HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-13; Planning Commission; ; EIR 93-02|MP 92-01|LCPA 93-06|LFMP 87-23|CT 92-08|HDP 92-15|SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN• The Oty of Carlmad Planing Department •
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 13, 1995
Item No. (D
Application complete date: March 12, 1993
Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/
SUP 92-05 • GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN -A request for a
recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
:recommendation of approval for a 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 300,000 square feet of community commercial retail
and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or attached residential units
on property generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of La
Costa Avenue and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission A) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
recommending CERTIFICATION of the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02;
ADOPTION of the CEQA Findings of Fact,(Exhibit A);and ADOPTION of the Mitigation
Monitoring Report, (Exhibit B); and B) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856,
3857, and 3858 recommending APPROVAL of Master Plan MP 92-01, Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 93-06, and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 87-23 and
C) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3859, 3860, and 3861 APPROVING
Tentative Tract Map CT 92-08, Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-15, and Special Use
Permit: Floodplain SUP 92-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Green Valley Master Plan was submitted to the City in November 1992 and was first
reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The Planning Commission received
public testimony regarding the project environmental impact report and the Master Plan and
deliberated regarding the merits and detriments of the proposal. The Planning Commission
subsequently recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Master
Plan with modifications. One such modification was the designation of the proposed retail
planning area at the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue as Unplanned. The
Planning Commission, under their own authority approved the associated tentative map,
hillside development permit and special use permit subject to City Council approval of the
Master Plan and related legislative actions.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/Lcl 93-061 LFMP zciNE s1-231CT92-lttop 92-1s1sUP 92-os
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE2
City Council was dissatisfied with the scope of analysis in the EIR as it related to the
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and therefore took no action on certification of the EIR or
the master plan. The City Council referred the EIR back to staff for expanded
environmental analysis and the master plan for reconsideration of the master plan
development program.
The Environmental Impact Report has been supplemented and recirculated for public
review and the master plan has been modified to reflect a Reduced Project Alternative to
the original proposal. The applicant has proposed the Reduced Project Alternative as their
preferred project in response to community and City Council issues. The focus of staff's
review has been on the Reduced Project Alternative and staff's recommendation to the
Planning Commission is for action on the Reduced Project Alternative.
III. 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 five 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 and as the
implementing ordinance for the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the
Local Coastal Program. Approximately 184 acres of the total land area is considered to be
developable as illustrated in the following TABLE I.
PLANNING AREA GROSS CONSTRAINED NET DEVELOPABLE
and LAND USE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE
PA 2 Community 18.3 0.0 18.3
Commercial
PA 3 Residential 55.8 0.0 55.8
PAs 1,4 &5 207.1 97.4 109.7
Open Space
I TOTAL 1281.2 197.4 j 183.8
The project proposes preservation and restoration of significant constrained natural open
space areas as well as the inclusion of developable areas as open space. Nearly 73% of the
total land area is within the three open space planning areas.
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 nearly three (3) times the minimum open space requirement.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP iONE 87-23/CT92-LP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE3
The actual Open Space area within the Master Plan is approximately 194 acres (281.2 acres
less planning areas and road improvements) which includes the upland bluffs, riparian
corridor, and mitigation areas. All of these acres are within Planning Areas 1, 4 and 5.
ACRES
AREA DESCRIPTION: required
LFMP 15% 2757
SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE CALCUIATION
TOTAL Gross Acreage
Less Required Mitigation Acreage
Less Development Constrained Acreage
Less Development Acreage +
Public Street Right-of-Way
TOTAL Remaining Unconstrained Open Space
19.45
97.40
88.1
proposed
76.25
281.2
-19.45
-97.40
-88.1
76.25
The open space planning areas provide a substantial north-south habitat link through the
riparian corridor and upland bluffs. A significant connection between the upland bluff and
the riparian corridor is located at the northerly end of the master plan which parallels La
Costa Avenue. The majority of the open space planning areas will be habitat conservation,
however, a portion of Planning Area 1 will be used for trails consistent with the Open Space
Resource Conservation Management Plan.
Development within each of the planning areas will be subject to the development standards
of the Zoning Ordinance except for the modifications as described in the master plan. 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 Site
Development Plans."
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
EIR 93-02/MP 92-0l/Lcl 93-06/ LFMP z~NE 87-23/CT92-'80P 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PIAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE4
densely vegetated riparian corridor. Near the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue is the Red Barn which 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. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report addressing all of the
potential impacts to the environment created by the implementation of the
Master Plan;
B. A Local Coastal Program Amendment to the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segment identifying the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and a text amendment requiring
that the master plan be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994;
C. A Tentative Map which will subdivide the property into 11 parcels;
D. A Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 which assesses and identifies
all of the infrastructural needs associated with development within the zone;
E. A Hillside Development Permit required by Title 21 because the subject
property has an overall slope greater than 15% and an elevation differential
greater than 15 feet; and
F. A Special Use Permit which allows the alteration to land form within a
floodplain.
IV. ANALYSIS
To a great degree, the Reduced Project Alternative master plan text is similar to the master
plan which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The most significant
differences between the two are the reductions in allowable commercial square footage
within Planning Area 2 from 600,000 to 300,000 and land area from 56.2 acres to 18.3 acres,
the increase of land area dedicated to single family residential uses in Planning Area 3 from
17.9 acres to 55.8 acres while maintaining the same number of residential units (400), and
additions to the development standards for the residential Planning Area 3. Although the
residential planning area has been increased by more than 200%, the maximum number of
units allowed has been set at 400. The restriction on the number of dwelling units allowed
within the planning area translates to an average density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre.
Figure 1 illustrates the Reduced Project Alternative land use distribution.
__ )\_
:. ,~ ~· ~: ,. : ,: ·..:. ·' < '! :.; '
OPEN SPACE
•. j P.A. 5
f ~\ \.~ \ I: \~--.\ '\ \
'\ \ ' \ • "'!
' ' ~ \ \\
.~ ,,\
-~-~":.''··-:-, -:,\ •
• ', ~~ ~ \',~
~ ~ ., ., " .. , ·ll. FAMILY ~~ ,. •. " '.,.
FIGURE 1
}J~:IDEP::L ', <:• •.'. ',
1
1
• ... > UPLA~BLUFFS-') ~\ •
'. .'. •• OPEN,SPACE '
•· ... : , ••. .. • . .: ...• -d-~----... .a,.;;~.;.;;;p l
t . P.A.4 •·~ ' u
r . •. :~~~tyl \ H
• • _, P.A. 2 '.,
__ .;:m:==-~
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP Z~NE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGES
A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The General Plan land use designations for the project site are a combination district of
Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High and Open Space (C/O/RMH and
OS). The property is zoned Planned Community (PC). Uses proposed within the master
plan ( community commercial, single family residential and open space) are consistent with
those General Plan designations. Zoning consistency is created through the master plan
which is in conformance with the Planned Community Zone standards and the identification
of compatible zoning designations for each of the planning areas.
Planning Areas 1, 4 & S
These planning areas are designated as Open Space and C/O/RMH in the General Plan and
as Open Space, for the purposes of Zoning, within the Master Plan. The Master Plan does
not grant any development rights within any of these planning areas. However, within
Planning Area 5, the "Red Barn" will remain as a legal non-conforming use, which means
that it may not be expanded or modified.
The open space zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan designation of Open
Space and is broadly consistent with the other General Plan land uses because open space
is typically a part of any use.
These planning areas play a significant role in shaping the character of the master plan
because they create a natural buffer which surrounds the developable planning areas of the
plan.
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 2 (PA2) is designated as General Commercial (C2), for the purposes of
zoning in the master plan and is completely within lands designated as combination district
C/O/RMH in the General Plan. Community Commercial (C) is described in the General
Plan as:
" ... centers that offer a greater depth and range of merchandise in shopping
and specialty goods than the neighborhood center although this category may
include some of the uses also found in a neighborhood center. Often a
supermarket, large variety store, cinema, or discount department store
functions as the anchor tenant. The emergence of new anchor tenants( i.e.,
high volume specialty or warehouse stores) has resulted in new, special forms
of community commercial centers. As an example, this type of center may
have a grouping of special tenants, who operate a retail/wholesale business
dealing with home improvement items.
Sometimes a community commercial center is located next to or across the
road from a regional center because the two types of centers offer different
ranges of merchandise ... "
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE6
The General Plan also describes Community Commercial centers as being on approximately
10 to 30 acres with a range of 100,000 to 300,000 square feet of building. The Reduced
Project Alternative is a maximum of 300,000 square feet of building on 18.3 acres.
Planning Area 2 is adjacent to the City of Encinitas at the south end of the project site.
Because of the development of commercial uses to the south and the natural buffers of the
bluffs to the west and the riparian corridor to the east, P A2 has a great degree of
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Permitted uses are per Chapter 21.28, the General Commercial zone, and Chapter 21.42,
Conditional Uses, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Development within P A2 is subject to the standards of 21.28, General Commercial zone,
plus the additional standards and design guidelines required by the master plan.
Planning Area 3
Typical of land designated as Residential Medium-High in the General Plan, Planning Area
3 (PA3) has been designated for zoning purposes as Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M).
The General Plan describes Residential Medium-High as:
"Urban multiple residential areas characterized by two and three story
condominium and apartment developments -8-15 dwelling units per acre."
However, the General Plan continues to state that in order to meet goals and objectives,
including population and environmental considerations, the actual yield of approved
development within each land use category may be less than the density range (8-15 units
per acre) and it will still be considered to be consistent with the General Plan. The intent
of the RD-M zone, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, is to provide means of development
in the low-medium density range as well as the high density range.
The master plan implements the General Plan clause regarding development less than the
density range and addresses a community interest to maintain a single family residential
character within PA3 by restricting development to a maximum of 400 units over 55.8 acres
which is equal to 7.2 units per acre. In addition the master plan limits structures to two
stories (30 feet) which is typical of single family development.
The community forums identified a strong desire to retain this area as a single family,
ownership residential neighborhood. Restricting the density and building height helps to
achieve that goal.
Development of P A3 will be subject to the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
except as modified in the Master Plan (see later discussion).
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92--HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE7
B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY:
EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENT
Text Amendment
The land uses designated for the Green Valley portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
segment are identified as .. "a combination of uses as follows:
1. Riparian Corridor of Encinitas Creek (approximately 40 acres designated as
Open Space (OS) with a Special Treatment Overlay.
a) Steep Slopes -Slopes 40% or greater are designated as Open Space
(OS) and constrained from development. Slopes 25% to 40% may also
be constrained from development. (See Grading Section.)
2. Upland (approximately 240 acres) is designated for a combination of
Residential (Medium High Density-RMH-9-15 du/ac), Commercial (C), and
Office (0) uses. The maximum height of new development shall be limited
to 35 feet consistent with the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Additionally, the
intensity of development shall be compatible with the currently planned road
capacities of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Approval of these land
uses shall not be considered precedent for increasing the road capacity of
these two corridors. Development of the entire 280 acres of Green Valley
shall be pursuant to a Master Plan which is consistent with the uses allowed
by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted as of March 1, 1988."
A· Local Coastal Program Amendment is required for the adoption of the Green Valley
Master Plan as the implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and includes an update
to the language regarding consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan. The updated
language requires a master plan to be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994 versus March 1988. The land uses have not changed. They are Community
Commercial, Office, Residential Medium High and Open Space (C/O/RMH/OS), however,
for the sake of clarity the amended language is being pursued.
Master Plan Consistency with the LCP
Local Coastal Program (LCP) requirements included in the segment follow along with a
description of how the master plan complies with the requirement:
1. Development of the Green Valley shall be pursuant to a Master Plan that
complies with the policies of the LCP -The project is a Master Plan which
has been designed in compliance with the LCP.
2. Twenty-five percent (25%) to forty percent ( 40%) slopes may be constrained
from development -The intent of the LCP is to preserve and enhance slopes
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LC. 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-LP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGES
with significant native vegetadon that are greater than 25 % (Dual criteria
slopes). Planning areas proposed for development within the Green Valley
Master Plan are primarily confined to disturbed areas with slopes less than
15% and will therefore not affect such slopes.
3. A 50 foot wide buffer area shall be presetved in open space upland of the
boundaries of the riparian corridor. Development within the buffer area shall
be limited to the construction of a pedestrian path with fencing and other
improvements necessary to protect the riparian habitat in the upper (upland)
half of the buffer area -A minimum 50 foot varying width buffer is proposed
along the western upland side of the riparian corridor which will include a
pedestrian path and basins for the protection of the riparian corridor and the
Batiquitos Lagoon from urban runoff.
4. The maximum height of new development shall be limited to thirty-five (35)
feet -Commercial buildings are limited to a height of 35 feet or less, with an
allowance for the encroachment of non-habitable architectural elements and
residential development is limited to a maximum height of 30 feet.
5. Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands to urban uses pursuant to the
approved master plan shall be consistent with the Coastal Act (Section
30171.5 Public Resources Code) which requires a mitigation fee -At the time
of discretionary development approvals, the conversion mitigation fee will be
required.
6. Alteration of the riparian corridor shall be limited to access and flood and
sediment control projects and shall require Carlsbad approval, a Coastal
Development Permit, Stream Alteration Agreement, and COE permit:
a. A maximum of two crossings shall be permitted to provide access to
the developable portions of the Green Valley -Access was designed
with the inclusion of a minimum 36 foot bridge structure over the
centerline of the creek. The creation and maintenance of new riparian
habitat onsite at a ratio of 3:1 has been proposed as mitigation for the
impacts to the riparian habitat in association with the construction of
the accessways.
b. Flood and sediment control projects shall be allowed adjacent to the
riparian corridor -Flood control has been proposed adjacent to the
riparian corridor which does not involve removal of riparian habitat or
diversion of non-flood water flows upon which the habitat is
dependant.
7. The viewshed to the lagoon and from the lagoon shoreline are important
resources -Development within the master plan is restricted to an area that
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZQNE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PIAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE9
is set at the base of the bluffs at the western edge of the property and east
and south of an extensive riparian corridor with mature riparian vegetation.
Development within the identified areas of the master plan will not affect
views of the lagoon nor will it significantly alter the views from the lagoon
shoreline.
8. A Coastal Development Permit will be required for any development with the
Green Valley Master Plan.
The Master Plan incorporates the specific criteria listed above. The amendment to the
Local Coastal Program segment designates the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance and the land uses described therein as the approved land uses for
the Green Valley.
C. 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
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.
Planning Area 5 was thereby created as a commercial site at the southwest comer of La
Costa and El Camino Real.
However, after further review of the applicant's proposal staff directed the master plan to
designate Planning Area 5 as open space. Staffs reasons for an open space designation at
the comer include:
Intersection Spacing -The standards for City improvements 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. P A5 cannot be designed for commercial uses per the required
vehicular access standards.
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.
Open Space Resource Conservation Management Plan (OSCRMP) -A primary action
priority of the OSCRMP is the protection of open space alongside El Camino Real.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LC. 93-06/ LFMP ZPNE 87-23/CT92-&DP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 10
Preseivation of the comer as open space would achieve that action priority. In addition to
the previously stated reason, development of the 1.7 acre site requires the approval of .6
acres of fill within the floodplain through the Special Use Permit. Approval of the SUP to
increase the area of developable land east of the riparian corridor would also be inconsistent
with the primary action priority.
The site is also constrained by the development standards of the El Camino Real Corridor
Overlay and the proposed Green Valley Master Plan as well as the 100 year tloodway. Per
the El Camino Real Corridor Overlay and the master plan, a thirty (30) foot setback is
required for buildings along EI Camino Real. This setback along with the floodway
constraint further reduces the viability of the site for the requested extent of commercial
development.
The applicant's proposed Reduced Project Alternative proposal included a maximum
commercial square footage of 6,000 versus the originally proposed 12,000 and a limited
number of commercial uses. Those uses are:
• Art Store and Gallery
0 Bank (with or without drive up windows)
• Florist
• Office
o Restaurant
The applicant has prepared a letter to the Planning Commission, see attached, outlining
their reasons why the Planning Commission should recommend approval of Planning Area
5 as commercial.
However, there are three options regarding action on Planning Area 5 that the Planning
Commission may wish to consider. The first 1) is to approve the planning area as proposed
by the applicant. The second 2) is to designate the Planning area as open space as
presented by staff. And the third 3) is to designate the planning area as Unplanned Area.
Each of the options is discussed below.
As discussed above, designation of this comer property as commercial (Option 1) is
inconsistent with priorities of the Open Space Resource Conseivation Management Plan.
A primary action priority is to retain all constrained lands and to designate constrained land
and unconstrained strips of land east of the riparian corridor and west of EI Camino Real
as open space. This inconsistency has been identified in the EIR as a significant impact.
In addition, development of the comer with commercial uses as proposed by the applicant
will increase friction at the intersection because the uses proposed are higher traffic
generators than the existing use and it will require .6 acres of fill within the tloodway.
Mitigation of the inconsistency with the OSCRMP and avoidance of the impacts to the
intersection and floodway is to either designate the property as open space (Option 2) or
as an alternative as unplanned (Option 3). An unplanned designation satisfies the goal of
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 11
the OSCRMP in the short term of maintaining strips of land between El Camino Real and
the riparian corridor as undeveloped and also defers impact to the floodway and
intersection. However, designation of the PA as Unplanned will require a subsequent
General Plan Amendment.
For these reasons staff recommends that the Planning Area be designated as open space.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT LOCAL FACILIDES MANAGEMENT PLAN:
ZONE23
The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) does not designate land uses as a General
Plan or Master Plan, but makes land use assumptions for the sake of facilities planning.
Because the LFMP analysis assumes a greater scope of development than the Reduced
Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative is considered to be consistent with the
analysis within the LFMP.
As indicated in Table III, all Public Facilities will comply with the adopted performance
standards through buildout for either the original master plan or the Reduced Project
Alternative. A summary of the Zone 23 facilities needs analysis follows:
LFMP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
FACILITY Original Project Reduced Project
City Administrative 1390 sq.ft Yes (CFD 1) 1390 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1>1
Facilities
Library 741 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1) 741 sq.ft. Yes (CFD 1)
Wastewater Treatment 733.3 EDUs Yes 563.3 Yes
Capacity
Parks 2.78 acres Yes (park fees) 2.78 acres Yes (park fees)
Drainage Basin D Yes Basin D Yes
Circulation 33,400ADT Yes 25,300 ADT Yes 2
Fire Station 2 Yes Station 2 Yes
Open Space 67.9 acres Yes 79.5 acres Yes
( see discussion)
Schools 212 students Yes 212 students Yes
Sewer Collection System 733.3 EDUs Yes 563.3 Yes
Water Distribution System 303,376 GPD Yes 123,926 GPD Yes
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ibNE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 12
1. See Community Facilities District discussion under following heading.
2. See Traffic/CircuJation discussion under following heading.
The LFMP analyzes the public facility impacts of a project and recommends appropriate
mitigation, including a financing plan for the construction of required infrastructure. The
land uses used for determining Zone 23 facilities impacts are reflective of the originally
submitted Master Plan; i.e. Extensive Regional Retail, Open Space, Residential Medium
High and Neighborhood Commercial. Although the LFMP analysis assumed the
development program outlined in the original master plan, the findings of the analysis are
still valid for use with the Reduced Project Alternative. As seen in TABLE III above
several of the facilities impacts, those based exclusively on population, remain the same.
Those facilities which are affected by commercial type and building size have been reduced.
As a condition of approval, the project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation
measures which are required as part of the Zone 23 LFMP and any amendments made to
that plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Significant conditions required of the Local Facilities Management Plan are improvements
to El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue along the project frontage as well as improvements
to the El Camino Real and Olivenhain intersection and the El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue intersection.
The maximum number of units allowed within the master plan, 400, is proposed by the
applicant as a cany over from the original master plan proposal of 34.8 developable
residential acres. 400 units is 241 units less than could be allowed within an RMH
designated property of 55.8 acres.
Community Facilities District No. 1
Community Facilities District (CFO) 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 must be made
part of (CPD) No. 1 with the first discretionary approval with the exception of master plans
and specific plans.
Zone 23 must be annexed into CFD No.1 because a tentative map has been proposed. The
project has been conditioned within the tentative map resolution conditions of approval to
annex into CFO No.1.
Traffic/circulation
The project is proposed to obtain access from El Camino Real, a six lane Prime Arterial
roadway, on the east and Leucadia Boulevard, a four lane Major Arterial roadway, on the
south. Access onto the site is proposed to be via Calle Barcelona, a four lane Secondary
Arterial roadway and Levante Street, a two lane Collector street.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LC. 93-06/ LFMP i~NE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 13
Three circulation alternatives were analyzed with this Reduced Project Alternative. The
components of the on site circulation analysis include proposed Street "A", proposed
Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions west of El Camino Real.
Alternative 1 is the proposed Reduced Project Alternative. It includes all three of the
circulation components with Calle Barcelona connecting to Leucadia Boulevard. Alternative
2 is the same as Alternative 1 minus the westerly extension of Levante Street from El
Camino Real. Alternative 3 has the westerly Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions
without the southerly connection of Calle Barcelona to Leucadia Boulevard.
The traffic analysis consists of all approved and planned projects in the area including
Encinitas Ranch, Home Depot, Arroyo La Costa and La Costa Southeast. This analysis
determined that both Alternatives "1" and "2", with the recommended improvements, can
comply with the Growth Management Ordinance requirements. Neither alternative was
technically superior to the other.
However, staff recommends Alternative "l" as proposed because retaining both crossings
maintains the advantage of separating residential traffic from commercial traffic; provides
a secondary access to the residential portion of the master plan from the City of Carlsbad
should Calle Barcelona be blocked; provides better a<;cess to the residential portion of the
master plan from Fire Station Number 2 for fire protection and from the Safety Center for
police services; and generally maintains greater opportunity for efficient circulation design.
Additionally, the EIR concludes that all biological impacts associated with the Reduced
Project Alternative can be mitigated to below a level of significance.
E. 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 zoning and development standards for each
of the planning areas. Following is a description of the planning area standards:
Planning Areas 1, 4 and 5 -Open Space:
Development within these open space planning areas is limited to roadways, trails, flood
control structures, limited signage and habitat enhancement. No commercial, residential or
private recreation facilities are permitted. The exception is the allowance of the "Red Barn"
to continue as a legal non-conforming use within Planning Area 5.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LC, 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92--HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 14
Because the development of inhabitable buildings is not allowed within these planning areas,
there are very limited setback and/or height standards.
Planning Area 2 -Retail Center:
Retail buildings are limited to a maximum of 300,000 combined square feet and uses are
typical of a C2, General Commercial zone.
Building Height:
Building height is limited to 35 feet with an exception for non-habitable architectural
features allowed up to 45 feet which is consistent with Chapter 21.28 General Commercial
Zone.
Lot Coverage:
Lot coverage is regulated by the maximum allowed combined square footage of buildings,
which is 38% of the 18.3 acre site. Coverage is further 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 extensive than what
is found within Chapter 21.28 of the Municipal Code (C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL).
Specifically, Chapter 21.28 only addresses building height and rear lot lines. The Master
Plan includes height and setback regulations as well as architectural guidelines.
Process:
All development proposals will require review and approval of a Site Development Plan.
Uses within a proposed development may also require a Conditional Use Permit and
subsequent subdivision of the commercial planning area will require a tentative map and
may require a Planned Unit Development. Each of these development processes requires
the review of the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Planning Area 3 -Residential:
Planning Area 3 contains the greatest extent of development standards in the master plan
because of the variety of development scenarios possible.
Planning Area 3 may be developed with detached and attached single family residential units
and associated uses such as recreation buildings and recreational vehicle storage. The
maximum number of units allowed is 400. The Master Plan requires that 15% of those units
be made available to lower income households. Therefore, if 400 units are approved by
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ,
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 15
future discretionary action, 60 onsite units will be designated as affordable. However, all
of the units approved for the site may be market rate if a housing agreement can be
approved which provides for the appropriate ratio of affordable units offsite. In that case,
if 400 market rate units were approved onsite, 70.59 units will be the required offsite.
Development Standards:
Development standards for the residential Planning Area 3 are based on three sections of
the Zoning Ordinance, 21.10 One-Family Residential Zone (R-1); 21.24 Residential Density-
Multiple Zone (RD-M); and 21.45 the Planned Development Ordinance, except as modified
by the Green Valley Master Plan. Both R-1 and RD-Mare residential zones which limit
uses and identify development standards for the uses within the zone. The Planned
Development Ordinance establishes a process and development standards, in addition to the
zone standards, which may be applied to any residential development.
Because of the variety of single family product . type that could be approved within the
master plan, the development standards were broken into three categories. The first 1)
category covers individual lots, greater than 7,500 square feet, with a detached or attached
product ( duplex divided by a lot line); the second 2) addresses detached or attached product
(duplex divided by a lot line) on individual lots less than 7,500 square feet but greater than
3,500 square feet; and the third 3) covers attached product on a common lot greater than
10,000 square feet. •
The following TABLES IV, V, VI, VII and VIII are summaries of the basic standards
proposed in the master plan for "typical" single family development and attached single
family development. Some standards are highlighted :!:!I![!l[, some are underlined _ , and
others are plain. Those standards that are highlighted are in some way are more lenient
than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone (Rl or RD-M) or the Planned
Development Ordinance (PD). Those standards that are underlined are an addition to or
more restrictive than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned
Development Ordinance. Those standards that are neither highlighted nor underlined, are
equivalent to the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned Development
Ordinance.
Standard subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater/ Basis = R-1
Minimum Lot Size 7,500 square feet
Minimum Lot Dimension:
Width 60 feet
Depth 65 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 40%
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ~6NE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PIAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 16
Standard subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater/ Basis = R-1
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona• 35 feet minimum
rear property line 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
side property line
center plot 10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
zero lot 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
street -public
structure
garage: front loading 20 feet minimum
side loading
Building Separation:1
1 story / 1 story 10 feet
1 story / 2 story 15 feet
2 story / 2 story 20 feet
Building Height 30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch
24 feet@ less than 3:12 roof pitch
• This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Standard Subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size 7,500 square feet
Minimum Lot Dimension:
Width 60 feet
Depth 65 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
1 Building separation is based on 1 story and 2 story elements defined as follows:
1 story element -
2 story element -
Maximum first floor _plate heil!ht of 12 feet; and/or a maximum building height of 15 feet 5 feet from tli.e first fioor building 1ace.
First floor plate heig_ht greater than 12 feet; and/or a building height greater than
15 feet 5 feet from The Iirst floor building face.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-•/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN -
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 17
I rn w:a.a:tE v m I
Standard Subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater/ Basis = PD
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona• 35 feet minimum
rear property line 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
side property line
center plot 10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
zero lot 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
street -private:
structure 15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
garage: front loading 20 feet minimum
side loading 15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
driveway:
structure 10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
garage: front loading 20 feet minimum
side loading 10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story 10 feet
1 story / 2 story 15 feet
2 story / 2 story 20 feet
Building Height 30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
• This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Reduced Lot Subdivision 3,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size 3,500 square feet
Minimum Lot Dimension:
width 45 feet
depth
Maximum Lot Coverage
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP Z.ONE 87-23/CT92-•/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 18
I : l'A»LE VJ ? ) I
Reduced Lot Subdivision 3,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona•
rear property line
side property line:
center plot
zero lot
street -public/private:
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
structure: ground floor
second floor
garage: front loading
side loading
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story
1 story / 2 story
2 story / 2 story
Building Height
35 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
5 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
20 feet minimum
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch or greater
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Attached Unit No Subdivision/ Basis= RD-M
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-•/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 19
Attached Unit No Subdivision/ Basis= RD-M
subdivision / project boundaries:
structure: front of dwelling
side of dwelling
rear of dwelling
street -public/private:
dwelling
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
dwelling: first floor
second floor
garage: front loading
side loading
Building Separation:
1 story I 1 story
1 story I 2 story
2 story / 2 story
Building Height
10 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
15 feet
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch or greater
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Attached Unit With Subdivision / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona* 35 feet minimum
subdivision / project boundaries:
structure: front of dwelling 10 feet minimum
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 20
Attached Unit With Subdivision / Basis = PD
side of dwelling
rear of dwelling
street -public/private:
dwelling
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
dwelling: first floor
second floor
garage: front loading
side loading
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story
1 story / 2 story
2 story / 2 story
Building Height
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
15 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
10 feet
15 feet
20 feet
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch or greater
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Parking:
Two (2) enclosed spaces is required for each residential unit and one (1) guest space is
required for each four residential units developed as a Planned Unit Development per
21.45.090(c)(d). Parking may be permitted on-street if street width allows. Parking for a
senior housing development shall be consistent with 21.44.020, Parking.
Recreational Open Space Area:
All projects which require approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to provide
common recreational open space areas at a ratio of 200 square feet per unit. A minimum
of 25% of that requirement is to be improved as active recreational open space area. At
the discretion of the approving body, a credit up to 10% of the required recreational open
space area may be granted for the provision of an onsite interior exercise facility that is
determined to be proportionately equal in recreational value as the open space.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-•/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 21
Recreational Vehicle Storage:
All projects which require the approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to
provide recreational vehicle storage within the Master Plan at a ratio of 20 square feet for
every unit consistent with 21.45.090(k).
Streets/driveways:
The Master Plan identifies a hierarchy for private streets and driveways. Private residential
streets may have a minimum width of 30 feet with no parking, a width of 32 feet with
parking on one side and a width of 36 feet with parking on both sides.
Internal private common driveways may have a minimum width of 24 feet but may not seive
more than 4 units. The common driveway has been used on other projects within the City
as part of a "cluster" design for groups of 4 detached single family homes on either
individually owned lots or on common lots with exclusive use yard areas. The advantage of
a common private driveway is the reduction in the total number of driveway cuts onto a
circulation street which in tum benefits the overall streetscape. Private common driveways
less than 30 feet in width are subject to the discretionary approval of either the Planning
Commission or City Council, whichever has decision making authority over the project
application. No parking is permitted on private driveways.
F. 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 and 5 are Planning Area 2 (Retail Center) and lots
6, 7, 8, and 9 are Planning Area 3 (Residential). Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 are designated as
open space.
All lots proposed are of adequate size and shape to allow for the future development of a
retail center and residential community.
The tentative map resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning Commission's
prior action on this tentative map. This has been done to eliminate the potential confusion
of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
G. 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 preseive and enhance the
natural contours of Carlsbad's hillsides. The project proposes preseivation of the upland
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-•/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PIAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 22
bluffs which contain slopes greater than 40%, 25% to 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 124 acres of disturbance, including mitigation areas, which is
approximately 5,900 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
termed acceptable by the Hillside Regulations. The proposed project grading falls within
those limits.
Any nonresidential project proposing slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall be justified
to the satisfaction of the decision making body. The Retail Center portion of the proposed
Master Plan includes cut and fill grading creating a 2: 1 slope within lot 5 of the subdivision
of 48 feet. The proposed slope is 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 slope from public view. Therefore, the view of the
bluffs by the public will not be greatly affected. There is also the need for a crib wall along
the Calle Barcelona extension as it curves south to meet Leucadia Boulevard in Encinitas.
The crib wall is the result of the need to align the Calle Barcelona extension with the
designated point in Encinitas.
The grading involves slopes generally under 15% and without natural vegetation (i.e. the
need for the crib wall is not 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.
The Hillside Development Permit (HOP) resolution includes a condition which voids the
Planning Commission's prior action on this HOP. This has been done because there have
been some modifications to the HOP which reduce grading impacts and to eliminate the
potential confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
H. 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).
An integral part of the discretionary review process was the analysis of the potential impacts
to Encinitas Creek floodplain caused by the proposed development. Development of the
proposed project will cause significant but mitigable increases in the water surface elevation
of Encinitas Creek during a 100 year storm because of the proposed fill required to achieve
the crossings at Calle Barcelona and Levante Street as well as .6 acres of fill required to
achieve 1.7 buildable acres within Planning Area 5.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI. 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PIAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 23
Staff is recommending that the Special Use Permit be approved for only those areas
necessary to accomplish the crossings at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona. Fill of the
floodplain at the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue for the purpose of
acquiring more developable land area will be inconsistent with the primary action priorities
of the OSCRMP, as discussed earlier in this report. Therefore, the project has been
conditioned to remove the proposed fill associated with the Planning Area 5 from the
project exhibits.
The Special Use Permit (SUP) resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning
Commission's prior action on this SUP. This has been done to eliminate the potential
confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Potential environmental impacts have been reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 93-02) which was circulated for public review and comment. Significant new
information was added to the Draft EIR prior to certification which included a Reduced
Project Alternative, a revised traffic analysis which assessed both the project and the recently
approved Encinitas Ranch project in the City of Encinitas, a revised Land Use section, a
revised Executive Summary, and revisions to CEQA Mandated Sections. The Draft EIR
was therefore recirculated for review and comment. Action on the Final EIR will be
certification that all of the documents have 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
12. Public Facilities and Services
The conclusion reached on the 12 areas of potential environmental impact fell into two
categories. Either the significant impact can be avoided or mitigated or the impact was
considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant.
Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated
Mitigation measures are proposed or have been incorporated into the project for the
following environmental impact areas to mitigate significant environmental impacts:
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCI 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-'8DP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 24
(1) Land Use; (2) Visual Quality/Landform Alteration; (3) Biological Resources; (4)
Cultural Resources; (5) Paleontological Resources; (6) Geology/Soils; (7) hydrology/Water
Quality; (8) Circulation; (9) Noise; (10) Air Quality. The mitigation measures are contained
in the EIR as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to the
EIR Resolution.
Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant
The following environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR but found to have impacts
which are less than significant: (1) Agriculture; and (2) Public Facilities and Service.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3857
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3858
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3859
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3860
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3861
8. Location Map
9. Background Data Sheet
10. Disclosure Form
11. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
12. Green Valley Master Plan (previously distributed)
13. Green Valley Master Plan Final Program EIR (previously distributed)
14. Exhibits "E-I", dated December 13, 1995.
CW:kc
12/01/95
• •
CITY OF ENCINITAS \"'-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·--= COUNTY OF SAN Dll!!G
(
SINGLE FAMILY
~ESIDEHTIA ~,
UPLAND BLUFl'S •
• OPENSPACE ,6, .~~
\ I
COMMUN RETAIL
~~~-·-~
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
MP 92-01 /CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/LCPA 93-06/
HOP 92-15/SUP 92-05/LFMP 87-23
-BACKGROUND DATA SHEET'
CASE NO: EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP
92-15/SUP 92-05
CASE NAME: Green Valley Master Plan
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners LTD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Approval of a Master Plan south of La Costa Avenue and
west of El Camino Real for the future development of 300.000 sgure feet of community
commercial and 400 residential units
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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. County of San Diego. State of California
APN:216-122-24,36.37: 255-011-8.9.10.11.12: 255-021-5.6.7.8
Proposed No. of Lots/Units .1..L
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation C/O/RMH/OS
Density Allowed 11.5 Density Proposed _,7""'"'.2=-----
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone --=P'--'C:;....._ __ _
Acres 281.2
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
PC
PC
Encinitas
PC/Cl-Q
Encinitas Ranch S.P.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Vacant; C/O/RMH/OS
Vacant; OS
Developing (Encinitas)
Residential & Commercial
Developing (Encinitas)
School District Encinitas Union Elementry & San Dieguito High School
Water District Olivenhain Municipan Sewer District Leucadia County Water
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity)---=-5~63~.-"-3 ______________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated --=-N-=oc....:.v=em=be=r'--'6"-'-'1"""'9...,c.9=2 ___________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
_ Negative Declaration, issued __________ _
_ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ____ _
Other, ________________________ _
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1994 ®
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: EJR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/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 comer of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
I. RECOMMENDATION
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
rec_ommending APPROVAL of GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP Zone 23 and
APPROVlNG CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. DISCUSSION
This item was heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 19, 1994 and
continued due to the lateness of the hour.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3598
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3599
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3600
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3601
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3602
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3603
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3604
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3605
9. Amended Errata Sheets
10. Staff Report with attachments
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21 I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3598
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
C[TY OF CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 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 TRACT 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 EN CI NIT AS IN LOCAL F ACIUTIES
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, examining the Environmental Impact Report, analyzing the
information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the
Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Environmental Impact Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
Page [.,10:
PageI-11:
Page I-15:
Page II-10
Page II-10
Page II-12
Page II-14:
Staff Amendment
1-19-94
Page III-2:
Page UI-2:
Page VI-I:
GREEN VAILEY MASTER PLAN ERRATA
JANUARY 19, 1994
Table I-1 -Open Space Total should equal 196.5
Planning Area 3 -Multi-family Residential
..... may be approved in this area by the City Council subject to a Site
Development Plan or PUD. Additional units .....
Precise Development Plan (PDP) -Precise Development Plans are
subject to approval by the Carlsbad City Council. Development
proposals which do not require either a PUD or nonresidential PUD
shall be processed by a Precise Development Plan.
Commercial
..... designated commercial use. Planning Area 2 encompasses
approximately 56.2 net development acres west of Street "A". The
. type of retail ...
Residential
... residential use. The approximately 17. 9 net de•;elopment ::icre area
is located to the west of Street "A" and north of the retail center.
Table II-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, the standard as described
in the· Master Plan the more. restrictive shall take precedence.
Approval and construction of a ..... .
The last sentence of paragraph e. should be a separate paragraph f.
The last three words, or City Council should be stricken from the
sentence.
This chapter of the Master Plan presents a set of policies and design
and development standards for each. of the four individual planning
areas which comprise Green Valley.
Page VI-40:
Page VI-41:
Page VI-42:
Page VI-43:
Lot Coverage
The maximum allowable co7;erage for structures, vehicular circulation
and parking combined is 85% of the Planning Area net der.telopment
aeres. Maximum building coverage is 60%. A minimum of 15% of
the net developable acres shall be landscaped.
Parking
3. Eaeh unit shall be pro:vided with a minimum of one assigned
co;lrered parking space.
4. Additional parlcing shall be pro•Aded at a ratio of 1.25 co•;ered
or open parking spaces per unit.
3. 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 1 o.
4. 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 1 0.
Private Streets/Driveways
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.
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.
DATE: January 19, 1994
TO: PI.ANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PUNNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: GREEN V ALlEY MASfER PLAN
The following conditions or revised conditions should be incorporated into the identified
resolution(s).
Resolution 3598
Add to Condition 1:
Exhibit "N' shall be revised to properly reflect the Planning Areas within the Master Plan
as adopted by the City Council.
Add condition 2:
Certification of the Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Report includes the
ERRATA SHEET dated January 19, 1994.
Resolution 3600
Condition 2.e. should be revised to read:
Due to the scope of the Master Plan and the consistently changing needs of the
community, the Extensive Regional Retail designation within the Master Plan shall
be re~ewed by th~ Plannin~ Commission for reconsiderarl:on 24 months from the
effecnve date by City Council or 12 months from the effect:Ive approval date by the
California Coastal Commission which ever should occur first.
Review will not be required if a complete aJ?plication for a Precise Development
Plan has been accepted by the City for Planmng Area 2.
Condition 2.f. should be added as follows:
Site Development Plan (SDP) -A SDP is required for the development of un-
subdivided residential units within Planning Area 3. Site Development Plans are
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Condition 3 should be added as follows:·
Errata as found on Green Valley Master Plan Errata dated January 19, 1994 shall be
incorporated into the final edition of the Green Valley Master Plan.
Resolution 3603
Condition 39.D. should be revised to include:
0 Two westbound through lanes.
Add condition No. 59:
Staff
Addition
2-2-94
A Coastal Development Permit shall be obtained from the California Coastal
Commission prior to Final Map.
EXHIBIT "A" ERRATA
GREEN VAILEY MASTER PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MmGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
JANUARY 19, 1994
VISUAL QUALilY/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 Encinitas Creek
through landscaping/revegatation and lower pads.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Which Can be Added to the Project 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 required
mitigation acreage for Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub shall be reduced
accordingly to 2.0 acres. • •
'..
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading pennit without monitoring plan.
2. • No building permits to be issued until mitigation report by eonsulting
paleontologist is submitted to the City Planning Department.
2. No continued grading will be permitted until salvage operations are
completed per the monitoring report if necessary.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALI1Y
Sanctions
3. No approval of final maps or issuance of building or grading pennits without
proper mitigation.
CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measures
... , the southerly connection of Street "A" to Leucadia Boulevard in the City
of Encinitas ....
ERRATA SHEET
GREEN VAI.LEY MASTER PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACT 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. [n addition, wildlife water
devices are planned in three places at the foot of the bluff.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
l.
APPUCATfO.OMPLETE DATE:
MARCH 12 1993
STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTER WESTMAN
STAFF REPORT @)
JANUARY 19, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/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 ;md 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 comer of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
RECOMMENDATlON
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 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP Zone 23 and
APPROVlNG CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
n. 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."
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-0l/rv-2-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8-/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 2
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:
III.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
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 Medi um-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 slop~ 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
EIR .93-02/GPA 93-01.P 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE.-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 3
-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 co~munity. 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 fuH 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 1/3 for Residential
Medium High. As seen in Table I, the assumed net acreage within the Master Plan for
residential development is 34.8 acres.
I
TABLE I I
LAND USE GROSS ACREAGE CONSTRAINED NET
ACREAGE DEVELOPMENT
ACREAGE
Neighborhood 3.6 2.5 1.1
Commercial
Extensive Regional 76.6 0.0 76.6
Retail
Residential 35.4 0.6 34.8
Medium High
Open Space 166.5
I TOTAL I
282.1 I 3.1 I 112.5 I
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.
E[R 93-02/GPA 93-01/M.2-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8 .. /
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/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 [, and an
assumed retail floor area yield of 30%). Assuming that half of that could be Community
Commercial, a totql of 500,504 square feet would be allowed. However, by definition the
GeneralPlan 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 segment
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
(C/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;-92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 123/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 5
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: 1 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 3:1.
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 93-0l/M"2-011LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE sA1
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 6
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 comer of La Costa and El
Camino Real became Planning Area 5.
Staff and the applicant have differing opinions on the best use for that comer. 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 comer 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 comer 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, drivewavs 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 to 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.
--EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/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.
I TABLE II I
I OPEN SPACE I
ACRES
AREA DESCRIPTION: required proposed
LFMP 15% (Prior to a G.P.A.) 27.58 68.00
~
Developed area 86.40
Mitigation 29.50 29.50
Development constrained 97.30 97.30
Remaining unconstrained open space 68.00
TOTAL 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 Advisory 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 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 8
GROWTI-I 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:
I
TABLE III I
I LFMP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT I
I
FACILITY
I
IMPACTS
I
COMPLIANCE WITH I STANDARDS
City Administrative Facilities 1390 sq. ft. Yes (CFO No. 1)
Library 867 sq. ft. Yes (CFO No. 1)
Wastewater Treatment Capacity 733.3 EDU's Yes
Parks 2. 78 acres Yes (Park In Lieu Fee)
Drainage Basin D Yes
Circulation 33,400 ADT Yes (See Discussion)
Fire Station 2 Yes
Open Space 68.0 acres Yes (See Discussion)
Schools 212 studs. Yes
Sewer Collection System 733.3 EDU's Yes
Water Distribution System 303,376 GPO Yes
The project contains conditions of approval requmng 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
ErR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 9
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.
COMMUN[lY FAC[UTIES O[STRICT NO. 1
Community Facilities District (CFO) 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 (CFO)
No. 1.
Submittal and action on the Tentative Map subsequently requires that Zone 23 be annexed
into CFO 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.
Biolo'gical 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. [n 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.
EfR 93-02/GPA 93-01/rf 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE s13/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 10
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 bµildout.
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/1-5 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 ST AND ARDS
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 open 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~ 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE ~3/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 11
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.
P~anning 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.
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/.2-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8-3/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 12
I TABLE IV
Parking Comparison
Covered Open Parking
400 units Resident
Spaces Resident Guest
Unsubdivided 400 400 103
Subdivided 800 103
I
Total
903
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 nor have open space criteria, therefore, the Master Plan has
modified standards from Chapter 21 .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/Driveways -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 & 1 O.
E[R 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 13
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 not 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 93-01/.2-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 8-3/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 14
An integral part of the discretionary review process was the analysis of the potential
impacts to Encinitas 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.
IV. ENVIRONMENT AL 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
12. 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.
E[R 93-02/GPA 93-01. 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE '-23/
CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
JANUARY 19, 1994
PAGE 15
At this time, the only available nut1gation 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 E[R
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 preliminary meetings 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 E[R regarding Cultural
Resources are adequate mitigation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3598
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3599
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3600
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3601
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3602
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3603
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3604
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3605
9. Location Map
10. Background Data Sheet
11. Disclosure Form
12. Local Facilities [mpacts Assessment Form
13. Green Valley Master Plan (MP 92-01) (previously distributed)
14. Green Valley Master Plan Final Program E[R (E[R 93-02)(previously distributed)
15. Exhibit "XX", Applicant Report regarding Mini-Commercial
16. Exhibits "A" -"N", dated January 19, 1994.
CW:vd:lh
November 30, 1993
CITY Of F."'ICl"'IITAS ...................
COU"'ITY or SAN DIEGO
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
City of Cartsbd
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/
LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23/
MP 92-01/ CT 92-08/
HOP 92-15/SUP 92-05
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET-
CASE NO: EIR 93-0VGPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
CASE NAME: Green Valley Master Plan
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A request for certification of an Environmental Impact
Report and approval of a Master Plan. General Plan Amendment. Local Coastal Program
Amendment, 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 281 acres at the southwest comer of El
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 23.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Section 2, T13S, R4W: and a portion of Section 25, T12S, R4W.
APN: 216-122-24, 36, 37: 255-011-08-12: 255-021-05-08 Acres 281.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 11 Lots
(Assessor's Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High
Density Allowed 8-15 du/ac 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
Site PC
North OS
South Encinitas
East N/RMH/OS
West Encinitas
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Land Use
Vacant
Batiquitos Lagoon
Vacant
Neighborhood Commercial
Open Space, Condominiums
Vacant
School District Encinitas Union/San Dieguito Water District Olivenhain Municipal Sewer District Leucadia County
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) ..... 7 __ 3..;:;;3 ...... 3 _______________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ...;:N __ o __ v.;..;:e=m=b=e=r .... 6 .... ,_,l._.9'""9=2=-------------
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
__ Negative Declaration, issued _____________________ _
1l._ Final Environmental Impact Report, dated ___ D __ e=ce=m=b __ e=r--'l::..t9 .... 9-=3 __________ _
Other, _______________________________ cw_:v<1_:1h
City of Carlsbad
-4 61,t,O ef• 1 ·24 •fit,;,,fJ,ii
DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT
.:,;:c,_,c..=., .... -:-·s s-:-.:.7:V:~.-:-CF ::sc:..CSURE OF cE;rrA.IN OWNErlSHI? INTE;::esrs ON ALI.. ,:.pc,_:c,H,CNS w.-,c ... ,';I\..:.. ::;:::,~.=::
:.sc;:;~ICNARY AC7:CN CN 7;.,E c,:.;rr CF THE C:TY COi..;NCIL OR ANY A??OINTEO 80AR0. CCMMtSStCN CR CCMMrr:::.
F:ease Pnnr)
7he fellowing information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involveo.
Carlsbad Partners. ltd,
Suite 2364, 1601 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas 75201
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar,c
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any par1r.ersr.:;:
interest in the partnership.
Nelson Bunker Hqnt Ljq;pjdatiog Trust
William Herbert Hunt Liquidating Trust
T. J. Curnes
Pacwes, Ltd.
Penyen Partners, Ltd.
8235Douglas Ave,. #1300 Pallas, T:
8235 Douglas Ave., #1300. Dallas,
8235 Douglas Ave., #1300,Dallas,Tx
8235 Douglas Ave., #1300,Dallas, T:
8235 Douglas Ave.,#1300,Dallas,Tx.
75225
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names anc
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefic:ar1
of the trust
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Pal mas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (6i 9) 438-i, 6,
•
:·Over;
Disclosure Statement Page 2
f-ave you nad mere than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. 3:a::s
Comm1ss;ons, Committees and Council within tne past tweive months?
Yes _ No -X It yes. please indicate person(s) ______________ ---'--------
~ ,1 oefined u: 'Any ,nc:1,v,duaI. firm, cocartnersn,c, I0Int venture. usoc:Iat1on. soc:,a_l club, !raternal or;an,:at,on, :orcorat,on. estate :r·.st.
rece,ver, syno,catt, t1i,1 and any otner county, :rty ana county, ctty mun,c:,0a1rty, o,11r11:t or 011,er 0011t1ca1 1u0drv,1,on, or any otner -.,01.c =r
:omc,natIon ac11ng u a -~nit.•
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
//-6-' 2-
SignareofOwneridate Signature of applicant/date
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Dz v ~ '-o? M £ A., r ~ £ 1v 1: ;e II L
?t11e711,,c,<" C 11~£,s e AD
?~a._7 tve 12 s., L fcl
FRM00013 8/90
CTIY OF CARLSBAD
GROWilI MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACIUilF.S IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTI1Y AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-
15/SUP 92-05
LOCAL FACILI1Y MANAGEMENT ZONE: 23 GENERAL PLAN: C/O/RMH ZONING: Planned Comm.
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Carlsbad Parmers. Ltd.
ADDRESS: 1601 Elm Street. Suite 2364. Dallas, Texas 75201
•
PHONE NO: (214) 979-9072 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 216-122-24,36,37: 255-011-(08-12): 255-021-(05-08)
QUAN111Y OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ_. FT., DU): -=2=8=1.=2...a:a=c __________ _
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: _______________________ _
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage=
Demand in Square Footage=
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
Odentify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs ==
Odentify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools:
Served by Fire Station No. =
Acreage Provided -
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
Odentify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: • Demand in GPO -
1,390
867
733.3 EDU
2.78
BASIN D
33,400
2
68
212 Students
733.3
303,376
L. The project is .2 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
CW:vd:lh