The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-02-24; Planning Commission; ; CT 81-09|PUD 30 - CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS.. .. ( . \ ·) STAFF REPORT DATE: February 24, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ., • I .. I SUBJECT: CT 81-:·/PUD-30 -CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS -Request for a 813 unit (853 lot) Tentative Tract M~p and Planned Unit Development on property generally located south of Lake Calavera and approximately one milEi east of E.l Camino Real in the R-A-10,000 zone. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to create an 813 unit·(853 lots) Planned Unit Devel~pment to be built in 6 phases out of two irregularly shaped lots with an area of approximately 263 acres. ·The site is located in the northeast corner of the city generally south of Calavera Lake. At this time, the site is only accessible via dirt roads. The northern portion of the site is relatively flat and is beinq used for agricultural purposes at the present time. The pan- handle portion of the site consists of ·gently sloping hills, some of which are being utilized fdr agricultural purposes. The cen- tral portion of the site consists of a large hill which slopes steeply to the south and west. A steep valley with a riparian habitat runs from the northeast to southwest through the south- easterly corner of the proper-ty. Over half· of the site is covered with native vegetation consisting of chaparral, coastal sage scrub, southern California grassland and riparian woodland. As this project is proposed, only 19 acres of these natural hab- itats would be preserved. At the present time, the site is completely surrounded by vacant land. The nearest existing residential development would be the single family homes in Oceanside to the north of Calavera Lake. The city of Oceaijside has approved a tentative map for a 1898 unit project on vacant land to the east of this site. The first of nine phases has just recorded a final·m~p and build out of the entire subdivision is not. expected to occur in the near futute. The subject property is zoned R-A-10,000 (Residential Agricul- tural, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Approximately 96 percent of the site has a General Plan designation of RLM (0-4 du/ac) whil~ the other 4 percent has a designatioh of RL, t0-1.5 du/ac). As proposed, this proj~ct will have a density of 3.1 du/uc. Cannon Road, a prime art~rial, will go through the south- erly portion of the property, adjacent to the riparian area. .. . ~. ·~-·-·---·· ... ---------•--··---·~ .... ,. . , . ., .... II. ANALYSIS 1. Would the development of this project at the present time be premature with respect to the provision of: 2. a. Water and wastewater facilities b. Police and fire service c. Street access d. School facilities e~ Public transportation f. Energy consumption Does the aesign of the proposed project just:fy the re- duced development standards allowed by the Planned Unit Development Ordinance? Specifically, is the project's grading sensitive to the environment such that it would justify the tradeoffs being requested by the applicant {reduced lot sizes, increased density relative to the topographic constraints of the site)? Discussion A. Premature Development Staff feels that the proposed development of this site at the present time is premature~ This project is located in an isolated area in the northeast section of Carlsbad. The only nearby residential project is the Leisure World development in Oceanside which, as indicated,· is not expected to build out in the near future. The city's proposed Public Facilities Management Program addresses the problems associated with premature development in isolated areas resulting in the inefficient use of the city's existing infrastructure (i.e., sewer, streets, and other such public facilities). Speciifically, th~ program points out the fact that energy costs for pumping wastewater are significantly increased when such services must be provided for outlying, isolated developments. The costs are reduced when these services are provided for infill developments or developments adjacent to existing developed areas. Staff believes the long term costs for providing sewer service to the project would be increased with a corresponding decrease in the efficiency of providing this service if this project is approved. In regards to police pro~ection, the Public Facilities Manag~rnent Program indicates that adequate police protection becomes in- creasingly difficult as development patterns in the city become more dispersed. The cost of police protection is determined more by the amount of manpower needed·to-serve develop~ents in the city, than by the amount of people served. •rhe cost of providing police protection to an outlying ~evelopmen~ would be greater than for a pr?ject that was built adjacent to existing develop- -2- 1 ) ment. The EIR for this project indicates that 3 ne~ patrol officers, with supporting vehicles and equipment, would have to be provided by the city to serve this project while maintaining the current level of service. Fire protection can also be provided more efficiently if develop- ment occurs in infill areas or those areas adjacent to existing developed areas. This site is significantly beyond the Fire Department's minimum acceptabl~ level of a five minute response time. Eventually, a fire station will be built in Calavera Hills, but the very earliest that this station would be operational would be 1985. As an alternative to mitigate the slow fire response time, the applicant is proposing to provide automatic sprinkler protection for all the units. Although this could mitigate the potential fire hazards, it would not mitigate the additional response time required for emergency para-medical aid to the residents of this project. Another problem that results from isolated projects, especially larger one$ as is being proposed, is access to the project. To provide access to this project, the applicant would have to ex- tend Cannon Road to College Avenue and then extend College Avenue to El Camino Real. Secondary access would be provided by extend- ing Elm Avenue through Lake Calavera Hills to the project site. Although the applicant. would construct these roads, the city would maintain them. According to the Engineering Department, the excessive length of these off-site improvements would result in a very high street maintenance costs in excess of property tax revenues generated from the proj~ct. As mentioned earlier, the city of O~eanside has approved a ten- . tative map for Leisure World, an 1898 unit project directly to the east of this project. The construction of Leisure World ·would bring Cannon Road up to the edge of this. project providing an easterly access: however, it could be years before this occ~rs. According to the phasing schedule for Leisure World, Cannon Road will not be constructed to the easterly boundary of Carlsbad until the 9th (last) phase of the project. With respect to energy costs, isolated developments such as this result in a higher use of energy by automobiles, _because of its distance from cor~nercial centers, employment centers and schools. The Public Facilities Management Program points out that growth adjacent to existing ~chools with available space can minimize the transportation cost of busing students. Residents of this project would be overly ·dependent on their automobiles. Also, it is possible that no bus service will be provided to this site in. ~he near future. To serve this project buses would have to mak~ a long detour off the established routes on· El Camino Real. -3~ ( .) ( •') Although it would be possible to provide the necessary public services to this project, to do so would put a physical and financial strain on the city's existing ·facilities. The extra costs of providing service to this project would be born by the residents of Carlsbad, not the developer. Carlsbad is contin- ually trying to make the most of the existing city revenues. Approval of a large, isolated project such as this would be con- trary to that goal. Overall, given lhe problems and excessive.costs of providing pub- lic services to an isolated project such as this, staff cannot support app~oval. B. Planned Unit Development Ordinance The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a greater flex- ibility in developing a project than would normally be allowed by the underlying zoning requirements. This flexibility is granted as a tradeoff for such things as a site sensitive plan, the pre- servation -0f natural habitats or an extremely well designed pro- ject. In this instance, staff feels tha~ the flexibility of the PUD Ordinance has been used to obtain the maximum number of dwelling units, through the use of redu~ed lot size and sub- standard streets, with little regard for the existing topogra?hY or natural habitats. Although the General Plan would allow up to 4 dwelling units per acre, it would be almost impossible to develop the site to that density due to its topography. Staff believes thut if the applican~ developed this project as a stan- dard subdivision with 10,000 sq.ft. lots, it would be very diff- icult to obtain a density similar to.the density proposed by this project. Although the applicant has u~ed the PUD Ordinance to reduce lot size and street widths, the resulting project will still have massive grading resulting in a complete alteration of the exist- ing.topography and destruction of almost all of the natural habitats. This project will have approximately 2,400,000 cubic yards of cut.and 2,400,000 cubic yards of fill which averages out to a total of app~oximately 18,250 cubic yards per acre. In the past, staff has found that the final grading plans for a project often require substantially more grading than shown on the ten- tative map. A more site sen~itive plan could allow the same num- ber of units with significantly less grading. The city has approved large residential projects in the past with similar amounts of grading and landform alteration. Most of those projects were standard R-1 subdivisions having 7,500 to 10,000 squar~ foot lot~ and full width ~ublic streets. The lots being created by this project will average about 5390 square feet in size with some as small as 41.dO square feet. In addition, they will be served by public st~eets with a minimal right-of-way width and a minimal turning radii. Although the city has allowed projects characterized by massive grading in the past, this is not justification to continue approving pro:iccts. which result in a massive a.l tera t ion of the existing topog_l'."aphy. Part of -4- : _) { Carlsbad's attractiveness is its rolling ·topography and hill- sides. These will quickly disappear if the city continue~ to allow these hills to be flattened to provide easy building pads rather than encouraging site-sensitive d~velopment plans. Staff feels that insufficient trade-offs are being offered by this project to justify the flexibility allowed b~ the PUD Ordin- ance. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this pro- ject. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As mentioned-in the description and the EIR accompanying this report, only 19.5 acres of approximately 142 acres of existing natural habitat will be preserved. This represents only 13 per- , c~nt of the existing natural habitat on this site. In addition, some of the habitat that will be preserved will be significantly impacted by grading. The EIR that is being addressed by the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting has discussed the grading and loss of habitat in detail. In addition, the EIR discusses the potential environ- m.ental impacts in regards to agriculture, public services and traffic. Staff believes that the EIR is adequate in addressing the potential impacts and is recommending that it be certified as complete. - The Commission should be aware, however, that certification of an EIR only implies that the environmental impacts and alternatives have been adequately reviewed· and analyzed. It does not mean that no environmental impacts will be· created as a result of the project, and that it should be approved. Staff believes the im- pacts identified by the EIR contribute to the overall recommen- dation of denial for this prqject. Given the problems of providing public services to this project because of its isolated location, the project's lack of meeting the intent of the PUD Ordinance to provide a site sensitive pro- ject, and the environmental impacts created by the project, staff must recommend denial of this project. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the project, you should be aware that other· more detailed design problems exist which should be addressed. These problems were not addressed in the staff report given th~ space needed to address the major issues; however, a summary of these design problems is contained in an appendix attached to the staff report. III. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Environmental Impact Report submitted fot this project and ADOPT Resolution No. 1918 recommending .DENIAL to the City Council of CT 81-9/PUD-30, based on the finding-s confained therein. -5- ' 0 .( .) ATTACHMEN'rS 1. PC Resolution No. 1918 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Appendix 6. Reduced Exhibits 7. Exhibits A-T dated December 7, 1981 and Exhibit X dated December 18, 1981 MH:ar 2/4/82 -6- I I J. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 wit: - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1918 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A 853 LOT (813 UNIT} TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE CALAVERA AND APPROXIMATLEY 1.5 MILES EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICANT: THE BARNES CORPORATION CASE NO: CT 81-9/PUD-30 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to Those portions of Lots "D" and "L" of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1896 9 has been filed with the city of Carlsbad, and referred to the lO Planning Commission: and 11 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a 12 request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: 13 and 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day 15 f February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as 16 rescribed by law to consider said request: and 17 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and 18 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons 19 esiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 20 elating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit 21 22 evelopment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 23 ommission as follows: 24 25 26 ) ) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends DENIAL of CT 81-9/PUD-30, based on the following findings: 1 Findings: 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 1) The project is not consistent with the land use, public facilities and public safety elements of the general plan for the following reasons: Section V.G of the Land Use Element provides that projects should be rated to development based on certain criteria including; "The ability of the Fire Department of the city to provide fire protection according to established response standards of the city without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring the addition of major equipment to an existing station"; The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan requires the proponents of the development to present evidence satisfactory to the city that all public facilities and services will be available concurrent with need. The Policies of the Public Safety Element require the city to consider and analyze fire hazards and police protection problems associated with proposed development. The project is "leapfrog" development located far from the urban core of the city and outside reasonable service terri- tories for police, fire and schools. Given the isolated nature of the proposed site, construction of this project at the present time is premature and is inconsistent with the policies just stated because: a. The removal of waste water from the site will require more energy than would the removal of water from a project located adjacent to existing developments, as discussed in the staff report. b. Providing adequate police and fire protection to this site would place a financial burden on the city far out- weighing the benefit of the project. Further, providing service to this area would decrease service to areas already serviced. In addition, another fire station or major equipment additions would be necessary to adequately serve the project. Ill c. The excessive length of the off-site improvements necessary to serve this project would result in very high maintenance costs in excess of the revenues generated by this project. a. The isolated nature of this project will necessitate an excessive consumption of fuel because of the distance of this project from existing schools, commercial centers and job opportunities as discussed in the staff report. e. Public facilities, such as adequate streets, fire facilities and police protection will not be available concurrent with need for this project because the project depends on the extension of these services by other C RESO 1918 -2- J. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 J.7 18 2) 3) 4) 5) property owners and developers. Previously approved projects will provide such services and facilities as major arterials and fire stations. When these services and facilities are provided, development of this project will be more logical. However, because those facilities which will be provided by other property developers are not yet installed, and the city cannot predict when installation will occur, there is no evidence upon which the city can find the project consistent with the general plan's public facilities policies. The proposed project does not meet the intent of Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Unit Develop- ment) since it does not provide a site-sensitive plan and does not provide sufficient trade-offs to justify the reduced lot sizes and reduced right-of-way widths because the project's grading and design will totally alter the existing landscape and destroy or severely impact almost all of the existing natural habitats, as discussed in the staff report. .The site is not physically suitable for the type of develop- ment proposed, because of the hilly topography of the site. The proposed development, consisting of single family detached dwellings and duplexes requires extensive amounts of grading, as discussed in the report. The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage due to the massive alteration of the topography, loss of wildlife habitat and loss of prime agricultural land, as discussed in the staff report. 19 \ The proposed project is not consistent with the open space and Conservation Element of the General Plan because of the massive alteration of the existing topography and the destruction of almost all of the existing wildlife habitats on site. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I 16) The proposed project is not consistent with Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code because: Ill a} Is not consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. b) The site is not physically suitable for the type of development. c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that the project be denied. C RESO 1918 -3- • - 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 2 Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on 3 the 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :il (,,.-" 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: C RESO 1918 Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, Rombotis, Schlehuber, Jose and L'Heureux. Commissioner Friestedt. None. None. -4- / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .,, ,.,·'--- / ,/ / / Lake \ C _a I aver a I . ~~✓ . /.,,_'\>-/ ' ~ ~-~-===--~ CASE N·O. CT31-/PUD-30 /\PPLICA~JT BAR}JES CORPM . · .. __ ... --: .--.. ·-· ~---. •. -. ~ ,. ·- - A-A-10 L , FWY 78 -I (J\ ~ l ____ , .,.r·\ ()' I' ,-~ ~. ~\ \ ___ _ 0 ~ .. 1l SITE ~~ (,~ v1ciNJTY MAP / L I CASE NO: APPLICANT:. \ CT 81-9/PL,J-30 BACKGOOUND DATA. SIIEEr BARNES CORPORATION -------------- ' { Rmt}ESTAND LCX:ATION: Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for 813 units, south of Lake Calavera approximately 1 mile east of El Camino Real. LEGAL DESCRTITION: Those portions of Lots "D" and "L" of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map 823 fil~d November 16, 1896 . Assessors Parcel ~'-'-mer: 16 8 050 2, 5 Acres 263 No. of Lots 853 lots (813 units) ___ _.a,__ · GENERAL PL.Ai.~ A. 'ill ZONlliG Go._neral Plan Land Use Designation RLM/RL --------- o-4 I 0-1:s . "\••--.· • I 3.1 IP....nsi ty Allaved _______ _ Density.Prol_X)sed ----------- R-A-10,000 .N/A Existing Zone --------------Prol_X)sed Zone ---------- Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning North R-A-10, 000 £-0uth E--1-A County F.ast Oceanside W~st R-A-10, 000 Land Use Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacan't PUBLIC FACJLITIF.S School District CARLS BAD ,------------------... Water District ~ARLSBAD , -, : _ CARLSBAD Sewer District EDU's ______________ _,_____ --------- PL1blic Facilities Fee Agree.11ent, dated FEBRUARY 25, 1982 (Other: _________________________ ---:) ' .. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSME'-Yl' Negative ,Declaration, issued · ··.. Log No. ------------- E.I.R. Certified, dated ----___ __,_ ______ _ X -.. FEBRUARY 10, 1982 I~ APPLICANT: AGENT: I ·'•\ .. :_. ~-;•!. -~ ·~ ~ .... ,; .... _: •:-: -::· - BARNES A.,,<.PORATION Name (indi" ~ual, partnership, joint _venture, corporation, sy:i<lica tion) ., 343 Third St. No. 3 Laguna·Beach, CA 92651 Business Address 714-497-:-_4008 Telephone Nwnber same as above Name Business .lh.idress -,_ .· . ..,, _ ... :· yi~::~1~\!/<~\Jf>-;~t. - Telephone l-hrrnbe~-.--: :~~': ),\\,::;\_. ~,..,0 "-ntt' :_:,c: hn·,.,.nt -A" .--,.s __ __.,~... ~. (.1. .. J ... \~ -' : -:.···, _ Name-:-, (individual,. partner, joint · venture, .corporati_on, syndication} ' .. . .... , ~ ... Home Address ._.-.... · .. ~: : _; :: :,·~(~:·. ~ ·, .. · .. ' .-. ~ ~: ?(_/'.-:-_--::}·;'.!:'.~~ (-/· ·:· _Bt~~~'.~~:--~:~.-~:~.:-\t,\::~::.:)·(: .. ~._•> . .----· .·.· . \.'. ,' ~-., -·•·'. _.~ ~ --~ . -~ -: : •' ·~ --~- .· .. -... Telephone Number Telephone Number Name Home Address .--.: Business Address Telephone Number 'l'elephone Number ,.·.-'• - .. ·'··. - ----------------,.,-,.---------------- ·• :· .·.-.. ;. ·: -:.•_,• ····· .: _. ·:·:·-)".:~\f~:/~.;~).r~:-:. ;:._. :.-·-.•-. .. :, -.: • · ·.,_ · · (Attach more sheets if necessa.r:y) . • \ •,1.. ·:~:_:: _,: ;,-~,"; .r • . I • • - ,.• I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the info~ation contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. rinrnes Corporation /\gent, owner, Par-trier •. ' __ , •••••••-•----......-~•r.~ •••----------c~ { . . . ) I ·ATTACHMENT "A" HUGH W. WARDEN and ANNIE M. WARDEN, husband and wife, as tenants in co~mon. By: --------------------- By: --------------------- •, ·,-FRANK A. F,HODES, JR. and MARJORIE S. RHODES, husband · :ci_>and wife, as tenants in cornmon. · ... \ By: --------------------- .. By: --------------------- ·ADOLF SCHOEPE, Trustee unde~ Declaration of Trust esta~lished Octo~er 17 1 1968 by ADOLF SCHOEPE a~d M.!i.RTHA VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustors (Schoepe Fa---r.ily Trust). Bv: --~------------------ By: ----' JO~ T. GREE::1, a m·arried man, and ROBERT L. GREEN, a mar~ied oa~, as tenants in com.~on. By: --------------------- By: --------------------,- RG::S:Z:R'I' B~UCE CLARK, TERRENCE RAY CLARK and KE'ilIN DENNIS C~rt~X, as tenants in coITL~on. 3,,.: --------------------- By: --------------------- By: -------'---------------- GI~L B. CAUSEY and JUNE H. CAUSEY, Trustees of the Gill and Ju~e Causey Family Trust dated August 1, 1978. By: --------------------- -~-..... - ,,,... J -5 .. -~ "'":~· ,. : I I • I -.=-'.• . . . . " (--:: j \.' . ' -ATTi\Cm-1ENT "A" c• C ~' ( I . I ··-. ----------- HUGH W. WARDE('! and ANNIE M. WAPDEN, husband and wife, as tenants in coITu~on. By: ---------------------- By: ----------------------- FRANK.A. R,HODES, JR. and MARJORIE S. RHODES, husband and wife, .as tenants in conu71on. ...~.-- . .:•.•--.: -· . ·. \ ,.•. -·.·· , By: ---------------------- By: ---------------------- ADC!..F.SC50EPE, Tr1;.stee unde::-De-::laratior:. of Trust est:c...,_,.;s·--0 d o~~-ob0 -17 196"' b·· r-.i:C 7 ::, cr•_.o~-:i,.... 01 ~-ct-~_,,_,;__ ..;....__ '°-'-,.__J.. I O ....'. t""'JJ ~~ L...l'-".l..,. .C,,_.t:., G.!~ MART~:£.,;\ VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustcrs (Sd:oepe Fa..1ily Trust) • By: ---------------------- By: ---- JON T. G~EE~, a married man, a~d ROBERT L. GREE~, a ma==~eC ~2~, as tena~ts i~ ~c~~~~. By:_~~'""'' :.:.-a:'.Y":1-L.-.>--=::J=-.:Jf"---·--~----------(l . -Bu• -------------------·--'--- R03ZRT BRuCE CLARK, TERRENCS R_::._y CLA~-CZ ar:d KEVIN DENNIS CLA3....~p as tenants in common. By: ---------------------- By: ---------------------- By: ---------------------- GILL B. CAUSEY and JUNE H. CAUSEY, Trustees of the Gill a~d J~ne Causey Family Trust ~~ted August 1, 1978. By: -------------------~--- By: ----------------.....------- MARYL. DAILY. B:n ---------------------- ;: .. . ' I~ . . . ATTACHMENT "A" HUGH W. WARDEN and ANNIE M. WARDEN., husband and wife, as te~an~~~Jo~on.. //_/p /J/Y. By. ,,__,?4/_/,t_:('1/4 ~/ /~r{_/; ··.::·FR.A~~~·. A •. J;l.I-IOD:S,: JR. a~d ~ A.z RF.ID: t· JR., -~tee._;· ~. ,,Mai-:ion.e 8 •. Rhocl ... s 1rust._ .. • -.-l .· .. . \ ___,;; -../ ✓-✓ /2 . . .. By:~ _:.r7...--t"~f _.,,.-' 1' ~.--:::=:?,~ "/_ - By: jz/:;,4~;/~.~it-f/l,vs ri!E ADOLF SCHOEPE,'Trustee under Declaration of Trust ·estqblished October 17, 1968 by ADOLF SCHOEPE and M.'~R~HJ~ VIRGINIA SCHOEPE, Trustors (Schoepe Family Trust)~ By: dd._.c/_ £.-/4~-:~-~~ /4a-~~-= V , By:.>< ---- JON T. GREEN, a rnarried·rnan, and ROBERT L. GREEN, a married man, as tenants in.cormnort. By: X _Rc-f-~r-~ ./~-. . -. ·< -~:··.-· By:,. ---------------------- . ay:, -------=----------.....--.---,--- -_. ---•·· ·-:.·; •-.· ... ~. /7 ·( . , ) ·APPENDIX UNRESOLVED DESIGN PROBLEMS 1. The unsighalized 90° intersections of Cannon Road and College Avenue, two high speed roads, will be hazardous. ,2. Road alignments and a phasing plan for off-site circulation have not been worked out. 3. The phasing of the project is inconsistent with ~he proposed collector road to Elm Avenue. 4. The hairpin turn required to gain access to Village 2 is dangerous and unacceptable. \ I 5. Some of the street intersections have less than the 300 foot minimum spacing required by the city. ..;. -----. -- PLA~~t!ED UNIT CARLSBAD DE:VELOPr•,1ENT lc:-~!GHLANDS ~ ' . ~-rrT~ I l-,. \'\\ ·K -~ -~"T---~ -~ ---··c:: ___ . -'{ . -LLi:_)';,. \ \ \ ., H :>j" • , I 1 ' I 1 I , ' ' , , -, f. --;'-----... '--.. ·. l J _,<,: -...,-,-----, PB'\'<, '\ \ \ t·-l~' J..l_U__i.LLJ.l L~,.'....:_'._'....·~· . ,_ .. "\'. I .,, _;J-.-i -t-....\ .\ •\, ~ .,.-r--rr-T· ~r--ST ' "'-• r I ' ~-"!t -•~ ~I-, _\ \ '\ •~ ~ --"';fl : ) , i I I ~' -'. ! ~ +--Je I ' '" ,J. I /... ~ d I t.. l. • ' • . D• ,. ; .' , , \ L ' I 1--1-'7-7 ...\ lr1\ _.,-it,-..... -'-7-\;!,-L-;, / , \-' t~L,r,J:Gl-B1:ruJ l;-ci~iP.HASS 3h \·-1~-; I THE BARNES CORPORATION ; /\ ·111 _i.J.lJj ! ll..!.J~jl; l \ \..'..Li..Lll._;._U_j_,!__L1: .,------;~-\--->·, corbin•yamafuji and partners, inc. architecture• planning )1/;J'.. '{ f iTT7-T,,,r,-1'1 ~1---r>; lT, · , , \:.;_~/ •. -,\_l . ! , -I .//!.'['m,,=-,,.._ ,-•.,.,,..:;,:;.:;.:,;.:;.~. , ,,--~ ~ '-,· ' ' ~..J-, -'{• ~ T ~1rU• "' / / -,./ I " 1;"'-' ,'/ _:~.~\~ r· -wei·-t -~-i --:;--.. _b:-.t_ -~-JI' . r"'-;._: /'::,; .. _:' ... .-~ "-•-~.,-✓----' "' --~-.,, • • •• · /,, /1/~~-,-,•~.:·:<~-rlJ ~ r<-r r 1 r', i.'.. I \~~\-"\I _..._,_ -:-d, I~ ~ t:.rJ / / : . <'· I( \ \ .. J .. l. "-/ "y •i-'", ': ~ : '1 1 l l , . '>-. I J._:_, r ;-"-• · ; -~--,.. '-,; 1 ,•I/ ,./,. ~-»:,;;~-J-,-/y/ ,.-,_.,:\..-',,,/ 11-~;_ )'•r·f-!',.•_>.;"'-.,;<'•/ ,.-\.--~,"--: '/1/' ',{,If...,"!-. -< ).),.J.J ~,./;_~ \ \\-·:-', : ,-."<. F ,~, •,-.J,.__A\':-,.__ -~1 ', •. 1·•· ,,/_,' '1 --~ ~\--....,....;;:-1'°', r,1· \ . ' , .... .-,(,,, -< ., ~r--: ,··_.1 .,,-ff-4-//fr:;,_, fir:-·µ_ Jt· :JPHASE ?J,.-,;<, · ·"''',,',•~~ , ,_'_.'..! , t--. . "'I-[,~ .l . \ I -, • r= 1---.._....;_..;.;::;_~ " . ,,• '-" -\ \ , ; , ' J\\ I. ,Vi/•·Jr-~J[-,-11V,,,:~1r.1 C.,\_ ....... ,, \'·-,J'..,, <\,',,··,... \t-~.!£..1""'.! / l '~~J_~,._ /---fl~. ;1--~ :_f·t 1 __ ;;1..i.}-.... "r~i-"' ,r.~-r:(·_~'(\._~ f \' .. \~-..:r.: 1 \, ,,.. / • -{•,i ,--ft_, -;-,-~1--;; , -f-' ,. -:"\•·..., <'\.• r ,'\ {"'\, ,_,. f'._/'...-\\ • r--•: -;, )1 I, / ,,-✓ :,'\-[/-'"•.:;.. __ .,..._;...,. ~-:~•~1! ~•\,.,...... ... ;._~• t' ./ ! • \_ .... J...,:.T L __ \ ... t.--t :~,---.! ) I \ -, / "''~'\,'"'\ ./,. "-;,."_j. • \.-• ~\•,, •1\ I _t'° .,~ I,.~. /','A\ '~7••-1• ... -• ! -.:; .. -•1 \ ....._ ., , , ,.'\v( ·.._,· /.,...._')--\\--•'~\ 1~\?'--(\•,/ " §,,.1,~r:-r1,• •. -, ·. . • ,~, .•· . · -<.\~"' ,· .... ·.. ~~ ......... ~.i---..... --t/• •• --l .. -,-'1-r, ~, \'-"" . .,,,-7",,,.•''-· ...;;;---~..J. . .LJ--1J.11..,, r-S-t ,'! : ,:_,,/"r·,-.,,-<\<..,>-;_z..'\-\' 8,,.,-._.~--/J---,/\•.~• tlt\./, • ... -{ ,-,(. \i :':_. 1 ir1·r•,,--.1\, .. --:J "' r• ~-; r ,'s._ 1 !I k. \_ l ,. , . !::-"'.~ \ .,.. • "'I. I ••• .. (.;)-I ~--• 1 • J: l .•• ~ r--, ) r--·-·-i: ( ,·lcJ. 0 l v,· ~-~ .[PHAS§'\4L/'o/-/ ;, _.;....-:(0 r(• -~: .).,,....._-1•1 ... -•, ..... '~,: .. ,_-·-:. -~ .. -· 1 ~ -! ~: _,,_ · . -= . \ \ • tr 1 .!f-,.... ... --1 ....• ;-, '·~ •• ... ... ~ \ "" ·:,; _ ;,')---=•. , ;:;, " ).•.:i ... ,T ~--"""' • r_ :-i , • . . . ·; : ,;: __ .:: ,,~--~-:.-i-;•-1 ..t\·t ;;:_-~--~--,--.:...~ ..... -,11/ ,.,,-."-,<'-..-jr~_t;:..~\-\'v:-.-_~--\:·).J.;::;-J7?'Mr-~ I ►• jc!f.l .. c,,_ ;-,,...:· .... .., ;>t 1~--~ ---fy' -.....1-~// L_-_f ~-... .:. ... ,/ ".",(..., j \~\.~¢1:-Y--~-~-_/.)--#'i--r· ~ -1 -1;::.:...;·rr tr"~'-J--', r;r ···1} __ :( '·· ---~ (•\---~--. .r-..,-.:-_--:~>··<:J.¢-:::.;...·_1_c1 __ -\_..>y~(q°,. _,_;,,:;:-:•-\···<{ /-; ·-ij--·"" i :..::~-::!·'7ri·..,_-¼-, l ~.fr:_----:-1 • ~~: t 1•1--:,'-JJ 1. ·.·~--t._~-;·:;~_\JL:.._,_~~~r-. ~...-r:---..~).~ \\· ·,---/~ H· 1r~-; ... ·'f-.:,1 .... ;11.ij 1~ ... .l-~--i • t • '' ( ' • " • -. • ~ c;--.! <1• a • l ..--' -~ ~ , ~ ' I ~.,. ~ • ~ J ' , i '" " I\,;,-"1 _., • 'A \,/ .?-(•• A \ r J •• :-,-~._-•• ._ ,' \'\L,./ (,?, \ ► < • f ( ; \"' • >•. J •• --\.--, I L 1.::1---·-l..,. -~ •• ,,u, ! "; .... ,; ..::,o:::;.,' ,;, . . ( / I A-(_..~~ _..:.., ;_;,-1 ·\ I /~ ~ ' --""'\I t il-r: J,·· ·,. -. . P ASf:: · ;,i 1 ', ·,,'.,, ,i r · / \,_ ..._ yy ,.,). '< ;,,--> ~:J.½o.eJ. U.,'l!Ts ~ < . ,. ' / , · : -; ~-~ 1 \ • -" -~• • /' • ( _... ... ~ • ~1\ --/--. ~ • ~ ' I \\·'\·'\ 1·--_t:I .·.:.\\,,}\•·., .... , ,,1., /·.. '\ \'.\v\,.-•>\\\;••,.·'r•· _? '\_ '.?;'.~~< _._._._,,I \ ', .,, .. ·• ·-··J . fl,,,.'\',: •,__,;,. , -. / ------......." \ \ ' ,.---~~--:...~ \' ... :,~--~1--:~-\. ,(".,.., <:>--, .. .., "' ,' ,': \\,'.Y/;/ l \~\ ,\_,• .• ··· / 1 i \\ \ • \r'.i ..'.1 \\ _/_°,'•f'/\'•··,,' ~'\,-~ -1,r-'\ \ .. <; I/fl··.\\"--. \ I'-,-~--• ~-\ • ·" ' .• v··'-:-, ·:,-. V ·. 1_ 1 JI 1 i · .. · , i ,: ,--µ_..·:;::.,,;.) , -~ ~.:!~. ,\ --'1 • , /; i,, ... _-~. ' \ \ ,\-" '',, -8 \ .::;.~-::., '<'-•7 ..... -_-.,, )ltJ...j" 'I ~-,. ( l) I TABULATION I ~\ \ ,,-_\ ,/:S, \ ,,,.~> .. ·. '._;....~ ... <-._,·:, ~\,.,.>tL 1 ' \~~=--r-= ,a=~r---=~c=~=---t--i-~ \ \ ':' ,/'>"I"' \ Y, ::;::::::::: -~ • \~:,.--• .::-:, • ·► .J "j '\\. ~ -I 1 GHK s.•.•1r.CH<Pt■.,.P<TACHl!o 154 \; ,,, \ •·}.;?. y•·, ( /-,;.~ll': \. •' _, , • • \ , ,. ·7 r.., . " < . ~ .. . , --" , •_,.,,.; 2 E.fJ •. f'.ATTACkCDll.r.DITACttf.D 146 -..• :r--/',;,. r j . ',~¥-J,~:.!_..,,'l"l.t,0-c .. _ _; •_.Qi\, / • 1' .. "\ I ', ,. , ~ , · ,..,_. r•---/..,-,_ ,,. ;-3 C.0,1,J l,P,ATTAC ... D/■.,,DIT-241 \, / ,: ,\ ,. ,',( /' ' < •" '• • -;-_,; ,• \ <., r '\ '1 I •· L • ' ~' / I ' • •' '· ' y 1 4 B ,.,._ D£TACHUI 134 ..... __. . , . , , ,· · · .... ,.... ,' ; ,,.. .,. , .., , ... .,: '• ' " -.. ,' -..:,--• /· ,,, • / ' • ( • t~' , .. 5 A •·•·•TT•CHro 86 ,-\'.'\• · ( (' ( ,• v _../ _,. ___ o.. \-\.;-._ ,. ..... \.,;, •. .•• : •• ~ r·-:1 ..... .,.' -( .•• 'A._ , .. ---;".",.,.✓ , •• (S---- PHASlt\JG PLAI\J 6 L U,O<TACHlO 52 ') \i)._,\'.,·_c/:-,, -,.✓<~•-• •~,._:"'\;:',.·<..,__1 TOTAL 613 D.ll ,· ~--,,.. \. '~ .-'. I , _. .. ·) ,· _,//'_, .. <.--:\;./ ~ -.. L. _-· , --~~ ·--' . .') ' __ .:~.~ .. ~ > /<..,,<,., \ ·c:.~ ..... t ~;:-t~~~. 1 -. .:-_, _ ?. 2 __ :, · .;;.'--1 C:·~ -=~'.~<\··•._~I PHASe · e} I !r::::':'::':~ ' -.. ; -r ·./ -.. _;..-~ ~ ... ;. '-J~ ~ (.,. .... , : .. : L ~ .. >..._ .. -it ~_SJ I · l'r -.. 12-..) "'fl;J·· I~ I ', I.:. :j.- 't-> t(- ·.-"·· . ' '. I ,J :) t& . -( .. / . ~ 20