area. Mr. Westman replied that is correct.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3598 recommending certification of the Environmental
Impact Report EIR 93-02 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3599, 3600,
3601,3602,3603,3604 and 3605 recommending approval of GPA 93-Ol/MP
92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP Zone 23 and approving CT 92-08/HDP 92-l 5/SUP 29-05,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including all the
changes to the Master Plan which were agreed to by the applicant, the new conditions
for neon signage and police department review, the 3 errata pages as amended,
changing the Red Barn area to make it an unplanned zone, and allowing the applicant to
continue the current usage until such time as the intersection is planned out and the
applicant can come back with a specific plan proposal.
VOTE: 5-2
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Noble, and Schlehuber
NOES: Commissioners Erwin and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Erwin stated that he supports everything but the crib wall and the density. He is concerned
that we will create the “Great Wall of Carlsbad” and that the stated density is not truthful because the final
density of the project will probably be higher. He hopes that a fence will be placed along the top of the crib
wall to prevent casualties. Lastly, he disagrees with keeping the Red Barn corner open for development
due to the traffic situation.
Chairman Savary hopes that the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas will cooperate on the Leucadia Boulevard
connection. She also hopes that the applicant will seriously consider the retirement community concept to
alleviate many of the problems which were cited during this hearing.
and reconvened at 8:18 p.m.
MINUTES
-*
SEN-T ‘BY : 17 IT’.’ 1GF GtPltFfiL~ : 3-1z-p4 ~:58kM : Et19J38c?JmJ+ 619 726 q1;1: # 2 _ -
_-. - . . ‘,/V ‘Z ‘,;‘Z ,*---- - ,-- .- A’ “-- ” ‘2-j: ; 3:;: ; -2-7: ! ri
214/979-9012 l 214/754-9016 Fax
April l&1994
Mr. Michael HotPailler : Plmdq Ditoctor city of C&bad 2075 Las Pahas Drive Carlshad, Woraia 9+@9
By Fax: 619-438&W4
RE: Coundl AB$ l2,fW, Chen VaUoy Master PIan, EIR 9342/GPA 93~Ol/MP 924i/&CPA 9346/WMp Zone 8743
h&r Mt. Erolzmillor:
Wa are amthing to work on an d,ignmsnt resdutkm for Via Cantsbria and ow “Street A”, as ~86 requested by the City of E&&as at the 1aH meeting, tie, a nUmbCt Of questions we taistd during public testh~ny wt which would 1Lka an opporWnfty to thoroughly review, As a result, 1 rsspectfdly requurt that the Coundl kmt n continuame for the subject item (continued from the 4/S/94 hew4 w 4/12/P4) to Mby 3, lP94,
Sincerely,
T, J, Cumes
. -
-888 ‘I)hRTW#U, GTD. I384 ThWcaqivinq Tovrr l$Ol Bl8 eraat Dattr,, Tmrir 71101
tl4/wB-907~ + a~r/754-90~6 qy
May 4, lR94 0 &j&AL
e INFORMS- ‘-’ 1F
Mr, Miahrd 80imiuw fHECIMCOL~~-~-
Planning D&rautor Cit 1 of Carlrbad a07 xar mmMa Driva crrlrbad, CA #a009
our ICI. Moa8uill.r:
A nmbart of qurrtionr have baon rrioa uuring bho publie hoar i”i proearr to arm. WO &VO barn rW&Wing thaa qur8tionr dur ng t?m oonhlmranor foe clu rubjtiot: &bur VhiOh VII
F antad 011 Msil la, am4 ho my ;o, tl)*4, ma va hew I.uuBrou tbu with your l tdf. uo batova that un at aam oon8uuu l xpnorrd are bawd upon l 1reX l i iulllar I ty with our rrqurrat mnd thm Carlabad rwviw ~weO.88~
WI vauld IliLa thQ oppsrtunlty to hvr a period ot *la* to ad&era thora qwmtionr wibb Lntuoatad ambozr of tba publio, a8 ml1 m with yew rtrff, tbwa#orr, urn na otfulb roQm#t tbrt the awnoil rot- tbr atb dot itru baolc 0 ata=,
80 that tbuu ir ta0 epportunity for a
r ma 8Mitlonrl dhoumaionm, turn fue&ut r@qu* t&at cmmoil airrot rtrff to bring the utter tbou#h tb l pprepriato publto ha&r- prwraa brok to m cauoil,
ow in*mtloll la Co hrvr 4 r*rioo of 4frmurrLonr vta intarmtd ~0~~ ol! thr publia, btohding thora 1nUiViUurU vho have l tatad t&01& oppodtion to various raprot UI *ha pro 44*, rrmmi that tha WI urt 1 aiprk thrt yt l m villhg to aret vith UIg t veulet 1 r &oly bo l avorrl norrthr brfora -a mattrrr would bo b?wght brok Wr wnridaration.
We kliava thiu rug aWon off-r a raramabla
y;,;i;% An hermady mutual T rtunity to l ~loro d&i*w n I 1 po&nW Ol vhv vhiah im 8Ctm t
m l gatmndhg md lrr l dbro8aiW
W8 l a 8100 Oeaafidrnt mat vorkinq V&t& YOUr l taff l nd uaa &a will wmbaa UI to mtum to you vith omiti-
wlu P hnr and l mom ol.arly wdaratood l ppziocrt I on*
--. - - . . ..- - .,.__ SE’ht BY: DALLAS; - i&g . . . . -- . ..--- .I..----,___-_...._....._.-_..---..----~ ..---.- -...- : s- r-04 : rg:20 : 214751801b- :I 2
‘
$E’ - , 5.:::‘. ,F ;;F1 ==;r w-k =- 5-q -, - ,-- -- --. A- 3: ff&’ ; : - :- -.‘z- *.-.7-- -y-1-. = ;
%r. niahrwl Ilolraial8r Iby 4, as94 Olga a
l ’
:
. .
:
I
HI%'89 '94 16:57 PLI !ffi SYSTEMS <- P. 02
\ r
CARLWAD PAUTNZRS, LTD. 2364 Thanksgiving Tower 1601 Elm Street DalIAS, Texas 73303
214/979-9072 * 214/75&-YOi6 Fax
Kay 9, 1994
i’
Mr- Michael Holzmilhr Planning bircletor Cit 207 E of Carlsbad Las Pl!anw Drive CarIebad, CA 92009
. '. :,. ' I. I j . '
. _ :
,.,_: , .’ 4’ I :
Derr Mr. Molzmlllrr,
The subject item is lirtad as nwnber 5 0x1 the City: Council 4mnda far way 10, 1994. Our May 4, 1994 request For continuancr of AB (i12,648 (Waster Plur, ETA, I&I?& and LFMP, number 4 on the May 10 agenda), dicl not includes a request relakive ka X13 #12,6Sl. 8ow9ver, it io raco~red that thee@ 'two iteanr are dizeatly talatad. Ia that caatext, we aaknowledge that it: would be aggwpriate to ako continue AB #12,65l, am3 resgrctfully regueet that khia item be dealt with in the oame manner BCT AB #12,648.
Sinoerely,
9.5. Curries
.I
.I: 4,
:; 7,;. ._:. . ‘:
T.
I
i’, .’
: ’
‘.I
.:
.
I.
’ ;,
.
I
.
State of California
Marjorie Ditto
14088 E. Kamm Avenue
Kingsburg, CA 93631
Tommy Shields
230 First Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Larchmont Insurance Co.
ICB Building
Upper Roebuck Street
Bridgetown, Barbados, W.I.
La Costa Shopping Center Inc.
c/o Lute, Forward, Hamilton &
Scripps
4250 Executive Square #700
La Jolla, CA 92037
Leucadia County Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Karri Groggins
Robert & Arlyne lngold
c/o Robert lngold
1575 Via Chaparral
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Downey Savings & Loan
Association
P.O. box 6010
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Plaza De La C&ta Associates
c/o Sudberry Properties
4350 La Jolla Village Dr. #210
San Diego, CA 92122
BCE Development Corp.
999 S. Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6C2W7
Monarch Villas Homeowners’
Association
c/o Shappel Industries, Inc.
15330 Goldenwest Street
Westminster, CA 92683
Alexander & Florence Che
Violet Cruz
P.O. Box, 5356
La Puente, CA 91745
Howard & Linda Britton
7747 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tamra Karel
7747 Camino Monarca #109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Linda Lucas
Christina Sidrow
7747 Camino Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad; CA 92009
Horst Krupp
7747 Camino Monarca #l 11
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bernard & Marsha Sharpe Kenneth Chow
P.O. Box 9702 7737 Camino Monarca #lOO
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Thomas & Rene Mandel
7747 Caminito Monarca #103
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gerard & MaryLou Gow
7737 Camino Monarca #l 01
Carlsbad, CA 92009
George Gross, Carol Gross
7747 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jeffrey Warsoff
7737 Camino Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Frank & Carmen Hernandez
7747 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Guzman Family Trust
5 130 Caminito Exquisito
San Diego, CA 92130
Christina Sidrow
7747 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Shaunna Salzetti
7737 Camino Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jaime Garcia
7747 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Lynn Stadille
330 North Main Street
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Stephen Workman
7747 Camino Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tipple Family Trust
2848 Esturion Street
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Thomas & Linda Drabek David & Patricia Gerke
7737 Caminito Monama #107 3495 Sitio Borde
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Marlo Stil
8279 Caminito Modena
La Jolla, CA 92037
David Kitchen, Sharon Shotland
7737 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
George Neider
7737 Caminito Monarca #109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bonnie Fought
7737 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nichole Josephson
Daniel Josephson
7727 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mark Trapolino
7727 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mary Moorhouse
7727 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jean Schumacher
7768 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Waldemar Brehm, Caryl Brehm
2424 La costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gina Landau
7768 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA- 92009
Stephen & Janice Penn
1625 Scott Place
Encinitas, CA 92024
Robert Lemke, Elizabeth Lemke
Cheryl Lemke
2321 Dana Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert Hollister
7768 Caminito Monarca #107
La Jolla, CA 92037
Charles & lvalou Bellamy
7727 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Constance Wheelock
7727 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bernard Fink, Joanne Fink
12924 Via Latina
Del Mar, CA 92014
George Adams, Judy Adams
7727 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Miguel & Arelia Nunez
5 130 Caminito Exquisito
San Diego, CA 92130
Stephen Helding
7768 Caminito Monarca #lo9
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Laura Rogers
7727 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Sheldon & Patty Glickman
7768 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Susan Malone
7768 Caminito Monarca #l 10
La Jolla, CA 92037
Jesse Tenth, Heidi Hamilton
1744 Burgundy Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Arthur & Helen Schauermann
7768 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Thomas & Julie Desmond
7768 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Carlsbad, CA 92009
October 22nd Trust
7727 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Helmut Schmidt
c/o Marion Reynard
7768 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
McCann Family Trust
7767 Caminito Monarca #lo0
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Beverly Fuller John Clive & Sandra Ashton
7767 Caminito Monarca #lo1 7767 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Beatrex Quntanna
7758 Caminito Monarca #109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jane Sutton
7767 Caminito Monarca #102
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Paul & Eleanore Kusiak
7758 Caminito Monarca #lo0
Carl&ad, CA 92009
Joseph & Barbara Warsoff
7758 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Beverly Allen
7767 Caminito Monarca #103
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Patrick Sebrechts
Paul & Jeanne Sebrechts
7758 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gary 81 Greta McKinney
2904 Via Pepita
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Doris Demonte
7767 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kyle Bliffert
7758 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Aaron & Helene Burstein
7757 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
David & Debra Silva
7767 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bruno Wolfenzon
7 120 Calabria Court #l A
San Diego, CA 92122
James & Betty Maclsaac
7757 Caminito Monarca #l 01
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Tony Finn
7767 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Richard Parzonko
7758 Caminito Monarca #104
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Dorothy Grant
7757 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
James Kowalski
3907 La Crescenta Ave., #109
La Crescenta, CA 91,214
Richard & Cynthia Churchman
1380 Garnet Avenue #E274
San Diego, CA 92109
Joseph & Millie Messina
159 Mt. Vernon Drive
Clayton, CA 94517
Eugene & Helen Bedillion
7766 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mary Martinet1
7758 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Christine Logan
7757 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Patrick Witt
7767 Caminito Monarca #109
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Howard Figman
7758 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Wendy Davis
Andrea & Robert Davis
7757 Caminito Monarca #105
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Else Moyer
P.O. Box 222
Jamul, CA 91935
Bernice Chirico
7758 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
C. Matthew Swinden
Sally Orth
7757 Caminito Monarca #106
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Robert & Terry Seddig Susan Thieman
7757 Caminito Monarca #107 7797 Caminito Monarca #105
Cartsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Pamela Dennis
7787 Caminito Monarca #103
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Jacques Guilloton
7757 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
David Puzo
701 Palomar Airport Rd., #300
Cartsbad; CA 92009
Nancy Gabel
7787 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad! CA 92009
Karen May
7757 Caminito Monarca #109
Cartsbad, CA 92009
David Doss, Margaret Bedell
7797 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Shirley Laviaguerre
7787 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Edward & Pauline Zawisza
43845 Galaxy Drive
La Quinta, CA 92253
Machael & Deborah Wilimek
7797 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Janet Huesca
7787 Caminito Monarca #lo6
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Thomas 81 Lucille Dzakowic
7757 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Gene & Dolores Emmons
7797 Caminito Monarca #lo9
Carlsbad, CA 92009
William & Jeri Warner
7787 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Brian Lawrence
87 Buckingham Ridge Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Robert & Susan Holloway
7797 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Wolfgang & Dominga Prill
7787 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
M. Susan Whan
7797 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Richard & Roni Rudolph
7797 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Richard & Dianne Crowther
7787 Caminito Monarca #109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Goodman Family Trust
7797 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Norman & Marie Kersten
7787 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Daniel Frazier
7787 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Loren & Elizabeth Sanders
7797 Caminito Monarca #103
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Sidney & Lois Tamkin
7787 Caminito Monarca #l 01
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Teresa Weston, Manfred Greger
7787 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Karen Davis
7797 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dyan Kramer, John Kramer
17679 Cajalco Road
Perris, CA 92570
Ben & Orcella Zundel
7777 Camino Monarca #lo6
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Anthony & Martha Urbino Gary Florence
7777 Caminito Monarca #lo1 7777 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Cartsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kathleen Vaughan
7777 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Paul Ecke, Elisabeth Ecke
5600 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jordan Stockham Ill
7777 Caminito Monarca #103
Carlsbad, CA 92009
The Mazdaznan Elector Corp.
1701 Aryana Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Patricia Derby
7777 Caminito Monarca #104
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Carltas Company
5600 Avenida Encinas #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Lucia Velez, Patricia ,Velez
7777 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
David & Tammy Richkas
7777 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Robert & Patricia Harmon
7777 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Lurinda Chin
7777 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
San Dieguito Water District
59 East D Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Olivenhain Municipal Water
District
1966 Olivenhain Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dealy Family Trust
Ray & Barbara Winter
1282 Crest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
c/o The Fieldstone Co.
14 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach, CA 92660
John Featherstone
1255 Myrtle Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92103
Earnestine Kroblen
P.O. Box 249
Claremont, CA 917 11
Benjamin Franklin
Kenneth Hinsvark
James Watson
c/o Stephen Kirkpatrick
P.O. Box 8600
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Northwestern Pacific Railroad
co.
610 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Robin & Virginia Reese
7777 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad. CA 92009
GREENVALLEY
INT PARTIES % FACILITIES
NOTICE LST
BILL DOUGHERTY LESLIE REILLY KARENSHERMAN
2600 LA GOLONDRINA 2203 RECODO CT 2120 WELTA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDhMARIONALLARD DON BROWNE
3301 PIBAQUA ST 2351 LEVANTE ST
CARSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE SULLIVAN
2395 TERRAZA PANGA
CAIUSBAD CA 92009
KARLA 8 RENATA hdUI..RY
7010 NUTMEG WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
US FISH 8 WILDLIFE SERVICE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
ELLEN BERRYMAN 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO N STE 200
2730 LOKER AVE WEST SAN DIEGO CA 921081725
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF ENCINITAS
C/O PAT MURPHY 505 SO VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ENVIRONMENTAL DMSION 5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
JULIE FISHER DAVID LAWHEAD
126 VILLAGE RUN WEST CDFG
ENCINITAS CA 92024 8885 RIO SAN DIEGO STE 270 SAN DIEGO CA 92108
FJUCHALL KEITH SEARS
SAN DIEGUITO HS DIST 2001 ESCENICO TERR
710 ENCINITAS BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92009
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DIST JEFF MITCHELL
101 SO RMlcHO SANTA FE RD O’DAY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS #204
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DOUG AVIS h RUTH BESECKER
FIELDSTONE
PO BOX 9OCKb266
CARLSBAD CA 92018
CADEPTOFFISHhGAhdE
TERN STEWART
7821 ORIEN AVE
LAMESA CA 91941
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUND.
C/O SETH SCHULBERG
PO BOX 3130
CARLSBAD CA 920183130
SANDAG
JACK KOERPER
401 ‘B”STREETSTE800
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CURTIS SCO’IT ENGLEHORN FoBox4s8 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-0158
KATHYaMARKwINKLER
2510 NAVARRA DR 1513
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BILL HOFhdAN
HPA
2386 FARADAy X120
cARLsEADcA92008
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
EITAN AHARONI JOHN JONES
1824 OAK AVE 3044 ST’ATE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
INEZYODER
7738MADRILENAWAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARKFORSTER 7728 CALLE h4ADERO CARLSBAD CA 92009
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH ASSOC. c/oSETHSCHULBERG 2006PALOMARAIRPORTRD #207 CARLSBAD CA 92008
DOLORESWELTY SHARON MCIUE 207SHERIDANROAD THESHIDLERGROUP LEUCADIA CA 92024 6690MISSIONGORGERD."R" SANDIEGO CA 92120
LEAGUEOFWOMENVOTERS FRIENDSOFBATIQUITOSLAG. PO BOX727 POBOX2736 CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEACA 92007 LEUCADIA CA 92024
RUTHLEWIS 2001AVENUEOFTHETREES CARLSBAD CA 92008
Irwin Weintraub 7112 Almaden Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
EIR 93-2/GPA 93-l/MP 92-l/LCPA 93-6/LFMP 87-23
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 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, to consider a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report and applications for a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and a Local Facilities Management Plan.
Council will also consider an appeal, by the City of Encinitas, of the Planning Commission
approval of Tentative Tract Map CT 92-8 requesting inclusion of a condition requiring
dedication of right-of-way for future Leucadia Boulevard.
The applications would allow for the future development of a 600,000 square foot commercial
retail center and 400 attached multi-family dwelling units on property generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 23, and more particularly described as:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4448.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan, and/or Tentative Tract Map 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 Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners, Ltd. PUBLISH: March 25, 1994
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
‘\y[ ,,:y
. Em@3-02/oFnw-ow Lcm QsowLFw 87-23
GREEN \MLLEY MASTER PLAN yP92-ol
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
p.m. on Tuesday, April 5,1994, to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval
of Tentative Tract Map 92-08, te-k&k-a condition requiring dedication of right-of-way k’f&- futtie Leucadie -Boulevard; __ .‘L
NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARING
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 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 1994, to consider a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation’ of approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and a Local
Facilities Management Plan, to allow for the future development of a 600,000 square foot
commercial retail center and 400 attached multi-family dwelling units on property
generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23 and more particularly described as:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a Portion of
Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
City of Carlsbad, 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 January 13, 1994. If you
have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (619) 438- 1161, ext. 4448.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan,
Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Local Facilities Management Plan 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: EER93-02/GPA93-Ol/MP 92-Ol/LCPA93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23 CASENAME: GREENVALLEY
PUBLISH: JANUARY 6, 1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CW:vd
J State of California
Marjorie Ditto
14088 E. Kamrn Avenue
Kingsburg, CA 93631
Tommy Shields
230 First Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Larchmont Insurance Co.
ICB Building
Upper Roebuck Street
Bridgetown, Barbados, W.I.
Monarch Villas Homeowners’
Association
C/O Merit Property Management
6256 Greenwich Dr., i/520
San Diego, CA 92122
Alexander & Florence Che
Violet Cruz
P.O. Box 5356
La Puente, CA 91745
Howard & Linda Britton
7747 Caminito Monarca #lo1
Carisbad, CA 92009
Bernard 81 Marsha Sharpe
P.O. Box 9702
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
Horst Krupp 7747 c&nit0 Monarca # 109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Linda Lucas
Christina Sidrow
1155 Camino De1 Mar, #428
De1 Mar, CA 92014
Horst Krupp
7747wto Monarca Xl 11
Carlsbad. CA 92009
Kenneth Chow
7737 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad. CA 92009
La Costa Shopping Center Inc.
c/o Lute, Forward, Hamilton &
Scripps
4250 Executive Square #700
La Jolla. CA 92037
Thomas & Rene Mandel Gerard & MaryLou Gow
7747 Caminito Monatca #103 7737 bninito Monarca #I 01
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Leucadia County Water District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
George and Carol Goss
7747 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Linda Holmes
7737caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Karri Groggins
Robert & Arlyne lngold
c/o Robert lngold
1575 Via Chaparral
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Frank 81 Carmen Hetnander
7747 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Guzman Family Trust
5 130 Caminito Exquisito
San Diego, CA 92130
Downey Savings & Loan
Association
P.O. box 6010
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Christina Sidrow
7747 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Shaunna Salzetti
7737 C&nit0 Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Plaza De La Costa Associates
c/o Sudberry Properties
4350 La Jolla Village Dr. #210
San Diego, CA 92122
Jaime Garcia
7747 Caminito Monarca #iO7
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Lynn Stadille
330 North Main Street
Fallbrook, CA 92028
BCE Development Corp.
33 S. 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Stephen Workman Tipple Family Trust
7747 hmhim Monarca # 108 2848 Esturion Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Thomas & Linda Drabek David & Patricia Gerke
7737 Caminito Monarca #107 3495 Sitio Borde
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mario Stil
8279 Caminito Modena
La Jolla, CA 92037
David Kitchen, Sharon Shotland
7737 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nichole Josephson
Daniel Josephson
7727 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jean Schumacher
7768 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
George Neider
7737 Caminito Monarca #109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mark Trapolino
7727 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Waldemar Brehm, Caryl Brehm
2424 La costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bonnie Fought
7737 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mary Moorhouse
7727 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gina Landau
7768 Caminito Monarca #106
Cartsbad, CA 92009
Stephen & Janice Penn
1625 Scott Place
Encinitas, CA 92024
Robert Lemke, Elizabeth Lemke
Cheryl Lemke
2321 Dana Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert Hollister
7768 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Charles & lvalou Bellamy
7727 Caminito Monarca #lo0
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Constance Wheelock
7727 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bernard Fink, Joanne Fink
12924 Via Latina
Del Mar, CA 92014
George Adams, Judy Adams
7727 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Miguel & Arelia Nunez
5 130 Caminito Exquisito
San Diego, CA 92130
Stephen Helding
7768 Caminito Monarca #lo9
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Laura Rogers Sheldon 81 Patty Glickman Susan Malone
7727 Caminito Monarca #102 7768 Caminito Monarca #lOO. 7768 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jesse Tenth, Heidi Hamilton
1744 Burgundy Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Arthur & Helen Schauermann
7768 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Thomas & Julie Desmond
7768 Caminito Monarca #l 11
Carlsbad, CA 92009
October 22nd Trust
7727 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Helmut Schmidt
c/o Marion Reynard
7768 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
McCann Family Trust
7767 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
i
Beverly Fuller John Clive & Sandra Ashton Beatrex Quntanna 7767 Caminito Monarca #101 7767 Caminito Monarca #111 7758 Caminito Monarca #?09
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jane Sutton Paul & Eleanore Kusiak
7767 Caminito Monarca #102 7758 Caminito Monarca #lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Joseph & Barbara Warsoff
7758 Caminito Monarca #l 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Beverly Allen
7767 Caminito Monarca #103
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Patrick Sebrechts
Paul & Jeanne Sebrechts
7758 Caminito Monarca #lo1
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gary 81 Greta McKinney
2904 Via Pepita
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Doris Demonte
7767 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kyle Bliffert
7758 Caminito Monarca #102
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Aaron & Helene Burstein
7757 Caminito Monarca #lo0
Carlsbad, CA 92009
David & Debra Silva
7767 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Bruno Wolfenton
7120 Calabria Court #l A
San Diego, CA 92122
James & Betty Maclsaac
7757 Caminito Monarca #lOl
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tony Finn
7767 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Richard Parzonko
7758 Caminito Monarca #104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dorothy Grant
7757 Caminito Monarca #102
Cartsbad, CA 92009
James Kowalski
3907 La Crescenta Ave., #lo9
La Crescenta, CA 91.214
Richard 81 Cynthia Churchman
1380 Garnet Avenue #E274
San Diego, CA 92109
Joseph & Millie Messina
159 Mt. Vernon Drive
Clayton, CA 94517
Eugene & Helen Bedillion
7766 Caminito Monatca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Mary Martinell
7758 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Christine Logan
7757 Caminito Monarca #lo4
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Patrick Witt
7767 Caminito Monarca #lo9
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Howard Figman
7758 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Wendy Davis
Andrea & Robert Davis
7757 Caminito Monarca #IO5
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Else Moyer
P.O. Box 222
Jamul, CA 91935
Jacques & Chris Guilloton
7758 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
C. Matthew Swinden
Sally Orth
7757 Caminito Monarca # 106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Anthony & Martha Urbino Gary Florence
7777 Caminito Monarca #?O? 7777 Caminito Monarca #? 1 1
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kathleen Vaughan
7777 Caminito Monarca #?02
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Paul Ecke, Elisabeth Ecke
5600 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jordan Stockham III
7777 Caminito Monarca #103
Carlsbad, CA 92009
The Matdaznan Elector Corp.
1701 Aryana Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Patricia Hagan
7777 Caminito Monarca #?04
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Carltas Company
5600 Avenida Encinas # 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Lucia Velet, Patricia Velez
7777 Caminito Monarca #105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
San Dieguito Water District
59 East D Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
David & Tammy Richkas
7777 Caminito Monarca #106
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Olivenhain Municipal Water
District
1966 Olivenhain Road
Encinitas. CA 92024
Robert & Patricia Harmon
7777 Caminito Monarca #107
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dealy Family Trust
Ray 81 Barbara Winter
1282 Crest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Lurinda Chin
7777 Caminito Monarca #108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
c/o The Fieldstone Co.
14 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach, CA 92660
John Featherstone
1255 Myrtle Avenue
San Diego,CA 92103
Earnestine Kroblen
P.O. Box 249
Claremont, CA 91711
Benjamin Franklin
Kenneth Hinsvark
James Watson
c/o Stephen Kirkpatrick
P.O. Box 8600
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Northwestern Pacific Railroad
co.
6 10 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Robin & Virginia Reese
7777 Caminito Monarca #? 10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
GREENVALLEY INT PARTIES (L FACILITIES NOTICE LST
BILLDOUGHEKIY 2600 IA GOLONDRINA CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDtkIvWUONALLARD 3301 PIRAQUA ST cARlsBADcA92009
GEORGE SULLlVAN 2395 TERRAZA PANGA CARLSBAD CA 92009
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ELLENBERRYMAN 273OLOKERAVEWER -BAD CA 92008
CITY OF ENUNITAS C/O PAT MURPHY 505 SO VULCAN AVE ENUNITAS CA 92024
JULIE FISHER 126 VILLAGE RUN WEsf ENuMTAs CA 92024
ERICHALL SAN DIEGUITO HS DIST 71d ENCINITAS BLVD ENCIMTAS CA 92024
ENUMTAS UNION SCHOOL DIST 1OlSORANCHOSANTAFERD ENUNlTAS CA 92024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
LESLIE REILLY 22o3RJxoDOcr CARJSBADCA92009
DONBROWNE 2351LEVANTEST CAlUSBADCA92009
KARLA h RENATA MULRY 7010 NUTMEG WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009
CA COASTAL COMMISSION 3111 cAMIN DEL RIO N STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 921081725
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ENVIROIUMENTAL DMSION 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
DAVID LAWHEAD CDFG 8885 RIO SAN DIEGO SXE 270 SANDIEGO CA 92108
KEITHSEARS 2001 ESCENIco TERR CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFMITCHELL O’DAY 7220 AVENIDA ENUNAS #204 cARLsBADcA92009
EITANAHARONI 1824 OAKAVE CARLSBADCA92OOB
KARENSHERMAN 212OVUELTAcT CARLSBADCA92009
DOUG AVIS b RUTH BESECKER FIELDSTONE PO BOX 9OOCb266 CARLSBAD CA 92018
CADEPTOFFfSH&GAME TERRI STEWART 7821 ORlEN AVE
LAMESA CA 91941
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUND. C/O SETH SCHULBERG PO Box 3130 CARtsBAD CA 920183130
SANDAG JACK KOERPER 401'B'STREETSTE800 SAN DlEGO CA 92101
CURTIS SCO’IT ENGLEHORN FoBox CARDJFFBYTHESEA CA 92007-0458
KATHYaMARKwINKLER 2510 NAVARRA DR #513 cAIusADcA92009
BIU HOFMAN H?A 2386 FARADAY, tl20 cAlusBADcA92008
JOHN JONES 3044STATEsT CARLSBADcA92OOB
GEORGE VARELA 7203 MANZANITA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEUCADIA COUNTY WTR DIST 1960 LA COSTA AV CARlSBAD CA 92009
COMMUNITY SERVICES
GORDON BIUEFF 4729 GATESHEAD ROAD CARISBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPT OF PLANNING 5201 RUFFIN RD, STE 3’ SAN DIEGO CA 92123
TOM CURNES CARLSBAD PARTNERS 16OlELhdST STE2364 DALLAS TX 75201
ROBERT PAYNE PO BOX 3073 CARLSBADCA 92009
ELIZABETH WHITE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 9608 SCRANTON RD. #430 SAN DIEGO CA 92121
JUDITH BERRY 2141 PLACID0 COURT CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALIAN J. WANAMAKER 2399-8 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPT OF PLANNING 5201 RUFFIN RD, STE %’ SAN DIEGO CA 92123
JOHN JONES 3044 STATE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008
5950 EL CA&UN0 REAL CARlSBAD CA 92009
GARY WOOD
P & D TECHNOLOGIES 401 W’A’S’I’ STE2500 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JOE HOENIGMAN 2207 RECODO COURT -cA92009
5950 EL CAMINO REAL CAIUSBAD CA 92009
ENGINEERING
EITAN AHAROM 1824 OAK AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEUCADIA COUNTY WTR DIST 1960 LA COSTA AV CARISBAD CA 92009
UTILITIES h MAINTENANCE
TOM HAGEhMN PLANNINGSYSTEMS 2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARlsBAD CA 92009
BENShUTH 3017 AZAHAR COURT cARIs8ADcA92009
BUENA VISTA AUDUBON SOCIEn FRANK FONTANESI PoBox48Q 1966 0-N ROAD OCEANSIDE CA 92049-0480 EIwNrrAs CA 920244699
RICHARDBARNES KARENMEssER 7623 RUSTIC0 DRIVE 2399 JWFERSON #18 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CAMSBAD CA 92008
INEZYODER 7738 MADRILENAWAY
CARISBAD CA 92009
MARKFORSTER 7728 CALLE MADERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH ASSOC.
c/oSETHSCHULBERG 2006 PALOMARAIRFORTRD #207
CAIUSBAD CA 92008
DOLORESWELTY
2076 SHERIDAN RD. LEUCADIA CA 92024
LEAGUEOFWOMENVOTERS
PO BOX727
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA CA 92007
RUTHLEWIS 2001AVENUEOFTHETREES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHARONMCRAE THESHIDLERGROUP 6690 MISSION GORGE RD."R"
SANDIEGO CA 92120
FRIENDSOFBATIQUITOSLAG. PO BOX2736 LEUCADlA CA 92024
Irwin Weintraub
7112 Almaden Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Joe Strauss
2524Navarra Drive
Cai-lsbad, CA 92009
Mary Ann Bloom
2266 Plazuela Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kevin Johnson
Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy 550 West "C" St.
San Diego, CA 92101
Sharon Brossman
934 Passiflora Ave.
Leucadia, CA 92024
Lee W. Landrum, Attorney Alida Harms
2212 Plaza de Las Flores 2297 Levante
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Karin Barnes
7623 Rustic0 Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gale Hano, Mayor
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sharon South Chuck Duvivier, Deputy Mayor
Encinitas Union School Dist. City of Encinitas
101 S. Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. 505 S. Vulcan
Encinitas, CA 92024 Encinitas, CA 92024
Fran Rodgers
2520 La Gran Via
Car&bad, CA 92009
Rinus Baak, Project Manager
Carlsbad Partners
2111 Palomar Airport Rd., StelOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tom Adams
7727 Caminto Monarca, #lo1
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tom Curnes
Carlsbad Partners
2111 Palomar Airport Rd.,StelO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dave Perrine
7505 Jerez Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Carolyn Avalos
605 Hygeia Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
John Dimas
2123 Pintoresco Ct.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
GREEN VALLEY - INTERESTED
PARTIES . ..SPOKE AT MEETING 4/b/5)4 (Not on dther lists)
David Lamb
2131 Escenio Terrace
Carlsbad, CA 92009
I I< - RENTERS LIST--- GREEN VALLEY
, (Parties/occupants not shown as Property Owners)
Paula Rintye Brian & Connie Myers
7758 Caminito Monarca, #lo9 7768 Caminito Monarca, /I109
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Kevin Ahern
7737 Caminito Monarca, 11100
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Cal & Faith Myatt
7737 Caminito Monarca, #lo5
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Gary F. Rossi
7727 Caminito Monarca, %104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
A. David Puzo
7797 Caminito Monarca, #lo6
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Rosine Fitzpatrick
7777 Caminito Monarca, l/l00
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Diane Hansen, Brian Florence
7777 Caminito Monarca, Bill
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Patrick Witt
7767 Caminito Monarca, 8109
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Denise Warsoff/Monique Silva
7758 Caminito Monarca, l/l10
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tamra Karel Williams
7747 Caminito Monarca, #lo9
Carlbad, CA 92009
Joy Nieder
7737 Caminito Monarca, #lo9
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Andrew & Kaye Zoolakis
7787 Caminito Monarca, %108
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Lorraine F. Carter
7797 Caminito Monarca, %lOO
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Marilou L. Rogers
7768 Caminito Monarca, 8105
Carlsbad, CA 92009
I i I
.
I . .-
.
t
I i
I I I
E !
,A /
\,
-x. Lt ._ . .
COURTESY NOTICE
GREEN VALLEY WSTER PUN
EIR 93-2lGPA 93-1IMP 92.IILCPA 93-6lLFMP 87-23
AND APPEAL OF CT 92-8
The Green V’ Mmter Plan and related General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal
Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and
Environmental Impact Report will be on the Carkbad City Council Agenda for the
meeting of May 10, 1994 for Council discussion and consideration.
The appeal of TenUve Map (CT 92-B), by the City of Encinitas, will also be
considered at this time.
WP .I .I’ ‘: v:.q=qz$@ ,~~~~~~~~-~~~~‘l~~~~~.~~~,~.~~.~~~ ,+. .+- _ .&qj@Jgi ,. * “7 -“-~.* -.-. ~~ ..- .&:;r.“. ,j i (?y* R r’
. .P CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
434-2867
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
RECEIPT NO. $23 3 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL 1 Lj (“j[,i i lj(!
@ Rinmi on ncyclcd paper. CASH REGISTER I
---. --_~ . .-.. -.___-. -.- _.._-..
t%I)U EI.M AVENUE
CAHLSBAU, CALIFOi-WIA !X?WU
Ulticc 01 ftw Clly Ctork
Ilf uImw&ls
I\PPEA~ FOIuq
1 (Wd appeal the following dccish of the ,,CAL~,,R~.NULLIACJ... .._ _..._._. .-
ConllIl;iaion to the city Courlcil:
Project Name and Ntrrrher (or subject of: appeal): GreenVallev~.n~~,t,i~.e. . . _
. . . Siibdivi si nn -K-,: Case No. CT 92-08
Date of Decision: February 2, 1994
Reason for Appeal: See Attachment -.-r---
February 14,i 1994
Eite
Murray L. Warden - City Manager
Natrle (Please Print)
505 S. Vulcan Avenue --. Addrcs s -c-
Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 633-2689
Te 1 cphorlc Nunbcr
I: R I’M .L : 4 I q 117 n .: . . I I-I . rl 4 11 * : .I .t r bi
city of
Encinitas
February 14, 1994
City Clerk City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
RE: Appeal of February 2, 1994 Planning Commission Approval of the' Carlsbad Partners (Green Valley) Tentative Subdivision Map; Case No. CT 92-08.
The City of Encinitas is filing this appeal of the Carlsbad Planning Commission's determination to approved the above referenced Tentative Map for the following reasons:
1. Review of the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan within the City of Encinitas has involved the assessment of several alternative alignments for the extension of Leucadia Boulevard from El Camino Real westward to Sidonia Avenue.
2. The Leucadia Boulevard extension is planned for on both the City of Encinitas' and the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Elements of their General Plans.
3. The Encinitas Planning Commission determined to recommend to the City Council the northerly (Scheme 3) alignment of Leucadia Boulevard through the inland bluffs on the Encinitas Ranch project. The northerly alignment encroaches slightly onto the Carlsbad Partners property (Green Valley) in the City of Carlsbad.
4. In addition to other benefits, the northerly alignment avoids impacts to sensitive plant species .(i.e.: Encinitas baccharis). Enclosed is a schematic of the Leucadia Boulevard alignment as being recommended by the Encinitas Planning Commission and tables showing the reduced environmental impacts of the northerly alignment as presented in the EIR for the Encinitas Ranch project.
5. The Green Valley Tentative Subdivision Map, as approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission does not provide for right-of-way for Leucadia Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad.
To implement the preferred northerly alignment, the City of Encinitas requests that a condition be placed on the Tentative Subdivision Map for-the Carlsbad Partners property (Green Valley) requiring right-of-way dedications, as needed, for the portion of Leucadia Boulevard extending into the City of Carlsbad; should this
505 S. Vulcxn Avtmite; lincinit:ls. C:llifwmi:l 9202~?3633 ‘1’1:I: nl~~-fl4p-“ml / t:u\x fj10-63:3-2r’,27 .J l’l)lf 610-f,~~-2-w0 43 recm!cl paper
.
L
option be ultimately approved by the City of Encinitas. The following condition language is submitted for consideration by the Carlsbad City Council:
"Based upon the adoption of the alignment for Leucadia Boulevard by the City of Encinitas, the.developer shall: (1) Dedicate, if needed, the right-of-way, drainage easements and associated slope easements necessary to construct Leucadia Boulevard west of Camino De1 No&e; and (2) The developer shall pay a pro-rata share, based upon traffic generation, of the costs for designing and constructing Leucadia Boulevard.*'
The City of Encinitas is specifically concerned with the appropriate dedication for Leucadia Boulevard should its northerly alignment be approved. The City of Encinitas is also aware that such a dedication may result in an amendment to the Green Valley Master Plan concerning re-vegetation within the open space area of the inland bluffs.
Please schedule this appeal for consideration by the Carlsbad City Council. Should you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact the undersigned by telephoning (619) 633-2689.
Thank you,
c: City Council Patrick S. Murphy, Community Development Director Alan Archibald, City Engineer
------- ---j \\
0 w-l 0 * I.-j ..i.:: j:.: VI 0 0.e .i”.c 00 9 44 :.x0 om ..o .a3 6 r; g 6 j ,.:.:i’i’,;;:i.,:.i ,: ..,..: :.i;“‘;: >:. .:: 7 q-r- ...i.. uln(Q* 0 g ;,I& CJ. m ‘.: 0 : :. M h ..?- ,..,: .,..,... ::. :: .:, :. .:,., .,:I...: :;:,,:.,::; L L . . . . . . . . . . : .:;:), :x:::,):: >:.: ::., .::. .y:., ., : .: :,,: j:.. :,,:,:.:,, .- .r ,..: ‘1 : .,,.: . ., : :’ j j:::. j; ..,: ‘:.:.‘,:j’::::.‘:...:., >:y:.,: 0-u ..:,. :. .:‘.:’ :..;::.‘.: :... :..> ,,:g,;. >i’j,i ,.., f::.. :y,, :...::,,:::..: c .;: :: .’ : ,. :.. :: . . . . . . . . . . ., j:,,:‘::. .:. .\. : .,.... 0-l .:.: :::::.:: :.:.. :.; . . ., . ., :.:,::.:, 3 ;., 5;: ..A :.,:. j:.:,. ,.’ .:’ ::‘::‘: ..I: : ‘x:.:. ..::,:::,::,:(\:~,:_: ,,:,:.. . ,:f ,. .: ‘.‘< ):::::,;>: :y.:: ., : ji:: ;.;: . LA .::(j:;,. ,::> ..,.,. . . . . . . . . :.: :.,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . .+>;.. .>;.... : :: ?.. ,: :.:‘: ,: :. .:, ‘:-‘.:.:.“::I.‘~ .: :.:..::: ::+ .;j:j:::: ::,j.,+ :;:. :.: :.: .::i:: ::i ..:.:. ” ,.: ., .,\. :.,. i : : ,‘( ., : :. .: :.i ;::$z.:; I:: : j: ::::,j I:’ :+: ::,:,:: : .: i’ : : : ;::: .,.,. : ” ‘. . . . . . . . . . . :.:.,.: ,:.. :. :.:: .,. ., ‘,I. . . ;: :...:.: :. ., :. ..::::: li :, ,:::: .: j ,. :. .: ,,,:, 3: ‘..,’ :. .::‘>,:::;‘:.j.:. : y$:...;.i:f.; ,, ., : ::: .,... : :.j:;,.:‘: j.: ,,: : :, :.: ‘: :. :; ::‘:: ;,. : . . -: :.,: ,+.<.::.:.: ...:..:‘,:~::. .,::...::. : j..: .,:: . i .:,: . . . . :; . . . . I . . . . ,.
o^ i2 s $) ,..:j ji:;:;:. s. ;3.0” 8 :z^. Ii+ 00 . .F .,... .:.:: ..,. .:*. . . . l . . .:,:,. )
c? r .:‘j.:: ;y~ p,zD;‘Qy
0% j:+ u. 41
F
c
x ~,;.j,:,.<.y:. ,.. ..::z :.:.:.:. j :. ..:
s L :, ,.;:.;.:::.$q ‘+..O.;~.M @ : :j:.:.:;:j:y . .‘.$ i,. ,: I’ ;..: i, :‘.ji.
z= ! -$j:;::;;,;. *.ia.o: In : .,: ..:.:...;.;.;..: “.‘.) :::.. :.,::.j::p:: . . . ..i . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i . . . . ..,... . . . . . .:.:
22 :;:::::::...... . . . . . . . . . . .,. ..,., >,. :.:.: :.:.:,:.:,~.~.~.~.~:~:~~~~~:~:~:::~:~:::~:~:::~::::. : :::.:::::.::::.:.:.:.:.:.~. ...,.,.,...,.i,.,.i,.,., . ..A. :. ..i.\ ., . . ..,.:.:y .:.: :.:.:,..~.:.:.).., .:.: :.:.: ,.::::::::.: :::;>,::::: :.,,: ::: ::: ::: : >,:: : ::::::::j:: :: :.‘.‘.::.:‘:.‘.:.:.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.,~,)~,~,)~.~,~, .A.. .:....: .(..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . i . . . . . .z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.,.,.i,.,_i_.,., .+: ‘::..:.:.:.:.: . . . . . . . . . . . :.:. .,.,.,.,.,.i)/.. : :;:,:::::.::.::-:. . . . . .., . . j 1’ : ‘~~:~i~a~:~~~i)::ii~:~~~:~~~:~:~~~:~~ :::$$f:i:y$; :
:: ,j I:-:i::‘i:;:i .;:j:::.j::::j ,/.,.. . . . :,. ..,. ,..,.,..., .,..- ., :...:. >::.> : j ;:‘:~,.:(:$ : : 2. .:.... ..I. >.i.:, ..:, ;:.-.:.:.. . . : . . : :. . . . . . . . . . :,.,.,. .,. ., :;. .+,.
. . .. -n-CICI
NWIOT-Xl . . N fw-l .-‘.o,.O
rlnddd L.L VVVVY .::.--9-
‘f : ” .z \OhO7* 9 .:.
cin;dcir; 0- . . d .:... Y :. ‘:.A : .:.
. . . . . . . .:.
i. :,.:: ‘y. ,. :...::. ,, :‘. : . .
.,,::,::>:. ., . . . . . . ,.:;,:.:. : I’,: :.+::.j:. : .: :.
. . . i . . . : y..:.,. : : ,(:j:.:.,.: ,. : .: ,.,. :.,.:::.,: : .,. .A:> :... ,: : . . . :, : .,,. 7
..:.
n-h-e GF;;r” “%s;gi;g CI e, ;.,-F. 0 (r) ..;o .. (0.: O(Db0u-t 0 0 .::. 0 tJ. m .:, 0 :. .
f2 2 CiGr’dai
-8-m a 0) :x:;.... l-l .:;ty ; 7 ‘.” L L .::..a . . . ‘,
VVVYY .I- .r ,::.w . . . . . . ..’ 4 c 0 u ..j::::.
OONON ,:.: . . . . . .
P ST .:.o .:
6wiGd.i
VI w .:..., . . ;
o :;:T? ;: j ,,
::%
.)
=k
.:..; j .: .:.:.. :..j... . . . .>::.::::
-WV j,lj::. : %..
. :...
4% :...j i:
-1 j: ; j:; : ,y:.:::, : ..t . . . :;;;::j.,.: . . . . . . .:y ;.;...: p:j::: ,. ..; . : :.y: ::
In (0 OONON “$AgF;s--~g t;c 0 Ic 5 00
dr;r’dG
8!2 8 4 rrm Is) yc F i! z ., ” .-._ .I’
5- 0-a
<e
c
u-t-
PO” 0
I a
52
.C 0
5’
‘. .:
E
: ‘..
: :.
f ,.,>
Y
2 d
2
5
” z P, 4-d :
5 0 2 2 n 0 t!2 .r
5
2 r Ed
N m 04 s 2: gnu2 .C
3 .- 2 a L 50 r L’l- m
Yl.5 m ur a 8 g *.:2
Y
W”rn
cmNuxku
2 ~““smc=v,
2 w 3l 5 x n z .z >c:Q
‘L %59fG ‘rCszazP)ml’
: .; 2 0’ 5 k ;; .z;,d~~~z
0’ .s .r .C WLJ ”
$“““‘I- c
Q
2 2
I E > m
=
P
*
; . .
s
c
F
:
r
c
;
:
c
P
; , # , , ,
:
, I .I
.! I , I
:
:
:
=
=
0
d
0
d
c
c
+
0
d
-
5
2 e
ki c,
5
.c
c
t
&
5
9
2 m
3
:
s
=
= \D d
;;
z 7 d
c d
Gi
g
s- d
-
=
yc
8-d
-
G
2
r
d
-
C
c
6
c:
IF
8-
-
.
=
44 2
u 5
.:: P
4d 2
-0 E
.: CI
z
-c 5
L .I- 0
4d 2
-
u 5
.: a
=
”
”
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
”
C
”
.:
I
-f
1 ,
1
.!
.I
I L1
=
-
3
J
J
3
J
3
3
3
7
J
7
:: 0 P .r d s B
2
I
=:
E . .
2 ti P .v-
:: e .r 2 .r u) 5 s
z 5 u . .
2
ii .C
% e .r 0
iii
ii
‘= .C =:
.* 2 u B
Tl In l-l
3 .!?
!
0
-.-I q
rl
s
s
E
e -4
z u
i u
d
z
%
.
Different Leucadia Boulevard Alignment Habitat Fragmentation
- ,,:,~
Source : Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (1993)
Different Leucadia Boulevard Alignment Bluff Cut Grading Elements
Alignment
I Encroachment of
25X+ SloDes
Graded Banks With
I
Maximum Graded
30 Ftt Height Bank Height
3.8 I 75
3.8 (5.1) 1 75 (95)
Leedshill-Herkenoff 1.5
Land Use Plan A’ 1.5 (2.8)
Scheme I’ 0.7 (1.3)
Scheme 21__ 1.6 (3.0) _-
Scheme 3 1.4
1 Adjusted values are entered first with gross values in parenthesis.
3.4 (4.6) 51 (65)
I
3.6 (4.9) 1 67 (85) I
3.9 I 90
Source: F.C. Springer & Associates (1993)