Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-06; Bressi Ranch; Tentative Map (CT) (3)CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPUED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLYI • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit • Planned Industrial Permit • Administrative Variance Planning Commission Determination • Coastal Development Permit • Precise Deveiopment Plan • Conditionai Use Permit • Redevelopment Permit • Condominium Permit • Site Development Plan Environmental Impact Assessment • Special Use Permit • General Plan Amendment • Specific Plan • Hillside Development Permit • Tontativo Parcel Map Obtain from Engineering Depanment • Local Coastal Pian Amendment Tentative Tract Map CT OO'OG • Master Plan • Variance Non-Residentiai Planned Development • • Zone Change • Planned Deveiopment Permit • List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 3) PROJECT NAME: Bressi Ranch Master Tehtative Map 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 14 Planning Areas^ 6 Open Space Areas and 5 2 industrial lots. 5) KDWNER NAME (Print or Type) Lennar Communities 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) Hofman Planning Associates MAILING ADDRESS 5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320 MAILING ADDRESS 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Carlsbad, CA 92008 918-8858 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Carlsbad ,CA 92008 438-1465 1 CEBrtiFY 3Wn>N>M THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE \NFpnMff\ON IS\T«UE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ) j 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNlXliRE J DATE I SIGNATURE fJ DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED. MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Fnrm 1 R LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE C Southeast corner of Palomar Airport Rd. and El STREETADDRESS Camino Real East (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) BETWEEN Palomar Airport Rd. (NAME OF STREET) SIDE OF AND El Camino Real (NAME OF STREET) Alga Drive (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 1 7 52 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 1 6) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 1 9) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING 585~. i (7/1 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING 0 MIA- 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 5^ 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE JimATURE Q 4?/i /-iuJiAJLf'5 G. FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED RECEIVED APR - 3 2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD DAT^MbMNQlCaEBfTHECEIVED RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 OWNER NAME Generai American Life Insurance Co. 1110 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 190 Anaheim, CA 92801 Signature and Date b o ity of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defmed as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemai organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other coimty, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the appHcant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a fmancial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Corp/Part ii^fA^AJ 'jj-AtJoli^ •ArS&oci'.^gnE^ Person_ Title Title Address Address Z?,'^(o pTK.z>^r^\i AU£KJOE~ "S^E. It-O OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- ovmed corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) (Non-Applicable) Lennar Bressi Venture, LLC Corp./Part c/o Leimar Comrrmities Mark Rohrlick, V.P. 5780 Fleet St Ste 320 Address Carlsbad, CA 92008 General American Life Insurance, Co. Corp./Part c/o Conning Asset Management Tom Nieman Regional V.P. Address 1110 E. Orangethorpe Ave, Ste 190 Anaheim, CA 92801 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 11 the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ^ture of owner/date Lenilar Communities c/o Lennar Bressi Venture. LLC Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date Hoffman Planning Associates Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date General American Life Insurance Co. c/o Corming Asset Managment Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECTNAME: Master Tentative Map for Bressi Ranch APPLICANT NAME: Lennar Communities and General American Life Insurance Co. Description/Explanation: The Master Tentative Map for Bressi Ranch will divide the 585.1 acre project site into fourteen (14) planning areas and six (6) open space areas. The industrial portion ofthe site, comprised of Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3, will be further subdivided to create 52 lots. This proposed Master Tentative Map is being processed with the Bressi Ranch GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 99-01/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03. The infomiation shown by the proposed Master Tentative Map reflects that ofthe Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The environmental impacts of these discretionary actions as well as the Master Tentative Map are being addressed by EIR 98-04. Sources: 1. City General Plan EIR 93-01 2. Bressi Ranch Master Plan EIR (in process) PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the processing period will start upon the date of i^e completion letter. Applicant Signature Staff Signature: Date: O To be stapled with receipt to application Copy for file 1 Q RQ^'^^^ MAR 2 0 2000 801 Pine Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ (760) 729-9291 • FAX (760) 729-9685 ...a world class district March 16, 2000 State ofCalifornia Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway, Room 7111 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Project Name: Bressi Ranch Developer: Location: Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real Project Size: 585 acres Carlsbad Unified School District has reviewed the above project and its impact on school attendance areas in this District. At this time, the schools of attendance for this project are: Aviara Oaks Elementary School (K-5) 6900 Ambrosia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-6080 Aviara Oaks Middle School (6-8) 6880 Ambrosia Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-6040 Carisbad High School (9-12) 3557 Monroe Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-1726 The Goveming Board wishes to advise the Department of Real Estate and residents of Carlsbad that at present the Carlsbad Unified School District elementary schools are operating at full capacity. It is possible, therefore, that the students generated from this project may not attend the closest neighborhood school due to overcrowded conditions and, in fact, may attend school across town. You should also be aware that there are no school buses for regular student transportation from home to school. The Goveming Board wishes to also inform you that conditions imposed upon new development within the City ofCarlsbad requires mitigation of school impacts. Sincerely, Gaylen Freeman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services cc: Hofrnan Planning Associate^ c o FILECOPY Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, to consider a request for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for approval of a Master Plan identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one mixed use planning area, one community facilities planning area, and six open space planning areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of up to 623 residential units, 2.16 million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of community related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits for the purpose of designating the type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within a 585.1 acre site south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 17 and more particularly described as: Being a portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1763, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 20, 1973. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 30, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASEFILE: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/SUP01-01/LFMP 17 CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH PUBLISH: MAY 24, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us SITE BRESSI RANCH EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/ CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01/ LFMP 17 PROOF OF PUBLIC HON (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of Califomia, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: MAY 24, 2002 This space is ' the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS , Califomia this of 25TH day MAY, 2002 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you. because your inter-est may be affected, that the Planning commission of the city cf Carlsbaci will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad village Drive. Carlsbad. Cali-fornia, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, to con-sider a request for the certification of a Program Environ-mental Impact Report, including the approval of Candi-date Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consid-eration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro-gram; and a request for approval of a Master Plan identi-fying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one mixed use planning area, one com-munity facilities planning area, and six open space plan-ning areas for the purpose of regulatinq the future devel-opment of up to 623 residential units, Z16 million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of com-mercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of community related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Manage-ment Plan, Carlsbad Tract Subdivision Map, Hillside De-velopment Permit, and Special Use Permits for the pur-pose of designating the type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within a 585.1 acre site south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in Lo-cal Facilities Management Zone 17 and more particularly described as: Being a portion of Parcel 1 and parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1763, In the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, state of California, according to Map thereof on file in ihe Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 20,1973 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing, copies of the staff report will be available on and after May 30 2002. If you have any questions, please call Chnster Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Lo-cal Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivi-sion map. Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Lo-cal Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivi-sion map, Hillside tjevelopment Permit and Special Use Permits in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public nearing described in this notice or in written correspondence de-livered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior tot he public hearing. CASE1=ILE:EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01/LFMP 17 CASE NAME: BRESSI RANCH Legal 1353867C. May 24, 2002 Notice of Determination From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 602-4600 To: /V Office ofPlanning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 County Clerk County of San Diego Mailstop 833, Attn: Wendy PO Box 121750 San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Project No: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04/MP 178/LFMP 17/CT 00-06/HDP 99-06/SUP 99-03/SUP 01-01 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public Resources Code. BRESSI RANCH Project Title 99041010 City of Carlsbad, Christer Westman (760)602- 4614 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number South of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Lennar Bressi Ranch Venture, LLC. Applicant's Address: 5780 Fleet Street Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-918-8858 Project Description: Request for the certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for approval of a Master Plan identifying six industrial planning areas, seven residential planning areas, one mixed use planmng area, one community facilities planning area, and six open space planning areas for the purpose of regulating the future development of up to 623 residential xinits, 2.16 million square feet of industrial buildings, 130,000 square feet of commercial buildings, and 138,000 square feet of community related services and/or facilities; General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, Carlsbad Tract subdivision map. Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permits for the purpose of designating the type, location, and infrastructural needs of development within a 585.1 acre site. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on July 9, 2002, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the envhronment. 2. An Environmental Impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition ofthe approval ofthe project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. 5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to flie General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. ICHAEL J. HOtZklLt^R, Piannin) MICHAEL J. HOtZMILtER, Planning Director Date received for filing at OPR: Date Revised December 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be compleled by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: 2. APPLICANT: Lennar Communities and General American Life Insurance Co, 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: - see attached - 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Master Tentative Map will subdivide Bressi Ranch, a 585.1 acre site, into 14 Planning Areas and 6 Open Space Areas. It will also create 52-lots for the proposed industrial portions oftthe site, comprised of Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing [x] Geological Problems X Water )(] Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation \^ Public Services fx] Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics fx] Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Lennar Communities 5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 918-8858 General American Life Insurance Co. 1110 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 190 Anaheim, CA 92801 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • 0 No Impact • Q Q • • • • • II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) • • • • • • • 0 • • • III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result m or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fauh rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( •) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal resuh in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface nmoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity)? ( ) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1] • • [1 • • • • E • x • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for pubhc water supphes? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperamre, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus mmouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • n • • 0 • • • X • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • a • n • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • X • • • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • [H • • • • • • VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) • • • X • • • X • • • X IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal mvoive: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) • X • c • • • • • • • • • • • • X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) • • • • • • XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • • X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the followmg utilities: a) Power or namral gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) • • E • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) d) e) f) g) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) Storm water drainage? ( Solid waste disposal? ( Local or regional water supplies? ( Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significan t Impact • • • • • No Impact XIIL AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) • • • • • • • • • X X X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Dismrb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culmral values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within fhe potential impact area? ( ) • • • • X 0 • • • • • • • • • • • E X XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) • • • • • • X X XVI. MANDATORY FINDEvIGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildhfe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eluninate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in coimection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fumre projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • • • E] XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identity earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier docimient and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the enviroimiental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design ofthe project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fiirther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 fiill and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. Rev. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fiirther environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE') 10 Rev. 03/28/96 SOURCES: #1. "Preliminary Hydrology Report for Bressi Ranch Planning Areas 1-14 and Open Space Areas 1 - 6, Carlsbad, Califomia," prepared by Project Design Consultants, March 2000. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) A General Plan and Zoning cliange is being submitted concurrently with the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, the proposed Tentative Map reflects these changes. b) The proposal conforms with the proposed Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan. c) The project site is compatible with existing land use in the vicinity. It is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north and west, and is separated from these areas by major arterials. Residential development is found to the east and south of the site. d) Portions of the project site are currently being dry-farmed and these operations can continue until the site is graded. e) The project site is currently vacant land with one residence. No established community will be disrupted or divided as a result of this project. 1. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) The proposal will comply with Carlsbad's Growth Management Program. b) The project site is surrounded by existing development and is designated for development. c) The project site is currently an undeveloped piece of land, so no housing will be displaced. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a) No active faults have been mapped on the site or in the vicinity of the project site, so ground rupture on-site is considered unlikely. b) Due to the relatively close proximity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the project site, the most significant ground shaking from one of the regional faults will most likely occur on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. A maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 7.0 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.34 g. c) Based on the geotechnical investigation, no significant impact is anticipated as a result of liquefaction. d) The location of the project site is not in danger of being affected by a seiche, tsunami or any volcanic hazard. e) The proposed grading plan and phasing for the project site calls for mass grading of the site to allow remedial geotechnical work to correct underlying geotechnical issues including areas of known potential landslides. The presence of landslides can be addressed through the proposed mass and remedial grading of the site and the implementation of mitigation measures. f) Topography of the site will be altered slightly as a result of this proposal. All grading and engineering work shall comply with the geotechmcal recommendations contained in the report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia" (Leighton and Associates, July 1998). g) No subsidence of land is expected to result from this proposal. All grading and engineering work shall comply with the geotechmcal recommendations contained in the report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia" (Leighton and Associates, July 1998). h) No expansive soils are associated with the project site. All grading and engineering work shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia" (Leighton and Associates, July 1998). i) There are no unique geologic or physical features associated with the project site. 4. WATER a) Changes in absorption rates and surface runoff will occur due to the proposed grading. Any impacts will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the constmction of a detention basin which will control flow. b) An anticipated increase in flow between existing and proposed conditions could impact downstream property owners. However, peak conditions will be dissipated through the constmction of the proposed detention basin. c) Addressed by Source #1 d) Impacts to surface water will be mitigated to a level less than significant through the constmction of the proposed detention basin. e) The direction of water movements will remain the same, the project will not divert water. f) Addressed by Source #1 g) Addressed by Source #1 h) The proposed grading will include erosion controls to ensure groundwater quality is not impacted. i) Addressed by Source #1 5. AIR QUALITY a) The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin. The San Diego Air Basin is a non-attainment area for federal and state air quality standards for ozone and state standards for particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter (PMIO). b) No sensitive receptors such as schools, parks, hospitals, convalescent homes or nursing homes are located within or in proximity to the project site. c) The proposal will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d) No objectionable odors will result fi-om this proposal. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) Traffic generated by the proposed project will be handled by road improvements constmcted as a part of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. b) All roads will be constmcted in accordance with applicable City standards. c) Emergency access will be provided on full improved public streets prior to occupancy of any units. d) Parking will be provided in accordance with all applicable City standards. e) Pedestrian and bicycle routes affecting the project site will be constmcted in accordance with City standards. f) Proposal will comply with all City standards and adopted policies supporting altemative transportation. g) Proposal has been designed to comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan. No rail or waterbome transportation systems are within the project site. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) The project will directly impact the coastal Califomia gnatcatcher. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a level less than significant through the preservation of Diegan coastal sage scmb. b) Impacts to any locally designated species found within the project boundaries are considered less than sigmficant due to there low sensitivity liinited extent. c) Proposal will conform with the City's Habitat Management Plan. d) Wetland habitats impacted by the proposed project include coastal and valley freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, mule fat scmb and tamarisk scmb. The impact to these habitats requires mitigation under the regulatory agencies and the City's HMP guidelines. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce the impact on wetlands to a level less than significant. e) Per the City of Carlsbad's Draft Habitat Management Plan, a linkage corridor (Linkage D) has been established which crosses the project site. Because the southeastem comer of the project site is within Linkage D, this portion of the project site is considered as having a moderate potential for conservation because this area forms a linkage between high value areas. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) No energy consumption will occur as a result of this proposal. b) Non-renewable resources will not be used as a result of this proposal. c) There is no known mineral resource on the project site. 9. HAZARDS a) There are potential hazards on site which will be mitigated to a level less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures. b) There is no emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that runs through the site. c) No health hazards, or potential health liazards, will result fi-om the proposal which breaks up the project site into parcels. d) There are no existing health hazards on site. e) All stmctures will meet or exceed City standards for setbacks for bmsh management. 10. NOISE a) Any increase in noise levels resulting firom the proposal will be mitigated to a level less than significant, in accordance with City standards. b) No severe noise levels are expected to result from the proposal. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Per the Zone 17 LFMP, Zone 17 currently conforms to the fire performance standard and will continue to conform through build out. b) The proposal will not affect police protection since no development is being proposed at present time. c) Per the Zone 17 LFMP, the performance standard for school facilities will be met. d) Pe the Zone 17 LFMP, the proposal will not affect the maintenance of public facilities. e) Per the Zone 17 LFMP, the proposal will not affect other govemmental services. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) Power and namral gas lines will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. b) Communication systems will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. c) Local water distribution facilities will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. d) A sewer system will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. e) A storm water drainage system will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. f) Service for solid waste disposal will be implemented as part of development, in accordance with City standards. g) Water lines will be constmcted as part of development, in accordance with City standards. 13. AESTHETICS a) The proposal will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway since no development is being proposed at present time. b) The proposal will not demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect since no development is being proposed at present time. c) The proposal will not create light or glare since no development is being proposed at present time. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) The project site is imderlain by potentially significant fossil areas of Eocene age capped by a veneer of developed soils. A moderate to high potential exists for the discovery of significant fossils during development of the project site, however any impact to paieontological resources will be reduced to a level less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures. b) Two archaeological sites have been foimd within the project site. Any impacts to these sites will be reduced to a level less than significant through the implementation of a mitigation measure consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Chiltural Resource Guidelines for a data recovery program. c) No historical resources are found within the project site. d) There are no unique ethnic cultural values associated with the project site. e) There are no existing religious or sacred uses associated with the project site. 15. RECREATIONAL a) Park facilities for the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad currently meet the performance standard and are projected to comply through buildout. b) The project site is currently imdeveloped, therefore no existing recreational opportunities will be affected. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIHCANCE a) Compliance with the City's HMP and the implementation of mitigation measures ensures that the environmental and cultural elements associated with this project will not be significantly degraded. b) Future development will occur as a cumulative effect of this proposal. Any impacts resulting from this will be reduced to a level less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures. c) There are no environmental effects associated with this project that would be directly or indirectly substantially adverse for humans. ^^^^_j^JQ 24/'04' .llJ,44ftH SARES'REC-I3 GRO'JP f.949;: 756-5955 MRYMEKBECK DIRECTOR AuguBl 17, 2004 OCP AmmCNT OF fiHVIRONMCKTAL HEALTH LAND ANO WATER OUAUTY OlVWON P.O. KAX «Z»41,SAN Bta«0, «• S21U'»2*1 1S1») a3a4222 FAX («)•) a3*-t37r NlCMMDHMU ABCWTANTDlMfCTat AUG 2 0 2004 ny^^ vis. Kristtne Zortman, Lonmr Communlti«s 5730 Pleet Stmet, Sultci 320 Carlsbad, CA 92O06 Dear Ms. Zortman: VOLUNTARY ASSISTAMCE PROGRAM CASE #H21 T28-001 RESPONSE LETTEt^ BRESSI RANCH DEVELOPMENT, EL CAMINO REAL AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CITY OF CARLSBAO. SAN OIEGO, CAUFORNIA Slaff of the Departmervt of Environmontal Haalth (DEH) ha$ reviewed tha repgrts titled Post Grade Agricultural Ghomi09l P^skJu^ S</rv«y $ampt9 Results Brasst Ranch Drnvshprnam, Panning Anas PA-1 Ihrough PA-A and Poat 0nd9 AgiicuStunl..., Phnning Ar99 PA-6, dated Apnl 1. and May IS, respectively. Upen revlaw of tho report, OEH condudae that Plannino Areas PA-1, PA-2. PA-3, PA.-t, and PA-S ara suitable for the propOftd induatriai and/or commarpfal devalopment from an onvironmental etandpoinL Once grading and vertficaton w.-ripllfia adivitte* are completed forthe entire site and are deiemetd acceptable by DEH. a formal ciosore letter \will b« IbEued for the Site. If you hav© any question*, please call me at (619) 338-2243. Sinoerely, KEfVT HUTH, Project Manager Site Assesanneot and Mitigation Program KH:kd cc: Vlr. Edward Lump. CEl "Envtronirunitcil ana pubfu hullh Ihrvu^h leadership, partnership and ici«ri<ie" Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Dec-16-02 15:39; Page 2/2 RECEIVEfiDEC 1 6 2002 '"^SSfDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASS'SSKTOR LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION P.O. BOX 129261, SAN OIEQO, CA 92112-9261 (619> 338-2222 FAX (619) 338-2377 1.800-253-9933 December 11, 2002 Ms. Kristine Zortman Lennar Communities 5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320 Carlsbad. CA 92008 Dear Ms. Zortman: CONCURRENCE WITH WORK PLAN FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL RESIDUE SURVEY AT BRESSI RANCH - LENNAR COMMUNITIES 4658 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASE - H21726-001 1 have reviewed the Work Plan prepared by Environmental Equalizers, Inc. (EEI), dated October 7, 2002. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Program, concurs with the proposed activities outlined in the Work Plan to more fully characterize and assess the residual agricultural chemicals remaining in soil at the Bressi Ranch site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Asbestos Sun^ev. upon which the Work Plan is partly based, Indicates that there may be other contamination on-site, i.e., petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils and buried farm-related solid waste. We recommend that additional characterization and assessment be conducted to fully delineate these other contaminants. Should you have any questions please call me at 619-338-2497. Sincerely, DAVID A. JONES, Project Manager Site Assessment and Mitigation Program DAJ:kd cc: Edward P. Lump, Sr. Engineering Geologist - EEI WP/H21726-001VAP "Environmental and public health through leadership, partnership and science" Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Jan-16-03 18:28; Page 2/6 Ul.'IU/ua ll:3B KAA 1)6028^5 . ®002 Camevale's Construction Management, Inc. Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, MoJd Remediation January 9, 2003 Krietine Zortman LenniM-Corporalson 5780 Fleet Street, Suite * 300 Carlsbad. CA92008 ProP #01-03-005 RE: Bressi Ranch Project Dear Kristine: Thank you for considering Camevate's Construction Management/CCM for yoor environmental and general lHiildir»g constructior needs. The fbltowing is our proposal to provide services as described beiow. Scope of Work: Provide labor, equipment, and matenals necessary to perfonn the removal and disposal of tiie fbHowing items listod below: ASBESTOS ABATEMENT SCOPE OF WORK: Reniove and dispose approximately 1,(KK) S.F. Linoleum Remove and dispose approxiinately 1,M0 S.F, wail mastic Remove and dispose 8 ca. transits healer lM>ards Remove and dispose roof penetration mastic Remove and dispose 3ea. asbestos pipe eKKwvs Remove and dispose drywaH joint compound Q Fireplace & Comeirs Remove and dispoe* 1 LF asbestos tranaife pipe DEIAOUTION SCOPE OF WORK: Demolish and dispose existing house, attached Gamge and Jacuz^ to Include all trash associated witfi the demolition process of the house, demolition and removal of existing concrete slat>, footings and concrete iHock wails. ALT#1 Oamolition of existing vegetation and trees ^ House ALT#2 Demolition and removal of exiating asphalt driveway and paridng area @ House 3709 So. ConMtt Sfc Sptiaa Val^jr, CA 91977 ghamti U%«»'ia» FBX: 619-«tl.lMB Uknat* CA I4I3549. ASB /CaM)08B #SI3 Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Jan-16-03 18:28; Page 3/6 Page 2- Brassi Ranch Project Work wiU be performed in accordance with appUcatila rules and regulations. Requirements: Client to sui^y potable water, eiectridty, hygiene facilities, adequate partdng and area to spot disposal container. Client shall rcmiove movable items, which may interfere with abatement operation. All tenants and/or other occupants of the area must be wscatmi during the entire abatement process, unless o^ anangements have been made and agre«i to in wrifing by CCM. Exclusions: Price does not inciude bonding premiums, permit fees, repiacement of removed materials, weather protection or rapair af inddental damagas caused by abatement activities. Traffic oontrol or Plan, Saw cutting, oore drilfing fior sub trades, shoring, perntits, underground utiltty demoiition, utility disconnects, hazardous soils, removal of it«ns to be salvaged by owner, SWPPP, grading, excavation, notifications, site water, walkway enclosures, site fencing, and retantion. Unless othenvne stated herwn, price irK:iudes one move on and one move ofl| any addilionai mobllizationAia-mobilization wHI be subject to additional charges to be negotiated as a separate iine item oost. Cost Asbestos Abatement $ S»278 - ^i '^/^JDJ^ Demoiition of House/Garage >a.S46 • 'bf^^ Altdfl Demolition of vegetation and trees iMW Ali#2 Demolition of asphalt driveway / paridng Prices are valid for 30 days. Schedule: Scheduie is to be mutually agreed [jpon prior to start of woric. Notifications to regulatory agendas ara neK:|uirsd to be made at least ten woriting days prior to asbestos remove stari: date. Ravisions to tha dates required at least 24 tiours (1 workday) prior to any changes. Regulatory agencies impose monetary fines for nonoompKanoe. dient is therefbre reeponsit)le for provkling cCM ample fime to file any required revision notifications. Any firves imposed for noncompliance with the reqiurements when CCM was not provided ample time to file revisions wM be the responsibi!^ of dient. Should completion of any portion of fhe services contemplated by ttiis Agreement t>e delayed beyond the esb'meted date of oomcMian for any naaon which is beyond the controi of or without fault or nagligenoe of CCM, then and in that event Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Jan-16-03 18:28; Page 4/6 Page 3- Bressi RancJi Project Owner or Contractor and CCM shall mutindly agree on the terms and conditkxis upon which the services may be continued or temninated. Terms: Payment in full is due within 15 days of date of invoice, no retention. Late payment fee or 1.5% per month (19.56% APR), may ba added to any delinquent account. CCM shail be entitied to reimbursement of any costs incmed, riduding attomey fees, which are reletod to collection of delinquent accounts wfien reason for delinquency is not the fautt of CCM. Thank you once again for this opportunity. If you shouid have any que^ons or need any tlirther information, please foel free to contact our of^ at 619-660-2630 Sincereiy, President Accepted: ^Date: Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Jan-16-03 18:29; Page 5/6 ._ IfflOQZ/OOS Camevale's Construction Management, Inc. Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, Mold Remediation January 15. 2003 Jim Urtina Lennar Communities 5780 Fleet Street Carisbad. CA92008-4700 Prop # 01 -03-005a RE: Bressi Ranch Project Dear Jim: Thank you for consWering Camevale's Constaiction Management/CCM for your environmental and generai building construction needs. The fdlounng is our proposal to provide servicas as described below Scope of Wortc Provkto labor, equipment, and materiais necessary to perform the removal and disposal ofihe following items bated below: Remove and dispose asbestoa joint compound @ bnck wail locations. Work win be performed in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Requirements: Client to supply potable water, eledricity, hygiene fadlities, adequate paricing and area to spot disposal container. Client shall remove movable items, which may interfere with abatement operatioa All tenants and/or o^er occupants of the area rhust be vacated during ti» entire abatement process, unless otiwr anangements have been made and agraad to hi writing by CCM, Exclusions: Price does not irK:lude bonding premiums, permit fees, replacement of removed materials, weather protedfon or repair of inddental damages caused by abatement activities. Any additional asbestos materials which may be concealed in walls, or other locations. Unless othenwise stated herein, pnce indudes one move on and one move offi any additionai mobilization/de-mobilization will be subjed to additional charges to be negotiated as a separate line item cost. 37f»9a.C«nlQli«St Sprteg V4iil«r, CA >W7 Vbrnts Sl9-6W-29yo nM6M»»S UcmM lt CA i$lS49y ASB JOA-OOSR #54S Sent By: LENNAR COMMUNITIES; 17609188868; Jan-16-03 18:29; Page 6/6 Page 2- Bressi Ranch Project Coat $ 1.570 Prices are valid for 30 days. Schedule: Schedule is to be mutually agreed upon prior to start of woric. Notiflcations to regulatory agendes are required to be made at least tan woridng days prior to asbestos removal ^rt date. Revisions to the dates are required at least 24 flours (1 wortcday) prior to any dianges. Regulatory agendes impose monetary fines for noncompliance, dient is therefore responsible for providing CCM ample time to fRe any required reviaon notlficatfons. Any fines imposed for noncompliance with the requirements when CCM was not provkled ample time to file revisions will be the responslt»iity of client. Should compietion of any poriiion of the services contemplated by this Agreement be delayed beyorKt th^ estimated date of completion for any reason which is beyond the control of or without fault or negligence of CCM, then and In that event Owne,'' or Conbnctor and COM sfial! mutually agree on the terms and conditfons upon which the services tnay be continued or terminated. Terms: Payment in full is due wrthin 15 days of date of lnvok:e, no retention. Late payment foe of 1.5% per month (19.56% APR), may be added to any delinquent account. CCM shall be entiled to reimbursement of any costs incurred, induding attomey fees, whidi are relsAed to collection of delinquent accounts when reason for d^inquency is not the fault of CCM. Thank you once again for this opportunity, if you should have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact our office at 619-660-2830. >isc President 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail:admin @ helixepi. com fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 January 30, 2003 LEN-16 Mr. Christer Westman City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Subject: Bressi Ranch Box Tree Locations Dear Mr. Westman: Lennar Homes is proposing to box and relocate up to nine mature trees from the existing ranch house onsite to an area along the boundary of open space just north and east of the El Fuerte/Poinsettia intersection. The trees would be placed immediately inside of the open space limits fence in an area that has been in active agriculture. Some limited grading may be necessary to provide a flat pad for the trees. It is my understanding that these trees would remain for approximately nine to twelve months and then relocated onto the project site in proposed development areas. Given that the area proposed for the relocation is currently heavily disturbed, no biological impacts would result, and the relocation should be allowed. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Senior Consulting mologist Cc: Jim Urbina, Lennar Communities Sandra l-i':>!c!5r- Fwd: Bressi Rancho Prqpjgggl: A Citizen's Strong Objections ^^.^ Page 1 From: Marilyn Strong To: Michael Holzmiller; Ray Patchett; Sandra Holder Date: 6/17/02 11:03AM Subject: Fwd: Bressi Rancho Proposal: A Citizen's Strong Objections »> <EHyd6l999@aol.com> 06/15/02 09:40PM »> To: Mayor Lewis and the City Council of Carlsbad, I have been a property owner in Carlsbad for over 4 years and live at 2820 Rancho Costero, in The Estates of Rancho Carrillo, Carisbad, CA. I must express my strong objections to the proposed Bressi Ranch project that is up for vote before the Council on July 9, 2002. These are my specific concerns and requests: 1) The zoning and proposed building of an industrial buildings on the land south of Palomar airport road will create not only substantially more traffic congestion but will blight the area adjacent to and directly behind it. Our development, the Estates, contains homes in excess of $1M in value...l specifically object to 35 ft tall industrial buildings adjacent to a high end community given the blight impact, noise and deleterous impact on property values. At the very ieast, reduce these building heights to a level more compatible with the citizens who have recently built here and have substantial investments to protect. 2) The extension of El Fuerte into a 4 lane, 80 ft wide road directly behind my property will also contribute noise, blight, and will negatively impact property values. I understand the need for additional roads, but I specifically request that this road be reduced in width and moved further west, more in line with the existing single lane road on Bressi ranch today. 3) I specifically request definition of the use of the land immediately south ofthe El Fuerte extension. In the plan I have seen it is unclear whether this will be a community facility, a school, church?? Before this plan is approved, I wouid request a clearer definition ofthis land use and mitigation of the environmental impact given that it will be placed immediateiy west of a canyon with significant wildlife. 4) I would request that if this plan is approved that the parks and space contained in the existing layout be maintained or expanded before this project moves forward. 5) I have noted an enormous increase in traffic congestion and noise on Palomar Airport Road and Melrose. The plan calls for an increase in the traffic level from 'C to 'D' which will make the current situation substantially worse. I suggest that this change not be made. I have also signed a petition with several citizens in my development and others in Rancho Carrillo objecting to this development, including several of the points above. I am deeply concerned that the City Council is too heavily influenced by development interests and is rapidly overbuilding an otherwise excellent Sandra Holder - Fwd: Bressi Rancho PropjjSigi: A Citizen's Strong Objections Page 2 community. I was extremely concerned by the process by which the City approved the Villages of LaCosta; this is yet another example of overbuilding and negative impacts on the quality of life of people like myself who have chosen to invest in Carlsbad. This letter should be added to the record of considerations of the Bressi Ranch project by the City of Carlsbad. I strongly oppose this project in its current form. Eric A. Hyde 2820 Rancho Costero Carlsbad, CA Steven Ahlquist 4989 Via Marta Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 30, 2002 Christer Westman, Senior Planner City ofCarlsbad 1625 Faraday Avenue ^ Carlsbad, CA 92008 \f x A'' Re: Bressi Ranch Dear Mr. Westman: I am a resident of the City of Carlsbad since 1964 and actively follow the City's efforts to enhance our community. I have attended presentations by representatives of the Bressi Ranch proposal and am writing today to express my support for this exciting project. I believe Bressi Ranch will be a great addition to the City of Carlsbad and the surrounding area where I presently work. The Bressi Ranch plan to create a livable, walkable community, along with its people friendly architectural style, will greatly enhance this area and provide the ambiance of the small town feel that Carlsbad enjoys. I believe this is the type of new home community we should support and encourage in Carlsbad. Until a year ago, I was accustomed to driving up to 60 miles each day, one-way to work. After 30 years, now I can work and live in Carlsbad. Bressi Ranch is close in proximity to local businesses and nearby industrial parks will help to reduce automobile traffic on Carlsbad Streets. Residents will be able to walk or bicycle to work, thus reducing traffic and pollution within the city. Further, the mixed-use district will promote intemal shopping trips, v/hich will help minimize impacts to the surrounding communities. Tn short, the Bressi Ranch project embodies what we hear about as "smart growth." It is for these reasons that I am writing to ask you to support the Bressi Ranch project EIR and encourage the Commission's immediate approval. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at any time. Sincerely. Hofnnan Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis March 14, 2002 Clyde Wickham 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 •idaa ONINNVld avasidvo JO AUO m VI m RE: Temporary Sewer Pump Station in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan Dear Clyde: At our team meeting yesterday, you reiterated the City's strong opposition to the proposed temporary sewer pump station in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. However, you also stated that you would be willing to write a soft enough condition in the conditions of approval for the tentative map to allow Lermar to construct a temporary sewer pump station if it proved unfeasible to gravity sewer that portion of the Master Plan. Based on that statement, Lermar will revise the Bressi Ranch Master Plan and Zone 17 Local Facilities Plan to eliminate all references to a temporary pump station. We understand the City's concem about temporary pump stations and it is not Lennar's desire to constmct a temporary pump station to serve a portion of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. They just do not want to be in the position, where a substantial portion of the Master Plan could not be developed, because due to circumstances beyond their control, they could not connect to a gravity sewer and the City would not permit a temporary pump station. Based on your statement that the conditions on the tentative map would be soft enough that a temporary sewer pump station could be permitted under extraordinary circumstances without a revision to the tentative map or master plan, Lennar is willing to make these revisions. If we have misunderstood anything that you have told us please contact me as soon as possible. We appreciate your cooperation in resolving this issue. Sincerely, Mike Howes Cc Mark Rohrlick Kristine Zortman Bob Wojcik Christer Westman 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Corlsbad • CA 92008 • (760) 438-1465 • Fax: (760) 438-2443 TRANSIVIITTAL To Address City PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS Elaine Blackburn City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Date Job No. Project 08/14/01 1325.50 Bressi Ranch Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Messenger - One Hour • For Your Information • Original • Messenger-Three Hours • Messenger - Next Day IE! For Use on Job Prints • By Mail • For Review and Comments • Photocopy • Overnight - By 11:00 A.M. • • • Overnight - By 4:00 P.M. • • Electronic Data • By Tricor • For Approval • • By Tricor IE! Hand Delivered cn9 For Pickup • cn9 OF CARLSBAD Quantity Date Description 6 sets ^ 08/14/01 Master Tentative Map 6 sets ^ 08/14/01 Alignment and Grading Study 2 August 2001 Sewer Report 2 ^ 08/14/01 Constraints Map 1 04/19/01 Master Tentative Map (Redlines) 1 04/19/01 Alignment and Grading Study (Redlines) 1 April 2001 Sewer Report (Redlines) 1 08/14/01 Letter Addressing Plan Check Comments Elaine, Enclosed is the Master Tentative Map resubmittal package for Bressi Ranch. I've included redlines, blueprints, and a letter which addresses the comments sent with the redlines. Should you have any questions or comments, call me at (619) 881-2549 or Brian Stup at (619) 881-2520. Thank You. Karen Mossberg Copies Via • Mail • Overnight O Messenger ProjectDesign Consultants By: Karen Mossberg PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • SURVEY/GPS File: 1325.50 August 14, 2001 Ms. Elaine Blackbum CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Resubmittal of Bressi Ranch Master Tentative Map - CT 00-96 Dear Elaine: This letter accompanies the resubmittal of the above-mentioned project. We have revised the project to address the issues of concem raised in your letter of July 12, 2001 (attached). The following list addresses the incomplete items and issues of concem per your letter dated July 12, 2001. Planning: I. The constraints map provided is conceptual only and does not include any numeric values for the various constraints. This exhibit must include a table which shows the acreages of the various constrained areas, as required by the submittal checklist. (Please account for any "overlaps" or doubly constrained acres in the table.) • Exhibit has been updated to summarize the acreages of the various constrained areas. Sheet 1 of 17: Please indicate on this sheet whether you are proposing muUi-phased or a single phase of mass grading. 2. 3. 4. • We are proposing a single phase of mass grading. Sheet 1 of 17: Please remove the HDP number (HDP 99-06) from the top of this sheet and also from the application list at the bottom of the sheet. [These exhibits are for the MTM only.] • The number has been removed. Sheet 1 of 17: Please add to General Note 12 the total number of lots being proposed. • The total number of lots has been added. LETrER/13255ISSUES.DOC 701 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101 619-235-6471 Tel 619-234-0349 Fax ® Recycled Pti per Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 2 5. Sheet 1 of 17: General Note 12 indicates that lots 17-23 will be open space lots. Based upon the remaining information, it appears that the correct number is 17-22. • The lot numbers have been revised. 6. Sheet 1 of 17: Please try to enhance or make bolder the lines between the proposed lots on the sheet index map. They are difficult to follow on that portion of the sheets. • The line work has been darkened. 1. Sheet I of 17: General Note 6 indicates that intemal slopes vary from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The City's Hillside Development regulations require contour grading on long slopes. As staff has indicated in previous discussions of hillside issues, a variation range of 2:1 to 2.5:1 may not be sufficient to provide adequate contouring for long slope areas. • Slopes have been graded to blend in with existing terrain and in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance for contour grading. 8. Sheet 1 of 17: General Note 11 calls out total grading per cubic yard for the project as 9,540 cy/ac. Staff has been under the impression in our discussions that the figure was higher. Does the figure shown reflect the latest grading/hillside plans? In any event. General Note 11 will need to show the calculation of the total cy/ac. That is, it will need to call out the total yards of cut for the project, the total yards of fill for the project, the calculation of the project cubic yards per acre, the total import (if any), and the total export (if any). Staff has indicated previously how this figure is to be calculation and what is to be included in the calculation. • The grading call outs have been revised based on the exemption numbers. 9. Please revise the plans to put one complete planning area/lot on one page. Each planning area's/lot's compliance with requirements will be easier to review when contained on a single sheet. • The sheet layout has been revised. 10. Sheets 3-8 of 17: The proposed lot lines are very hard to distinguish on these sheets. Please revise the plans to make these lines easier to identify. • The lot lines have been dimensioned to make lot lines easier to identify. LETTER/13255ISSUES.DOC o Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 3 11. Sheet 3 of 17: Planning Areas 2 and 3 both show a "30' landscape setback Easement from El Camino Real". All lots in the P-M zone are required to have a minimum 50- foot fully landscaped setback measured from the right-of-way line. Any change to that requirement will have to be proposed in the Master Plan and agreed to by the Planning Department. • The street section of El Camino Real will be addressed in the Master Plan and shown on the Tentative Map. 12. Sheet 4 of 17: The southem end of proposed Street G continues into the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Does the alignment shown match that shown on the VLC project maps? • There is ongoing coordination with the Engineer of Work ofthe La Costa Greens project. These plans will be referenced accordingly. 13. Sheets 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of 17: These sheets show grading into open space areas to be preserved (OSl/Lot 17, OS3/Lot 19, and OS4/Lot 20). This has to be evaluated as part of the proposed hillside submittal. • Hillside exhibit has been submitted for staff review. Engineering: We have completed our review of the Tentative Map for CT 00-06 dated May 23, 2001, and have the following conmients. As discussed previously, the project cannot be considered "complete" because of the concurrent processing of the Master Plan. I have marked up a check print of the TM that must be retumed with revisions or corrections. • Redline markup has been retumed with the revised plans. Traffic and Circulation: There are comments on the TM that relate to traffic and circulation. These comments could be better answered on a single traffic/circulation sheet of the Tentative Map. Proposed traffic signals, adjacent intersections and lane configuration, secondary access, waving of access rights, specific locations of access, proposed improvements and meeting existing roadways, pedestrian sidewalks and trail systems, and phasing of improvements could be all identified on one sheet. • Traffic circulation comments have been added to the key map. In addition to the traffic and circulation, two sheets have been added to provide additional detail to the intersections. LETTER/13255ISSUES.DOC Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 4 Median improvements to El Camino Real and to Palomar Airport Road are required. Proposed median work on El Fuerte should be shown, as well as limits of sidewalk constmction and trail systems. Notes should identify when constmction is anticipated. • The median improvements have been detailed in the alignment and grade study plan set. Traffic signals will be required. Locations of proposed signals should be shown. The report from USA has been routed to Dave Stillman for input from our Traffic Division. The intersection of Alicante Road and Street 'A' or Street 'D' should be considered for traffic warrants. Phasing and constmction timing for these signals should also be noted. A typical note should be added on the Tentative Map that states "Signals will be designed concurrent with neighborhood development. Installation will occur when warrants are met and as directed by the City Engineer". • There is a signalized intersection at Alicante Road and Street 'A'. The typical note has been added to the cover sheet. Signal locations are based on the traffic study. Comments have been prepared on street cross-sections and community design street system separately. Staff participated in workshops and routed comments in-house for consensus. Those design comments should be considered as part of this review as well. We recommend adhering to current standards as much as possible for the Master Tentative Map. We can always reduce roadways or cross-sections as specific projects come on line, after the City of Carlsbad concludes its review and adoption of livable community standards. • The Master Tentative Map is incorporating sections proposed in the Master Plan. Grading and Drainage: The proposed grading or mass grading or rough pads should be clarified on Sheet 1 under quantities. An explanation or note that graded swales have a minimum of 2% flow line grade (Legend Sheet 1) and that setbacks from slopes will be increased to provide for positive drainage, away from the slope. • The plans have been revised accordingly. LETTER/13255ISSUES.DOC Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 5 The soils report has identified a few landslides and possible remedial grading close to El Camino Real, near Alicante, and adjacent to the Villages offsite grading condition. These could be critical and should be shown on the Tentative Map. If resolution of the remedial work has been determined, it should be shown. • Sheet 20 has been added to show these areas. The slope grading adjacent to Melrose Drive (Sheet 8, Lot 5) must be revised to follow the existing terrain, in compliance with Hillside Grading Guidelines. The manufactured slope should be set back from existing slope (bench) and should follow the landform. This area is highly visible from northbound traffic on Melrose Drive. • The slope has been regraded according to discussions per the field visit August 2, 2001. The Tentative Map references "letters of permission to grade to be obtained" for offsite improvements and/or grading. A letter of permission is required prior to approval of the Tentative Map. Prior to approval of the final engineering, a temporary easement will need to be recorded. • Notes have been added to plans that require a letter of permission to grade before offsite improvements. The access points to each neighborhood should be graded up front. Access from adjacent streets should also be graded up front to be consistent with development approvals. Future points as 2"'' or 3'^'' points of access that satisfy the City's requirement could be shown. We are having problems with proposed development lots without adequate points of access. All but 1 of the proposed residential lots needs at least 2 points of access, based on unit count alone. • Access points have been added to the plans. The drainage outlets that are inaccessible should be designed to use D-41 outlet dissipators instead of riprap fields. This requirement is to address a maintenance issue that we have been conditioning all projects with. • The D-41 outlet dissipators have been added to permanent inaccessible areas. LETrER/13255ISSUES.DOC Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 6 A Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) will be required concurrent with approval of the Tentative Map, and preparation and processing of a CLOMR and LOMR through FEMA will be a condition of development. • The Floodplain Special Use Permit is being coordinated with Hofinan Planning Associates. The before development lOO-year and the after development drainage condition is not clear. The areas of detention, flooding and freeboard to spillway needs to be shown. The SUP application can address this issue, as well as the required findings and studies needed to support the proposed project. • This will be addressed with the SUP application. The NPDES preliminary study falls short of what we would like to see for this Master Tentative Map. I have copied an acceptable plan (by O'Day Consultants) that you could use as an example of the report we anticipate. Certain portions of O'Day's report will need to be added or changed to confonn to the residential/commercial aspect of this project, but the report should be complete. • The NPDES preliminary study is actually referring to the Water Quality Report. The subdivision design must comply with City standards regarding boundary, top of slope and setbacks. Lots should be shown on one sheet (Lot 6 on Sheet 3 is also on Sheet 5). Lot lines must be set back from top of slope per City of Carlsbad standard GS-14. Conmients noted on Sheet 3 are typical of concems throughout this subdivision. A typical cross- section of lot boundary (same as subdivision boundary) and drainage, swales, and slope rounding should be used. • Sheets have been revised accordingly and a typical cross-section has been added. Relinquishment of access will be required and should be shown on the Tentative Map and addressed up front. El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, El Fuerte, except as shown and approved. • A note has been added to address relinquishment of access. Single facility easement widths are generally 20' wide, double facility easements are generally 30', and concem over trenching, depth, and feasible maintenance should be considered. • Easement widths have been considered and adjusted. LETrER/13255ISSUES.DOC Ms. Elaine Blackbum August 14, 2001 Page 7 The sewer report has a few corrections and additions to be made. I have attached a redlined copy for the Engineer's use. • Corrections have been made. If phasing is proposed, it should be shown. Mass grading of the entire site could become an issue. If one final map is proposed, it should be noted; and if one phase of development and constmction is proposed, it should be noted as well. The Villages of La Costa Greens TM (O'Day) has a good phasing plan that you should review and consider. The only reason I keep bringing up this project (The Greens) up is because we have finished our review and are working on conditions, and it is adjacent to this project. • We are proposing a single phase of mass grading. The above list addresses your issues of concem. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 619-881-2520, or Mike Howes (HPA) at 760-438-1465. Sincerely, Brian D. Stup, PE Associate c: Clyde Wickham, City of Carlsbad Mark Rohrlick, Lennar Kristine Zortman, Lennar Dale Greenhalgh, Q2 Services Dave Ragland, PDC LETrER/13255ISSUES.DOC City of Carlsba July 12, 2001 Biil Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Cadsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 00-06 - BRESSI RANCH IVIASTER TENTATIVE MAP Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map (IVIaster Tentative Map), application no. CT 00-06, as to its completeness for processing. As you know, the City could not approve tliis application until the related legislative actions are approved, since the project is not consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning on the site. Therefore, this application must be considered "incomplete" until those legislative actions are approved. However, staff will process the CT (Master Tentative Map) as if it is "complete" when all of the necessary information/documentation is complete. While the City has the ability to withdraw this application after 6 months if it is not deemed complete, it is not our intent to do so. We recognize that this application cannot be reviewed in isolation from the other related applications and will take some time to process. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 602-4621, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:EB:mh Lennar Communities Don Rideout -*Clyde Wickham File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us No. CT 00-06 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The constraints map provided is conceptual oniy and does not include any numeric values for the various constraints. This exhibit must include a table which shows the acreages of the various constrained areas, as required by the submittal checklist. (Please account for any "overlaps" or doubly-constrained acres in the table.) —- . 2. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please indicate on this sheet whether you are proposing multi- phased or a single-phase of mass grading. 3. Sheet 1 of 1 7 - Please remove the HDP number (HDP 99-06) from the top of this sheet and also from the application list at the bottom of the sheet. (These exhibits are for the MTM only.) 4. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please add to General Note 12 the total number of lots being proposed. 5. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note No. 12 indicates that lots 17-23 will be open space lots. Based upon the remaining information, it appears that the correct number is 17-22. 6. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please try to enhance or make bolder the lines between the proposed lots on the sheet index map. They are difficult to follow on that portion of the sheets. 7. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note 6 indicates that internal slopes vary from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The City's Hillside Development regulations require contour grading on long slopes. As staff as indicated in previous discussions of hillside issues, a variation range of 2:1 to 2.5:1 may not be sufficient to provide adequate contouring for long slope areas. 8. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note 11 calls out total grading per cubic yard for the project as 9540 cy/ac. Staff has been under the impression in our discussions that the figure was higher. Does the figure shown refiect the latest grading/hillside plans? In any event General Note 11 will need to show the calculation of the total cy/ac. That is, it will need to call out the total yards of cut for the project, the total yards of fill for the project, the calculation of the project cubic yards per acre, the total import (if any), and the total export (if any). Staff has indicated previously how this figure is to be calculated and what is to be included in the calculation. 9. Please revise the plans to put one complete planning area/lot on one page. Each planning area's/lot's compliance with requirements will be easier to review when contained on a single sheet. 10. Sheets 3-8 of 17 - The proposed lot lines are very hard to distinguish on these sheets. Please revise the plans to make these lines easier to identify. 11. Sheet 3 of 17 - Planning Areas 2 and 3 both show a "30' Landscape Setback/Easement" from El Camino Real". All lots in the P-M Zone are required to have a minimum 50-foot fully landscaped setback measured from the right-of-way line. Any change to that requirement will have to be proposed in the Master Plan and agreed to by the Planning Department. 12. Sheet 4 of 1 7 - The southern end of proposed Street G continues into the Viiiages of La Costa Master Plan. Does the alignment shown match that shown on the VLC project maps? 13. Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 17 - These sheets show grading into open space areas to be preserved (OSl/Lot 17, OS3/Lot 19, and OS4/Lot 20). This has to be evaluated as part of the proposed hillside submittal. Engineering: We have completed our review of the tentative map for CT 00 - 06 dated May 23, 2001 and have the following comments. As discussed previously, the project cannot be considered "complete" because of the concurrent processing of the master plan. / have marked up a check print of the TM that must be returned with revisions or corrections. Traffic & Circulation: There are comments on the TM that relate to traffic and circulation. These comments could be better answered on a single "traffic / circulation" sheet of the tentative map. Proposed traffic signals, adjacent intersections and lane configuration, secondary access, waiving of access rights, specific locations of access, proposed improvements & meeting existing roadways, pedestrian sidewalks and trail systems and phasing of improvements could all be identified on one (1) sheet. Median improvements to El Camino Real and to Palomar Airport Road are required. Proposed median work on El Fuerte should be shown as well as limits of sidewalk construction and trail systems. Notes should identify when construction is anticipated. Traffic signals will be required. Locations of proposed signals should be shown. The report from USA has been routed to Dave Stillman for input from our Traffic Division. The intersection of Alicante Road and Street "A" or Street "D" should be. considered for traffic warrants. Phasing and construction timing for these signals should also be noted. A typical note should be added on the Tentative Map that states: "Signals will be designed concurrent with neighborhood development. Installation will occur when warrants are met and as directed by the City Engineer." Comments have been prepared on street cross sections and community design street systems separately. Staff participated in workshops and routed comments in house for consensus. Those design comments should be considered as part of this review as well. We recommend adhering to current standards as much as possible for the Master Tentative Map. We can always reduce roadways or cross sections as specific projects come on line, after the City of Carlsbad concludes its review and adoption of livable community standards. Grading and Drainage: The proposed grading or mass grading of rough pads should be clarified on sheet 1 under quantities. An explanation or note that graded swales have a min. of 2% flow line grade (Legend sheet. 1) and that setbacks from slopes will be increased to provide for positive, safe drainage, away from slope. The soils report has identified a few landslides and possible remedial grading close to El Camino Real, near Alicante, and adjacent to the Villages offsite grading condition. These could be critical and should be shown on the tentative map. If resolution of the remedial work has been determined, it should be shown. The slope grading adjacent to Melrose Drive (sheet 8, lot 5) must be revised to follow the existing terrain, in compliance with Hillside Grading Guidelines. The manufactured slope should be set back from existing slope (bench) and should follow the landform. This area is highly visible from northbound traffic on Melrose Drive. The tentative map references "letters of permission to grade to be obtained" for offsite improvenients and/or grading. A letter of permission is required prior to approval of the tentative map. Prior to approval of the final engineering, a temporary easement will need to be recorded. The access points to each neighborhood should be graded up front. Access from adjacent streets should also be graded up front to be consistent with development approvals. Future points as T"^ or 3"* points of access that satisfy the city's requirement could be shown. We are having problems with proposed development on lots without adequate points of access. All but 1 of the proposed residential lots needs at least 2 points of access, based on unit count alone. The drainage outlets that are inaccessible should be designed to use D-41 outlet dissipaters instead of riprap fields. This requirement is to address a maintenance issue that we have been conditioning all projects with. A Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) will be required concurrent with approval of the tentative map, and preparation and processing of a CLOMR and LOMR, through FEMA will be a condition of development. , The before development 100 year and the after development drainage condition is not clear. The areas of detention, and flooding, and freeboard to spillway needs to be shown. The SUP application can address this issue as well as the required findings and studies needed to support the proposed project. The NPDES preliminary study falls short of what we would like to see for this Master Tentative Map. I have copied an acceptable plan (by O'Day Consultants) that you could use as an example of the report we anticipate. Certain portions of O'Days report wili need to be added or changed to conform to the residential / commercial aspect of this project, but the report should be complete. Subdivision Design: The subdivision design must comply with City Standards regarding boundary, top of slope and setbacks. Lots should be shown on one sheet (lot 6 on sheet 3 is also on sheet 5). Lot lines must be set back from top of slope per City of Carlsbad Standard GS-14r Comments noted on sheet 3 are typical of concerns throughout this subdivision. A typical cross section of lot boundary (same as subdivision boundary) and drainage, swales and slope rounding should be used. [Relinquishment of access will be required and should be shown on the tentative map and addressed up front. El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, El Fuerte, except as shown and approved. Single facility easement widths are generally 20' wide, double facility easements are generally 30' and concern over individual trenching, depth and feasible maintenance should be considered. The sewer report has a few corrections and additions to be made. I have attached a red- lined copy for the Engineers use. If Phasing is proposed it should be shown. Mass Grading of the entire site could become an issue. If one final map is proposed, it should be noted, and if one phase of development and construction is proposed it should be noted as well. The Villages of La Costa Greens JhA (O'Day) has a good phasing plan that you should review and consider. The only reason I keep bringing this project (The Greens) up is because we have finished our review and are working on conditions, and it is adjacent to this project. Please see the attached redlined copy of the tentative map for further comments. Applicant must return the redlined print with the next submittal. Do not resubmit the tentative map until the discrepancies with the hydrology study, master plan and EIR are resolved, and until the grading has been changed to reflect the hillside development permit. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department August 13, 2001 Hofnnan Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court - Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: MP 00-178 - BRESSI RANCH REQUEST FOR PRIORITY PROCESSING The Planning and Engineering Departments have considered your recent request for priority processing (your letter dated July 9, 2001, copy attached). After careful analysis, the City can offer you the type of priority processing described below. In the past, the City has given a fornn of priority processing to some projects. The Kelly Ranch project is an example of this and forms the model for priority processing. Priority processing for that project consisted of three things: a) rapid access to senior-level staff for issues resolution, b) regular meetings with the applicant, and c) an aggressive, but reasonable, processing schedule. We can offer rapid access to senior-level staff for issues resolution. This would mean that time would not be lost in the usual time frames necessary to schedule those individuals for a meeting when issues must be resolved. We can also continue to have regular meetings with the applicant/developer. Staff has already been having regular meetings with the Bressi development team as needed to resolve issues. We will continue to do that as long as those meetings are productive. As you know, staff has been maintaining a processing schedule for the project that incorporates what we believe to be realistic processing times. Staff will make every effort to keep those turn-around times as short as possible. Relative to participation in the financing of Faraday Avenue, I would remind you that any applicant for which 20% of their traffic impacts an intersection or roadway segment that fails may be required to participate in a program to correct the failure. In conclusion, we are prepared to offer Lennar the type of priority processing that is described above. This would be based upon a schedule that is realistic and agreed upon by staff. Staff has previously provided you with a schedule that incorporates reasonable time frames for staff activities based upon workload and other factors. If you can shorten the processing time for the project by shortening the response times on the developer's side or by reducing the number of submittals/reviews 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us MP 00-178 - BRESSI hOcH REQUEST FOR PRIORITY PiQbESSING August 13, 2001 Page 2 necessary (while still fully addressing all issues to staff's satisfaction), staff will be happy to consider such a schedule. Sincerely, Lloyd B. Hubbs, P.E. ^ Public Works Director Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director MJH:EB;cs c: Lennar Homes Gary Wayne Don Rideout Skip Hammann Clyde Wickham Elaine Blackburn Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Hofman Planning RECEIVED Associates '"L 0 9 20C ^ ^ - •.•3^:::^- -^^ - CV Qp CARLSBAD July 9. 2001 RECtlVbL; JUL 0 9 2001 Elaine Blackburn , ooAr^ Ckv OfCarlsbad CITYOFCARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue PLANNING DEPT. Carisbad, Ca. 92008 RE: Priority Processing Dear Elaine: This letter accompanies a revised copy of the time line you prepared for the processing of the discretionarv' applications for the Bressi Ranch project. All of the steps and milestones that you included in the original time line have been included. However, we have made revisions so that a "critical path" could be identified: 1. Modified some time frames to complete some of the tasks to reflect a review period based on priority processing. 2. Included processing of applications through building permits. Based on our revised time line we believe that this project could reach a City Council hearing by Januan,' 22. 2002 instead of May 14, 2002 as indicated in the time line that you provide to us. We believe that the review times we are proposing in the revised time line are realistic based on priority processing. Accompanying our time line is a marked up copy of the time line you prepared which shows where we have made revisions to reflect priority processing. The following are the primary assumptions made in the development of the time line: .M\ the Bressi Ranch applications are priority projects. Weekly team meetings between City staff and the applicant to discuss and resolve project issues. Based on the discussions at these meetings, ifit appears that staflf will not be able to complete a task in the time period allocated in the schedule and where it is mutually agreed that such delay was not caused by the applicant, staflf .ou-T • Su;Te 150 • Corlstoa • CA 9203& • (760; 43&-14o5 • .,-"60)438-2443 will be authorized to work over time and or additional staff shall be allocated to the project in a best faith effort to keep to the schedule. 3. The EIR is circulated for public review before the final revisions are made to the Master Plan text, since none of the revisions currently being discussed with staff will have any impact on the EIR. 4. The City will concurrently process discretionan.- applications. 5. No comments will come out of the public review period that would result in a significant revision to the Master Plan. We do not foresee any comments coming out of the public review period that will result in a significant revision to the Master Plan. We believe that this is reasonable assumption based on past experience with similar projects in the City of Carlsbad. 6. The Planning Commission staflf report and conditions of approval will be started immediately after the City receives the public comments on the EIR 7. An advanced grading permit is pulled prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for the Master Tentative Map. (Based on compliance with Policy 16) Circulation Element Roads include Poinsettia Lane, El Fuerte, Palomar .Airport Road and El Camino Real. Priority processing must extend out all the way to the issuance of building permits to make it beneficial for Lennar to become involved in the Faraday Assessment District. The City is requesting Lennar to make a substantial financial contribution to the district. There would be little incentive for Lennar to make this type of commitment if priority processing only extended through the City Council approval of the Master Plan. We realize that staflf can not make a commitment as to when a building permit would be issued for the Bressi Ranch project However, Lennar is looking for a commitment that priority processing would extend through the review of the final map, improvement plans, landscape plans as well as building plans. Priority processing to Lennar means the following: 1. When we submit a revision to any plan or document, it automatically goes to the "top of the stack" and is the first item reviewed. 2. When input from senior level staflf is needed, the project planner or engineer can meet with them immediately rather than waiting several days or weeks to get their review and decision. 1 look forward to meeting with you, Michael and Lloyd to discuss this proposed time line as soon as possible. Sincerely, /I Bill Hofman cc Mark Rohriick Lloyd Hubbs Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne attachment Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department July 12, 2001 Biil Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Cadsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 00-06 - BRESSI RANCH MASTER TENTATIVE MAP Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map (Master Tentative Map), application no. CT 00-06, as to its completeness for processing. As you know, the City could not approve this application until the related legislative actions are approved, since the project is not consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning on the site. Therefore, this application must be considered "incomplete" until those legislative actions are approved. However, staff will process the CT (Master Tentative Map) as if it is "complete" when all of the necessary information/documentation is complete. While the City has the ability to withdraw this application after 6 months if it is not deemed complete, it is not our intent to do so. We recognize that this application cannot be reviewed in isolation from the other related applications and will take some time to process. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 602-4621, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, 4 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:EB:mh c: Lennar Communities Don Rideout Clyde Wickham File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us No. CT 00-06 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The constraints map provided is conceptual only and does not include any numeric values for the various constraints. This exhibit must include a table which shows the acreages of the various constrained areas, as required by the submittal checklist. (Please account for any "ovedaps" or doubly-constrained acres in the table.) 2. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please indicate on this sheet whether you are proposing multi- phased or a single-phase of mass grading. 3. Sheet 1 of 1 7 - Please remove the HDP number (HDP 99-06) from the top of this sheet and also from the application list at the bottom of the sheet. (These exhibits are for the MTM only.) 4. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please add to General Note 12 the total number of lots being proposed. 5. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note No. 12 indicates that lots 17-23 will be open space lots. Based upon the remaining information, it appears that the correct number is 17-22. 6. Sheet 1 of 17 - Please try to enhance or make bolder the lines between the proposed lots on the sheet index map. They are difficult to follow on that portion of the sheets. 7. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note 6 indicates that internal slopes vary from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The City's Hillside Development regulations require contour grading on long slopes. As staff as indicated in previous discussions of hillside issues, a vanation range of 2:1 to 2.5:1 may not be sufficient to provide adequate contouring for long slope areas. 8. Sheet 1 of 17 - General Note 11 calls out total grading per cubic yard for the project as 9540 cy/ac. Staff has been under the impression in our discussions that the figure was higher. Does the figure shown reflect the latest grading/hillside plans? In any event General Note 11 will need to show the calculation of the total cy/ac. That is, it will need to call out the total yards of cut for the project, the total yards of fill for the project, the calculation of the project cubic yards per acre, the total import (if any), and the total export (if any). Staff has indicated previously how this figure is to be calculated and what is to be included in the calculation. 9. Please revise the plans to put one complete planning area/lot on one page. Each planning area's/lot's compliance with requirements will be easier to review when contained on a single sheet. o 10. Sheets 3-8 of 17 - The proposed lot lines are very hard to distinguish on these sheets. Please revise the plans to make these lines easier to identify. 11. Sheet 3 of 17 - Planning Areas 2 and 3 both show a "30' Landscape Setback/Easement" from El Camino Real". All lots in the P-M Zone are required to have a minimum 50-foot fully landscaped setback measured from the right-of-way line. Any change to that requirement will have to be proposed in the Master Plan and agreed to by the Planning Department. 12. Sheet 4 of 17 - The southern end of proposed Street G continues into the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Does the alignment shown match that shown on the VLC project maps? 13. Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 17 - These sheets show grading into open space areas to be preserved (OSl/Lot 17, OS3/Lot 19, and OS4/Lot 20). This has to be evaluated as part of the proposed hillside submittaL Engineering: We have completed our review of the tentative map for CT 00 - 06 dated May 23, 2001 and have the following comments. As discussed previously, the project cannot be considered "complete" because of the concurrent processing of the master plan. / have marked up a check print of the Tl\/I that must be returned with revisions or corrections. Traffic & Circulation: There are comments on the TM that relate to traffic and circulation. These comments could be better answered on a single "traffic / circulation" sheet of the tentative map. Proposed traffic signals, adjacent intersections and lane configuration, secondary access, waiving of access rights, specific locations of access, proposed improvements & meeting existing roadways, pedestrian sidewalks and trail systems and phasing of improvements could ali be identified on one (1) sheet. Median improvements to El Camino Real and to Palomar Airport Road are required. Proposed median work on El Fuerte should be shown as well as limits of sidewalk construction and trail systems. Notes should identify when construction is anticipated. Traffic signals will be required. Locations of proposed signals should be shown. The report from USA has been routed to Dave Stillman for input from our Traffic Division. The intersection of Alicante Road and Street "A" or Street "D" should be considered for traffic warrants. Phasing and construction timing for these signals should also be noted. A typical note should be added on the Tentative Map that states: "Signals will be designed concurrent with neighborhood development. Installation will occur when warrants are met and as directed by the City Engineer." Comments have been prepared on street cross sections and community design street systems separately. Staff participated in workshops and routed comments in house for consensus. Those design comments should be considered as part of this review as well. We recommend adhering to current standards as much as possible for the Master Tentative Map. We can always reduce roadways or cross sections as specific projects come on line, after the City of CaMsbad concludes its review and adoption of livable community standards. Grading and Drainage: The proposed grading or mass grading of rough pads should be clarified on sheet 1 under quantities. An explanation or note that graded swales have a min. of 2% flow line grade (Legend sheet. 1) and that setbacks from slopes will be increased to provide for positive, safe drainage, away from slope. The soils report has identified a few landslides and possible remedial grading close to El Camino Real, near Alicante, and adjacent to the Villages offsite grading condition. These could be critical and should be shown on the tentative map. If resolution of the remedial work has been determined, it should be shown. The slope grading adjacent to Melrose Drive (sheet 8, lot 5) must be revised to follow the existing terrain, in compliance with Hillside Grading Guidelines. The manufactured slope should be set back from existing slope (bench) and should follow the landform. This area is highly visible from northbound traffic on Melrose Drive. The tentative map references "letters of permission to grade to be obtained" for offsite improvements and/or grading. A letter of permission is required prior to approval of the tentative map. Prior to approval of the final engineering, a temporary easement will need to be recorded. The access points to each neighborhood should be graded up front. Access from adjacent streets should also be graded up front to be consistent with development approvals. Future points as 2"" or S"' points of access that satisfy the city's requirement could be shown. We are having problems with proposed development on lots without adequate points of access. All but 1 of the proposed residential lots needs at least 2 points of access, based on unit count alone. The drainage outlets that are inaccessible should be designed to use D-41 outlet dissipaters instead of riprap fields. This requirement is to address a maintenance issue that we have been conditioning all projects with. A Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) will be required concurrent with approval of the tentative map, and preparation and processing of a CLOMR and LOMR, through FEMA will be a condition of development. The before development 100 year and the after development drainage condition is not clear, The areas of detention, and flooding, and freeboard to spillway needs to be shown. The SUP application can address this issue as well as the required findings and studies needed to support the proposed project. The NPDES preliminary study falls short of what we would like to see for this Master Tentative Map. I have copied an acceptable plan (by O'Day Consultants) that you could use as an example of the report we anticipate. Certain portions of O'Days report will need to be added or changed to conform to the residential / commercial aspect of this project, but the report should be complete. Subdivision Design: The subdivision design must comply with City Standards regarding boundary, top of slope and setbacks. Lots should be shown on one sheet (lot 6 on sheet 3 is also on sheet 5). Lot lines must be set back from top of slope per City of Carlsbad Standard GS-14. Comments noted on sheet 3 are typical of concerns throughout this subdivision. A typical cross section of lot boundary (same as subdivision boundary) and drainage, swales and slope rounding should be used. Relinquishment of access will be required and should be shown on the tentative map and addressed up front. El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, El Fuerte, except as shown and approved. Single facility easement widths are generally 20' wide, double facility easements are generally 30' and concern over individual trenching, depth and feasible maintenance should be considered. The sewer report has a few corrections and additions to be made. I have attached a red- lined copy for the Engineers use. If Phasing is proposed it should be shown. Mass Grading of the entire site could become an issue. If one final map is proposed, it should be noted, and if one phase of development and construction is proposed it should be noted as well. The Villages of La Costa Greens TM (O'Day) has a good phasing plan that you should review and consider. The only reason I keep bringing this project (The Greens) up is because we have finished our review and are working on conditions, and it is adjacent to this project. Please see the attached redlined copy of the tentative map for further comments. Applicant must return the redlined print with the next submittal. Do not resubmit the tentative map until the discrepancies with the hydrology study, master plan and EIR are resolved, and until the grading has been changed to reflect the hillside development permit. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 24, 2000 Hofman Planning Associates Bill Hofman Suite 1 50 5900 Pasteur Court Cadsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: BRESSI RANCH MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (CT 00-06), HILLSIDE GRADING EXHIBIT, AND STREET CROSS-SECTIONS Attached is a list of issues of concern to staff for the above-referenced project. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for this application. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 602-4621, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerel ^^^^ ELAINE BLACKBURN, AICP Senior Planner Mark Rohrlick Gary Wayne ji ff-^'^^'^ Dennis Turner Bob Wojcik Skip Hammann Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide / U 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbaci, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^ ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: Master Tentative Map 1. Please remove all lot lines from the exhibits. This is a Master Tentative Map (MTM) and should reflect only the planning areas identified in the Master Plan as discrete "planning areas" (i.e.. Planning Areas 1-14). Until the larger MTM and Master Plan issues are resolved, there is no standard of review for any proposed lots. 2. You have indicated that you wish to mass grade the entire project site in a single phase. Staff cannot offer support for such mass grading. Grading of all 420 acres (the current amount of acreage to be graded) would be premature when some of the proposed development might not occur for 5-10 years after Master Plan approval. 3. The plans submitted show some grading occurring within the HMP hardline areas. Some encroachment can be allowed into the HMP hardline preserve area if it is required for a circulation element roadway. Even so, any such encroachments need to be reduced as much as possible. The encroachments (of this type) shown on your exhibit appear to be small and necessary for El Fuerte. If these proposed encroachments change due to other revisions to the plans, staff will, of course, have to review the resultant changes. 4. You will need to provide an exhibit which clearly identifies the amount of cut and/or fill proposed at all locations on the site. (Such an exhibit was provided previously but would need to be updated to reflect the current proposed grading. The exhibit identified the depth of cut or fill in red (cut) and green (fill) numbers at all points of the site.) 5. As we have discussed in our recent meetings, the relative relationships between pad elevations and separations between the industrial and the residential uses still need to be resolved. The Fire Department, in particular, may have specific concerns or requirements (e.g., buffer areas, etc.) which will need to be incorporated into the Master Plan and the MTM. Staff (Planning and Engineering) is following up with Mike Smith of the Fire Department regarding any such requirements or specific concerns. This is in keeping with the "issues of concern" letter previously provided to you regarding compatibility between the intended uses within the Master Plan. Hillside Non-Compliance Exhibit (dated April 5, 2000) 6. We have discussed the Hillside exhibit dated April 5, 2000, several times by telephone and in meetings, most recently on May 17, 2000. To summarize those discussions, staff cannot support the Hillside regulations violations shown on the exhibit. During our meeting on May 17, 2000, you indicated that you could reduce all or almost all of the slope heights which were above 40' (e.g., 50'-100') to 40'. However, you stated that that would very likely result in the grading volumes (cy/ac) exceeding the 10,000 cy/ac limitation. You have also indicated that it is impossible to develop the site as proposed without violating the hillside regulations for either slope heights or grading volumes. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps you are proposing an amount or type of development which is inappropriate for the site constraints. Are the industrial lots anticipated too large? Perhaps smaller lots are appropriate. Are there too many residential units proposed? As with other developments proposed in the City, staff expects this project to comply with all applicable regulations. If there is some truly unique circumstance, condition, etc. which makes compliance impossible under a reasonable development scenario, then you will need to explain that circumstance or condition and why the proposed development is reasonable in spite of the circumstance or conditions of the site. Street Cross-Sections 7. We have discussed street cross-sections on several occasions, most recently on May 17. That meeting included the City Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson and Fire Marshal Mike Smith. As a result of that meeting, staff anticipates that you will be evaluating your planned street sections in light of the comments received and, possibly, making some changes as appropriate to address the concerns stated at the meeting. Mike Smith indicated that, although not discussed in detail in the meeting, he did have some particular concerns about locations where the streets transition between industrial and residential uses. Engineering: 1. Alicante Road is showing ADT ranges of an overloaded collector, the projected range is 14,000 ADT. With this in mind, the roadway (Alicante) should not "T" and should not have 90 degree turns to congest and/or restrict the northerly traffic flow. 2. The frontage road from the Villages of La Costa should be shown and should "J" into Street "A". 3. Poinsettia Lane is considered part of this application and should be shown from El Camino Real to Melrose. Existing portions of roadway should be identified. 4. The proposed points of access, future street locations and proposed intersections for aN planning areas should be identified on the Master Tentative Map. The locations should meet or exceed the City's minimum standards for intersections and should be designed for safe vehicular visibility. It may be necessary to identify certain planning areas to share secondary access either through or by splitting planning area boundaries. Consider the City's design standards for cul de sacs or single entry streets. 5. All alignments for all proposed roads should meet or exceed the City Design Standards for Public Streets. Notwithstanding the discussion we have had on street and right of way widths, the horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadways must comply with City Standards. 6. Signalized intersections should be anticipated. A preliminary warrant analysis should be submitted and phasing of signal installation should follow development phasing. 7. Show adjacent intersections on El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, as well as extensions on adjacent street systems, El Fuerte, Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road, and across the street intersections on Ei Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Road. 8. Show adjacent lots, grading, pads, and utility information. 9. Show proposed development phasing. Consider traffic report phasing and committed growth (i.e. 2005 2010 and 2020 traffic model runs). 10. Sewer, Water, Reclaimed Water as well as utility services in general need to be addressed. Master planned sewer systems should be shown and anticipated for development. We have had discussion regarding temporary sewer lift stations as an alternate plan in case adjacent development is not available. We would rather use the City's power of eminent domain to acquire right of way to construct the ultimate improvement up front. We see a temporary pump station as a waste of time & money. 11. A preliminary sewer design study should be provided to address sizing and facility requirements. The same concept applies to water and reclaimed water facilities. 12. A detailed NPDES plan and study will be necessary. Anticipated pollutants should be identified, method of filter or procedures for maintenance of proposed filter systems should be provided. ^^^^ Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 24, 2000 Hofman Planning Associates Bill Hofman Suite 1 50 5900 Pasteur Court Cadsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: BRESSI RANCH MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (CT 00-06), HILLSIDE GRADING EXHIBIT. AND STREET CROSS-SECTIONS Attached is a list of issues of concern to staff for the above-referenced project. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for this application. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 602-4621, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerel ^^^^ ELAINE BLACKBURN, AICP Senior Planner EB:( Mark Rohdick Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Bob Wojcik Skip Hammann Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraclay Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ® ISSUES OF CONCERN Pianning: Master Tentative Map 1. Please remove all lot lines from the exhibits. This is a Master Tentative Map (MTM) and should reflect only the planning areas identified in the Master Plan as discrete "planning areas" (i.e.. Planning Areas 1-14). Until the larger MTM and Master Plan issues are resolved, there is no standard of review for any proposed lots. 2. You have indicated that you wish to mass grade the entire project site in a single phase. Staff cannot offer support for such mass grading. Grading of all 420 acres (the current amount of acreage to be graded) would be premature when some of the proposed development might not occur for 5-10 years after Master Plan approval. 3. The plans submitted show some grading occurring within the HMP hardline areas. Some encroachment can be allowed into the HMP hardline preserve area if it is required for a circulation element roadway. Even so, any such encroachments need to be reduced as much as possible. The encroachments (of this type) shown on your exhibit appear to be small and necessary for El Fuerte. If these proposed encroachments change due to other revisions to the plans, staff will, of course, have to review the resultant changes. 4. You will need to provide an exhibit which clearly identifies the amount of cut and/or fill proposed at all locations on the site. (Such an exhibit was provided previously but would need to be updated to reflect the current proposed grading. The exhibit identified the depth of cut or fill in red (cut) and green (fill) numbers at all points of the site.) 5. As we have discussed in our recent meetings, the relative relationships between pad elevations and separations between the industrial and the residential uses still need to be resolved. The Fire Department, in particular, may have specific concerns or requirements (e.g., buffer areas, etc.) which will need to be incorporated into the Master Plan and the MTM. Staff (Planning and Engineering) is following up with Mike Smith of the Fire Department regarding any such requirements or specific concerns. This is in keeping with the "issues of concern" letter previously provided to you regarding compatibility between the intended uses within the Master Plan. Hillside Non-Compliance Exhibit (dated April 5, 2000) 6. We have discussed the Hillside exhibit dated April 5, 2000, several times by telephone and in meetings, most recently on May 17, 2000. To summarize those discussions, staff cannot support the Hillside regulations violations shown on the exhibit. During our meeting on May 17, 2000, you indicated that you could reduce all or almost all of the slope heights which were above 40' (e.g., 50'-100') to 40'. However, you stated that that would very likely result in the grading volumes (cy/ac) exceeding the 10,000 cy/ac limitation. You have also indicated that it is impossible to develop the site as proposed without violating the hillside regulations for either slope heights or grading volumes. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps you are proposing an amount or type of development which is inappropriate for the site constraints. Are the industrial lots anticipated too large? Perhaps smaller lots are appropriate. Are there too many residential units proposed? As with other developments proposed in the City, staff expects this project to comply with all applicable regulations. If there is some truly unique circumstance, condition, etc. which makes compliance impossible under a reasonable development scenario, then you will need to explain that circumstance or condition and why the proposed development is reasonable in spite of the circumstance or conditions of the site. Street Cross-Sections 7. We have discussed street cross-sections on several occasions, most recently on May 17. That meeting included the City Traffic Engineer Bob Johnson and Fire Marshal Mike Smith. As a result of that meeting, staff anticipates that you will be evaluating your planned street sections in light of the comments received and, possibly, making some changes as appropriate to address the concerns stated at the meeting. Mike Smith indicated that, although not discussed in detail in the meeting, he did have some particular concerns about locations where the streets transition between industrial and residential uses. Engineering: 1. Alicante Road is showing ADT ranges of an overloaded collector, the projected range is 14,000 ADT. With this in mind, the roadway (Alicante) should not "J" and should not have 90 degree turns to congest and/or restrict the northedy traffic flow. 2. The frontage road from the Villages of La Costa should be shown and should "T" into Street "A". 3. Poinsettia Lane is considered part of this application and should be shown from El Camino Real to Melrose. Existing portions of roadway should be identified. 4. The proposed points of access, future street locations and proposed intersections for aN planning areas should be identified on the Master Tentative Map. The locations should meet or exceed the City's minimum standards for intersections and should be designed for safe vehicular visibility. It may be necessary to identify certain planning areas to share secondary access either through or by splitting planning area boundaries. Consider the City's design standards for cul de sacs or single entry streets. 5. All alignments for all proposed roads should meet or exceed the City Design Standards for Public Streets. Notwithstanding the discussion we have had on street and right of way widths, the horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadways must comply with City Standards. 6. Signalized intersections should be anticipated. A preliminary warrant analysis should be submitted and phasing of signal installation should follow development phasing. 1^ 7. Show adjacent intersections on El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, as well as extensions on adjacent street systems, El Fuerte, Poinsettia Lane, Alicante Road, and across the street intersections on El Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Road. 8. Show adjacent lots, grading, pads, and utility information. 9. Show proposed development phasing. Consider traffic report phasing and committed growth (i.e. 2005 2010 and 2020 traffic model runs). 10. Sewer, Water, Reclaimed Water as well as utility services in general need to be addressed. Master planned sewer systems should be shown and anticipated for development. We have had discussion regarding temporary sewer lift stations as an alternate plan in case adjacent development is not available. We would rather use the City's power of eminent domain to acquire right of way to construct the ultimate improvement up front. We see a temporary pump station as a waste of time & money. 11. A preliminary sewer design study should be provided to address sizing and facility requirements. The same concept applies to water and reclaimed water facilities. 12. A detailed NPDES plan and study will be necessary. Anticipated pollutants should be identified, method of filter or procedures for maintenance of proposed filter systems should be provided. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 5, 2000 Hofman Planning Associates Mike Howes Suite 150 5900 Pasteur Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 00-006 - BRESSI RANCH MASTER TENTATIVE MAP Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Cadsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Master Tentative Map, application no. CT 00-006, as to its completeness for processing. it has been staff's intent with this (and other similar) projects to review and process the legislative and the non-legislative actions concurrently with one caveat: that, as a technical matter, the non-legislative actions must be held incomplete until the legislative actions are approved. Otherwise, the non-legislative actions proposed are not consistent with the adopted zoning, etc. and are not approvable. Again, this "incompleteness" status of the non-legislative actions is a technicality only. Staff will process the plans (legislative and non-legislative) concurrently. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 602-4621, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerel J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH.EB.cs Mark Rohrlick Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Bob Wojcik Skip Hammann Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^