Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLFMP 08; LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 08; Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS - MANAGEMENT ZONE 8 201-101-12 201-101-15 208-020-28 208-020-30 212-010-03 212-010-05 212-010-07 212-010-11 212-010-12 212-010-13 212-080-19 212-080-20 APPLICATi .A SUBMITTAL DATE: NOVEMBER 10. 1987 DATE: JULY 6, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION SUBJECT: LFMP 8 - KELLY RANCH - Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2759 DENYING LFMP 8 based on the findings attached therein. II. BACKGROUND The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 was accepted by the City on November 16, 1987. Although both City staff and the applicant's consultant have devoted considerable attention to the plan, it would be premature to recommend approval at this time. III. DISCUSSION California Government Code Section 65950 requires that development projects shall be approved or disapproved within six months from which an application requesting approval has been accepted as being complete. Section 65957 allows the time limits established by the previous section to be extended once for a period not to exceed 90 days upon consent of the public agency and the applicant. As the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 is not yet in a condition where staff may recommend approval and the state mandated time constraints require action, staff's recommendation is for denial without prejudice. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2759 BH:dm 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 _ _ ofNOTICE OF DETERMINATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT IF TELEPHONE | L E (619)438-1161 Robert D. Zumwatt,Ctak fi! FEB 231989" * County Clerk County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 February 8, 1989 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on February 7, 1989, approved the following project: Project Title: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8 88050401 Keith Lee (916) 445-4831 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Project Address/Location: East end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Project Description: Public Facilities Adequacy Analysis This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of this project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. MICHAEL J. HOLTMILLEF Planning Director 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE m^Jnfl J» • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 W¥»wJrM (619)438-1161^rf^y (Tttu of (tolatrafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION December 30, 1988 Kaufman & Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 8 At the Planning Commission meeting of December 21, 1988, your application was considered. The Commission voted 4-3 to approve your request. Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. , MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER^ Planning Director MJH:af Enclosures: Resolution Nos. 2805 and 2806 and Broad of San Diego, I 12520 High Biult Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Received Kaufman A Broad CITY OF CARLSBAD DEVELOP. PROC. SERV. DIY, January 21, 1988 Philip 0. Carter Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Phil: We have received the letter dated January 15, 1988 from Brian Hunter establishing a June 1, 1988 Planning Commission hearing on the Zone 8 Local Facility Plan. We also received your letter dated January 13, 1988 summarizing the two technical meetings that were held last week regarding this plan. As you know, we have scheduled a follow-up meeting next week to provide you with a complete package which responds to the additional information and revisions that you have enumerated at these meetings and in your letter. The purpose of this letter is to simply reiterate comments that I've made regarding the important progress that we are making in the processing of this Zone Plan. I am extremely pleased with the fact that you have set up a specific department to process only Zone Plans, as well as the spirit of cooperation that has been exhibited in our meetings. I feel that with your leadership and the team that has been formed, these Plans will be able to be processed in an expeditious manner. To this extent, we will do everything within our abilities and under our control to maximize our responsiveness to your requests for additional information. Hopefully, this will allow us to improve upon the hearing dates. To this extent, I believe that Turrini and Brink, the Hofman Company, Urban Systems Associates, and VTN collectively provide an excellent team which will develop an exemplary Plan. Obviously, there will need to be additional coordination with other City departments, specifically the Park and Recreation Department, since a large portion of the Zone 8 Plan covers the Marcario Canyon Park. As you know, we are pursuing, on a separate course, the issue of concurrent processing for maps at Kelly Ranch. We will obviously need to keep you appraised as to the status of that issue. Again, I want to thank you for your assistance and responsiveness over the last two weeks. I sincerely look forward to working with your department on the processing of this Plan. Needless to say, the processing of the Local Facilities Management Plan remains a top priority for the Kelly Ranch project. Sincerely Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Marty Orenyak Mike Holzmiller^, Brian Hunters/' Steve Jantz Steve Flint Bill Hofman Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman A Broad January 19, 1988 Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Kelly Ranch Concurrent Processing Dear Mike: As you and I have discussed, Kaufman and Broad continues to seek the ability to concurrently process at least certain maps within the Kelly Ranch project in conjunction with the processing of the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan. We have received a schedule from the City which projects a Local Facility Management Plan hearing before the Planning Commission in June, 1988. This is approximately 1\ months from the date the plan was finally accepted for processing. It is my understanding from recent conversations with you, that your staff is preparing a policy that would not allow the concurrent processing of Tentative Maps with a Local Facility Management Plan. Such a policy which does not allow concurrent processing creates a number of unnecessary hardships to this project which include: 1. The Tentative Maps for Kelly Ranch Parcels E and I, (which total, based on recent redesign, approximately 250 units) have been on hold at the City since the imposition of the City's new Growth Management Ordinance. We have effectively been unable to process those maps for well over two years. In addition, no other maps at Kelly Ranch can be processed. 2. Prior to the imposition of the City's Growth Management Ordinance, we received approval from the City of our Phase 1 Grading Plans and were able to complete the majority of the grading for Cannon Road through Kelly Ranch (Reach 2). This grading occurred in 1985 and, since that time, we have been unable to recoup that investment through the processing and development of any parcels on Kelly Ranch. 3. The Costa Real Municipal Water District is moving toward the design and, then, the construction of the water Michael Holzmiller January 20, 1988 Page 2 reservoir and related infrastructure at Kelly Ranch. These facilities will serve not only Kelly Ranch, but areas to the west of Kelly Ranch, including the Terramar area. We believe that the Water District will be reluctant to continue the design work and begin construction without assurances that development (i.e. the processing of Tentative Maps at Kelly Ranch) will occur in a timely fashion. 4. Kelly Ranch is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, we may be precluded from grading after September 30 of each year. Our inability to process Tentative Maps for Parcels E and I would potentially delay the grading of these parcels and significantly impact our development of housing on these sites. 5. We continue to work with the property owners on the formation of the Cannon Road Assessment District. We believe that the formation of that District should relate to the ability to process maps and move forward on the development of the Kelly Ranch project. 6. We have worked with the City staff for over a year on the preparation and processing of the Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 8. To that extent, we have agreed to pay for all of the City's costs for that portion of the Plan which covers Marcario Park. We appear to be making important progress in the processing of that Plan; however, the current schedule results in a period of approximately 6 months (from today) whereby no other planning or processing can occur. This obviously effects every development schedule on the Kelly Ranch project. 7. We have completed the enhancement of the Agua Hedionda wetland area, per our Coastal Commission Permit. As part of that permit, we have recorded an offer to dedicate the 200 acres of wetland to the Wildlife Conservation Board, as well as established open space easements over the Upland portions of Kelly Ranch. Inasmuch as we have moved forward in good faith on the enhancement and dedication of the wetland and open space areas, we believe that it would be prudent for us to be able to process maps in a timely fashion. The processing of Parcels E and I would, at the very worst, Michael Holzmiller January 20, 1988 Page 3 provide neither benefit nor detriment to the City in the processing of the Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 8. However, we believe that the processing of these two maps would be an actual benefit to the City inasmuch as it would provide a more detailed description of the type and location of development for specific areas within Kelly Ranch. Importantly, we recognize that the Local Facility Management Plan would be processed concurrent with these Tentative Maps and that it would be our obligation to ensure coordination between these two processes. This can be done easily and would not jeopardize the processing of either document. In addition, we assume that the Tentative Map would not be approved until the Local Facility Management Plan is approved. Therefore, there is no risk to the City or violation of the City's Growth Management Ordinance. In summary, Kaufman and Broad has and will continue to act in good faith in the processing of the Local Facility Management Plan and all related projects at Kelly Ranch to the benefit of both the property owner and the City. We have no intention of attempting to circumvent the Growth Management Ordinance, and simply request that we be treated similar to other property owners who have been able to concurrently process maps while their Local Facility Management Plan is processed. We believe that, at minimum, Parcels E and I at Kelly Ranch are unique inasmuch as they have been on file with the City since 1985. As you know, recently your staff has informally reviewed a redesign of these maps which was necessary to meet the new City ordinances. This redesign has resulted in a significant reduction in density on both of these sites. Much of the work, therefore, has already been completed and their concurrent processing should not, in our opinion, add appreciably to the staff time. I appreciate your consideration in this matter and would be glad to sit down with you and discuss in more detail. Sincer Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Marty Orenyak Phil Carter 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT B*O\JM (619)438-1161 pP of Carte&ab January 7, 1988 Steve Flint c/o Turrini & Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Flint: This letter will serve to briefly summarize the content of yesterday's meeting regarding the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Mr. Jantz is responsible for the City's review of engineering information, while I am responsible for everything else. Questions to the City should be routed through either one of us depending upon subject matter. You are the key contact from the consultant side and will be responsible for our questions. General questions raised at the meeting concerned the accuracy of phasing, the possible necessity for a Master Plan Amendment, the potential for concurrent processing, and sewer and circulation methodologies. All environmental documents referenced directly or indirectly will be provided to City Staff. All scheduling of meetings will be done through Phil Carter. A specific Planning Commission Public Hearing date will be provided on or before January 15, 1988. A general, non-technical meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., January 11, 1988 in this office. An engineering meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., January 13, 1988 at the same location. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to all property owners in the zone. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure cc: Steve Jantz Phil Carter 8) 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT M^O/ tfM (619) 438-1161 Citp of Cartelmb January 6, Kaufman & Broad of San Diego, Inc. Attn: Brian Milich 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 A Local Facilities Management Plan is being prepared for Management Zone 8 by Turrini & Brink, Planing Consultants. As a property owner in this zone you will receive copies of correspondence from the City of Carlsbad to the consultant. If you have any questions regarding the contents of the correspondence, please contact the consultant's representative, Steve Flint at (714) 835-1691. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BWH:bj n c: Steve Flint Phil Carter Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Guito 120 :-;uii Diogo. California 92130 uila) 259-6000 Kaufman A Broad 1987November 17, 1987 ^AK<,m DEPARTMENT CifYOF CAftLSSAO Phil Carter Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan Dear Phil: We are extremely pleased that the City has accepted the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan for processing. As you know, we are anxious to move forward on the Kelly Ranch project and are seeking ways to assist the City in processing this Zone Plan, At your earliest convenience, we would like to meet with you and other representatives of the city, along with the consultants involved in the plan, to discuss the processing requirements and outline a work program. I strongly believe that such a meeting with key staff members and our consultants would help define the processing steps and best allow us to allocate our resources to assist you in your review. I will contact your office to schedule such a meeting. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerel Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Mike Holzmiller "Tslancy Rollman Gary Wayne Bill Cardon Doug Boyd Steve Flint PLANNING CONSULTANTS^ • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job #149-012 November 13, 1987 Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Planning Dept., City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Dear Michael: On Friday, November 13, 1987, we were informed by your staff that the draft Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8 has been accepted for processing. In response, we are submitting herewith 15 copies of the Management Plan and a check for $10,000, as required. We will be in contact with you soon to arrange a meeting to discuss the processing of the plan for review and schedul- ing of this project for hearing. We look forward to working with you and your staff in completing this Management Zone Plan successfully. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK Douglas P. Boyd Principal DPB/can cc: Brian Milich Nancy Rollman Phil Carter encl. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab November 16, 1987 Mr. Brian Milich Kaufman and Broad 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 Dear Mr. Milich: Staff has reviewed your recent circulation submittal for the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. The Engineering Department has concluded that this submittal is adequate to accept for technical review. However, they noted several areas of conflict between the analysis and conclusions. Attached is a copy of the City Engineer's comments for your review. These items must be resolved as part of the technical review process. As indicated earlier, with the acceptance of the circulation data, your plan is now acceptable for a complete technical review. Please provide 15 copies of the plan along with a $10,000 processing check so that the plan may be officially accepted. When these are received, staff will begin its technical review of the plan. After staff has begun its technical review, a schedule for processing will be established pursuant to the Growth Management Program. I will call you to discuss this when it has been prepared. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:dm November 13, 1987 TO: Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst FROM: City Engineer ZONE 8 TRAFFIC Engineering has completed review of the November 9, 1987 revision of the Zone 8 Traffic Analysis. The latest revisions appear to have ad- dressed many of our earlier concerns, and are adequate to accept for detailed technical analysis. We have, however, noted several areas of conflict between the analysis and the conclusions. Our primary concern relates to the timing for the extension of Cannon Road from Kelly Ranch to 1-5. The Zone Analysis assumes this connection will occur prior to Phase 3 (1990), but makes no provisions for implementation. The study specifically excludes this connection in its analysis and conclusion. Engineering feels this is a significant inconsistency. From our recent analysis of the Barton-Aschman Study, it has been con- cluded that zone circulation analysis cannot logically proceed without assumptions regarding major circulation linkage. As a part of this re- view, it has been determined that Cannon Road west of El Camino Real is required prior to 1990. Kelly Ranch is a key element in the provision of this linkage. It is our opinion that Cannon is required in the central city core to re- duce short term impacts on Palomar Airport Road (PAR), Tamarack Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Of particular concern is the PAR/1-5 interchange. The plan should incorporate the need for Cannon Road and provide for financing. If the Cannon Road connection is not provided, the analysis of Phases III and IV will have to be revised to reflect impacts on Tamarack, PAR and the PAR/1-5 interchange. Under the analysis of Phases I and II, it is stated, "As area-wide street improvements are completed, the volume of through traffic on Tamarack Avenue is expected to reduce. Such a reduction in through traffic would offset increases in traffic attributed to Zone 8 on Tamarack Avenue." This statement is not substantiated by facts. In Engineering's opinion, the only improvement in the area which could accomplish this reduction would be the Cannon Road extension which has not been proposed. Page 2 To: Phil Carter re Zone 8 Traffic November 13, 1987 Staff will require more detailed analysis of the impacts on Tamarack Avenue than those currently presented in the report. This will involve a detailed analysis of existing capacity and safety conditions along the street. Of particular concern are the intersections of Tamarack with 1-5, Adams, Highland Drive, Valley, Park, Sunnyhill Drive and Skyline Road. Tam- arack is a narrow, heavily traveled street, with numerous stop inter- sections and heavy pedestrian and school traffic. Thorough evaluation of this roadway is critical, particularly if Cannon Road is not extended. As a final comment, staff has not yet reviewed detailed intersection ICU calculations, and find many too small to review. Full size copies should be provided for the final technical analysis to proceed. Further data may be required as more detailed analysis is completed. LLOYpf B. HUBBS City Engineer LBH/pmj cc: D. Mauser C. Kubli R. Johnson S. Jantz TU PLANNING CONSULTANTS^ • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CAUF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job NO. 149-012 November 10, 1987 Phillip 0. Carter Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Phil: In response to Nancy Rollman's letter to Brian Mi lien, dated October 29, 1987, we are submitting four (4) copies of the revised traffic analysis and text for the Circula- tion Section of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. As your letter indicates, we will expect your re- sponse on the acceptability of this resubmittal within 24 hours. We look forward to your acceptance of this portion of the Plan so we can proceed with its processing as quickly as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK DPB/tml Enclosure cc: Michael Holzmiller Brian Milich Nancy Rollman PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALM AS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Cttp of Cartefcab October 29, 1987 Brian Milich Kaufman & Broad 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 RE: ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Milich: Staff has completed the content review of the revised submittal of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. We have concluded that the plan will be acceptable as soon as the attached required traffic information is provided. Upon receipt of the information, staff will respond to you within 24 hours as to its acceptability. Traffic will be the only section revised. When you are ready to submit the additional information, please submit 4 copies of just the traffic circulation chapter and appendix. If these items are submitted between November 2-10, please address the package to Phil Carter, since I will be on vacation. Call one of us if you have any questions. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD ^V\ , 0 nn/UIAX^A-V c^cLi(Lxxvv^xo>-^___.f\ \ NANCY E. OLLMAN Associate Planner arb Attachment cc: Michael Holzmiller Phil Carter Gary Wayne Dave Hauser Charles Kubli Sam Kab, U.S. A Steve Flint, Turrini & Brink MEMORANDUM October 27, 1987 TO: PROJECT PLANNER - NANCY ROLLMAN FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ZONE 8 CIRCULATION Over the last month or so Engineering staff has been meeting with various traffic engineering, civil engineering and planning consultants for the purpose of establishing procedures guideline and criteria for the preparation of the circulation elements of the local facilities plans. One clarification we established iayWas\ requirement that each plan must identify and deal with impacted intersections on a phase by phase basis. In light of this we have again reviewed the Zone 8 plan and found that it does not adequately address phased impacts. Whereas the raw data is available in the traffic study to determine impacted intersections and segments by phase, no attempt was made to analyze these impacted facilities and to incorporate the analysis or mitigation into the report. In order for the Engineering Department to consider the plan complete we will need to see an analysis, level of service calcs and any proposed mitigation for the following impacted facilities: PHASE I INTERSECTIONS Tamarack @ 1-5 South Tamarack 01-5 North Tamarack @ Adams Tamarack @ Highland Tamarack @ Park Dr. El Camino Real @ Chestnut El Camino Real @ Tamarack El Camino Real @ Kelly El Camino Real @ Cannon El Camino Real @ College El Camino Real @ Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road @ Yarrow Palomar Airport Road @ Camino Vida Robel Palomar Airport Road @ College Boulevard Palomar Airport Road 9 Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Road @ 1-5 North Palomar Airport Road 9 1-5 South October 27, 1987 Zone 8 Circulation Page: 2 SEGMENTS Tamarack between 1-5 south and Park Drive El Camino Real between Chestnut and Palomar Airport Road Park Drive between Valencia and Kelly Drive Cannon Road from Faraday to El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to 1-5 south PHASE II Same as Phase I PHASE III (Assume Cannon Required) INTERSECTIONS Cannon Road @ El Camino Real Cannon Road @ Faraday Cannon Road @ Paseo Del Norte Cannon Road 51-5 North Cannon Road @ 1-5 South SEGMENTS Park Drive between Valencia and Kelly Drive Cannon Road from El Camino Real to 1-5 south PHASE IV Same as Phase III plus the following: INTERSECTIONS El Camino Real 9 Kelly Drive SEGMENT El Camino Real between Kelly Dr. and Cannon Road October 27, 1987 Zone 8 Circulation Page: 3 BUILDOUT Same as Phase IV I've Included a copy of the draft criteria and guideline for determining impacted intersections and segments. This criteria was prepared in concert with Mr. Schafley of Urban Systems Associates and should therefore be familiar and understandable to him. We regret any inconvenience for raising this issue so late in the review, but in the words of Mr. Holzmiller "Traffic is a moving target". This is especially true with regards to the preparation of zone plans DAVID A. MAUSER Assistant City Engineer DAHrrp c: City Engineer Phil Carter Charles Kubli Attachment Criteria for Identifying Impacted Road Segments and Intersections The performance standard for circulation reads as follows: No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a service level C during off-peak hours, nor service level D during peak hours. Impacted means where twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facilities Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. The wording of this standard is somewhat vague and subject to some interpretation. Therefore, the City Engineer in conjunction with the Planning Department has prepared the following clarification and assumptions to the standard; 1. All road segments and intersections within and immediately adjacent to the zone boundary shall be considered impacted by the zone at all phases. 2. For the purpose of determining which intersections and segments are impacted by 20 percent or more of the zone traffic, only external traffic shall be considered. In other words, only trips into and out of the zone are counted. Trips internal to the zone are not counted. 3. Impacts to the external roads and intersections shall be considered during each zone phase. The circulation study for the zone should include impacted traffic maps by phase, similar to the included sample maps. 4. Unless specifically requested by the City staff, off peak hour impacts need not be considered. (See section dealing with level of service criteria.) 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT YHLfW (619)438-1161 ^p7 dtp of Carlgtmb October 27, 1987 Mr. Brian Milich Kaufman & Broad 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 Dear Mr. Milich: In reference to your letter requesting concurrent processing for parcels E and I of your master plan, staff has reviewed our files and has determined that a local plan must be approved before these parcels can be processed. After the approval of the Growth Management Ordinance and the adoption of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, a list was prepared in late September, 1986 which showed the status of all projects. Both parcels E and I were put on hold until the local plan is approved for Zone 8. Staff is in the process of preparing a policy which would allow the City to consider concurrent processing in some instances. When this policy is finalized and approved, we will consider your request again. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Sr. Management Analyst arb c: Michal J. Holzmiller Gary Wayne Nancy Rollman October 26, 1987 TO: N. ROLLMAN, Planning Department FROM: C. KUBLI, Engineering Department ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN The circulation portion of the plan for Zone 8 fails to meet the performance standard as defined: "No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a service level C, etc..." Impacted means where 20% or more of the traffic generated by the local facility management zone will use the road segment or intersection. Appendix C, Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 indicate that road segments and intersections out of Zone 8 will be impacted, particularly along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. However, no discussion in the study addresses mitigation per phases or as per ultimate build out. Zone 8 plan is to incorporate in its discussion findings as per the other zone plans, particularly Zones 1, 2 and 5. CHARLES KUBLI R E. Associate Civil Engineer CEK:dr PLANNING CONSULTANTS* • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA AN A, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job NO. 149-012 October 2, 1987 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 ATTENTION: Nancy Rollman SUBJECT: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 8 Dear Ms. Rollman: In response to the comments included in your letter dated September 18, 1987 and to the items we discussed with you, Phil Carter, Gary Wayne and Charles Kubli at our meeting on September 28, 1987 we are submitting the enclosed revised Sections of the Facilities Plan for your review. The revisions address the following according to your letter: 1. Phasing Plan - Section 2.6 has been revised to reflect both residential and non-residential development in Zone 8. Phasing for Macario Park has been extrapolated from the 1981 Master Plan. Phases have been designated by year. 2. Parks - The inventory of facilities in District 1 has been extracted from AB #9129 and applied to phasing. 3. Drainage - The map has been revised to show topo and basins, and facilities in Macario Park as per the Master Plan. Assumptions and calculations for flows have been included. Planning Department City of Carlsbad LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 8 October 2, 1987 Page 2 4. Circulation - 1:200 scale maps for Cannon Rd. from Faraday Dr. to Paseo del Norte were submitted to you at our meeting on September 28. Reference to the drawing number for easterly Cannon Rd. has been included in the text. 5. Sewer - The map has been revised, technical assumptions have been expanded as per the Citywide Plan, and pro- jected utilization by phase has been added to the text. 6. Water - The map has been revised, technical assumptions expanded and utilization by phase projected. These changes address all of the comments made to date. The plan is now ready for acceptance and processing. In addition, the Environmental Assessment required by Phil Carter has been submitted for review. We are prepared to submit 15 copies of the plan in three- ring binders, as you requested, together with the process- ing fee, immediately. We are most anxious to initiate the formal review process and are available to assist you in any way to expedite it. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK JP. Principal DPB/tml Enclosure cc: Brian Milich Michael Holzmiller Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman A Broad September 29, 1987 Michael Holzmiller ^ Planning Director " City of Carlsbad /•• 1200 Elm Avenue r/^c Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Local Facility Management Plan - Zone 8 Dear Mike: On September 28, 1987 our consultants and I met with Nancy Rollman, Gary Wayne and Phil Carter regarding the Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 8. Specifically, we discussed areas where the staff felt they needed some additional detail prior to acceptance of the zone plan. In an attempt to expedite the processing of the zone plan, we have scheduled a subsequent meeting for October 6, 1987 to review the follow-up information with Nancy Rollman We are, however, very concerned with the timing of the processing of the Local Facility Management Plan. We understand from discussions with your staff that it is currently taking approx- imately 7 months from the day the plan is accepted to reach a public hearing. This is based upon schedules for the Hunt and La Costa zone plans. Our inability to proceed with any other planning or entitlement processing through the City of Carlsbad until the Local Facility Management Plan is approved (i.e., a minimum of 7 months) severely impacts our project in terms of both time and cost. As we discussed with your staff at our meeting, we are seeking ways to expedite the processing of our Local Facility Management Plan and/or concurrently process tentative maps, such as Parcels E and I, in conjunction with the review of the Local Facility Management Plan. The tentative maps for Parcels E and I were submitted in late 1985 and have been on file with the Planning Department since that time. We would like to explore possibilities including staffing needs, which would assist the city in shortening the review time for Mike Holzmiller September 29, 1987 Page 2 the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan processing, as well as a method of concurrent processing of at least certain maps for parcels within Kelly Ranch. We believe there would be benefits to the city in reviewing the specific details of tentative maps in Kelly Ranch at the same time the Local Facility Management Plan moves forward. It would not only provide the city more detail at this time, but would avoid a rush of maps when the Local Facility Management Plan is ultimately approved. Although we have these concerns, we contine to work towards the formation of the Cannon Road Assessment District or identifying some other acceptable alternative that would allow the necessary infrastructure to be constructed while the participating projects develop. I would like to discuss these thoughts with you in more detail and will be in touch to set up a meeting. Sincerely, Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Ray Patchett Marty Orenyak "'Nancy Rollman Phil Carter Bill Cardon 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT H*OF JM (619)438-1161 Citp of Cartebab September 18, 1987 Douglas P. Boyd, Principal Turrini & Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701 RE: ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Boyd: The Zone 8 Plan, as officially submitted on August 20, 1987, is unacceptable per the guideline items as follows (numbers refer to the requirements beginning on page 58 in the Citywide Plan): 1. Phasing. Page 65 States that all development activity (including non-residential) must be shown in a phasing schedule. The Master Plan shows Recreational Commercial (RC) Where does it fit in the phasing schedule on page 27 of your plan? What is the phasing for Macario Park? Please phase by year, not numbers. 2. Parks. Page 61 ii. (top of page) This list for Park District 1 must be included to verify the acreage and to allow updating for periodic changes to park classifications. 3. Drainage. Page 62 i. Map is unacceptable— cannot read topography lines. Indicate basins. ii. Incomplete - show facilities in Macario Park. iii. Missing. 4. Circulation. Page 61 i. Must provide 1:200 scale map of Cannon Road west from Faraday to Paseo del Norte. Reference City Drawing No. for that approved portion of Cannon from El Camino Real to Faraday. 5. Sewer Collection System. Page 64 i. Map is unacceptable — cannot read topography lines. iii. Incomplete, iv. Missing. 6. Water Distribution System, Page 65 i. Missing, ii. Missing, iii. Missing. Page 2 The information listed on the previous page must be provided before the plan can be accepted for further processing. Please call me if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss any questions. Sincerely, NANCY E. ROLLMAN Associate Planner NER:dm cc: Brian Milich Philip Carter Gary Wayne Charles Kubli PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 City of Cartebab September 2, 1987 Brian Milich KAUFMAN & BROAD 12520 High Bluff Drive, Ste 120 San Diego, CA 92130 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 8 Dear Mr. Milich: Although the guidelines for the preparation of a Local Facilities Management Plan did not specifically require the submittal of an Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I, the City Attorney has determined these plans to be projects under CEQA and, therefore, are subject to all CEQA requirements. As a result, you will be required to provide this information to the City for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8 as soon as possible. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements. If you have any questions please contact the Planner coordinating the Zone Plan review. Sincerely, PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bj n c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Nancy Rollman TUDDini^dlilHk PLANNING CONSULTANTS^,1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job #149-012 August 20, 1987 Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 Dear Michael: We have reviewed the comments made by Planning Department staff in the letter dated May 22, 1987 regarding the ini- tial submittal of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. In response to these comments, we have made the following revisions and/or additions to the document. 1) Exhibit 5 has been retitled "General Plan". Table 7 now shows the number of dwelling units. The Phasing Plan has remained essentially the same with buildout scheduled to occur in four years. The first phase of development will begin in 1988. The Plan for Zone 8 iiicludes justif icatLion for the pro- posed schedule. " "" ~~ Tables 8 (Administrative Facilities) and 9 (Capital Improvements Program) have been revised using City information. The library facilities section has been totally re- vised per Council's action on July 7, 1987. The sewer information has been updated and expanded to include new background analysis. /5) v/6) Michael J. Holzmiller Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 August 20, 1987 Page 2 x/ 7) Similarly, the information on parks has been updated and expanded. \/8) Exhibit 11 (Phasing) has been expanded to show all of Zone 8. v/ 9) Exhibit 12 (Street Classifications) has been revised to show zone boundaries and City numbers have been used for ADT. 10) The section on traffic conditions and circulation has been revised to reflect staff's comments. l) We have researched your requirement for the vertical and horizontal alignment plans for Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue (l"=200r scale) and have determined that the City Engineering Department currently has this information. \/ 12) The discussion on fire has been revised and expanded to include discussion on relocation of Fire Station #3 and the five minute response time. \/13) The open space section has been revised per staff's direction. ^/14) In the section on schools, all references to the City have been deleted. 15) Additional language regarding the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor, its phasing, and its financing mechanisms has been inserted. 16) A new section on mitigation/special conditions has been added to the Zone 8 document format. We have also included an Executive Summary as staff suggested. 17) We have also attached to this letter, as staff re- quested, a summary of environmental reports and stud- ies that have been prepared for projects located within Zone 8. Michael J. Holzmiller Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 August 20, 1987 Page 3 With these changes having been made and incorporated into the document, the draft should now be complete for accep- tance by the Planning Department for processing. As you know, the City Council authorized the preparation of the facilities plan on Tuesday, August 18. We are, therefore, submitting fifteen copies of this draft to initiate the 30 day review. We would appreciate a meeting with you and your staff at your earliest convenience to discuss how we proceed during this 30 day review process and a schedule for processing the plan through City Council approval. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter and we will contact you to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRLNK DPB/can attachment: Revised Zone 8 L.F.M. Plan (15 copies) Env. Documentation Summary cc: Brian Milich Bob Galloway Nancy Rollman ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The following is a summary of the environmental reports and studies that have been prepared for projects located within Management Zone 8. Environmental Impact Report for The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, prepared by the City of Carlsbad - This EIR defines and evaluates the land use and circulation needs within the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Area. This document also provides a comprehensive analysis of other environmental factors including hydrology, biology, cultural resources and geotechnical considerations. Macario Canyon Park Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. - This EIR provides an evaluation of the Macario Canyon Park Development Plan located in the southern portion of Zone 8. A complete environmental assessment was provided within the report including geotechnical, drainage, biological, cultural, land use, aesthetics, traffic, air quality, noise, and public service effects. The document also acknowledged the alignment of Cannon Road as established in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. EIR 83-4 Kelly Ranch General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. Inc. -This document fully evaluated the environmental effects associ- ated with the development of the Kelly Ranch in the north- ern half of Zone 8. This EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA requirements and was certified by the City Coun- cil on November 15, 1983. Supplemental Environmental Studies for Kelly Ranch Master Plan/Specific Plan, prepared by Ultra Systems, Inc. - This documentation was prepared to address various environmental factors associated with the Kelly Ranch Master Plan. This document analyzed archaeology, biology, traffic and circu- lation soils and geology, air quality, and public services and utilities, as a supplement to EIR 83-4. Kauffhan and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman A Broad July 2, 1987 Ms. Nancy Rollman Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Ms. Rollman: Based upon our conversations, Kaufman and Broad wishes to proceed with the processing of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, please schedule our request to prepare the Zone 8 Plan for City Council authorization, as an informational item, at the next available Council hearing. As you know, on April 24, 1987, we submitted a draft plan for Zone 8 for your department's review. Based on meetings with you and other city staff, we have made additional changes to that document which, we believe, respond to your comments. Zone 8 consists of three land holdings: the 430 acre Kelly Ranch (owned by KelCal, of which Kaufman and Broad is a partner), the 22 acre Kirgis Parcel (see attached letter of authorization from Howard G. Kirgis dated January 29, 1987), and the 276.5 acre Macario Canyon Park (owned by the City of Carlsbad). Attached is a listing of the consultants involved in the plan preparation. We had previously requested that the city share in the cost of plan preparation and processing in accordance with Section 21.90.120 of Ordinance No. 9808 (see attached letter from B. Galloway to F. Aleshire, March 5, 1987). However, we understand from discussions with the city staff, that the city does not currently have funds available for such plan preparation and processing. Therefore, we are not requesting reimbursement at this time and are advancing all funds necessary to prepare and process the Zone 8 plan. Ms. Nancy Rollman July 2, 1987 Page 2 We appreciate your assistance in preparing the plan to date, and look forward to continuing to work with the city on processing to approval the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Bill Garden Kevin Kirk Bob Galloway Turrini and Brink Exhibit I ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 212-010-03 As owner(si of the above parcel located within Zone 8 of the Carlsbad Local Facility Management Zone hereby agree to the preparation of the Zone 8 Plan by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California/ Inc. on behalf of Kel-Cal, owners of the Kelly Ranch. It is understood that the consultants to be used will be: 1. Turrini and Brink - Planning Consultants 2. VTN San Diego - Consulting Civil Engineer 3. Woodside & Kubota - Consultants on Water Distribution System 4. William N, Hofman - Consultant It is also understood that all fees in connection with the preparation, submission and approval of the subject Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 8 will be paid for by others, and there will be no financial obligation against the subject property either now or in the future in connection with said submission and approval. Date Date Howard Prepared for: KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SAN DIEGO. INC. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 (619) 259-6000 Plan Preparation & Processing: TURRINI & BRINK, PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 835-1691 Water Facilities: WOODSIDE/KUBOTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2585 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-1194 Sewer & Drainage Facilities: VTN SOUTHWEST, INC. 5451 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 931-1022 Circulation: URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 4540 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 106 San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 560-4911 ivautmon and Broad home corporation 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. California 90025-1748 (213)312-5000 Kaufman A Broad March 5, 1987 ^•; City of Carlsbad •'.'^ 1200 Elm Ave. ^•v Carlsbad, California 92008 i'.f ;; Attn: Frank Aleshire, City Manager .} Re: Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan for '"-;; Management Zone 8 V>7 Dear Mr. Aleshire: vj Management Zone 8 is comprised of three property ownerships ''!: as follows: Property/Ownership Gross Area (Acres) Kelly Ranch/Kel-Cal 432.8 Kirgis 22.0 Macario Park/City of Carlsbad 276.5 (^Excluding leased land.) Under the terms of Chapter 21.90 of the City's Growth Management Ordinance (No. 9808), the Local Facilities Management Plan for any specific zone can be prepared by a group of owners or an owner with the approval of the others, and the cost shared on a pro-rata basis. We have already received written approval from Mr. Kirgis to prepare the plan on his behalf. We now respectfully request approval of the City of Carlsbad to: 1. Allow Kaufman and Broad (on behalf of Kel-Cal) to prepare the Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8 using the services of the consultant team attached as Exhibit A. City of Carlsbad March 5, 1987 Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager Page 2 2. Share in the cost of the Plan preparation and approval in accordance with Section 21.90.120 of Ordinance No. 9808 We would appreciate your early review and consideration in this matter, and if necessary, having this request presented to City Council for their approval. Respectfully submitted, Robert M. Galloway Senior Vice President RMG/mel encls. cc: Micheal Holzmiller, Planning Director Bruce Karatz Clyde Lane Kevin Kirk 3332 Pinotsge Court Son Jose, California 95135 January 29, 1987 fair. Robert X. Galloway Senior Vice President i'fjufman a- 3road 116C1 i.ilshire Boulevard Los Angelos, California 900^5-1743 jep.r iir. Galloway: 1987 TECHNICAL SERVICES OEPJ, Thank you for your efforts on my "behalf regarding my undeveloped pro- perty in Carlsbad. In preparing the proposal, I trust that due consideration be given to my need of access to my property. In this regard, attention is directed to the existing easements which I hold and which are recorded in San Diego. I hope to stop to see you in the near future at which time v;e can discuss our mutual probleas in greater detail. In-the-meantime, good luck for a speedy resolution of these problems with the city of Carlsbad. Sincerely, Howard G. Xirgis 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT V^-^M (619)438-1161 ^cr^^r Citp of Cartebab Dune 18, 1987 Mr. Brian D. Mllich Kaufman and Broad 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 Dear Mr. Milich: I'm writing to clarify Kaufman and Broad's authorization to prepare the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 and to respond to your letter dated Dune 11, 1987. Let me start by indicating Kaufman and Broad has not received approval to do this Local Plan. Staff had agreed to authorize Kaufman and Broad to do the plan provided that the City would not be required to reimburse Kaufman and Broad for any costs incurred in preparing this plan now or at any time in the future. Following our receipt of an April 22, 1987 letter from Douglas P. Boyd, Senior Principal of Turrini & Brink indicating the City's associated costs would be assumed by Kaufman and Broad, staff accepted your draft plan for review. Subsequently, we received a second letter from Mr. Boyd on Dune 4 stating, "Kaufman and Broad has not accepted this obligation and will expect the City to contribute its fair share of the preparation costs." This statement clearly contradicts the first letter of April 22. However, we are ready to bring Kaufman and Broad's request to receive official authorization to prepare the Local Plan for Zone 8 to the City Council as authorized by the Growth Management Program. Staff requested at our meeting on Dune 9 for you to provide us with a final determination as to how Kaufman and Broad wishes us to proceed. As we indicated at that time, staff will be unable to continue to work on the Local Plan for Zone 8 until an official determination has been made to authorize the preparation of the Plan. In response to your letter, staff has not completely reviewed your comments because we have not received authorization to work on this plan. Although, Item 5 of your letter is completely inaccurate and does not summarize our discussion. Dune 18, 1987 Page Two Following approval, if it is given to Kaufman and Broad, to prepare this plan, then an official application could be submitted. Staff would have thirty (30) days to determine whether the plan was acceptable. If accepted, the Growth Management Program requires that the applicant receive a schedule, within sixty (60) days, as to when the plan could be brought to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. It does not have to be scheduled for an actual hearing within those sixty (60) days. We also discussed the CEQA requirements which would affect when the plan could be scheduled for a public hearing. If Kaufman and Broad receives authorization to do this Plan, we would be willing to discuss reviewing a "redlined" copy of an updated plan. Again, Item 5 in your letter is not correct and does not reflect our discussion, either at our meeting or in subsequent telephone conversations. Please provide me as soon as possible with Kaufman and Broad's response as to which letter from Mr. Boyd that we should consider correct. Sincerely, NANCY E.()ROLLMAN Associate Planner NERrbjn c: Marty Orenyak Doug Boyd Michael 0. Holzmiller Phil Carter Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman A Broad June 11, 1987 Ms. Nancy Rollman Associate Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan Dear Ms. Rollman: We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and other representatives of the City's Planning and Engineering Department to discuss your comments in the letter dated May 22, 1987 on the Zone 8 LFMP. The following is a summary of the key issues that we discussed: 1. In terms of phasing, we need to provide additional justification for the phasing in relation to the provision of the necessary facilities. It was our understanding that it was not specifically the rate of build-out, but that you required additional justification of that rate in relation to the provision of facilities. As you know and acknowledge in your guidelines, the market will dictate the ultimate build-out, but we will ensure the provision of adequate facilities to meet that build- out. 2. You have requested additional discussion within the text of the LFMP which addresses the project phasing in relation to the provision of the necessary traffic facilities. We understand that the information provided in the traffic analysis (that was in the appendix to the LFMP) was acceptable, and that you were requiring that the information in that appendix be brought out in the text of the LFMP. 3. With regard to the library facility, we discussed the city's requirement for an additional facility in the southern part of the city. It was our understanding that we can propose interim solutions to meet library facility needs while the city reviews the location for the necessary facility. Ms. Nancy Rollman June 11, 1987 Page 2 4. You provided us with the Zones 2 and 3 LFMPs, which we understand contain the necessary information that you referenced in your letter dated May 22, 1987. We assume that the city has now provided us with all the required documentation so that we can complete the LFMP. 5. In terms of the processing of the Plan, as we discussed, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you with a "red-lined" copy of the LFMP which we feel responds to the comments raised in your letter and at our meeting. We would like to do that as soon as possible. We understand that once the document is accepted for review, that you will take no longer than 30 days to review the plan and, once that it is ac- cepted, that it will be scheduled for Planning Commission within 60 days. It is our understanding of the LFMP guidelines that, by the end of the 60 day period, the LFMP will have been heard by the Planning Commission. Please clarify your interpretation of the guidelines relative to this process. Again, we appreciated the opportunity to meet with you to discuss your comments. We are committed to working with the city staff to ensure a timely processing of this document. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our understanding of our meeting. Sincer Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Bill Cardon Bob Galloway Kevin Kirk Turrini and Brink PLANNING CONSULTANTS\ • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Planning Director June 4, 1987 Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Michael: This letter is to clarify a point raised in our transmittal letter which accompanied the Draft Local Facility Manage- ment Plan for Zone 8, submitted April 24, 1987. On page 2 of the letter we stated our understanding that the City had agreed to participate in the preparation of the plan pro- vided that its share of the costs of preparing the plan would be assumed by Kaufman & Broad. If the City has interpreted this statement to mean that Kaufman & Broad has accepted the obligation of paying the City's share, then we have misstated the facts. Please be advised that Kaufman & Broad has not accepted this obliga- tion and will expect the City to contribute its fair share of the preparation costs. Kaufman & Broad has submitted a letter requesting that the City Council make a determinati- on regarding its participation in this plan. I hope this sufficiently clarifies Kaufman & Broad's posi- tion with regard to the costs of preparing the Local Facil- ity Management Plan for Zone 8 and apologize for any misunderstanding that may have resulted due to the state- ment contained in our letter. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or any other aspect of the plan, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TURRINI &/BRINK Principal DPB/can 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHWJrM . (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab May 22, 1987 Mr. Douglas P. Boyd Senior Principal Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701-6699 Dear Mr. Boyd: Enclosed are staff's comments concerning your preliminary first draft of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8, submitted April 24, 1987. It is important to understand that these are initial comments and are not intended to be a complete critical review of the draft plan. This is a good preliminary first draft; however, the following comments will be useful in preparing an acceptable plan for the City to review: Page 18 - Exhibit 5 - Label this map "General Plan" (not Land Use) . Page 23 - Table 7 - Show number of dwelling units also. Phasing - appears to be incorrect/unrealistic. Zone 8 would comprise one-third of entire City's growth, which is not consistent with the Citywide Plan or Series VII Growth Forecasts of SANDAG. Provide justification. Page 26 - revised table - City to provide. Page 30 - revised table - City to provide. Page 32 - Section 3.2.4 Add sentence within paragraph: No residential building or development permits shall be issued in Zone 8 until the City Council takes action approving measures which provide for library services to meet the adopted performance standards. Page 33 - Inadequate analysis, must indicate phasing schedule of demand. Citywide information has been updated. City to provide new background information. May 22, 1987 Page Two Page 35 - Inadequate analysis, must show how Zone 8 phasing fits into quadrant phasing of parks to meet performance standard. Exhibit 9 - Label park names. Page 42 - Exhibit 11 - Show all of Zone 8. Page 43 - Exhibit 12 - Show Zone 8. Use City numbers for ADT classifications. Page 48 - Incomplete analysis. Exhibit 13 fails to address the impact to intersections at various stages of development, i.e., Phase I and Cannon Road improvements not constructed, etc. Phasing of street improvements listed in Table 18 is based on two assumptions: 1) buildout of Zone 8 projected to 1990, and 2) the yearly growth for the area of three percent. The assumptions are incorrect since the recommended phasing is to be based on citywide buildout, not Zone 8 only. Vertical and horizontal alignment plans at a 1":200' scale are required for Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue. Page 53 - Analysis leaves questions. Expand to include discussion on what happens when Station No. 3 moves, i.e., does Station No. 6 have to be operating? Need to know number of units outside five minute response time in that situation. Page 55 - Reference Citywide Plan only. City to provide 1anguage. Page 56 - Reference school generation rates. "... estimates by City of Carlsbad"; please explain because City has not been involved in school district analyses. Page 61 - Proposed facilities must discuss the required lift station for the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor, its phasing and financing mechanisms. Page 63 - 4.7.6 Incorrect assumption that units could be built and not occupied. If a performance standard is not being met, no building permits will be issued. Two new sections have been added to the zone plan format. Mitigation and Special Conditions. You should review one of the plans for either Zones 2, 3, or 4 and incorporate the changes in the next submittal. Some of the comments outlined in this letter probably have raised questions that should be discussed at a meeting, so give me a call to schedule one. Again, these comments are intended , to help you to prepare an acceptable Local Facilities Management May 22, 1987 Page Three Plan. That means acceptable, in terms of having all of the appropriate pieces of information in the plan. After these are assembled, we will begin the detailed process of verifying the plan's specific figures and assumptions and analyzing the plan's conclusions . Sincerely, A NANCY E. Associate Planner cc: Charles Grimm Gary Wayne Phil Carter David Hauser Brian Milich, Kaufman & Broad NER:dm MEMO DATE: April 30, 1987 TO: PROJECT TEAM FOR ZONE 8 - Gary Wayne Charlie Grimm Lloyd Hubbs FROM: Nancy Rollman Attached is the Draft Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. At this time, we have to determine if the plan is acceptable in terms of general content and completeness. A thorough technical review is not necessary — in other words, do we have the information we need to do a technical review of this plan? Please give me your comments by May ^th. Thanks. NER:dm cc: Phil Carter Michael Holzmiller 4^ause*- TU PLANNING CONSULTANTS*. • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 April 24, 1987 Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Dear Michael: We are pleased to submit this Draft Local Facility Manage- ment Plan for Management Zone 8 to the City of Carlsbad for your review and determination as to its acceptance for processing. You will find this Facility Plan is unique in that: 1) Approximately 97 percent of the total land area within Zone 8 is comprised of only two large parcels: o The 432.8 acre Kelly Ranch development owned by Kel-Cal (Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc.). o A 276 acre site owned by the City of Carlsbad and proposed as a portion of the future Macario Canyon Park development. 2) Both the Kelly Ranch and Macario Canyon Park have already undergone extensive review by the City in the form of Master Plans. Kelly Ranch has already received approval by the City and the California Coastal Commis- sion. Final subdivision maps for the Kelly Ranch (CT83-30) have been submitted to the City for final approval. 3) In conjunction with the subdivision of Kelly Ranch, all necessary improvements have been bonded for, thereby assuring that the infrastructure requirements generated by the development of Management Zone 8 will be fully accommodated. Many of these improvements are designed to provide capacity not just at the local level, but on a City-wide basis as well. Michael J. Holzmiller April 22, 1987 Page 2 This Local Facility Management Plan has been prepared by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc. with the full concurrence of all property owners within Management Zone 8, including the City. It is our understanding that the City has agreed to participate provided that its share of the costs of preparing the plan are assumed by Kaufman and Broad. All portions of the Growth Management Program have been addressed in the plan as required by the City and it should be acceptable for detailed review. Because of the extensive amount of public review that has already been completed, as well as the unique relationship between the City and the other property owners within Management Zone 8, the review of this Local Facility Man- agement Plan warrants a high priority and should be expedited through the process. Turrini and Brink, in conjunction with Kaufman and Broad, would like to review this Facility Plan with you as soon as possible. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to set up an appointment. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK . Bbjld incipal DPB:tml Enclosure cc: Bob Galloway 1920E 17th St.. Suite 200 Santa Ana, Calif. 92701 Phone (714) 835-1691 149-012 Project No. TRANSMITTAL To. Nancy Rollman Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive , Carlsbad, CA 92009 Attn: The following items are transmitted: Herewith^ Under Separate Cover D Via: Date:4/24/87 Subject: Local Facility Plan for Zone 8 No. of Copies Description 15 Local Facility Plan for Zone 8 The above items are submitted:At your request D For your review D For your files D For your approval D For your action^ For your information Dr General remarks: If you have any questions or information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Enclosure:^ Copies to:^ Mark T. Hickner, Project Planner Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90025-1748 (213)312-5000 Kaufman Broad March 5, 1987 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, California 92008 Attn: Frank Aleshire, City Manager Re: Preparation of Local Facilities Management Zone 8 C/nr MANAGER CITY OF CARLSBAD Management Plan for Dear Mr. Aleshire: Management Zone as follows: 8 is comprised of three property ownerships Property/Ownership Kelly Ranch/Kel-Cal Kirgis Macario Park/City of Carlsbad (*Excluding leased land.) Gross Area (Acres) 432.8 222.0 276.5 * Under the terms of Chapter 21.90 of the City's Growth Management Ordinance (No. 9808), the Local Facilities Management Plan for any specific zone can be prepared by a group of owners or an owner with the approval of the others, and the cost shared on a pro-rata basis. We have already received written approval from Mr. Kirgis to prepare the plan on his behalf. We now respectfully request approval of the City of Carlsbad to: 1. Allow Kaufman and Broad (on behalf of Kel-Cal) to prepare the Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8 using the services of the consultant team attached as Exhibit A. City of Carlsbad March 5, 1987 Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager Page 2 2. Share in the cost of the Plan preparation and approval in accordance with Section 21.90.120 of Ordinance No. 9808 We would appreciate your early review and consideration in this matter, and if necessary, having this request presented to City Council for their approval. Respectfully submitted, Robert M. Galloway Senior Vice President RMG/mel encls. cc: Micheal Holzmiller, Planning Director Bruce Karatz Clyde Lane Kevin Kirk 1920 E. 17th St.. Suite 200 Sarito Ana. Calif 92701 Phone (714) 835-1691 Project No. TRANSMITTAL TU&Ukli Date: Z^> Jfoj &~t Subject: The following items are transmitted: Herewitn^SC Under Separate Cover D Via: No. of Copies Description RECE1 The above items are submitted: At your request D For your reviewtZJs^ Fo^weqi; fi|es. For your approval D for your action D FcV your in (' ; :- l0..r -* Jort [^ ERV .<~" General remarks: Enclosure: D Copies to:By: V^MA Job No. 149-012 February 17, 1988 Philip 0. Carter, Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: ZONE 8 LFMP Dear Phil: Enclosed is our initial response to your letter dated January 13, 1988 and to staff's comments received during our technical review meetings. The majority of the com- ments pertained to graphics and format. This submittal responds primarily to the graphics revisions. A complete package will be submitted once we receive the City's re- sponses on the following: 1. Circulation - We are still awaiting a determination on updating this section. 2. Macario Canyon Park - A great deal of the phasing and non-residential development potential in Zone 8 depends on the Macario Canyon Park Plan. We are still awaiting input on this portion of the Zone Plan. In anticipation of these responses, the following revisions have been made for your review and comment: Planning Comments Comment Response 1. Redo title page/cover o To be done sheet. Philip 0. Carter, Senior Management Analyst ZONE 8 LFMP February 17, 1988 Comment 2. Provide tabbed dividers 3. Revise Table of Contents 4. Revise Executive Summary 5. Exhibit #1 6. Exhibit #2 7. Exhibit #3 8. Kirgis Parcel 9. Macario Canyon Park 10. Exhibit #4 Response 11. Archaeology (pg. 14) 12. Table 2 13. Constraints Analysis on Macario Canyon 14. Rewrite density calcula- tions. 15. Revise Phasing o Being printed o To be done o To be done o Vicinity Map revised o Entire Quad shown o Owner Map revised - need City Assessor information o Table 1 - Property Ownership - provided o Awaiting City comment o Kelly Ranch Master Plan - provides his- toric reference and illustrates access discussion in text -map retained. o Discussion -see page 8. expanded o See revised Table (page 13). o Analysis being done o Revised - See Table 5 o Awaiting Macario Phasing information Philip 0. Carter, Senior Management Analyst ZONE 8 LFMP February 17, 1988 Comment 16. City Administrative Facilities 17. Library - revise 18. Parks - revise analysis 19. Parks - Exhibit 20. Fire - Exhibit 21. Open Space 22. Schools, Text Graphic 23. Constraints Map 24. Environmental documents Engineering Comments 1. Wastewater - graphic text revisions 2. Drainage - graphic text 3. Sewer 4. Water - graphic text 5. Circulation Response o To be done o To be done o Revised, See Exhibit 9 o To be done o To be done o To be done, See Ex- hibit 14 o To be done o Provided o See Exhibit 15 o See Exhibit , to be done o To be done o See Exhibit 18, to be done o Awaiting City response Philip 0. Carter, Senior Management Analyst ZONE 8 LFMP February 17, 1988 As indicated above, additional sections will be submitted as part of the complete resubmittal package once all re- sponses are provided. In the meantime, please review the revised sections and graphics and forward your comments at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, TURRINI steveTrTlint Project Manager SF/tml Encl. cc: Brian Milich Brian Hunter Steve Jantz PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Carlsfbab January 20, 1987 Mr. Douglas P. Boyd Principal Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701-6699 Dear Mr. Boyd: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your buildout projections for Zone 8. Staff has reviewed all of the information that you have provided and would like to thank Steve Flint for his assistance with these projections. We have reviewed the various scenarios which were presented and believe the most rational approach would be to allow Zone 8 to recoup those dwelling units lost as a result of acreage reductions in villages A, C, and D. Multiplying these acreages at the growth control point for each specific land use results in the addition of 141.5 units to the zone. Depending on whether or not the power line easement is relocated will determine the actual dwelling unit number approved for Zone 8. With the lines relocated, the numbers are as follows: Kelly Kirgis 1 ,214 1 1 1 ,225Total With the lines not relocated, the numbers are as follows: Total Kelly Kirgis 1 ,187 1 1 1 ,197 Douglas P. Boyd January 20, 1987 Page Two As we indicated, the sole purpose of this letter is to respond to your buildout projections and the dwelling units allowed under each scenario. These dwelling unit numbers are in no way guaranteed. When future development plans are submitted, they will be reviewed to determine the actual number of dwelling units which may be allowed within that specific development area. The development proposal will be reviewed based on typical criteria such as environmental constraints, principles of good design, sensitive site planning, etc. Again, the dwelling units listed above are being agreed upon for buildout projections of the zone and are based on the information which has been presented and reviewed at this time. We appreciated your assistance in this process and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call your zone plan coordinator, Nancy Rollman, at 438-1161. Sincerely, Philip O. Carter Senior Management Analyst c: Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne POC:dm 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • ^$& H TELPPHDMP CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9200SM859 m£SujM - '(619) 438-1161 Office of the City Engineer _ nf Cdariabai February 22, 1988 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, CA 92123 ZCNE 8 dROJIAHCN The following are staff's comments with regards to the traffic report presented in the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. 1. This study should conform to the guidelines established in the transportation preparation manual. 2. Road segment volumes should be compared to Table 1 ,Page 11, in the Guidelines Manual to determine Levels of Service. 3. Show analysis of the following intersections: A. Park and Kelly B. Tamarack and Adams 4. Some ICQ Worksheets show assumptions (ie. Cannon at 1-5 - assumes signal control, Cannon at Paseo Del Norte - restripe). Is this a form of mitigation? 5. The Cannon Road extension is needed by 1990. This is a requirement on a year basis and not tied to a certain phase within Zone 8. Also, it has been brought to our attention that the phasing scenario presented in this zone plan may change. If so, revise your yearly prosections and proposed improvements accordingly. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. STEVE C. Associate Civil Engineer SCJirp 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^^I^M (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab March 2, 1988 Mr. Sam P. Kab, II Senior Project Manager 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, California 92123 Dear Mr. Kab: I received your letter dated March 1, 1988 concerning several circulation issues dealing with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. Based upon your letter it is clear that some communication needs to take place in order to determine the exact phasing of Cannon Road, specifically from El Camino Real to the 1-5 Interchange. As you are aware, the Engineering Department has established a set of guidelines to be utilized in preparing the circulation sections for Local Facilities Management Plans. Chapter 8 of the guidelines deals with the procedure for the phasing analysis of the major circulation links. This Chapter indicates the circulation network should be analyzed at the following stages: existing, 1990, 1995, 2000, and buildout. Included in this section are phased circulation maps to be utilized for the purposes of determining the arterial circulation system assumed to be in place for each time phase or stage. The guidelines establish a mechanism if a consultant feels that the proposed circulation element road system is not needed in the year assumed in the guidelines. In the information given to you at your meeting with Steven Jantz on February 22nd, it was indicated that the Cannon Road extension is needed by 1990. It should be clarified that Cannon Road is indicated as a road segment which, for the purposes of determining the arterial circulation system, is assumed will be in place in 1990. Specifically, the guidelines say that each zone plan shall provide for the assumed road segments which are impacted by that zone's traffic. This provision shall be made even if the zone plans traffic analysis does not indicate a need for the assumed road segment at a particular time phase. The guidelines go on to Mr. Sam P. Kab, II March 2, 1988 Page 2 say that in such cases the traffic consultant must petition the City Engineer to have the phase circulation maps formally revised. As USA Systems was a party to preparing the guidelines and the assumed arterial circulation system, it is anticipated that you will submit supporting traffic analysis which includes specific provisions for the proposed development in the impacted zones and adjacent areas which indicate that this road segment is not needed in 1990. In reference to your request to schedule a meeting some time this week, I feel that it is not necessary at this time for us to meet to discuss circulation only. However, I have scheduled a meeting with Brian Milich to discuss the overall phasing of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. I will be contacting you following this meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 438-1161. Sincerely, Phil Carter GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER PC:af c: Lloyd Hubbs David Hauser Steve Jantz Brian Hunter 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT m*&$l JM (619)438-1161 Cttp of Cartebab March 2, 1988 Mr. Sam P. Kab, II Senior Project Manager 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, California 92123 Dear Mr. Kab: I received your letter dated March 1, 1988 concerning several circulation issues dealing with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. Based upon your letter it is clear that some communication needs to take place in order to determine the exact phasing of Cannon Road, specifically from El Camino Real to the 1-5 Interchange. As you are aware, the Engineering Department has established a set of guidelines to be utilized in preparing the circulation sections for Local Facilities Management Plans. Chapter 8 of the guidelines deals with the procedure for the phasing analysis of the major circulation links. This Chapter indicates the circulation network should be analyzed at the following stages: existing, 1990, 1995, 2000, and buildout. Included in this section are phased circulation maps to be utilized for the purposes of determining the arterial circulation system assumed to be in place for each time phase or stage. The guidelines establish a mechanism if a consultant feels that the proposed circulation element road system is not needed in the year assumed in the guidelines. In the information given to you at your meeting with Steven Jantz on February 22nd, it was indicated that the Cannon Road extension is needed by 1990. It should be clarified that Cannon Road is indicated as a road segment which, for the purposes of determining the arterial circulation system, is assumed will be in place in 1990. Specifically, the guidelines say that each zone plan shall provide for the assumed road segments which are impacted by that zone's traffic. This provision shall be made even if the zone plans traffic analysis does not indicate a need for the assumed road segment at a particular time phase. The guidelines go on to Mr. Sam P. Kab, II March 2, 1988 Paqe 2 say that in such cases the traffic consultant must petition the City Engineer to have the phase circulation maps formally revised. As USA Systems was a party to preparing the guidelines and the assumed arterial circulation system, it is anticipated that you will submit supporting traffic analysis which includes specific provisions for the proposed development in the impacted zones and adjacent areas which indicate that this road segment is not needed in 1990. In reference to your request to schedule a meeting some time this week, I feel that it is not necessary at this time for us to meet to discuss circulation only. However, I have scheduled a meeting with Brian Milich to discuss the overall phasing of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. I will be contacting you following this meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 438-1161. Sincerely, Phil Carter GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER PC:af Lloyd Hubbs David Hauser Steve Jantz Brian Hunter PLANNING CONSULTANTS*. • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job NO. 149-012 February 26, 1988 Philip 0. Carter, Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED Dear Phil: RECEIVED F£B 2 6 1988 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEVELOP. PROC, SERV. DIV. This letter accompanies the submittal of the LFMP for Zone 8, revised in accordance with your comment letter dated January 13, 1988 and our various discussions since then. This submittal constitutes a complete revision package, except for the sections regarding Macario Canyon Park and Circulation. Notation is included in the text referring to Macario. The Circulation Section and Appendix will be submitted once the consultant responds to comments received from Steve Jantz, dated February 22, 1987. Per your direction, page, exhibit and table numbers have been left off until later. The following are specific responses to your comment letter: COMMENT General- Follow format of other zone plans. Graphics RESPONSE/ACTION The entire document has been rewritten per the format. All graphics have been revised, cleaning up topo lines, clarifying legends, deleting unnecessary info. Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 2 SPECIFIC-PLANNING COMMENTS 1. Redo title page cover sheet 2. Provide tabbed section dividers. 3. Revise table of contents 4. Revise Executive Summary 5. Exhibit #l-Use City Map 6. Exhibit #2-Revise, show entire quadrant 7. Exhibit #3, 5,6- Revise 8. Kirgis - 21.9 acres 9. Macario Canyon Park plan update as part of this local plan 10. Exhibit #4-Purpose? 11. Page 14-Significant archaeological site not shown on con- straints map or Table 2 12. Revise Table 2 per Zone 11 Plan Exhibit 11 breakdown by individual area (Zone 11, Exhibit 14) 13. Provide constraints analysis on Macario Canyon Park Done Being printed-will submit Per your direction, this will follow final comments Same comment Done Done Done Incorporated into maps and text Awaiting City input Exhibit 4 deleted Archaeology addressed in text EIR and related documents Constraints analysis completely redone Macario included in constraints analysis Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 3 14. Rewrite density calculations 15. Phasing (Table 7) needs revision 16. City Administrative Facilities-Revise using Zone 11 17. Library-Revise using Zone 11 18. Parks-Revise analysis and inventory. Reference appropriate Agenda Bills 19. Redo parks exhibits- Provide park district map and Citywide map with parks named. 20. Fire-clean up exhibit 21. Open space-Reference performance standard then use Citywide plan 22. School-Reformat, use Zone 1 schools; see Exhibit 39 Zone 11; provide copies of agreement with school district (page 72) 23. Revise constraints map per Zone 11 24. Provide all Environ- mental Impact Reports for Zone 8 Done Phasing redone on Citywide, quadrant and zone basis Done Done Done District map provided with facilities named. Citywide map shows park districts Response time map revised Done Done. School District agree- ment included in Appendices 200' scale constraints map totally redone All previous EIR's and related documents submitted Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 4 SPECIFIC-ENGINEERING COMMENTS Wastewater Prepare graphic showing: A. Carlsbad Sewer Service Area with Zone 8 highlighted B. Location of Encina and Calvera Hills treatment facili- ties Indicate percent ownership of all six agencies (including treatment capacity) Show Encina's area population projections Indicate latest flow metering for Carlsbad Service Area (See Zone 12) Mitigation as presented in Zone 6 plan Show total treatment capacity including Calavera Hills but state that Calavera Hills is currently not in operation. Describe Encina capacity A) Current 22.5 MGD B) After Phase IV 33.75 MGD C) Ultimate 45.0 MGD Done Done Reflected in text Same response Done Mitigation measures not yet finalized Done Phasing reflected in text Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 5 Drainage 1. Table 19 is unclear and crowded. 2. List sizes of exist- ing desilt basins. Also designate if temporary or permanent 3. Exhibit 10 also needs some refining. Extend topo outside zone boundaries 4. Where will easterly side of Kirgis property drain? 5. Mitigation: The developer will pay or agree to pay any fees established in the Drainage Master Plan adopted at the time of building permit issuance 6. Approximate QIQO °f San Marcos Creek Basin Table 19 revised Exhibit revised accordingly Exhibit redone Drainage delineated in Exhibit Included in text Q100 °f Agua Hedionda Creek basin shown Sewer 2. List land uses within Zone 8 and analyze using 220 gal/day and 246 gal/day generation rates include Macario and Kirgis) Table 25 crowded and unclear Analysis provided Table revised Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 6 5. 6. Size of pump station. Is it going to be phased? Exhibit 15: A) Legend designations too similar Present chart with Vista sewer and without Vista sewer A) Amount of flow B) Size of pipes Where will Kirgis Property sewer? 7. Financing? 8. How come a portion of Area E will sewer through N. Agua Hedionda interceptor? Water 1. List land uses and water generation rates. 2. This section makes reference to other reports and studies. This intersection shall stand on its own. You should only note that information was derived from other reports 3. List inventory of existing lines and proposed lines. 4. Graphics need some work. Discussed in text Exhibit totally revised Alternatives addressed in text and tables Undetermined at this time Included in text This option exists per conditions on TM 83-30. Design parameters included in Appendix E. Pertinent sections included in Appendix E Inventory includes lines Exhibits revised Philip 0. Carter ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED February 26, 1988 Page 7 Circulation 1. This section will Awaiting comments be reviewed after completion of circulation preparation manual. As you requested, 15 copies are included in this submittal; 12 bound copies for distribution and 3 copies unbound to replace the text and graphics in the binders submitted previously. Also attached are the property owners list and consultants list as you requested. Again, the Circulation Section and tabbed dividers will be submitted shortly. Your letter indicates a 3-4 week review period before comments on this draft are prepared. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information or assistance to help expedite this review phase so we can meet our June 1, 1988 Planning Commission hearing. Thanks for your coopera- tion and I look forward to your comments. Sincerely, TURRINI Steve Flint Project Manager SF/car Att: Owners; List Consultants List cc: Brian Milich, Brian Hunter, Steve Jantz, Dan Grothe, Sam Kab LIST OF CONTACTS - ZONE 8 LFMP KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 (619) 259-6000 Contact: Brian Milich Plan Preparation and Processing: TURRINI & BRINK, PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 835-1691 Contact: Steve Flint Water Facilities: WOODSIDE/KUBOTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2585 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-1194 Contact: Jack Kubota Sewer and Drainage Facilities: VTN SOUTHWEST, INC. 5451 Avenida Encinas, Suite "A" Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 931-1022 Contact: Dan Grothe Circulation: URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 4540 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 106 San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 560-4911 Contact: Sam Kab HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 6122 Nancy Ridge Drive, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 535-2150 Contact: Steve Tate THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1465 Contact: Bill Hofman PROPERTY OWNERS LIST - ZONE 8 LFMP KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 KEL-CAL c/o Cal Communities 38 Red Hawk Irvine, CA 92714 Kirgis, Howard G. & Ida B. 8332 Pinotage Court San Jose, CA 95135 Kelly, W. Allan & Marie L.; & Sippel, Marvin H. & Lucia C. 806 Westfield Avenue Porterville, CA 93257 CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman Broad MAR 1988 March 28, 1988 : PLANNING DfcPARTKVa ; •: \ CITY OF Brian Hunter, Associate Planner : L Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan Dear Brian: In response to your letter dated March 23, 1988, to Mr. Steve Flint of Turrini and Brink, and my conversation on March 25, 1988 with Mr. Phil Carter of the City of Carlsbad, I am writing this letter. Your letter includes a number of comments on the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan, as well as a request for the revised circulation report and an extension of the processing period per the Permit Streamlining Act. We recognize the need to respond in a timely fashion to the City's comments regarding the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan. We also recognize that there was a period of approximately two months, after the Plan was accepted, that due to other City priorities, no work was completed on the Zone 8 Plan. That has apparently resulted in the possible need for an extension to the processing period. Based on my conversation with Phil Carter, we agree to continue to respond to your requests in a timely fashion and to do everything within our power to move forward expeditiously with the processing of the Zone 8 Plan. As you know, however, many of the requests and requirements are not now known and may be beyond our immediate control. As we reach the deadline of the processing period, we agree to analyze the need for any extensions. We would like to avoid any such extensions, but we understand the processing complexities of the Zone Plans. We will continue to work closely with the City staff and we appreciate your continued assistance in the review process. We will be submitting by April 4, 1988 the revised circulation report. We are also revising our phasing schedule and will be responding to the comments indicated in your letter dated March 23, 1988 as quickly as possible. Brian Hunter March 28, 1988 Page 2 In the meantime, if you have any additional comments or questions, please call either Steve Flint or myself and we will attempt to respond to your request. Sincere Brian J. MilicI Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Phil Carter, City of Carlsbad Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad Steve Flint, Turrini and Brink Sam Kab/Andy Schlaefli, Urban Systems Associates PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Cttp of Cartetmb March 23, 1988 Steve Flint Turrini & Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mr. Flint: The City has completed its review of your latest submittal of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Our specific comments are enclosed. I cannot overemphasize the importance of responding in a timely fashion. It is appropriate at this time for you to request a 90 day extension of the processing period mandated by the Permit Streamlining Act. Besides the extension request, please submit the appropriate graphics with your circulation report. It is our understanding that we will receive that material on or before April 4, 1988. If you have any questions regarding our comments do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Steve Jantz Phil Carter Zone 8 Property Owners ZONE 8 COMMENT SUMMARY SHEET 3/16/88 COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION PLEASE NUMBER PAGES Background; 1. Delete speculation re: College Blvd. as primary access to Macario Canyon. 2. Appendix A and E states bio easement and water tank site free and clear to Costa Real (Area R). Not shown. Buildout; 3. Table 4, E & I submitted. 4. Typo - Dwelling Unit Transfer. 5. Table 6, Area D never shown. 6. Table 7 - transfer shows Area B, not C; Area C, not D, and RMH not RM. Show existing. Phasing; 7. Redo per 3/3/88 meeting; Tables 9, 10, 11, and all other scenarios. City Administration; 8. Typo - Performance standard "within" 9. Redevelopment = 3,200 sg. ft. Redo all references. RESPONSE Citv Administration (Cont} : 10. Buildout demand 4,541 sg. ft. Current demand - Show Kelly. 11. Type - Paragraph prior to adeguacy findings; un- available, not unavoidable 12. Housing & redevelopment located north of Elm. Library t 13. Future facilities; 79,500- 6,900 = 72,600. 14. Consider existing dwelling unit. 15. Table 16 - Typo (1) accounted . Parks ; 16. Park District 1, not 4 (performance standard) . 17. "Construction within", (performance standard) . 18. Correspond (facility planning) 19. Pine Senior Center = 3.31 acres . 20. Consider existing dwelling unit. 21. CIP shows 1997+ for acqui- sation of 7 acres of Pine Street School. 22. What will trigger mitiga- tion? 23. What is mitigation? -2- RESPONSE Fire: 24. Provide mileage from stations 3 (existing and proposed) and 5 (proposed) ACTION Wastewater: 26. Under existing facilities, the first paragraph, Carlsbad Sewer District retains 5.72 MGD Capacity. The second paragraph, the second line, the word treatment plant is mis- spelled. 27. Table 18, fit the entire chart on one page. 28. The two paragraphs below Table 18 should be revised. The information contained in those para- graphs is out-dated. 29. Describe completely the Encina Ocean Outfall, refer to Zone 12 for description. 30. Table 19, do not add the available treatment capacity at Calavera Hills to total available capacity. Calavera Hills is currently not opera- tional. 31. Mitigation alternatives should be revised as presented in the Zone 12 Plan. 32. The revised flows at Encina are attached to this checklist. -3- COMMENT Drainage; 33. Place the pipe flow cal- culation chart in the appendix. RESPONSE 34. Under inventory - List all future improvements under the heading "proposed facilities" on the next page. 35. Other facilities may be required if identified in the up-coming revised drainage Master Plan. This should be explained under future proposed facilities. 36. Revised chart showing phase and required improvements under the planning areas within the Kelly Ranch project. List the improvements per phasing area and list the estimated cost of improve- ments adjacent to the proposed facilities. 37. Break out the estimated cost of improvements under the Financing Section by planning areas. 38. Delete the following line, "Development within one phase is completely in- dependent of the improve- ment requirements of another phase." Water; 39. Place Evans Point excerpt from their Water Master Plan and place that in the appendix. -4- Water (Contl; 40. Under mitigation - All development shall pay the appropriate connection fee as required by Costa Real Municipal Water District. RESPONSE 41. Break out the proposed fac facilities by planning area and add the estimated cost of the facilities by the appropriate planning area. Sewer: 42. The commercial sewer gen- eration rate for Carlsbad is 1 EDU for every 1800 sg. feet of building area. 43. Under inventory - The Vista Carlsbad Interceptor is not called the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor. 44. There exists a typo error for the Vista Carlsbad Reach 11, the existing ultimate pipe capacity, please revise. 45. The Vista Carlsbad Inter- ceptor reaches ultimate capacity before buildout, indicate the years when the up-sizing and any future improvements are necessary. These are identified in the current Master Plan. 46. Break out the proposed facilities by Kelly Ranch planning area and then apply the estimated cost for the necessary sewer facilities by planning areas. -5- COMMENT Sewer (Cont): 47. The financing for the south Aqua Hedionda trunk line is still subject to discussion. RESPONSE Circulation; 48. We are still awaiting for the revised circulation section and the accompany- ing traffic study to complete this review. -6- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 €itp of Cartefcab March 16, 1988 Costa Real Municipal Water District 5960 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 ATTN: Robert Greaney, District Engineer RE: ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Greaney: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones within the City. As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the information is consistent with your district's planning and programming of water facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for water facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached, you will find for your review: 1. The adopted performance standard and adequacy analysis for water facilities 2. Draft buildout assumptions for Zone 8 3. Draft phasing assumptions for Zone 8 Could you please review this information to determine three things. First, is the information correct? Second, can your district provide water facilities according to the phasing assumptions presented in the plan and consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard? And third, what means of monitoring demand for and supply of water facilities would be appropriate to establish between your district and the City of Carlsbad? We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings and any comments regarding the processing of Local Facilities Management Plans. Mr. Greaney March 16, 1988 Page Two Your review and comments are part of an overall plan preparation which needs to be completed by March 30, 1988. If you need further information or assistance, please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Phil Carter PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab March 16, 1988 Mr. John Blair, Superintendent Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Blair: The City of Carlsbad is currently undertaking the second phase of its Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation and review of Local Facilities Management Plans for each of the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones within the City. As part of the formal preparation and review process, your district is being asked to review the buildout and phasing assumptions of the plans to determine whether the information is consistent with your district's planning and programming of school facilities. Specifically, the City's Growth Management Program requires the adopted performance standard for school facilities be continually met as growth occurs in Carlsbad. Attached, you will find your review: 1. The adopted performance standard for school facilities 2. Draft buildout assumptions for Zone 8 3. Draft phasing assumptions for Zone 8 Could you please review this information to determine three things. First, is the information correct? Second, can your district provide school facilities according to the phasing assumptions presented in the plan and consistent with Carlsbad's adopted performance standard? And third, what means of monitoring demand for and supply of school facilities would be appropriate to establish between your district and the City of Carlsbad? We would appreciate a letter indicating your findings and any comments regarding the processing of Local Facilities Management Plans. Mr. John Blair March 16, 1988 Page Two Your review and comments are part of an overall plan preparation which needs to be completed by March 30, 1988. If you need further information or assistance, please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Phil Carter (J MARCH 10, 1988 TO: DAVID BRADSTREET - PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR FROM: PHIL CARTER^- GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER Staff is presently reviewing the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan which includes Macario Canyon Park. As the Macario Canyon Park Plan is also under scrutiny, what level of facilities analysis do you require for the park and which scenario (passive as approved, ballfields or golf course) should be analyzed? Enclosed are the original submittal and revisions for park facilities for Zone 8 received to date. Please review the attached information and call me so we can discuss it further. POC:af Attachment PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Citp o! Cartebab March 10, 1988 Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN, ZONE 8 Dear Brian: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our conversations dealing with the circulation section for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. It is extremely important that we receive the final circulation report as quickly as possible. Time is becoming short and without having the circulation section it will be impossible to get the Zone 8 Plan to public hearing as required. I understand your concerns dealing with the extension of Cannon Road from El Camino Real to 1-5 as projected in 1990, however, the circulation guidelines prepared in cooperation with your consultant and the City of Carlsbad have made certain projections which need to be followed. If it is your consultant's belief that this projection is not accurate, then the guidelines also include a procedure to be followed in order to propose a different phasing scenario. If you are in agreement with your consultant then this procedure should be followed immediately. Please also be aware that without the Cannon Road segment certain traffic from Zone 8 will impact other intersections and road segments which will also require immediate improvements as Zone 8 builds and possibly prior to building beginning in Zone 8. It is the City's goal to ensure that all public facilities conform with the adopted performance standards as development occurs. In this regard, the most recent Local Facilities Management Plans (Zones 11 and 12) to be approved have been conditioned to guarantee the financing of all future circulation improvements which their traffic impacts prior to receiving any final maps. With these items in mind, I have enclosed several pieces of documentation which detail staff's previous comments dealing with the Zone 8 circulation section. Brian Milich March 10, 1988 Page Two Please provide staff, as quickly as possible, with your finalized circulation section for review. As I have indicated before, without the circulation section being submitted to staff within the next few weeks, this Local Facilities Management Plan will not be ready for public hearing as required. If for any reason the circulation section is not prepared and submitted by April 4, staff will be forced to bring this plan forward for denial due to a lack of information. Please review the attached information with your consultant as soon as possible and contact me if you have any questions. PHILIP O. CARTER Growth Management Manager POC:af Steve Flint, Turrini & Brink Lloyd Hubbs Dave Hauser Steve Jantz Brian Hunter Sam Kab II, U.S.A. Marty Orenyak Michael Holzmiller MEMORANDUM October 27, 1987 TO: PROJECT PLANNER - NANCY ROLLMAN FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ZONE 8 CIRCULATION Over the last month or so Engineering staff has been meeting with various traffic engineering, civil engineering and planning consultants for the purpose of establishing procedures guideline and criteria for the preparation of the circulation elements of the local facilities plans. One clarification we established a was requirement that each plan must identify and deal with impacted intersections on a phase by phase basis. In light of this we have again reviewed the Zone 8 plan and found that it does not adequately address phased impacts. Whereas the raw data is available in the traffic study to determine impacted intersections and segments by phase, no attempt was made to analyze these impacted facilities and to incorporate the analysis or mitigation into the report. In order for the Engineering Department to consider the plan complete we will need to see an analysis, level of service calcs and any proposed mitigation for the following impacted facilities: PHASE I INTERSECTIONS Tamarack 9 1-5 South Tamarack 9 1-5 North Tamarack 9 Adams Tamarack 9 Highland Tamarack 9 Park Dr. El Camino Real 9 Chestnut El Camino Real 9 Tamarack El Camino Real 9 Kelly El Camino Real 9 Cannon El Camino Real 9 College El Camino Real 9 Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road 9 Yarrow Palomar Airport Road 9 Camino Vida Robe! Palomar Airport Road 9 College Boulevard Palomar Airport Road 9 Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Road 9 1-5 North Palomar Airport Road 9 1-5 South October 27, 1987 Zone 8 Circulation Page: 2 SEGMENTS Tamarack between 1-5 south and Park Drive El Cami no Real between Chestnut and Palomar Airport Road Park Drive between Valencia and Kelly Drive Cannon Road from Faraday to El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to 1-5 south PHASE II Same as Phase I PHASE III (Assume Cannon Required) INTERSECTIONS Cannon Road @ El Camino Real Cannon Road @ Faraday Cannon Road 9 Paseo Del Norte Cannon Road (31-5 North Cannon Road @ 1-5 South SEGMENTS Park Drive between Valencia and Kelly Drive Cannon Road from El Camino Real to 1-5 south PHASE IV Same as Phase III plus the following: INTERSECTIONS El Camino Real @ Kelly Drive SEGMENT El Camino Real between Kelly Dr. and Cannon Road October 27, 1987 Zone 8 Circulation Page: 3 BUILDOUT Same as Phase IV I've included a copy of the draft criteria and guideline for determining impacted intersections and segments. This criteria was prepared in concert with Mr. Schafley of Urban Systems Associates and should therefore be familiar and understandable to him. We regret any inconvenience for raising this issue so late in the review, but in the words of Mr. Holzmiller "Traffic is a moving target". This is especially true with regards to the preparation of zone plans DAVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer DAH:rp c: City Engineer Phil Carter Charles Kubli Attachment Criteria for Identifying Impacted Road Segments and Intersections The performance standard for circulation reads as follows: No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a service level C during off-peak hours, nor service level D during peak hours. Impacted means where twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facilities Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. The wording of this standard is somewhat vague and subject to some interpretation. Therefore, the City Engineer in conjunction with the Planning Department has prepared the following clarification and assumptions to the standard; 1. All road segments and intersections within and immediately adjacent to the zone boundary shall be considered impacted by the zone at all phases. 2. For the purpose of determining which intersections and segments are impacted by 20 percent or more of the zone traffic, only external traffic shall be considered. In other words, only trips into and out of the zone are counted. Trips internal to the zone are not counted. 3. Impacts to the external roads and intersections shall be considered during each zone phase. The circulation study for the zone should include impacted traffic maps by phase, similar to the included sample maps. 4. Unless specifically requested by the City staff, off peak hour impacts need not be considered. (See section dealing with level of service criteria.) November 13, 1987 TO: Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst FROM: City Engineer ZONE 8 TRAFFIC Engineering has completed review of the November 9, 1987 revision of the Zone 8 Traffic Analysis. The latest revisions appear to have ad- dressed many of our earlier concerns, and are adequate to accept for detailed technical analysis. We have, however, noted several areas of conflict between the analysis and the conclusions. Our primary concern relates to the timing for the extension of Cannon Road from Kelly Ranch to 1-5. The Zone Analysis assumes this connection will occur prior to Phase 3 (1990), but makes no provisions for implementation. The study specifically excludes this connection in its analysis and conclusion. Engineering feels this is a significant inconsistency. From our recent analysis of the Barton-Aschman Study, it has been con- cluded that zone circulation analysis cannot logically proceed without assumptions regarding major circulation linkage. As a part of this re- view, it has been determined that Cannon Road west of El Camino Real is required prior to 1990. Kelly Ranch is a key element in the provision of this linkage. It is our opinion that Cannon is required in the central city core to re- duce short term impacts on Palomar Airport Road (PAR), Tamarack Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Of particular concern is the PAR/1-5 interchange. The plan should incorporate the need for Cannon Road and provide for financing. If the Cannon Road connection is not provided, the analysis of Phases III and IV will have to be revised to reflect impacts on Tamarack, PAR and the PAR/1-5 interchange. Under the analysis of Phases I and II, it is stated, "As area-wide street improvements are completed, the volume of through traffic on Tamarack Avenue is expected to reduce. Such a reduction in through traffic would offset increases in traffic attributed to Zone 8 on Tamarack Avenue." This statement is not substantiated by facts. In Engineering's opinion, the only improvement in the area which could accomplish this reduction would be the Cannon Road extension which has not been proposed. MEMORANDUM April 18, 1988 TO: LLOYD HUBBS DAVID MAUSER BOB JOHNSON MARTY BOWMAN FROM: STEVEN JANTZ ZONE 8 TRAFFIC STUDY Attached is a copy of the final traffic study for Zone 8. Also attached is a draft letter from me regarding the Circulation Analysis presented in this study. Please review the technical content of this report and return with your comments. Staff's input will be consolidated and sent to the Zone 8 Traffic Consultant. I would appreciate your comments by Monday, April 25. Thank you for your time. STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer April 14, 1988 Urban Systems Associates, Incorporated Transportation, Engineering and Planning 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 109 San Diego, California 92123 RE: ZONE 8 TRAFFIC STUDY Staff has completed its review of the recently submitted traffic study for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8. The following is an itemized list of concerns regarding the information contained in this traffic study. Item 1, Page 6: The report indicates that traffic generated from Zone 15 was included in the total traffic volumes within this study. It should be noted that staff has not reviewed the traffic study from Zone 15 and may not agree with some of the generations or conclusions included in that report. If you wish to use information contained in your traffic study for Zone 15, that information should be included so staff may have a chance to review it in relationship to the circulation patterns for Zone 8. Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 1988 Item 2, Page 6e: In reviewing the projected traffic volumes on Figure 10 for Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real and a portion of Palomar Airport Road west of Paseo Del Norte, the volumes indicated when compared to our Guidelines Manual for the Circulation Studies indicates that these roads are operating at a Level of Service "D" and very close to Level of Service "E". Also, that portion of Tamarack Avenue should be broken up into two sections; the four lane section between Interstate 5 and Adams Street, and a two lane section between Adams and Hillside. Please compare these volumes to the volumes indicated in our Guidelines Manual to derive the level of service. These same comments apply to Figures 11, 12 and 13. Item 3, Page 6g: Figure 12 indicates that this project shows a zero volume using Faraday even though Figure 5 shown an interior collector street, specifically Ocean Ai*, will tie into Faraday Avenue. There will be some planning areas within the Kelly Ranch project that traffic would use this collector street and then use Faraday Avenue to get to Cannon Road. These volumes should reflect what the projected traffic from these planning areas will be using Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 1988 Page 3 Faraday to Cannon. This comment also applies to Figure 13. Item 4: There is also no indication that this report took into consideration the extension of Cannon Road easterly of El Camino Real to the City limits. If it was used, this data should be included in this report. Item 5, Page 8: Under the projected 1989 ADT you indicate Park and Kelly Drive will be able to accommodate the additional 300 ADT projected from Phase I of Kelly Ranch, and that Park and Kelly can accommodate up to 5,000 ADT. This report does not give an indication of the existing capacity of Park and Kelly Drive and then to include the projected traffic generation from Kelly Ranch. Item 6, Page 8: Under Tamarack Avenue, you make indication that areawide improvements will reduce traffic volumes on Tamarack Avenue. Please indicate what areawide improvements will be constructed and when they will be constructed to verify this Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 1988 Page 4 statement. Also, as indicated earlier from the existing volumes using Tamarack Avenue it is currently operating at a high end of Level of Service "D". Item 7, Page 8: Under El Camino Real, Figure 10 as mentioned earlier indicates El Camino Real is currently at Level of Service "D" with the inclusion of traffic from Phase I. Item 8, Page 9: Palomar Airport Road is also indicated on Figure 10 as to existing volumes making this road segment operate at Level of Service "D". Item 9, Page 9: Please discuss the operating level of service for 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road and what effect the Kelly Ranch project will have on this interchange. Note: The above comments regarding the traffic shown on the road segments do not correspond with the acceptable levels of service for road volumes as established in the Guidelines Manual. This Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 1988 Page 5 comment seems to be consistent throughout this portion of the study. Item 10, Page 12a: This regards the percent trip distribution. The distributions of traffic flowing northerly on El Camino Real at Chestnut indicates an 11% traveling west of Chestnut with a 19% traveling northerly on El Camino Real. Please verify why the 11% will be making a left turn on Chestnut Avenue. If these percentages were changed to a 10 and 20 percent it would indicate that Kelly Ranch would have to analyze the next further intersection northerly to comply with the performance standard, this being the intersection of El Camino Real and Elm Drive. It would seem logical that most of the traffic, which when they want to travel northerly of Carlsbad, would take the easiest route to 1-5 which might be going through to Elm Avenue to reach Interstate 5 interchange. Also on the same page is the percent splits at Palomar Airport Road and 1-5 showing 15% going southerly and 15% going northerly. Most traffic that would want to travel southerly from Zone 8 would travel along Palomar Airport Road but the splits would not be 50/50. It would seem to believe that most traffic that wanted to travel south on 1-5 would use Palomar Airport Road in a higher percentage than Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 1988 Page 6 the 30% traveling in that direction would travel south. If the traffic was going northerly, they would use Tamarack and Elm Avenue. It is staff's belief that a 20% or 23% of the 30% traffic using Palomar Airport Road would actually use the interchange to travel south on Interstate 5. Item 11, Page 13a: Some of the volumes of level of service indicated on this chart may change due to comments mentioned earlier in this letter. PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 11, 1988 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 €\tp of Cartebab Mr. Steve Flint Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 8 Dear Mr. Flint: Enclosed please find the dwelling unit numbers by Local Facility Management Plan for 1/1/88. Please incorporate these numbers into your analysis. Thank you. Sincerely. BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Phil Carter Steve Jantz Property Owners Zone 8 TU PLANNING CONSULTANTS^ • 1 920 EAST 17TH STREET. SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701 7 14) 835-1 691 Job #149-012 April 4, 1988 Brian Hunter, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 LFMP - Circulation Dear Brian: As requested in your letter dated March 23, 1988, we are submitting the revised traffic circulation report for Zone 8. The report incorporates all comments and concerns expressed by the City to date and should now be acceptable. Please review the document at your earliest convenience. The material will be incorporated into the text of the LFMP for submittal as part of the completed package following your review. All other revisions and corrections required in your letter have been addressed and will be submitted for your review this week. If you have any questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK Steve Flint Project Manager SF/car cc: Phil Carter Brian Milich Sam Kab ROJ BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 4-20-38 9:56PM ; 6192596000^ 24069;tt 2 ARR — 21— SS THU •=• ~ "5 ^ KAUFMAN BROAD - T R „ @ 2 Kaufman and Broad of San Dlogo, Inc. 12-^0 Iliyh Bluff Drive Sfin Diogo Cnlilurnia 92130 Kaufman A Broad April 18, 1988 Phil Carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Phil: As we discussed today, it is our understanding that State law requires that the Zone 8 Plan be brought to a hearing within six months of its acceptance. It is further our understanding that additional time may be necessary to process the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Recognizing the possible need for additional processing time, Kaufman and Broad hereby requests 90 day extension for the processing of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Notwithstanding this request, the City and Kaufman and Broad realize the necessity to move forward as quickly as possible on the processing of the Plan. I would appreciate receiving copies of any correspondence regarding this request. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance in processing of the Zone 8 Plan. Sincerel J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Steve Flint, Turrini and Brink 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE M^O/ dM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ^K^is^Jm (619)438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 17, 1988 Mr. John Blair Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Blair: The City of Carlsbad is continuing the second phase of its Growth Management Program. This phase includes the preparation of Local Facilities Management Plans within the City. Your district was requested to respond to our formal preparation and review process on March 16, 1988. As we have not received a response to that inquiry, I will be contacting you by phone later next week. I have enclosed our original review request with buildout and phasing assumptions. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af Enclosure c: Phil Carter Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman Broad April 18, 1988 Phil Carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Phil: As we discussed today, it is our understanding that State law requires that the Zone 8 Plan be brought to a hearing within six months of its acceptance. It is further our understanding that additional time may be necessary to process the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Recognizing the possible need for additional processing time, Kaufman and Broad hereby requests 90 day extension for the processing of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. Notwithstanding this request, the City and Kaufman and Broad realize the necessity to move forward as quickly as possible on the processing of the Plan. I would appreciate receiving copies of any correspondence regarding this request. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance in processing of the Zone 8 Plan. Sincerel Bri<an J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/jmj CC/Brian Hunter, City of Carlsbad Steve Flint, Turrini and Brink PLANNING CONSULTANTSV • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET. SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)835-1691 Job NO. 149-012 April 13, 1988 Philip O. Carter Senior Management Analyst City of Carlsbad ?\tf 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: ZONE 8 LFMP - REVISED ; Dear Phil: Enclosed are fifteen (15) copies of the revised text and graphics for the Zone 8 LFMP. All revisions have been made as directed in Brian Hunter's letter dated March 23, 1988, as indicated in the attached response summary. Brian has indi- cated that we should be on target for the June Planning Com- mission hearing with this draft being submitted this week. We are awaiting specific comments on the traffic study pre- pared by Urban Systems and transmitted to the City last week. The revised circulation section will follow shortly after we receive comment from the City. We would also like more spe- cific direction as to how we address the Macario Canyon Park area in the document. Please transmit these copies to the appropriate individuals for review at your earliest conve- nience to keep the process moving. If I can assist in any way, please let me know. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK Steven Flint Project Manager SF/tml Enclosure cc: Brian Milich, Brian Hunter, Steve Jantz, Dan Grothe, Sam Kab COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION PLEASE NUMBER PAGES Background: 1. Delete speculation re: College Blvd. as primary access to Macario Canyon. 2. Appendix A and E states bio easement and water tank site free and clear to Costa Real (Area R). Not shown. Buildout; 3. Table 4, E & I submitted. 4. 5. 6. Typo - Dwelling Unit Transfer. Table 6, shown. Area D never Table 7 - transfer shows Area B, not C; Area C, not D; and RMH not RM. Show existing. Phasing; 7.Redo per 3/3/88 meeting; Tables 9, 10, 11, and all other scenarios. City Administration; 8. Typo - Performance stand- ard "within". 9. Redevelopment = 3,200 sq. ft. Redo all references. 10. Buildout demand 4,541 sq. ft. Current demand Show Kelly. Pages and Exhibits now numbered. Background text amended. These areas will be con- veyed at time of develop- ment. Table 4 and Developing Land Use text revised to show status of E and I. Typo corrected. See Dwelling Unit Transfer text for explanation. Table 7 revised. Phasing schedule and all affected tables revised. Typo corrected. Area revised. Current and buildout de- mand revised. -1- COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION 11. Typo - Paragraph prior to adequacy findings; un- available, not unavoid- able. 12. Housing & redevelopment located north of Elm. Library 13. Future facilities; 79,500-6,900 = 72,600. 14. Consider existing dwel- ling unit. 15. Table 16 - Typo (1) ac- counted . Parks; 16. Park District 1, not 4 (performance standard). 17. "Construction within", (performance standard). 18. Correspond planning). (facility 19. Pine Senior Center = 3.31 acres. 20. Consider existing dwel- ling unit. 21. CIP shows 1,997+ for ac- quisition of 7 acres of Pine Street School. 22. What will trigger mitiga- tion? 23. What is mitigation? Typo corrected. Exhibit 7 revised. Typo corrected. Existing demand included. Typo corrected. Typo corrected. Typos corrected. Typo corrected. City CIP reflects 3.0 acres, as shown in text. Text revised to show de- mand of 0.009 acres for existing unit. Text and tables revised to reflect CIP acquisition. Mitigation addressed ac- cording to buildout. Mitigation described in text. -2- COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION Fire: 24.Provide mileage from sta- tions 3 (existing and proposed) and 5 (pro- posed) . Wastewater; 26. Under existing facili- ties, the first para- graph, Carlsbad Sewer District retains 5.72 MGD Capacity. The second paragraph, the second line, the word treatment plant is misspelled. 27. Table 18, fit the entire chart on one page. 28. The two paragraphs below Table 18 should be re- vised. The information contained in those para- graphs is out-dated. 29. Describe completely the Encina Ocean Outfall, refer to Zone 12 for de- scription. 30. Table 19, do not add the available treatment ca- pacity at Calavera Hills to total available capac- ity. Calavera Hills is currently not opera- tional. 31. Mitigation alternatives should be revised as presented in the Zone 12 Plan. 32. The revised flows at Encina are attached to this checklist. Mileage included in text. Typo corrected. Table 18 revised. Text revised. Description included in text. Table 19 revised. Mitigation measures re- vised. No flows were attached. Columns in Table 17 left blank, per Steve Jantz's direction. -3- COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION 33. Place the pipe flow cal- culation chart in the appendix. Drainage; 34. Under inventory - List all future improvements under the heading "Pro- posed Facilities" on the next page. 35. Other facilities may be required if identified in the up-coming revised drainage Master Plan. This should be explained under future proposed facilities. 36. Revised chart showing phase and required im- provements under the planning areas within the Kelly Ranch project. List the improvements per phasing area and list the estimated cost of im- provements adj acent to the proposed facilities. 37. Break out the estimated cost of improvements under the Financing Sec- tion by planning areas. 38. Delete the following line, "Development with- in one phase is complete- ly independent of the improvement requirements of another phase." Water; 39. Place Evans Point excerpt from their Water Master Plan and place that in the appendix. Chart added in appendix. Inventory revised. Explanation added. Table 20 revised to show improvements per phase. Costs addressed in #37. Costs broken out in Table 21. Line deleted. This Exhibit added in ap- pendix. -4- COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION 40. Under mitigation - All development shall pay the appropriate connection fee as required by Costa Real Municipal Water District. 41. Break out the proposed facilities by planning area and add the esti- mated cost of the facili- ties by the appropriate planning area. Sewer; 42. The commercial sewer gen- eration rate for Carlsbad is 1 EDU for every 1,800 sq. ft. of building area. 43. Under inventory - The Vista Carlsbad Inter- ceptor is not called the South Agua Hedionda In- terceptor. 44. There exists a typo error for the Vista Carlsbad Reach 11, the existing ultimate pipe capacity, please revise. 45. The Vista Carlsbad Inter- ceptor reaches ultimate capacity before buildout, indicate the years when the up-sizing and any future improvements are necessary. These are identified in the current Master Plan. 46. Break out the proposed facilities by Kelly Ranch planning area and then apply the estimated cost for the necessary sewer facilities by planning areas. Statement added to mitiga- tion. Table added showing break- down of facilities per area. Text revised. Text revised. Typo corrected. Text revised. Table revised to show facilities per planning area. Cost breakdown pro- vided. -5- COMMENT RESPONSE/ACTION 47. The financing for the south Agua Hedionda trunk line is still subject to discussion. 48. We are still awaiting for the revised circulation section and the accompa- nying traffic study to complete this review. Acknowledged. Revised traffic study. Submitted 4/4/88. Circu- lation section to be re- vised upon receipt of com- ments on adequacy of study. Other Revisions: Table 1 and Exhibit 3 (Property Ownership) has been revised to reflect current owners. -6- USA URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. ^Mi^. ""* 19' 1988 traffic engineering & transportation planning consultants to business and government Steven C. Jantz Associate Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Steve: As we discussed during our meeting with Phil Carter, Brain Miiicn, Brian Hunter, and Steve Flint on Tuesday, May 10, 1988, Urban Systems is providing responses to your letter of comments dated May 3, 1988, (see Attachment 1) regarding the Zone 8 traffic study prepared by Urban Systems (Revised March 31, 1988). Also as discussed, it is our understanding that after our responses are reviewed and approved we will revise sections of our report if necessary. We are providing responses below in the order listed in your letter: ITEM 1, Page 6 The Zone 8 traffic analysis included traffic generated from Zone 15 as derived from Urban Systems' draft Zone 15 traffic analysis of March 16, 1988. Attachment 2 includes the trip distribution percentages and average daily traffic assumed for Zone 15 for the years 1989 through 1992, coinciding with the Zone 8 buildout, and included in the Zone 8 analysis. As an example to show how the Zone 15 traffic generation was included in the Zone 8 analysis, we have broken out the contributing volumes along a portion of Cannon Road and El Camino Real for the year 1992 and shown in Figure 13 of the Zone 8 traffic analysis (see Attachment 3). The total traffic volumes shown in Attachment 3 include an increment of traffic from Zone 8, Zone 15, the existing 1988 traffic volume, plus an additional amount of traffic that could be attributed to through traffic attributed to regional growth, adjacent zones, or additional through traffic from the Cannon Road extension east to Oceanside. The total growth in traffic volumes as calculated in the Zone 8 report along El Camino Real south of Cannon Road from the year 1988 through 1992 (an increase from 24,6000 ADT to 40,000 ADT) is approximately 15 percent per year, which is greater than the three percent per year SANDAG projection listed in the City guidelines. As can be concluded, the method of analysis used by Urban Systems in the Zone 8 traffic study adequately estimates a reasonable and foreseeable growth in traffic on adjacent streets. ITEM 2, Page 6E We have compared the volumes in Table 1 of the City guidelines to the traffic volumes on Figure 10 for Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real and a portion of Palomar Airport Road west of Paseo Del Norte and have discussed the comparisons below: Tamarack Avenue between 1-5 and Adams Avenue is classified as a four lane secondary arterial in the City General Plan Circulation Element, however, this street segment may currently operate functionally as a four lane collector street. As a four lane secondary arterial the ultimate capacity is listed in the City guidelines as 33,340 ADT. The highest volume on Tamarack is projected to occur between 1-5 and Pio Pico Drive and is at 24,000 ADT for 1989 and is estimated to increase to 26,7000 ADT in 1992 as a result of regional growth. The street segment level of service in 1992 is 000187 Jantz/18C 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106, San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 560-4911 Mr. Steven C. Jantz ^^jan Systems Associates, Inc. May 19, 1988 projected to be IDS "C" (26,7000/33,340 = .80) according to the City guidelines. If this segment were considered to be functionally a four lane collector, then the street segment IDS nay be HD" or approach "£" using the street segment ADT test. However, Chapter 6 of the guidelines allows a second level of analysis for existing roads using a more specific methodology and using peak hour volumes in conjunction with the appropriate Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) section to determine actual roadway levels of service. Chapter 11 of the 1985 HCM includes a detailed analysis for arterial levels of service that relate I£6 to average stopped delay at signalized intersections along the arterial and implies that the arterial segment IDS is directly related to the IDS of the operation of the signalized intersection. This is reasonable for short segments of streets such as Tamarack Avenue approaching Pio Pico Drive. The level of service for motorists on the street segment between intersections is controlled by how efficiently the lane group of the approach to the signal is moved through the intersection. Therefore, because of this relation between intersection IDS and street segment IDS that relates peak hour flows through the intersection and the flow of the lane group from the arterial segment at the approach to the intersection, Attachment 4 includes the peak hour IDS calculation at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico Drive that shows the IDS for 1992, the highest projected volumes along Tamarack, as IDS "A". The arterial lane group with the highest peak hour flow (eastbound during P.M. peak hour) is project at 1,257 VPH which is only approximately 37 percent of the hourly lane group capacity of 3400 VPH (1700 VPLTHG). Therefore it can be concluded that the arterial segment of Tamarack Avenue approaching the intersection of Pio Pico Drive also operates at an acceptable level of service. The two lane segment of Tamarack Avenue between Adams Avenue and Hillside Drive, according to the latest City traffic volume counts conducted in June 1987, currently has a volume of approximately 12,000 ADT. When compared to the City guidelines, assuming a two lane collector capacity of 22,230 ADT, this current level of service is at IDS "A" (12,000/22,230 = 0.54). Increasing the 1987 ADT at three percent per year through 1992 and adding the 800 ADT from Zone 8 yields a projected volume of 14,700 ADT. The IDS using this projected volume for 1992 is at IDS "B" (14,700/22,230 = .66). Comparing the 1992 ADT volumes shown on Figure 13 along El Camino Peal to the City Guidelines shows that only two locations would operate at IDS "D" if only four lanes were available in 1992, using the ADT test for IDS. It is assumed that abutting development would improve £1 Camino Real to six lanes between Cannon Road and College Boulevard and between Faraday Avenue and Palomar Airport Road, thus accommodating the project ADT at acceptable levels of service. If these segments are not to be improved to six lanes by the abutting development, then the second method of arterial IDS analyses, analyzing the peak hourly flows, shows that the four lane segments would also accommodate the projected 1992 ADT. Attachment 5 shows the ICU calculation for 1992 at El Camino Real/Cannon Road. The highest peak hour volume for an approach lane group is projected to be 1600 VPH. This hourly volume can be accommodated by the two lane approach assuming a lane capacity of 1700 VPH per lane. Palomar Airport Road west of Paseo Del Norte is currently a four lane segment of a major arterial that could accommodate 44,450 ADT. The 26,200 ADT projected for the year 1992 as shown on Figure 13 can be accommodated at acceptable levels of service. ITEM 3, Page 6q Figures 12 and 13 showing projected ADT's for the years 1991 and 1992 do not include Zone 8 traffic along Faraday Avenue since Urban Systems' analysis is meant to maximize the traffic impact to Cannon Road and 1-5, and Cannon Road and El Camino Real. Since the Palomar/I-5 interchange will experience a capacity restraint due to regional - 2 - Mr. Steven C. Jantz — an Systems Associates, Inc. May 19, 1988 traffic until the ultimate interchange improvements are constructed, Zone 8 traffic destined to 1-5 would take the "path of least resistance" requiring the fastest travel time and use Cannon Road, not Faraday to College, to 1-5. ITEM 4 The extension of Cannon Road easterly to the City limits and into Oceanside is considered to occur in 1993, after the proposed buildout of Zone 8. However, additional traffic identified as "through" traffic in Attachment 3 can be assumed to originate in Ooeanside if the Cannon Road connection is advanced to earlier than 1993. ITEM 5, Page 8 Park Drive is estimated to currently have 1750 ADT volume based on the peak hour counts in Attachment 6. Factoring the current ADI by three percent each year and adding the 800 ADT from Zone 8 yields a 1992 projection of 3,000 ADT, which is within the acceptable IDS for a two lane local or collector street. Kelly Drive, currently at 3,440 ADT is projected at 4,400 ADT, also within an acceptable LOS for a two lane local or collector street. ITEM 6, Page 8 The area wide improvements that will reduce traffic volumes on Tamarack Avenue include the connection of Elm Avenue at El Camino Real, the connection of Cannon Road between 1-5 and El Camino Real, and the Palomar Airport Road interchange improvements. If Cannon Road is not built in 1990 as projected by the City guidelines, then Zone 8 1990 traffic can be accommodated by interim improvements to Tamarack Avenue and Palomar Airport Road. The 106 of Tamarack Avenue has been discussed in Item 2, above. ITEM 7, Page 8 The operating IDS of El Camino Real in subsequent phases has been addressed in Item 2, above. ITEM 8, Page 9 This comment relates to Palomar Airport Road street segment levels of service. The method #2 analysis which analyzes peak hour flow shows these segments operate at acceptable levels of service. ITEM 9, Page 9 Appendix G of Urban Systems' report shows I.C.U. calculations of the interchange ramps in 1992 with assumed interim signalization and minor modification with existing lanes (before widening) . These calculations show acceptable levels of service with the interim improvements through 1992. ITEM 10, Page 12a Although Kim Avenue is the route to Carlsbad High School, Junior High School, parks, and will attract Zone 8 traffic, we will revise our report to include the Fim Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Although our directional splits at the Palomar/I-5 interchange are partially based on existing ramp counts, and partially on the attractiveness of employment, shopping, and access to regional travel routes, the revising of distribution percentages will not change the IDS since, once the Cannon Road connection to El Camino Real is made, the Zone 8 traffic contribution to the I-5/Palomar Airport interchange will be relatively - 3 - Mr. Steven C. Jantz t~^jan Systems Associates, Inc. May 19, 1988 light (less than 500 ADT). We see no need to revise the percentages in our revised report, (Note: Some builders in the area have indicated that almost fifty percent of residential purchases originate in Orange County.) TTEK 11, Pages 12a-12d The lack of traffic distribution to Faraday, College, and Palomar Airport Road is not unrealistic since prior to interchange iinprovements at I-5/Ifclomar a capacity restraint condition will exist that would divert motorists to other routes, as addressed in Item 3 above. We do not agree that revisions should be made. ITEM 12, Page 13a This chart may change in our revised report to reflect IDS as a result of these responses to comments. We hope these responses to your comments will adequately address your concerns. If you have any questions regarding our responses, please give Sam or me a call. Sincerely, Vice President cc: Brian Milich Steve Flint -RiLl Carter - 4 - Pig* I of ATTACHMENT 1 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA g200MM> (819)438.1161 dtp of CarUftab DECEIVED NNf 10 May 3, 1988 Urban systems Associates, incorporated Transportation, Engineering and Planning 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 109 San Diego, California 92123 RE: ZONE 8 TRAFFIC STUDY Staff has completed its review of the recently submitted traffic study for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8. The following is an itemized list of contents regarding the informationcontained in this report. Item 1, Page 6: The report indicates that traffic generated from Zone 15 was included in the total traffic volumes within this study, it should be noted that staff has not reviewed the traffic study from Zone 15 and may not agree with the traffic generations or conclusions included in that report, if you wish to use information contained in the traffic study for Zone 15, that information should be included so staff may have a chance to review the data in relationship to the circulation patterns for Zone 8. Item 2, Page 6e: In reviewing the projected traffic volumes on Figure 10 for Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real and a portion of Palomar Airport Road west of Paseo Del Norte, the volumes identified when compared to the Guidelines Manual for the Circulation Studies indicates that these roads are operating at a Level of Service "D" and very close to Level of Service "E". Also, the analysis of Tamarack Avenue between 1-5 and Hillside should be broken up into two sections; the four lane section between Interstate 5 and Adams Street, and a two lane section between Adams and Hillside. Please compare these volumes to the volumes indicated in the Guidelines Manual to derive the level of service. These same comments apply to Figures 11, 12 and 13. Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May 3, 1988 Page 2 Item 3, Page fig: Figure 12 indicates that this project shows a zero volume using Faraday even though Figure 5 shown an interior collector street, specifically oceanaire, will tie into Faraday Avenue. There will be traffic generation from certain planning areas within the Kelly Ranch project that would use this collector street and then use Faraday Avenue to travel east or west. These volumes should reflect what projected traffic from these planning areas will be using Faraday to Cannon, or to College Boulevard, or to El Camino Real. This comment also applies to Figure 13. Item 4: There is also no indication that this report took into consideration the extension of Cannon Road easterly of El Camino Real to the City limits and on into Oceanside. If these traffic volumes were used, this data should be included in this report. Item 5, Page 8: Under the projected 1989 ADT, this report indicates Park and Kelly Drive will be able to accommodate the additional 3OO ADT projected from Phase I of Kelly Ranch, and that Park and Kelly can accommodate up to 5,000 ADT. This report does not give an indication of the projected volumes on Park and Kelly Drive, nor what it would be when the projected traffic generation from Kelly Ranch is included. Item 6, Page 8: Under Tamarack Avenue, this study makes an indication that areawide improvements will reduce traffic volumes on Tamarack Avenue. In order to verify this statement, picas* indicate what areawide improvements will be constructed. Also, please discuss the fact that existing volumes using Tamarack Avenue have the street currently operating at a high end of Level of Service "D". Item 7, Page 8: Under El Camino Real, Figure 10 as mentioned earlier indicates El Camino Real will be at Level of service "D" with the inclusion of traffic from Phase I. How can it avoid going to worse levels of service when the other three phases are added. 6/88 U.S.A. INC. FMZ 8/KELLY RANCH 000187 Pi»« 2 of 2 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May 3, 1988 Drban Systems Associates, Inc. Nay 3, 1988 Page 4 Item 8, Pag* 9: Palomar Airport Road is also indicated on Figure 10 asoperating at Level of Service D with existing volumes. How can it avoid going to worse levels of service when Zone 8traffic is added. Item 9, Page 9: Please discuss the operating level of service for 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road and what effect the Kelly Ranch project will have on this interchange. |fi£e.: Concerning the "Future Short-Tens Impact and MitigationAnalysis" (Figures 10 through 15), the comments on Pages 8 through 12 regarding the traffic shown on the road segments are inconsistent with the acceptable levels of service for roadvolumes as established in the Guidelines Manual. Item 10, Page 12a: This regards the percent trip distributions. Thedistributions of traffic flowing northerly on El Camino Real at Chestnut indicates a lit traveling west on Chestnut with a 19* traveling northerly on El Camino Real. This doesn't seem realistic. Chestnut, to the west, does not connect to 1-5, while Elm Avenue, the next arterial to the north, does.In our opinion, Kelly Ranch should revise the Chestnut percentage downward and thus analyze the El Camino Real and Elm Avenue intersection, in compliance with the performance standard. Also on the same page are splits at Palomar Airport Road and1-5 showing 15* going southerly and 15% going northerly. This too does not seem realistic. Most traffic that would want to travel southerly from Zone 8 would travel along Palomar Airport Road to 1-5. If the desire was to the north, such traffic would use Tamarack and Elm Avenue (ultimately Cannon Road). It is staff's belief that a 20% to 23% of the 30% traffic using Palomar Airport Road wouldactually use the interchange to travel south on Interstate 5. Item 11, Pages I2a-I2d: The lack of any traffic distribution to Faraday, andsubsequently College, Palomar Airport Road, El Camino Real and Cannon Road is unrealistic. corrections are required for both near-term and buildout conditions. Item 12, Page 13a: Some of the volumes of level of service indicated on this chart may change due to comments mentioned earlier in this letter. As you can see, there are a number of issues which must be resolved. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 438-1161. STEVEN c. -SAHTZ Associate Civil Engineer SCJ:af c:Lloyd Hubbs David Mauser Phil Carter Brian Hunter Bob Johnson Marty Bouman 5/88 U.S.A. INC. FMZ 8/KELLY RANCH 000187 A""yi"ATTACHMENT 2 1.363 16% ALGA 1,153 LEGEND: •«»• * na 15 Bwtflryncx • Zwi 15 M> UIT X XX * Trip DHtHkrtlw >Vt«M«|M HO ICM.C FIGURE 14 1989 - PHASE I TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES AND ADT s/ee F.H.Z. IB U.S.A. INC. (5-C) 920, 2.364 — e" 3%, 394 1.970 ALGA 115% LEGEND: • ••• = TMZ 15 Boonfery XXX « Zone I 5 Only ADT XXX = Trip Distribution Pt •CSCM.I FIGURE 15 1990 - PHASE II TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES AND ADT 5/86 U.S.A. INC. ooastr FMZ 8/KELLY RANCH CAHLSBAD F.M.2. 16 - U.S.A. INC. -0033*7 V 000187 I.8J9 3.31 1 ^C 3*J S52 2.759 _ ALGA 115% LEGEND! m t Ztm IS tw> ADT XXX * T <s> HO (CM.C FIGURE 16 1991 - PHASE HI TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES AND ADT 5/81B C4HISI4D F.M.7. 15 y.s.4. we. - (5-C) /.S.>*. //VC. 696 LEGEND: • •»• = FMZ I 5 Bomhry XXX « Zont I 5 Only ADT XXX = Trip Distribution Ptrctnugtt •0«CM.t FIGURE 17 1992 - PHASE IV TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES AND ADT 00331? 3/P8 FMZ 8/KELLY RANCH CARLSBAD FM.t. fC - U.S.A. INC. - (S-F) 003397 000187 Zone 87.7 Zone 163.7 Through 6.5 Zone 7.7 Zone LEGEND: XXX XXX . 8 CMy 8 + ExI«tlnj + Background Traffic ATTACHMENT 3 (1992) ADT (IN THOUSANDS) PHASE IV * EXISTING * BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 5/68 MI 8/KCLLY RANCH — U.S.A. INC. - d,-in 000197 I 992 C 1989 Vols. X 1.16) 2 «T 38 » • I 1992 ADT 26,TOOX .08 /2, 136/1,84 (•(.! f INCREASE ALL VALU-----• > • — n » •• r^ ••. MB W *BY f .16 TO ESTIMATE I 992 PEAK HOUR rlu* SH=t Iff* A.M. I" 5 ygf •" P.M. ir/c2 ; If 3 Yf* •** II II i! *.«. • !! we1 • -I H |!i|!i[!!jj!!!j[(!l!{ ifllflii IMO «MC i Critical V/C • 0.10 •*C -liit*rMcllM • %m •( Critical I 3/88 ATTACHMENT 4 FMZ 8/KELLY RANCH 000187 ATTACHMENT 5 14 «f 38 ICU Alt. A ICU All. •ICU Alt. C Mev*Ccpcclly ISoo ICU .32- FLOU C»p«clty ICU _ tSOO 1*00 .10 .71 ,10 i.e.•. N* Mltl«MI»n i.o.t. lUSA)- RANCH 000187 ATTACHMENT 6 I 106(170)1 i 189(119) 1 I 141(100) 7;30 - 9:45 AM 14:45-17:30 PM TRAFFIC CONTROL AT PARKDR A.M^P.M) PEAK HOUR EXISTING TRAFFC CONDITtON Ptjt 2 TIME DAY DATE 7;30 - 9:45 AM 15:00-18:00 PM WEDNESDAY 9-10-86 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 PHASE tf 2^X WTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AT KELLY DRtVE .M (P.M) PEAK HOURUtttc EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITION n N »i&uM MEMORANDUM MAY 19, 1988 TO: LLOYD HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER FROM: PHIL CARTER RE: CANNON ROAD - ZONE 8 Growth Management staff is completing its review of the Zone 8 Plan. At issue is the construction timing and proposed financing of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and 1-5. I would like to request an up-dated status report of the Cannon Road Assessment District. The applicant is using the Assessment District as a financing alternative. However, the timing of the construction of Cannon Road must conform to the proposed phasing of development within the zone. Thank you for your time. PHILIP O. CARTER POC:SJ/af MY 1880 c: Steven Jantz Brian Hunter 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJfW^M TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WNff JfM (619)438-1161 CCtttj of Otohsbafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 9, 1988 Brian Milich Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92130 Dear Mr. Milich: The purpose of this letter is to officially notify you that the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 will not be completed in time to meet the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission hearing date. We have attempted to complete this plan but have been unable to do so under the State mandated timelines. Therefore, we have explained to you your options which are to withdraw your application without prejudice at this time or to have staff take your plan forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial without prejudice because the plan is not completed. Your withdrawal letter must be received by noon, June 27, or a staff report will be included in the Planning Commission packet with a recommendation for denial. If you have any questions or need this letter clarified, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Growth Management Manager POC:af c: Ray Patchett, City Manager Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Vince Biondo, City Attorney 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJwJB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WHMW (619)438-1161 0f PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 1, 1988 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering & Transportation Planning 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, CA 92123 RE: ZONE 8 TRAFFIC STUDY This is in response to your letter dated May 19, 1988 regarding the City's comments to the Zone 8 Traffic Study. The following comments were reviewed by City Staff and the City's Traffic Consultant. The City still does not agree with the recommendations and conclusions presented in a traffic study for Zone 8. The basis for the analysis of road link capacities is the street classification designations for those road segments impacted by traffic generated from within the boundaries of Zone 8. Based upon the information presented in the Zone 8 traffic analysis and when compared to the City's Circulation Guidelines Manual, the following road segments fall below the performance standard: 1. Tamarack Avenue between Pio Pico and 1-5. 2. El Camino Real from (a) Palomar Airport Road to Faraday; and (b) Faraday to Tamarack 3. Palomar Airport from (a) Palomar Oaks Way to Paseo del Norte; and (b) Paseo del Norte to the 1-5 southbound ramps. Attached is a list of the streets impacted by traffic generated from this zone. As can be seen on this chart with the projections of traffic generated with the first phase of development in Zone 8, assumed traffic from Zone 15 plus existing, plus additional background traffic, a number of street segments fall below the adopted performance standard. The projected ADT presented in the traffic study when compared to the City's Guideline Manual results in the level of service shown on the chart. Urban Systems Associates June 1, 1988 Page 2 Therefore, in conformance with the Growth Management Program, a mitigation plan must be presented to ensure that these road segments will operate at the acceptable level of service prior to any development within the zone. The mitigation presented in the circulation study did not propose improvements to the road segments mentioned above. This plan must present road system improvements for each area identified to fall below the performance standard so that the performance standard will be maintained through the proposed phasing of development. Being that time is of the essence, this zone must be specifically conditioned to ensure that the road segments which fall below the standard must be mitigated. An alternative could be but is not limited to, the construction of Cannon Road from El Camino Real to 1-5. But, in any case, improvements will be necessary so that development can proceed in 1989 as presented in the Zone 8 plan. Also, as shown in Figure 13 (1992 ADT) , that portion of Cannon Road from Faraday Avenue to 1-5 will be required to be upgraded from a proposed two-lane road to the ultimate four-lane major arterial standard. This is necessary due to the fact that the 1992 projected traffic in that section of Cannon Road results in this segment operating at a Level of Service D. Therefore, a mitigation plan must be adopted prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 8 to ensure that this road segment will be upgraded when necessary (the year 1992). With the time remaining to complete the Zone 8 Plan, the City will be conditioning the approval of this Zone Plan with the necessary improvements to ensure conformance with the standard at each location shown to be operating below the adopted performance standard. As it stands now these conditions would require that the road segments which operate at a Level of Service D or worse would require mitigation. The necessary classifications required to ensure that the road segment operates at an acceptable level of service is also presented on the attached 1989 ADT worksheet. Even though the Guidelines Manual indicates that a second level of analysis can be prepared, there is no time to complete that analysis and keep within the timeframe necessary to bring this plan forward to a public hearing. This is the reason why these conditions will be necessary to be included in the Zone 8 Plan. Attached to this letter are the conditions which will be included in the Zone Plan. Therefore, in closing, there is still a requirement that the intersection geometries be submitted and included within the Zone Plan for those intersections and road segments impacted by traffic from this zone. The geometries should reflect existing and ultimate buildout conditions or Urban Systems Associates June 1, 1988 Page 3 phased construction required to complete the necessary improvements so that the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer SCJ:af Enclosure 1989 AOT - PHASE I + EXISTING + BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Tamarack Pio Pico - Adams Adams - Highland Pio Pico - 1-5 El Cam i no Real Classification (Access II 4 Ln Collector |Yes I 2 Ln Collector |Yes I I U Ln Collector |Yes Median No No No Projected 1989 ADT 16,000 L.O.S. A I Proposed Result Necessary Result Mitigation (l.O.S. (Classification JL.O.S. i | |4 Ln Sec. Art. 1 1 13,000 | C | | |4 Ln Sec. Art. 24,000 D 1 1 | |4 Ln Sec. Art. P.A.R. - Faraday |4 Ln Sec. Art.1 |Some I Faraday - Tamarack | 4 Ln Sec. Art. |Some I Tamarack - Elm |4 Ln Sec. Art |Some I I Yes Yes Yes 31,500 29,600 24,700 E D C |6 Ln Prime Art 1 |6 Ln Prime Art 1 |6 Ln Prime Art 1 1 B • C (B/0) C |(B/0) c A B/0 B/0 1 1 Portion of E.C.R (Existing) - 5 Lanes Palomar Airport Road ECR - Palomar Oaks | 4/6 Ln prime Art. | Some | Yes | 21,000 | Pal Oaks - Paseo | III I del Norte |2 Ln Collector (Yes | No | 25,000 | Paseo Del Norte - | III I 1-5 (S.B.) |2 Ln Collector JYes j Yes j 29,700 | I III I I III I I I F (1989 - "Free" | | Right N/B off j | Ramp2 | |6 Ln Prime Art | A I I |6 Ln Prime Art | A I I I I I I |6 Ln Prime Art | A B/0 B/0 B/0 Also share in 1-5 improvement NOAMAN T. HOIIHT CAPUAN |_AW OFFICES SELTZER CAPLAN WILKINS • EOINALD A VITIH jAMtS B FRANKLIN •TtOHEN DDUQLA* MOYEP. JAMES • . »r»»ON JEFFnCY L. MAVQN • ONNlt HEL&OM HEADINGDAVID j. Donne JAMEV H. DAWC CLIUBCTH A. »MlTH JULIE P. DUVC* JOTCI A MCCOY DENNI* J. WlCKHAM rriAFT* A. KP*Aft^ER ANN W «U*» 3OO3-3O*3 FOURTH POST OFFICE BOX X33999 BAN DIECO, CALIFORNIA 0SIQ TtLCPl-lONE «JIO1 ESE-3OO3 TELECOPY lCl») tOO-0904 VI CULVEH WMITNCV M • •UCC H FA9AM DONALD A «NOLI»M MICKA£L H HINCY Jut" *. PAUL * "tr»CM KtV(M * WRBNCB E, PATHlClA J. MIHOLA KAREN M ZQBELL TO DO E OOYLC EUN4K T. MEniDETH MI^IHAKC- O- r^AftDl DANIEL O, DOL-Ahl SCAN T. HAROAOCN NtAL » DANISH JCrFBCY * MAkTIMAN VmA R PAH DEC JAMEB f. DELPHCY -lANlCC BHOWN June 23, 1988 Mr. Philip Carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Kaufman and Broad Kelly Ranch Project Local Facilities Management Plan Management Zone No. 8 Our File No. 3796.37419 Dear Mr. Carter; As you know from our meeting on June 8, 1988, we represent Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, inc. (Kaufman and Broad) in connection with its application for approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8. Staff tentatively had docketed the Zone 8 plan for the July 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Staff provided Kaufman and Broad with proposed special conditions on June 7, 1988, and requested that Kaufman and Broad accept the proposed special conditions immediately (and make other minor amendments to the text of the proposed Zone 8 plan). Kaufman and Broad raised specific concerns with you on June 7, 1988, and during its meeting on June 8, 1988, regarding the proposed conditions. The proposed conditions apparently require, prior to the issuance of any development permit within Zone 8, that the City adopt a financing mechanism which would guarantee the construction of certain sewer and circulation improvements. 99:11 88'£6 unf fObS 863 6T9 131 NbldbD Page 2 Carter June 23, 1988 At this time, Kaufman and Broad is unable, based on the City's processing time restrictions under the California Environmental Quality Act, to respond to the proposed conditions and obtain the necessary assurances from the City regarding the ability of Kaufman and Broad to proceed with the Zone 8 development concurrently with the provision of the facilities requested by the City. Therefore, we are withdrawing the Zone 8 plan at this time subject to the following conditions which we understand also are acceptable to you: 1. The withdrawal is without prejudice. 2. No new rules or regulations would apply to the resubmitted application. 3. Staff will accept the resubmitted application immediately for processing when submitted and will docket the resubmitted plan for the next available docket (tentatively, August 17, 1988) once the issues have been resolved to the mutual satisfacti <i* Kaufman and Broad and the City. We request that the Planning Commission keep the item on the agerd-- of the meeting of July 6, 1988, for a status report fro* regarding the efforts of Kaufman and Broad to address the concerns Since Kaufman and Broad already has deposited funds for *•'" processing of the Zone 8 plan, Kaufman and Broad also reque * waiver of the deposit for the resubroittal. It is the intent of Kaufman and Broad to continue to work with the City on the Zone 8 plan to address the issues and proceed with its approval. Kaufman and Broad, however, must have its concerns addressed regarding the required guarantees (pursuant to the proposed special conditions) and the relationship of the guarantees to appropriate assurances that Kaufman and Broad will have a vested right to proceed with the Zone 8 development. We will be contacting the City immediately regarding meetings to address specifically these important issues. Vefty truly ^urs^/[). „,,,-. - ,,,. UHjut!Jamas R, DaWe SBL-DZER CAPLAN WILKINS & McMAHON fRD/pb/2l3/K-22 cc: Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. •ft'A 17?: si 88'97 unr frOfift 8F>7, fiI9 'ON 131 NUldbD >I3Z113<; 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE M^W-lB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WfrWjfM (619)438-1161 ^BiifcXrfi^r Olttg of (Eariahab PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 27, 1988 Mr. James R. Dawe Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon 3003-3043 Fourth Avenue P.O. BOX X33999 San Diego, CA 92103 Dear Mr. Dawe: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your June 23, 1988 correspondence on behalf of the Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. regarding their request to withdraw their application for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 within the City of Carlsbad. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 was not completed as required by the state mandated timelines and therefore has been scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 6r 1988 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The recommended action by staff is to deny the plan without prejudice. The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan is still scheduled for the Planning Commission because of your letter asking for "conditional" withdrawal of the application cannot be accepted by the City. The assertion in your letter that staff agrees with these conditions is not correct. The conditions as written are not acceptable to the City. Following the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, staff will prepare the appropriate invoice for City time spent while reviewing the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. As allowed under the Growth Management Program, an invoice for this staff time will be sent to Kaufman and Broad and must be paid within 30 days. Once the invoice has been paid, the City will reaccept a new application for the preparation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. Mr. James R. Dawe June 27, 1988 Page Two If you have any questions or need additional clarification to this letter, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager POC:af Ray Patchett, City Manager Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Vince Biondo, City Attorney Brian Milich, Kaufman and Broad JULY 5, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 8 - KELLY RANCH The purpose of this memo is to clarify staff's recommendation concerning the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 - Kelly Ranch. Staff is recommending that the Plan be denied without prejudice, based on the findings as follows: 1. California Government Code requires that the development projects shall be approved or disapproved within specific time limits. 2. The present condition of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 does not comply with the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90. 3. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 does not meet the guidelines for preparation of the Facilities Management Plan as adopted by the City Council per Resolution No. 8797. Specifically, those are the findings that staff is asking the Planning Commission to make when recommending that they deny the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 without prejudice on July 6, 1988. Staff has never received a completed Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. Therefore, there is no way for staff to recommend approval. It is for that reason that staff has recommended that the Planning Commission deny this Plan without prejudice. If you have any additional questions or need further clarification we will be happy to provide you with it during the public hearing on July 6th. PHILIP 0. CARTER bjn c: Planning Director Brian Hunter Steve Jantz Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008-2439 729-9291 "Excellence In Education" BOARD OF TRUSTEES JOE ANGEL President JAMES McCORMICK Vice President JULIANNE L. NYGAARD Clerk DONALD M. JOHNSON Member J. EDWARD SWITZER. JR. Member DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION THOMAS K. BRIERLEY, Ed.D.. Superintendent SUSAN-HARUMI BENTLEY Assistant Superintendent Instructional Services JOHN H. BLAIR Assistant Superintendent Business Services GERALD C. TARMAN Director Personnel Services DEWAYNE L. FEASEL Manager Facilities/Maintenance/ Operations June 30, 1988 Mr. Mike Holtzmiller City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Subject: Review of Local Facilities Management Zones Frequently, Carlsbad Unified School District is requested by the Planning Department to review individual Zone Plans to determine whether we can meet schools facilities needs, and at present, the District is holding requests concerning Zones 8, 20, and 22 for review. However, reviewing zones one by one results in a piecemeal approach towards school requirements and has not proven satisfactory, particularly in view of the way they are being evaluated one by one. We are attempting to deal with pieces of the picture, rather than the entire picture. I would suggest that, as a minimum, we must examine quadrants, rather than zones, to get a larger, more accurate picture of schools facilities needs. Looking at each zone as a single entity seems to ignore the total impact. Sincerely, Johrl H. Blair Assistant Superintendent sBuyiness Services JHBrnjg c: Brian Hunter, Assoc. Planner/ L ,\ Distinguished School Board Award 1984, United States Department of Education 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • iflff j • TEL CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ^FWHJfM (619) - Citp of Cartebab COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 30, 1988 James R. Dawe Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon 3003-3043 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box X33999 San Diego, CA 92103 RE: Kaufman and Broad Kelly Ranch Project Local Facilities Management Zone 8 Dear Mr. Dawe: Please understand that the City of Carlsbad cannot accept a withdrawal of an application with any conditions. This is based on my discussion with and the determination made by the City Attorney. Staff is recommending that the project be denied without prejudice. It is also our understanding that no new rules or regulations would apply to the resubmittal of your application of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 provided it is done immediately following the payment of the City's invoice for staff time spent on the plan. At our June 8, 1988 meeting, I was told by Brian Milich and yourself that Kaufman and Broad along with its consultants would continue to work with staff to process all of the necessary corrections to make this plan complete. To date, almost a month later, we have not received any corrected information nor has Brian Milich contacted staff to continue this process. The third condition or request as identified in your letters is not acceptable to the City. Please refer to my previous correspondence dated June 27, which indicates what actions must be followed in order for your plan to be accepted for resubmittal. If you have any questions or would like to meet with staff prior to the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission public hearing, please call me. Sincerely, /%y^ xj /^_/ PHILIPO/CARTER Assistant to the City Manager POC:af c: Ray Patchett, City Manager Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Vince Biondo, City Attorney Brian Milich, Kaufman and Broad «"«•*_.»_ SELTZER CA^LAN WILKINS & ~~—" NAL * ."^SSL *°*T «'rict B°x "-"-— «.v,». .< 300300.9 rou-r,. Avesue jStToVTSU.... •OMNtc yuW^ •t*«iNO SAN OICOO. C*Li»*Oi»NfA ftl O3 SJr^riit'e MARC SM MMtjv «•• SJAMC TrL*»t«iiyK HI at M*.*<-M-vi *A*BN ** IO9CI.I.•ejMm ? •c.ncn Ts>fc»^"«v™» wvi «^»-*w«-« TODO c oo^cc **.»**•*« A SMITM ^,, ..-^^^ **,», -^.-fc ****** C.thCm T ' JV«-t« * I JOYCC A, ' MA«1 A UlVJngn e,OKMT W _€OwVOI NCAi. A «A». Sb r*ceft*>cw - wroctrw o* COWNML vmA « •*e>oct P»O "~~~ ^*.-»-Cl •(«««(*• fCAOwC June 30, 1988 Mr. Philip carter Growth Management Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Re: Kaufman and Broad Kelly Ranch Project Local Facility Management Plan Management Zone 8 Dear Mr. Carter: By my letter dated June 23, 1988, I communicated to you, in accordance with our discussion during the meeting on June 8, 1988, the request for withdrawal by Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, inc., of its application for approval of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8. The request for withdrawal was conditioned upon the following three conditions: " 1. The withdrawal is without prejudice. 2. No new rules or regulations would apply to the reaubmitted application. 3. Staff will accept the resubmitted application immediately for processing when submitted and will docket the resubmitted plan for the next available docket (tentatively, August 17, 1988) once the issues have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of Kaufman and Broad and the City." ZCTd t7£:8 88'0£ unf t?068 862 6T9 'ON 131 NbldbD a: «-fO68 962 6T9 '. WdTt>:9 99-62-9 ' 0T0i y3IdCD3~l31 xoy3X:Aa Page 2 Carter June 30. 1988 Let me reiterate that during the June 8, 1988, meeting, you stated that each one of the three above conditions were, in essence, acceptable to you. I, therefore, do not understand your assertion to the contrary in your letter dated June 27, 1988, to me. I would appreciate your clarification of which of the three above conditions you believe is not acceptable now to the City. Please note that my letter clearly delineated between the conditions of withdrawal, as restated above, and the other legitimate requests made in my letter. With regard to the other requests, we made no assertion that you had agreed to the requests. I request your prompt response to this letter informing which of the three above conditions "as written are not acceptable to the City." Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in connection with my request. VAry truly yo < is*If. DAwe" 88&TZER CAPLAN WILKIMS & McMAHON (ccA Mr. Brian Milich Mr. Ray Patchett, City Manager Mr. Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Mr. Vince Blondo, City Attorney 20'd $2 = 8 88'02 unf t?068 86S 619 'ON 131 NbldbD f-t'QeS 863 6T9 '. WdTfr:S 88-63-9 : 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009-4859 August 19, 1988 TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 of (EarLabab PLANNING DEPARTMENT Steve Flint Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 8 Dear Mr. Flint: This letter is to follow up on our meeting of this date. Billing of City staff time for work accomplished prior to this submittal will be forthcoming. This is the first time we've been able to review the plan as a whole since the original submittal. Specific comments were made at our meeting, however, in general, the following applies: 1. Format needs to be consistent with previously adopted plans. 2. Numbers throughout the plan are inconsistent or need further explanation. 3. We are unable to review circulation without a traffic report. If this was an initial submittal, we would be required to reject it. 4. A comprehensive financing plan needs to follow the water section as a separate section, as well as be included in the Executive Summary. A schedule to public hearing will be provided as soon as the corrections indicated at today's meeting have been accomplished and reviewed by City staff. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af c: Zone 8 Property Owners Philip Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Steven Jantz, Associate Engineer Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite 120 San Diego. California 92130 (619) 259-6000 Kaufman Broad August 4, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Assistant to the City Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan Dear Phil: As you know, we resubmitted the Zone 8 Local Facility Management Plan last week. We would like to receive as soon as possible a schedule of the processing and hearing dates for this plan. We will continue to do everything within our power to respond in a timely fashion to any comments that you may have so that we can expedite the processing of this document. To this extent, we hope that Staff will consider the processing of this plan a partnership between the City and the Zone 8 proponents since there are many benefits to both parties. I appreciate your continued cooperation and we look forward to successfully completing this plan in the near future. In the mean time, please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely Brian J. Milich Director, Forward Planning BJM/kam cc: Mr. Marty Orenyak 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • • jftjfi • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 •jg/JjrJB (619)438-1161 of PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 2, 1988 Steven Flint Turrini and Brink 1920 East 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701-6699 RE: ZONE 8 LFMP RESUBMITTAL Dear Mr. Flint: Thank you for the resubmittal of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. If the plan is, as you believe, ready for Planning Commission with a few minor additions, then the following process would occur. At such time as staff is confident the plan is complete, 15 copies of the plan are delivered to department heads and special districts for a two week review period culminating in a comment conference. A one week re-write period then ensues to allow comments/corrections to be made. At that time 75 copies of the plan are requested. Approximately two weeks after the 75 copies are delivered, the plan is scheduled for public hearing at Planning Commission. Public hearing at City Council generally occurs one month later. Please note that your turnaround copying time is not included in this schedule and must be estimated by yourself. Further, please understand that this schedule presupposes a resubmittal of the plan assuming its denial August 2, 1988. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Philip Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Steven Jantz, Associate Engineer Brian Milich, Kaufman & Broad L I I TURRINI&BRINK| | A PlanningConsultants 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701-6699 (714) 835-1691 FAX # (714i 835-8314 Job No. 149-012 July 27, 1988 Mr. Brian Hunter, Associate Planner Planning Dept., City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: ZONE 8 LFMP RESUBMITTAL Dear Brian: With this letter, I am resubmitting the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8. The fundamental change in this draft is the phasing; buildout is now projected from 1990 through 1994. All tables, charts and text have been revised accordingly. In addition, all revisions you and Steve Jantz requested during the last round of review in June have been incorporated into this draft. I have provided three bound copies of the document for your initial review. I will submit 12 additional copies once you have had a chance to complete your review. With a few minor additions, the Executive Summary and page numbers in place, I believe this draft is ready for Planning Commission review. Please comment at your earliest possible convenience so we may proceed. Sincerely, TURRINI & BRINK Steven Flint Project Manager SF/tml cc: Brian Milich Phil Carter Steve Jantz 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJWjM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 m^V^V (619)438-1161 (Eitu of PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 5, 1988 James R. Dawe Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon 3003-3043 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box X33999 San Diego, CA 92103 Dear Mr. Dawe: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our phone conversation from Thursday, June 30, because I have not received a response from you. It was my understanding that you would contact me on Friday to let me know what Kaufman and Broad had planned to do in terms of withdrawing their application at the Planning Commission of July 6. As you are aware, staff is recommending that the plan be denied without prejudice. As you are also aware, staff cannot accept the conditional withdrawal of your application and therefore has not indicated to the Planning Commission that this application has been withdrawn. If there is any additional information that you would like to provide me before the Planning Commission hearing I would appreciate it. If not, staff plans to provide a brief overview to the Planning Commission of the process which the Zone 8 Plan has taken, that the plan is not completed, and that staff has not reviewed a final document and therefore is recommending that the plan be denied without prejudice at this time. If you have any questions or need additional clarification on any point, please contact me at 438-1161 or 434-2819. Sincere] 0- PHltlP O/ CARTER Assistant to the City Manager POCraf Ray Patchett, City Manager Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Vince Biondo, City Attorney Brian Hunter, Associate Planner Brian Milich, Kaufman and Broad 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 September 23, 1988 TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Steve Flint Turrini and Brink 1920 E. 17th Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 8 Dear Mr. Flint: The following necessary corrections have been identified during City staff's review of your latest submittal (9/12/88). 1. Page 1 - Exhibit 1 is page 4 (document will be repaginated with Table of Contents and Executive Summary additions). 2. All exhibits will have page numbers, references to them in text will include same. 3. Table 1, page 6, Ownership - Include mailing address. 4. Page 11 - Delete discussion regarding access - Kirgis property. 5. Page 15 - Note partial constraints are identified by (K.). 6. Page 20 - (2)? 7. Table 2 - Show all math on OS. 8. Justify phasing with a timeline showing processing. 9. Table 9 - Zone 9 number is not buildout, Zone 20 adopted 9/6/88 City Council Resolution No. 88-322 include phasing and move footnote 11 to Zone 22. 10. Table 10 - Update Zone 8 phasing. Steve Flint September 23, 1988 Page 2 11. Table 13 - Existing 1/1/88 nos. for Zones 1, 3, 5, and 6 respectively are 2,527,276, 1,685,013, 4,992,315, and 841,434. Other number changes for your chart would be Zone 1 2013 number is 57,084, Zone 3 1989 number is 94,136, Zone 5 1997 number is 712,612, and Zone 6 1989 number is 100,000. Final page subtotal incorrect. Revise Table 14 accordingly. 12. City Administration - Provide phasing chart similar to Table 18, Library. 13. Table 17 - Include sewer and water enterprise funds as Safety Center Phase II funding options. 14. Table 18 - Under 1986 CFIP Adequacy Analysis use that document's numbers rather than footnote (4). Footnote (4) should read "Existing Citywide population." 15. Library - Provide financing matrix at end of section. 16. Parks - Provide phasing charts similar to Table 18, Library, with and without mitigation. 17. Pine Senior Center is Special Use Area per latest inventory. Magnolia is 4.1 acres. Future includes Maxtor Brown extension 2.1. 18. Page 66 - Last sentence, capitalize "the". 19. Exhibit 16, Fire - Outline fire service areas only. 20. Page 109 - 30 MPH. Wastewater 21. Use format and charts from Zone 22 (attached). Drainage 22. Page 70: a) Quotation Marks around title to Exhibit 12 b) Subnote 8 - Change storm drain pipe to facilities 23. Page 74: a) Table 24 should be Table 28 b) Remove unnecessary word area (A) 24. Page 75: a) Change and to an (N & R) 25. Page 76: a) Change and to an (M) b) Remove property (Kirgis) Steve Flint September 23, 1988 Page 3 26. Page 77: 28. Page 79: 29. Page 81: 30. Page 82: Circulation 31. Page 83: 32. Page 84: 33. Page 85: a) Change sentence to read ... with current Carlsbad standards b) Change City standard to adopted performance standard c) Adequacy findings: (1) Change Citv to adopted (2) Change met to maintained (3) Change building permit to development permit 27. Page 78: a) Revise mitigation as follows: b) c) Prior to the recordation of any final map for residential property or prior to the approval of any development permit for nonresidential property within Zone 8, the developers are required to: (1) Pay the required drainage area fees established in the current Drainage Master Plan and (2) Execute an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established in the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. Remove area (A) Remove down (G) a) Remove down (K) b) Change and to an (M, N & R) c) Include facilities through Macario Park d) Capitalize "T" in last sentence a) Revise heading to table 29 a) Table 30 - revise cost a) Capitalize Local b) Change primary to prime c) P.A.R. completed in 1989 a) Exhibit 13 - Use approved road classifications a) Faraday Aye. b) Revise streets impacted by 20% traffic Steve Flint September 23, 1988 Page 4 34. Exhibits 14 a - g: a) All exhibits must be in numerical order with page numbers b) Show % distribution at zone boundaries and at all intersections c) Revise length of graphic 35. Page 86: a) No reference in text to Table 31 36. Page 87: a) Complete last sentence in last paragraph 37. Page 88 - Exhibit 15: a) Wrong page number b) No reference to note 1 and 3 38. Page 92: a) Change to: As shown on Table 33 ... 39. Page 93: a) Include LOS at buildout 40. Page 94: a) Explain peak hour analysis b) Note --- not necessary 41. Page 95: a) Place issues behind mitigation b) What would happen if signals on Tamarack are delayed? c) Cannon Road - state that 4 lanes needed by 1994 d) El Camino Real - state when 6 lanes needed 42. Page 96: a) Capitalize p_rior b) Mitigation ?2, include ...circulation improvements 43. Page 97: a) Construction of Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Paseo Del Norte to include the following: (1) Grade to major arterial standards (2) Two full travel lanes (3) Fully landscaped median (4) Intersection improvements including installation of traffic signals at: Steve Flint September 23, 1988 Page 5 (a) Cannon Road and El Camino Real1 (b) Cannon Road and Paseo del Norte1 Estimated Cost Completion date 'Complete intersection geometries included in Appendix . b) Install traffic signals at Cannon Road and 1-5 northbound and southbound intersections. Estimated Cost Completion date 44. Page 98: a) Combine full width Cannon with intersection of El Camino Real (use form as shown above) b) Combine 1995 Numbers 2 and 3 c) Include improvements at buildout d) Include: El Camino Real to 6 lanes - Faraday through Macario Park 45. Page 99: a) Remove last sentence in third paragraph Sewer 46. Page 122: a) Change divider from sewerage to sewer b) Change area to district c) Change master sewer to sewer master d) Inventory - Change to ...sewer collection system 47. Page 126: a) No reference to Table 35 48. Page 127: a) Include sizes and costs for gravity portion of S.A.H.I. 49. Page 130: a) Adequacy misspelled 50. Page 131: a) Second funding option - developer Steve Flint September 23, 1988 Page 6 Water 51. Staff will transmit latest edition of this section to CRMWD for their review. Any comment returned will be incorporated with comments from City's department heads after their review. Upon completion of these corrections, please contact this office for our review. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af c: Zone 8 property owners Philip 0. Carter - Assistant to the City Manager Steven C. Jantz - Associate Civil Engineer 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • orWjB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 - ' (619)438-1161 (Etta of PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 18, 1988 William Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Hofman: Review of the November 15, 1988 Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan submittal indicates the need for further corrections prior to scheduling for Planning Commission public hearing. While the majority of corrections required are of a non-substantive nature (format, typos, etc.) there are significant changes to the circulation and school sections which once completed will need to be reviewed by City staff. Please verify all text and numbers for consistency throughout the document. If you have any questions regarding staff's comments do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af cc: Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 of (Earlabafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 22, 1988 Brian Milich KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 12520 High Bluff Dr., Suite 120 San Diego, CA. 92130 Dear Mr. Milich; Review of the November 15, 1988 Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan submittal indicates the need for further corrections prior to scheduling for Planning Commission Public Hearing. The City recognizes that some discontinuity is to be expected with a change in consultants. The majority of corrections required are of a non-substantive nature (format, typos, etc.). There are significant changes to the circulation and school sections which once completed will need to be reviewed by City Staff. We appreciate the concerted effort of both yourself and your consultant working towards a completed plan. Sincerely, Phi'lip 0. Carter Assistant to the City Manager c: Don Rideout - Senior Management Analyst POCrkd Milich.Itr City of Carlsbad November 30, 1988 Wayne Callaghan 38 Redhawk Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Mr. Callaghan: Thank you for your letter of November 22, 1988 in follow-up to our conversation of the same' day. Upon further review of the issues which you described to me, I have concluded that your concerns are wholly outside the scope of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8, and it would not be appropriate for the City to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues. To summarize the issues as I understand them, you have concerns regarding the following items: 1) The ultimate disposition of parcels M and N of Kelly Ranch. 2) The stub-in of utilities to parcels M and N. 3) The allocation to parcels M and N of costs for public facilities. 4) Participation in the Cannon Road assessment district. While we appreciate the importance of these items, however, they are premature for consideration at this time and do not need to be addressed as part of the facilities plan preparation. For this reason, it would not be prudent for City staff to arrange a meeting of the type you have requested. If there are more compelling reasons why a meeting of Zone 8 property owners should be held, please send a new letter outlining these reasons, and I will reconsider the question. Otherwise, a meeting to discuss these issues is premature at this time. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, DON RIDEOUT Senior Management Analyst c: Zone 8 Property Owners Philip 0. Carter Michael Holzmiller 2O75 Las Palmas Drive-Carlsbad, California 92OO9-«4859-(619) 438-1161 Wayne Callaghan 38 Redhawk Irvine, Ca.-9i@©9*- November 22,1988 Mr. Don Rideout City of Carlsbad 2075 LasPalmas Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Dear Mr. Rideout: As discussed with you earlier today, I believe it would be beneficial to set up a meeting between yourself, a person directly employed by Kaufman and Broad (not a consultant), and myself. I was pleased to find, after making the suggestion, that both yourself and Mr. Carter had previously come to the same opinion and were going to suggest such a meeting. I believe the Kelly Ranch is a good project and will be beneficial to all parties including the City. It is not my intent to slow down the process of this project, but rather, to have a few issues clarified related to the Local Facility Management Plan, prior to its approval. I was pleased that you did not perceive that this would delay the project. Thank you for your time and patience regarding this matter. I am willing to meet any time and am willing to change my calendar so that the meeting can take place as soon as possible. Feel free to contact me at any time by calling (714) 559-6200 or (714) 559-5675. cc: Kaufman and Broad, San Diego cc: Mr. Richard Ruben Costa Real Municipa Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (619) 438-2722 Engineering Dept: 438-3367 January 11, 1989 Mr. Steve Jantz City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Steve: We are writing you regarding the recently City approved Zone Plan No. 8. The District has reviewed subject zone and have a concern that this zone plan was approved without our review of the District's re- visions requested on our first review of October 21, 1988. There are items that need to be corrected, and we suggest that perhaps we should schedule a meeting to discuss and resolve these items. Please give me a call, and I will be happy to arrange a meeting time with our District Engineer and you folks. Thanks, Jerry Engineering Supervisor JW:sjs cc: Phil Carter Bob Greaney CRMWD 86-110 May 18, 1987 TO: NANCY ROLLMAN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: CHARLES KUBLI, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ZONE 8 - LOCAL FACILITY PLAN A preliminary review of the draft plan for Zone 8 yields the following comments: Circulation 1. Exhibit 13 fails to address the impact to intersections at various stages of development, i.e.. Phase I and Cannon Road improvements not constructed, etc. 2. Page 49, Phasing: Proposed Facilities, the recommended Phasing of street improvements listed in Table 18 is based on two assumptions: a) Buildout of Zone 8 projected to 1990, and b) the yearly growth for the area of three percent. The assumptions are incorrect since the recommended phasing is to be based on city wide buildout, not Zone 8 only.. Also, Table 15 Assessment of buildout impact to intersections is to be revised accordingly. 3. Per the local Facilities Management Plan Standards, vertical and horizontal alignment plans at a 1":200I scale are required for Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue. Sewer Collection .System Page 61, Phasing: Proposed Facilities, the analysis discussing Cannon Road trunk line does not address the construction phasing of the required lift station in consistency with the phasing of the de- velopment or the financing mechanisms for the staged construction. Michael, The attached chart summarizes the buildout informations for Zone 8. The last column, without a heading, is the Net Acreage total from the figures presented to us from the plan preparers. As you can see their numbers differ from our calculations. It appears they made a mistake in calculating Net Acres which resulted in the lost of 14 dwelling units. Gary, Nancy and I reviewed the different scenarios they presented in an effort to bring the Zone's dwelling unit number closer to their approved Master Plan. At the bottom of the attached chart is their alternative tt4. At Costal review they lost 2.5 acres of RMH from village A, 2.5 acres of RMH of village C, and 14 acres of RM from village D. Multiplying these acreage figures by the corresponding growth control point, results in a total of 141.5 dwelling units. It was our feeling that a rational to allow them to recover these dwelling units was appropriate due to the unique nature of the zone. The final dwelling unit numbers that we are confirming are preliminary from the standpoint that we were unable to review a detailed constraints map for Zone 8. What this means is that as more specific plans are presented to the planning department, these numbers may be reduced if the land is subsequently shown to be more constrained at a future time. Therefore, the Zone 8 residential dwelling unit buildout totals are as follows: With the power lines relocated: Kelly 1,214 Kirgris 11. Total Zone 8 1,225 With the power lines in place: Kelly 1,187 Kirgris 11 Total Zone 8 1,198 c: Gary Nancy B.O. 14-Jan-87 PC ZONE 8 KELLY RANCH A B C E F G H I J K L H N 0 P Q R RL RH RHH LAND USE :H RHH OS RHH RH RC RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RN RH RL OS ioU< 11.0 146.4 16.9 RH RH RHH GROSS ACRES 11.3 201.8 9.5 40.0 8.7 15.2 14.4 16.2 7.3 16.8 4.1 6.4 5.6 14.0 12.8 23.7 25.0 432.8 22 288 AoC* 1.0 6.0 11.5 2.5 2.5 14.0 POWER LINE EASEHT. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0 0 11.0 878.4 194.4 1,083.8 11.5 11.5 6.0 ARTERIALS ROADS 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0 0 28.8 28.8 84.0 40S SLOPE 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.5 2.0 3.3 0.1 1.1 4.7 0.4 2.3 0.5 2.5 0.6 10.0 3.9 34.9 7.5 0 I RL RH RHH 25-40X SLOPE 1.0 0.0 2.6 1.6 2.2 4.4 3.8 1.4 1.6 3.4 0.8 1.2 1.4 2.8 3.0 4.6 5.2 41.0 7 0 ^J 6— „_— • 11.0 141.8 16.9 DEV. 25-401 SLOPE 1 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.8 1.1 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.6 20.5 3.5 0.0 JxiiU' 1.0 6.0 11.5 NET NET ACRES ACRES POWER LINE WITH RELOCATED POWER LINE 10.0 201.8 6.9 35.9 6.1 9.8 8.4 14.6 5.4 10.4 3.3 3.5 4.4 10.1 10.7 11.4 18.5 371.2 11.0 288.0 11.0 850.8 194.4 10.0 201.8 6.9 35.7 6.1 6.5 7.3 14.6 5.4 10.4 3.3 3.5 4.4 10.1 10.7 11.4 18.5 366.6 11.0 288.0 n 1,056.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 141.5 TOTAL WITH POWER LINE EASEHENT REMOVED TOTAL WITH EASEHENT IN PLACE 1,083.8 4- 141.5 1,056.2 -v 141.5 1,225.3 1,197.7 MEMORANDUM JUNE 1, 1988 TO: JIM ELLIOTT, FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: BRIAN HUNTER, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Please provide ending balance of park-in-lieu Area 1 northwest fund for the year 1992. This information is necessary to complete the Growth Management Analysis for parks efficiency for the Zone 8 Plan. As the Zone Plan will be going to Planning Commission in the near future, your prompt response to this request by June 9th is greatly appreciated. Thank you. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me at 438-1161. BH:af Zone 8 Comment Summary Sheet Date: 1/11/88 Comment Response Action 1 . Redo title page/cover sheet 2. Provide tabbed section dividers 3. Revise table of contents 4- . Revise Executive Summary 5. Exhibit #1 - Use City map 6. Exhibit #2 - Revise, show entire quadrant 7. Exhibit #3 - Revise 8. Kirgis - 21.9 acres 9. Macario Canyon Park plan update as part of this local plan 10. Exhibit #4 - Purpose? 11. Page 14 - Significant archae- logical site not shown on constraints map or Table 2 12. Revise Table 2 per Zone 11 Plan Exhibit 11 breakdown by indivd- ual area (Zone 11, Exhibit 14 13. Provide constraints analysis on Macario Canyon park 14. Rewrite density calculations 15. Phasing (Table 7) needs revision 16. City Administrative Facilities - Revise using Zone 11 17. Library - Revise using Zone 11 18. Parks - Revise analysis and in- ventory. Reference appropriate Agenda Bills Page 2 Zone 8 Comment Summary Sheet Date: 1/11/88 Comment Response Action 19.Redo parks exhibits - Provide park district map and Citywide map with parks named. 20. 21 . Fire - clean up exhibit Open space - Reference perform- ance standard then use Citywide plan 22.School - Reformat, use Zone 1 schools; see Exhibit 39 Zone 11; provide copies of agreement with school district (page 72) 23.Revise constraints map per Zone 11 24.Provide all Environmental Impact Reports for Zone 8 ZONE A = ACCEPTABLE N/A = NOT ADCFESSED U = UNACCEPTABLE I - J(^COMPLeT£. REVIEWER . C ' fe-. •_ ACE #1 DATE CIRCUIATION 1. Map of Existing and proposed streets. 2. Summary Sheet. 3. inventory - 5 g,£ FORMAT Of ZONES 1 - Map indicating external traffic impacts as a percentage of external zone traffic. - Table of iitpacted roads and intersections and classification. - External inpacts analyzed for each phase of zone development. — ALbRt^S Off" SHE 1HP/SC.T PER PHAS1SBiasing4. 5. 6. - Growth projections for zone - Background growth projections Adequacy - Intersection/segment analysis (peak hours) - levels of service tables Existing Phased Buildout - Failure projections— ADBR^SS T01LOH/W UP 010 Abovl ITfcMS Mitigation - Mitigation descriptions - Cost estimates - Alternatives - ? for T^.aRKi C H Ht U \ 1 u)) - Timing established i ... - Comparison with other zone plans - Financing - Special Conditions 1st A N/A -=> 5 A A N/A A A A A I r I N/A I N/A A r i i- N/A 2nd 3rd A = ACCEPTABLE N/A = NOT ADDRESSED U = UNACCEFTAHIE T s ZONE ft DR., TO 200 scale Plan and Profile PEVlhWEK- ACE #1 .ic. DATE , FWH dROJIATICN 7. Special Issues 8. 9. Appendix - Traffic Study - Itemizations of inprtTvements to ccnplete system - )ist KI/A KJ/A A W/A 2nd 3rd CCMMENES PPDBIfMS A = ACCEPTABLE N/A = NOT ADDRESSED U = UNACCEPTABLE I =: T.K>CCKPLfc,TL DRAINAGE 1. ZONE REVIEWER ACE #1 ~ Date 2. Sunmary Sheet 3. Inventory - Facilit - Down Stream - Up Stream - Consisten 4. Phasing - Major Fac 5. Adequacy Fi - Flooding - Erosion C - Special P 6. Mitigation - Mitigatio - Special C - lagoon Pr - Timing If - Financing COMMENTS/PROBLEMS 3s — ^"cfc-K "PoofL Qul'U'Pl lLii6lfcl-^_ facilities :ilities -5i& UM-rtZ TjfcMW^*. P(M) tepicted ins identified it tescriptions on y With Master Plan Jities •dings mtrol x±>lems i Description nditions >tection Applicable i 1st 0 A X. NJ/A W/A M/A A A A X A A A w/A A A K A A 2nd 3rd A = ACCEPTABLE N/A = NOT ADDRESSED U = UNACCEPTABLEX =. TWCOHPLtTt SEWER COLLECTION ZONE 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sewer Maps — ?(?<?£. £c/4ctCfy MM/ - Existing Facilities - Major Basins - - Sewer Districts — - Future Facilities ^^S ttSTtx Sumnary Sheet Inventory - Facility Descriptions - Service Demands - Facility Analysis - Demand/Capacity Charts - Consistency with Sewer Master Plan Adequacy Analysis Mitigation - Mitigation Description — OOSt - Financing - Special Conditions COMMENTS/PROBLEMS Da1 r ACE #] •^ ^ f * ( **^ ' 1st A U/A A r |0/A A A K)/A I W/A A U U 0/A A K//A L 2nd 3rd • A - ACCEPTABLE N/A = NOT ADDRESSED U = UNACCEPTABLE ZONE WASTEWATER 1REA3MEMT 1. Map of District if Applicable 2. Sumnary Sheet 3. Inventory - Existing Facilities 4. Phasing - Service Demand - Demand Chart 5. Adequacy Discussion 6. Mitigation - Mitigation Description - Special Conditions - Financing REVIEWER^ L^» K— • Da1 ACE #1 ^ °(\(^1 1st fJ/A /V/<\ A A <^ A A A A, A Av 2nd 3rd CCMMENIS/raDBIEMS. A = ACCEPTABLE N/A - NOT ADDRESSED U — 31- WATER DISTRIBUTION 1. Water Map - Existing Facilities - Future Facilities - District Boundaries 2. Summary 3. Inventory - Facility Description - Service Demands - Water Reclamation 4. Adequacy Discussion 5. Phasing 6. Mitigation - Mitigation Description - Special Conditions - Financing CCMMENTS/FRDBIZM5 ZONE REVIEWER C* « ACE #1 Date 1st A' Ac 2nd 3rd /. ,41 / Af rr- 8 r OF UOT 3L •" \l ff 15 M.AQ1. To-. 5 P2-LPA£Ar<o»J OF PCA/U5 , 3ZI /\j &K("TT«i.t) Tt? H/JD 'g .- TO SUMMARY OF NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE - KELLY RANCH PLAN AREA GP/LU GROSS ACRES SLOPES 40 % SLOPES * ARTERIAL^ \ °u ' CONTROL PERMITTED 25-40% ROADS NET ACRES YIELD D.U.'S (MAX. D.U.'S.) A) (2) B) C) E) F) (3) G) H) I) J) K) (3) (3) N) 0) (3) P) Q) R) RMH OS RMH RM C RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM 11.3 201.8 9.5 40.0 8.7 15.2 14.4 16.2 7.3 16.8 4.1 6.4 5.6 14.0 12.8 23.7 25.0 432.8 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.5 2.0 3.3 0.1 1.1 4.7 0.4 2.3 0.5 2.5 0.6 10.0 3.9 34.9 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.1 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.6 20.5 0 — = 0 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 201 6 37 6 10 8 15 5 10 3 3 4 10 10 11 18 .0 .8 .9 .1 .6 .4 .8 .0 .4 .4 .3 .5 .4 .1 .7 .4 .5 X X X X X X X X X , x ' X X X X X 11. -11. 6. -6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 —79 222 —62 52 90 32 62 19 21 26 60 64 68 111 .0 .3 .6 .4 .8 .0 .4 .4 .8 .0 .4 .6 .2 .4 .0 (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x (x 15. 15. 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 = —= = - = = = = = = = = = = = = 150) 103.5) 296) 83.2) 70.4) 120) 43.2) 83.2) 26.4) 28.0) 35.2) 80.8) 85.6) 91.2) 148) 3.1 (4) 172.5 \2C 1088 1445 Note: Acreage figures utilized for this analysis were derived from Tentative Tract Map prepared by VTN. (1) Acreage has been reduced by half for density calculation purposes. ,. . (2) Area 'B1 acreage includes 14.0 acres originally included in Area 'D'.-WoV ^DlA> fV * Q. (3) Assumes the maximum number of dwelling units (D.U.'s) permitted by control yield - original approval was less than control yield would permit. , (4) Net developable acres less open space/wetlands. DWELLING UNIT YIELD BY PLAN AREA - KELLY RANCH PLAN AREA GP/LU D.U.NET ACRES D.U./AC.CONTROL YIELD POINTS OVER (1)ADDITIONAL D.U. A) C) E) G) H) I) J) K) L) M) N) 0) P) Q) R) RMH RMH RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM 135 93 280 79 66 114 41 79 25 26 33 76 80 86 141 •j- •t f • jfc «*• .* * •j- * • •t • • •t 10.0 6.9 37.1 10.4 8.8 15.0 5.4 10.4 3.3 3.5 4.4 10.1 10.7 11.4 18.5 13.5 13.5 7.5 7.6 7,5 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 11.5 11.5 6.0 6.0 ,0 ,0 ,0 .0 ,0 ,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6 6 6 6 6 6 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1354 (1)165.9 20 14 57 17 13 24 9 17 5 5 7 15 16 17 30 266 (1) Net acres less open space (Area 'B') and recreational commercial (Area 'F'). (2) 266 additional dwelling units constitutes units originally approved in MP-174 west of Cannon Rd., but eliminated by extending open space/wetland as follows: Area A) 85 Area C) 41 * Area D) 140 Prepared Sept. 1935 by: Research/Analysis Group (619) 438-5618 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF CARLSBAD ZONE 8 ACREAGE SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION GROSS 100% 25%-40% CONSTRAINED SLOPE NET RESIDENTIAL: RL Low Density (0-1.5) RLM Low-Med Density (0-4) RM Medium Density (4-8) RMH Med-Hi Density (8-15) RH High Density (15-23) COMMERCIAL: CBD Central Bus. District C Community N Neighborhood RC Recreation TS Travel Services O Professional & Related RRE Extensive Reg'l Retail RRI Intensive Reg'l Retail RS Regional Service INDUSTRIAL: PI Planned Industrial 32.0 190.8 21.1 243.9 15.6 15.6 0.0 7.2 52.7 6.3 66.2 10.5 10.5 0.0 13.6 47.6 1.6 62.8 18.0 114.3 14.0 146.3 5.1 5.1 0.0 OTHER: E J H HC P G U NRR OS RR FW MAJ MIN COL TOTAL Elementary School Junior High School High School Continuation School Private School Governmental Facility Public Utilities Non-Resid'l Reserve Open Space Railroad Freeway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Street 426.3 39.0 224.5 39.0 465.3 263.5 724.8 340.2 201.8 0.0 201.8 353.2 ASSUMPTIONS:1) 100% constrained acres include Riparian areas, transmission line easements, slopes greater than 40%, and major roadways. 2) Residential: Net acres - assumes City Council adopts Hillside Ord.(Net = Gross - 100% Constrained - 1/2 of 25-40% Slope). 3) Non-Residential: Net acres = Gross acres - 100% Constrained. The Resources Agency n d u m Projects Coordinator Date Resources Agency 2. City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Department of Fish and Game May 25, 1988 Negative Declaration: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 8 San Diego County - SCH 88050401 We have reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Local Facilities Management Plan (Plan) for Zone 8 generally south and west of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road, and east of Interstate 5 in the City of Carlsbad. This Plan is adequacy of public facilities concurrent Facilities addressed in the Plan include library, fire, park, open space, schools, and circulation. intended to guarantee the with development. City administration, water, sewer, drainage, We find that this Negative Declaration is deficient for the following reasons: 1. The Negative Declaration states that the Plan would guarantee the adequacy of public facilities. However, a copy of this Plan is not included with the Negative Declaration and some of the facilities could result in unmitigable adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources including Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 2. The Department is concerned that specific projects referenced in the Negative Declaration could result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wetland resources. It is the Department of Fish and Game's (Department) policy to oppose projects which would result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. The Negative Declaration should contain enforceable conditions for proposed development which would assure that adverse impacts to wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats are either avoided or fully mitigated. In this regard, we recommend inclusion of development conditions contained in the City's certified Local Coastal Plan including the use of a 100-foot buffer proposed development and wetlands or other identi: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). In summary, the Department recommends against certy.fjv'catl^n subject Negative Declaration. The Negative Declara^io^ i sj> inadequately detailed to enable the Department to specific environmental impacts, and does not -2- * conditions of development which would result in the elimination of significant net negative impacts to wetlands and other ESHAs. Diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department as called for in the Fish and Game Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreement, must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency and after all pertinent local, state, and federal permits have been secured by the applicant. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. Pete Bontadelli Di rector of California Memorandum The Resources Agency To 1. Projects Coordinator Resources Agency 2. City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Dote May 25, 1988 From Department of Fish and Game Subject- Negative Declaration: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 8, San Diego County - SCH 88050401 We have reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Local Facilities Management Plan (Plan) for Zone 8 generally south and west of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road, and east of Interstate 5 in the City of Carlsbad. This Plan is intended to guarantee the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development. Facilities addressed in the Plan include City administration, library, fire, park, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage, and circulation. We find that this Negative Declaration is deficient for the following reasons: 1. The Negative Declaration states that the Plan would guarantee the adequacy of public facilities. However, a copy of this Plan is not included with the Negative Declaration and some of the facilities could result in unmitigable adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources including Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 2. The Department is concerned that specific projects referenced in the Negative Declaration could result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wetland resources. It is the Department of Fish and Game's (Department) policy to oppose projects which would result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. The Negative Declaration should contain enforceable conditions for proposed development which would assure that adverse impacts to wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats are either avoided or fully mitigated. In this regard, we recommend inclusion of development conditions contained in the City's certified Local Coastal Plan including the use of a 100-foot buffei proposed development and wetlands or other identij environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) In summary, the Department recommends against certi/.fS/cat subject Negative Declaration. The Negative Declarafei inadequately detailed to enable the Department to specific environmental impacts, and does not inclu<5« -2- conditions of development which would result in the elimination of significant net negative impacts to wetlands and other ESHAs. Diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department as called for in the Fish and Game Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreement, must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency and after all pertinent local, state, and federal permits have been secured by the applicant. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. Pete Bontadelli Director Mule of CoWofnla Memorandum •utlneso, Transportation and Housing Agency To: State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Keith Lee Data June 1, 1988 File: From: DfPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MVMON Of ABONAtmCS Subject The City of Carlsbad's Neg. Dec. for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8; SCHf 88050401 The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities pursuant to CEQA. From the information provided, it appears that the proposal may include a school site within two miles of the McClellan-Palomar airport. If this is the case, the State Department of Education must request that the Division of Aeronautics investigate the proposal and make recommendations accordingly (Education Code Section 39005) . Consideration may also be given to the notification of prospective tenants and home owners of the close proximity of the airport and subsequent aircraft operation. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on this document. JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics ^v £&Sandy- JHesnard Environmental Planner cc: McClellan-Palomar Airport San Diego County ALUC - of California - (-'.'IBur" is. jnsportotion and Housing Agency Memorandum = STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Attention Keith Lee Date File : May 23, 1988 : ll-SD-005 R044.2-R048.0 (City of Carlsbad) District 11 From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subject: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 8, 88050401 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 22, 88050402 BATIQUITOS FESTIVAL OF ARTS, 88051105 Caltrans District 11 comments Declarations are as follows: on the subject Negative 88050401 and 88050402-The Local Facilities Management Plans should address the need for a park-and-ride facility that will serve residential development adjacent Route 5. If the City of Carlsbad purchases a our agency will recommend the development and maintenance of the park-and-ride facility at State expense. Our contact person for park-and-ride information is Manuel Chief, Regional Ridesharing Branch, (619)237-POOL. to Interstate suitable site, Demetre, 88051105-The proposed week-day start time for the concerts (after 6:00 p.m.) could conflict with peak-hour traffic on Interstate 5. Our contact person for traffic information is John Markey, District Traffic Operations Engineer, (619)237-6881. JAMES T. CHESHIRE, CHIEF Environmental Planning Branch M0:yg /. V 1. Prtjtct TU1»:_ 2. I* WTltt Of «m£TtCN M«> ENVIWWKNTAI. r ~~ WT Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8 SCM Citv af ». stmt **•««" ,2175 Las Palmas Drive 3t. ea-«tv. San Diego 3lt. _„ pnojtCT LMjr.a 4. duty. San Diego 4».(oac<oa.U *««MOr't ftrt*\ Mo._ s«. cnws strttu: El Camino Real/Cannon . J. courier Ported; Brian Hunter . 3b. city: CarlsbacT 92009 3<. Pho/io:(619) 438-116T . 1*. . 4«. Stctlon Carlsbad .. far Rural, . . •• flwrtit Connunity:. 6. WIOIIo 2 »»ln of: l. SUn Hny Ho. l~5 7. OOOIMHT Pf't CEO* 01 _ W 02 __Ur!y Cant OJ_X_»H OM 04 _ Drift II« 05 _ Sup»lawit/'Suttwuine Etx(if JO. pr<«r SO » ot. 07 3. LCGU. naioit tin 01 _ 0»n»r»l ?l»n 'JixUt* 01" _ )IM tlMWIt (B _ SIMTII PUn Am*n«mnt 04 _ NMMT flin 09 tiMMUtlan 04 _ S»«1«e CtM 07 R«d«y«l Oi W AI raorts Palomar/McCteflarfe. 10. orvELOfftfxT npf Pacific Ocean Notlct of >ntwt Envtr.">OMSI Tm*1*U1on. Nre.l mp.Tr«t Ktf, ttc. } OS Onft EIS 10 11 Ui* PtnUt CinMl «4 Prturv* itr Local 01. °z. 03. 04 . OS. M. 07. 09 U»tt»_ Offlet: Sfl.Ft. Aerti _________ *crt» She»»1"«/CoMtre1.1: Sq.ft. _tn*utrU>: S«.Ft._ Aerti _w*Ur: MCO _Tr«M|Mrti(1oii: C««r.ct10n: N1nwtl_ (ties Management ». TOTM. «.«! , 730 an 01 04 _ « . 07 _ 12. _»«ith«Ue/Y1Ju»l J-ir1cultur«l (.tnt _Afr Ojwllty _Arc)UMl04<eil/Hfitor1c«I Coiittl Of J«W/H«min« Mltnet 10 mmrtls 11 JW1» l»JLf>*"e S«rvle« 13 X 5-tn.li 14 Softie SysMM 20 21 10 yo»tr: Local Facilities Management Plan 22 ____Utt*r 23. ZS 26 27 23 _SoU Eroilon _SaMd Mito _roxie/H»Mrdcu« _Triff1c/Clrc.Ut1on _y*gout1on W*ttr SroHth In*icini IncoOMttbl* ( Cu-vlatNt Efftett Otlw SUtt S Tot») S u. PHtSBIT LAXO USE «• ZQMIflS: Present land use is agricultural, open space, single family, and police firing range. Zoning is planned community, open space, and single family. Project is a Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development. Facilities addressed include city administration, library, fire, park, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage, and circulation. CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: KEITH IfS. *• n ft 98805040^ W/C N/C i Resources STATE REVIEW BEGAN: DEPT REV TO AGENCY: AGENCY REV TO SCH: SCH COMPLIANCE : s.-A.-ii "^_Conaervation •Pish & Game W/C N/C ^ •JMQCBI^f • Caltrans? AQMD/APCD:.(Resources,s n ^^^__ nation • Parks & Rec/OHP • Coastal Conn Conni Lands .d Waste tes Cntl Bd Qual (itTH) Bts (3RD) ,r (2ND) •••Please return this form with any cotiments • Aeronautics Devel cHealth • Pood i Ag Lie Works pectlons leral Servs (Schools) Bta Hn Mtns srado Rvr Bd Rgl Plan ptal Consv - OPR tal - OPT STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govwnor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 JUN W> Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2975 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 June 1, 1988 Subject: Loca"l Facilities Management Plan Zone 8 SCH# 88050401 Dear Mr. Hunter: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the conments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight-digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may respond promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in adopting your Negative Declaration* If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the comnenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance cc: Resources Agency Enclosures FEE: $175.00 RECEIPT NO: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I (To Be Completed by APPLICANT) CASE NO: LFWP © DATE: °1--Z<4 -g?"7 Applicant: Kaufman & Broad of San Dieqo, Inc. Attn; Brian Milich Address of Applicant: 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone Number: (619 ) 259-6000 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): Doug Boyd, 1920 E. 17th St. Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92701 GENERAL INFORMATION; Description of Project: A Local Facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8. Project Location/Address: Generally south and west of El Camino Real. north of Palomar Airport Rd. , and east of Interstate 5. Assessor Parcel Number: - (See attached) Zone of Subject Property: P.C., O.S. and R-l-30 Proposed Use of Site: Residential, Recreational Commercial. Recreational and Open Space. List all other applicable applications related to this project: EIR 83-4; GPA/LU7-C; ZC 291; CT 83-30; MP 174. 2. Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man- made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. The project area is located within the Agua Hedionda watershed. The area is characterized by rolling hills, alluvial valleys and wetlands. The Agua Hedionda exists to the west of the property. Macario Canyon is located in the southerly portion of the project area. Approximately 90 of the total 731 acres are slopes of 25% or more. 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. N/A 4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. A total of 1225 residential units are proposed based upon con- strained lands analysis and control yield densities. No specific product types are proposed. Population projections are 2.471 persons per household, as per City standard. 5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. Within Kelly Ranch, a total of 8.7 acres is designated for Recreational Commercial use. No specific plans for this site exist at the present time. 6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A -2- I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets"as necessary.) 1) Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value? 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? 10) Does the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? 11) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life? 12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area? 13) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? 14) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's beaches? 15) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands? YES NO 6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? x 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? x 16) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- x ment of already developed areas? -3- YES NO 17) Will the activity require a variance from established environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? x 18) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? x 19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? x 20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? x 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? x 22) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? x 23) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x 24) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of noise? x 25) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? x 26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? x 27) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) x 28) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? x 29) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? x (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards: 1.5 million cu..yd. (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: 60% (c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: As per City Grading Ordinance 30) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? x 31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects?x -4- I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 2) Based on City standards, projected population will generate a need for approximately 81 acres of park facili- ties at buildout. 81.3 acres of improved parks and special use areas currently exist within Park District 1. 5) Low cost housing may be provided in higher density areas. 7) The Agua Hedionda Lagoon occurs directly west of the project area and associated wetlands are located within the northern portion of the area. 13) The project could increase the amount of runoff into the drainage area of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon due to the amount of impervious surface associated with development adjoining the wetlands area. Mitigation measures were included in EIR 83-4, approved November 15, 1983. 15) Certain portions of the site are being used for agri- cultural purposes; however, the Coastal Commission in approving permit 6-84-617, found a greater benefit in the enhancement to the wetlands that would result from this project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (CONT.) 18) The project is subject to approval of Executive Direc- tor of Coastal Commission with review by State Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of permits. 21} The project will include the construction of drainage improvements and a bridge crossing in the Agua Hedionda Creek floodplain. Mitigation measures have been addressed in EIR 83-4, approved November 15, 1983. 23) Certain construction will affect slope areas of 29% or more, but in accordance with City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Regulations. 24) The project will create certain short term noise impacts due to construction processes; however mitigation measures have been addressed in EIR 83-4, approved November 15, 1983. 25) The project will generate certain dust emissions during grading processes; however, mitigation measures have been addressed in EIR 83-4, approved November 15, 1983. 29) The project will involve substantial grading outside of the floodplain to create development pads, subject to City of Carlsbad grading standards. 30) The construction of as many as 1225 residential dwell- ing units will generate greater demand for utilities and services; however, all necessary improvements will be assured prior to construction. 31) The project will require several tentative maps to be filed with the City prior to the application for building permits. By: Stevei"Flint, Project Manager ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS - MANAGEMENT ZONE 8 201-101-12 201-101-15 208-020-28 208-020-30 212-010-03 212-010-05 212-010-07 212-010-11 212-010-12 212-010-13 212-080-19 212-080-20 FEE: $175.00 RECEIPT NO: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I (To Be Completed by APPLICANT) CASE NO: LFpOP © DATE: °l--2M • 2>~7 Applicant: Kaufman & Broad of San Diego, Inc. Attn; Brian Milich Address of Applicant: 12520 High Bluff Drive, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone Number: (619 ) 259-6000 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): Doug Boyd, 1920 E. 17th St. Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92701 GENERAL INFORMATION; Description of Project: A Local facilities Management Plan for Management Zone 8. Project Location/Address: Generally south and west of El Camino Real. north of Palomar Airport Rd., and east of Interstate 5. Assessor Parcel Number: - (See attached) Zone of Subject Property: P.C., O.S. and R-l-30 Proposed Use of Site: Residential, Recreational Commercial, Recreational and Open Space. List all other applicable applications related to this project: EIR 83-4; GPA/LU7-C; ZC 291; CT 83-30; MP 174. 2. Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man- made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. The project area is located within the Agua Hedionda watershed. The area is characterized by rolling hills, alluvial valleys and wetlands. The Agua Hedionda exists to the west of the property. Macario Canyon is located in the southerly portion of the project area. Approximately 90 of the total 731 acres are slopes of 25% or more. 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. N/A 4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. A total of 1225 residential units are proposed based upon con- strained lands analysis and control yield densities. No specific product types are proposed. Population projections are 2.471 persons per household, as per City standard. 5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. Within Kelly Ranch, a total of 8.7 acres is designated for Recreational Commercial use. No specific plans for this site exist at the present time. 6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A 7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits »•/-> Ho Hor-it/oH frnm t-h«a ni-o-i Ar>f:_be derived from the project N/A -2- I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as necessary.) 1) Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value? 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and modest cost housing units in the city? 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction/ or conservation of a scarce natural resource? YES NO 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other x parts of the county, state or nation? 11) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life? 12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area? 13) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? 14) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's beaches? 15) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands? 16) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? -3- 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? x 10) Does the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? x PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Carlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Kelly Ranch, Macario Canyon Park, and the Kirgis Property (APNs 201-101-12, 15; 208-020-28, 30; 212- 010-03, 05, 07, 11-13; 212-080-19, 20) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 provides for public facilities to meet adopted performance standards. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: April 29, 1988 CASE NO: LFMP 87-8 APPLICANT: Kaufman & Broad PUBLISH DATE: April 29, 1988 BH:af * ,^MICHAEL J. Hdfc£MILLEfr' Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 8 DATE: 4/20/88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Kaufman & Broad 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12520 High Bluff Dr. _ Suite 120 _ ) 259-6000 (Brian Milichl _ San Diecro. CA 92130 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: _ September 24. 1987 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) MAYBE NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X_ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X_ MAYBE NQ 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X_ b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X_ 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X_ 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X_ b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? X_ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? X_ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X_ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X_ -4- MAYBE NO 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? X_ c. Schools? X_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X_ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X_ f. Other governmental services? X_ 15. Energy - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X_ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X_ 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X_ b. Communications systems? X_ c. Water? X_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? X_ e. Storm water drainage? X_ f. Solid waste and disposal? X_ 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X. -5- YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project is a public facility information and planning study. Phased planning will not efficiently or adequately address the need for public facilities. b) The project is a public facility information and planning study. c) The project is a public facility information and planning study. d) Uses for the area covered by the plan are based on the existing General Plan e) The plan considers phased development. f) The project is a public facility information and planning study. g) As the project is a public facility information and planning study the no project alternative would not assure adequate public facilities to meet demand. The no project alternative would therefore cause the most detriment. -6- MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory findings of significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X_ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X_ III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is to establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. To accomplish this purpose occasionally locations and costs of public facility improvements are estimated for informational purposes. These estimates may result in increased development fees. Traditionally the developer in maximizing their capital return passes such fees on to the home buyer or tenant. This results in higher priced housing which affects the availability of low and moderate income housing. However, as real estate value is determined primarily by location, without other market incentives, it is unreasonable to assume the subject property would be developed with either low or moderate income housing due to its view proximity to the Pacific Ocean and Agua -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) Hedionda Lagoon. It is not the development fee in itself that will force lower income families into other communities, but the existing nature of the market place. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates is general, and does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. Macario Canyon Park (EIR 80-9), Kelly Ranch (EIR 83-4) are examples of that level of review. -8- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: _I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. _I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9- MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -10- Mail to: Stat* :'. sifiignouse. lii"-c-r«n •* jtresc, o. Ui. Sacramento. CA 55di4 - ~ a (WTICi C .ETION AND ENVIRONHEHTAL DOCUMENT FORM NOTE 34low SCH » 1. Project Title:. 2. Lead Agency: 3a. Street Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 8 Citv of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive 3. contact Person: Brian Hunter 3b. city= Carlsbad 3c.San Diego PROJECT LOC*T--.S *. County; San Diego 3d. Z1p:_92009 3*. Phone: (619) 438-1161 4*. dty/comnunitv: Carlsbad 4b.(optional) Ass«isor's Parcel No. 5a. Cro»* streets: El Camino Real/Cannon 4c. Stctlon Twp._Range Sh For Rural, • Nearest Conrnunity:. 6. within z miles of: a. SUM Hwy NO. I-5 b. Airports Palomar/McClellan.. waterways Pacific Ocean 7. OOCUMENT TYPE CEQA 01 HOP 02 Early Con* 03 XN«q Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (1f so. prior SCH # J HEPA 06 Notice Of Inttfit 07 Envlr. Assessment/ FONSI 08 Draft EIS OTHER'' 09 ^Information Only 10 Final Oocunmt 11 Othtr 3. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 1Q. 01 General Plan Update „ 01 _ 02" New Element 02 . 03 General Plan Amendment 04 Master Plan 03 _ 05 Annexation 06 Specific Plan 04 _ 07 Redevelopment 08 Rezone OS _ 09 Land Division 06 TSubdlvlslon. Parcel Map. Tract Map. etc.) 07 _ 10 Use Permit 08 . 11 Cancel Ag Preserve 09 _ TYPE _Resident1al: Un1ts_ _0ff1ce: Sq.Ft. Acres Acres _E»ploye«s_ Jhopplng/Comerclal: So.Ft. Acres Employees, ..Industrial: So,.Ft._ Acres _Enploy«ei_ Sewer: MGO Watw: MGD Transportation: Type _M1neral Extraction: Mineral, _Power Generation: Wattage Type:12 x other Local Facilities Management Plan 10 X0ther. Local Facilities Management Plan 9. TOTAL ACRES: 730 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN 01 Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 Air Quality 04 Archaeological/Historical 05 Coastal 06 F1r« Hazard DOCUMENT 08, 09. 10. 11. 12. 13 W^H ^•^M •«••• X X 07 X Flood1na/0ra1naoe 12. FUNOINStapprox.) Federal S. Geologic/Seismic Jobs/Housing Balance Minerals Noise .Public Services Schools 14 Septic System 15 16 17 18 Capacity Soil Erosion Solid Haste Toxic/Ha zardous 19 X Traffic/Circulation 20 _ Vegetation 21 Water Quality 22 _x_Water Supply 23 x Wetland/Riparian 24 _ Wildlife' 25 _ Growth Inducing 26 _ Incompatible Landuse 27 _ Cumulative Effects 23 _ Other _ State S Total S 13. PRESENT UNO USE AND ZOHIH6; Present land use is agricultural, open space, single family, and police firing range. Zoning is planned community, open space, and single family. 14. PROJECT "fcSCai?TIO«; Project is a Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development. Facilities addressed include city administration, library, fire, park, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage, and circulation. 15. SIGHATURE CF LEAD AGcIICY REPRESENTATIVE:Date April 27, 1988 NOTE- Clearinanousc -ill issiqn identification numbers for ill new projects. If a SCH Number already exists for a project NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6, 1988, to consider a Local Facilities Management Plan on property generally located at Kelly Ranch and Macario Canyon Park and more particularly described as: portions of Ranch Agua Hedionda Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: LFMP 8 APPLICANT: KAUFMAN & BROAD PUBLISH: JUNE 24, 1988 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: '1'--' NOTICE OF '"'"- PUBLIC HEARING OTICE ISHEREB Y GIVEtJ th.t Planning CommUstoa M t of Carlsbad will hold a ; at the Council I Elm Avenue, , at6:00pi. r»l, 1988, to consider a I Facilities Management PlanI property generally located at'" "i Ranch ' 6nthl» ^d-to attend yqu have any ' Plinqing'De:«t«38- challenge theliilft FaciU- U«* Management PlanWfgirt, you beJlmited to. rataUWpy those u or someoaV else raised at th»;*)ibUc hearing described in or In written correspon-totheCityofCarls- ,tli« public hear-' ' " ' Applicant: KAUrMAN fc BROAD December 9 19. 19 19. 19. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California on , „„.. ,nday of December, I9sa Jj Clerk of the Printer Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Cour, of San Diego County Mai, o,l correspondence reccing pub,, nc^,g«'^ ^ ^ North Coast Publi^,. Inc. corpo«*aP.O. Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States I am over the age of eighteen years and no-» ? , ' t f th* Parlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation| am principal clerk of the printer of the Car'SD^°^nnaDiegOj State of California, and whichpublished twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad^ newspaper is published for the, d.ssemmat.on of local news a ^ f .^ subscription ,ist of poying which newspaper at all times herem u me,ntloned/?|? u"j orinted and published at regular intervals in subscribers, and which newspaper has been estao Co|7fornia/ fora period exceeding one year nextthe said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Cahto ^ ^ pub|ication of the notice ; , r r^ r .....j^_ ~.~-J thnt the notice ot :opy, has been re issue of said nent thereof onNOf ICE OF HEARING NOTICE it the Planning Commission of public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 H^m§«piiCarlsbad, California, at 6.-00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6, ^|^l;oponsiderva Local Facilities Manage- ment Plan on pgjpeW gonaUy. located at Kelly Ranch and Macario Canyon iPauk and iatore particularly described as: ' p^rtion^ of Ranch Agua Hedionda Those persons v^ishiag to speak on this proposal are cordially "to attend the 'public hearing. If you have any questions, calj the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge, the Local Facilities Management Plan in court, you may b^PQ||d to raising only those issues you or someone described in this notice or in jered to the City of Carlsbad at orwrn c prior to tne pu CASE FIL$: LF APPLIC" CJ 5205: June 24,1988 RLSBAD PLANNING ON 19. 19 19. 19. 19. 88 foregoing is true and f San Diego, State of Clerk of the Printer #202-2M-12/87 Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription ist of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: April 29 1988 PUnniof 1CJ911S: April «,!«• 19. 19. 19 19. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California on The 29th day of April T/119a8 Clerk of the Printer #202-2M-12/87 AP. ..CATION SUBMITTAL DATE AUGUST 3. 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION SUBJECT: LFMP 8-LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PUN FOR ZONE 8 I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2805 recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution 2806 recommending APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan 8. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND As shown on Exhibit "A" Zone 8 is located in the northwestern quadrant of the City adjacent to the eastern edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As shown on Exhibit "B" Zone 8 is primarily residential. Of the Zone's 731.2 total acres 244.2 are residential. General Plan residential densities range from low (0-1.5 du/ac) to medium-high (8-15 du/ac). Nonresidential General Plan land uses include 478.3 acres of Open Space and 8.7 acres of Recreation-Commercial. The Plan has been before the Planning Commission previously on July 6, 1988. As the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 was not yet in a condition where staff could recommend approval and state mandated time constraints required action, the plan was denied without prejudice at that time. III. ANALYSIS 1. Does the proposed Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 fulfill the purpose, intent, and specific requirements of Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management Program)? LFMP 8 - KAUFMAN & b..J\D DECEMBER 21, 1988 Page 2 2. Is the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 consistent with and does it implement the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan? DISCUSSION The Growth Management Program requires that a Local Facilities Management Plan be prepared for each Management Zone in order to show how compliance will be maintained with the City's adopted public facility performance standards as development occurs. The first step in this process requires determining the buildout development potential in the zone. The buildout projection for this zone is consistent with the methodology contained in the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the provisions of Proposition E which was approved by the citizens of Carlsbad on November 4, 1986. The 1984 Master Plan for Kelly Ranch approved up to 1,600 dwelling units on the property. When the Growth Management Control Points are applied to the net developable acreage of the General Plan density ranges for the approved Master Plan, the maximum number of allowable units is lowered to 1,214. It is recognized that this number is being used for facilities planning purposes only and is in no way guaranteed. The plan phases the buildout development of the zone based on estimates of yearly development activity. The phasing estimate is consistent with generalized phasing assumptions used in the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan. From these buildout and phased development projections, yearly phased demands for public facilities may be projected and buildout demands identified. The plan analyzes eleven (11) public facilities. This analysis compares the projected public facility demands with the available and planned supply of public facilities to ensure compliance with the adopted performance standards. Where demands for facilities exceed supply, the plan proposes the necessary mitigation to maintain conformance with the standard. This analysis is consistent with both the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan and the Growth Management Program. The following chart provides a brief summary of the eleven public facilities analyzed in the plan. LFMP 8 - KAUFMAN & .GAD DECEMBER 21, 1988 Page 3 ZONE 8 PUBLIC FACILITIES SUMMARY CHART As of 12/21/88 City Administrative Facilities Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection Water Distribution Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until 2006. Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until 2003. Exi sting faci 1 ities meet the adopted performance standard. Park District 1 (northwest quadrant) meets the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures until buildout. Drainage facilities will meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures. Circulation facilities will meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures. Fire facilities meet the adopted performance standard. Existing open space meets the adopted performance standard. School facilities will meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures. Sewer facilities meet the adopted performance standard through buildout of the zone. Water facilities meets the adopted performance standard through buildout of the zone. LFMP 8 - KAUFMAN & DECEMBER 21, 1988 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 is a public facilities planning document. The plan establishes parameters that ensure Carlsbad's public facility performance standards are met and public facilities inadequacies mitigated to accomplish this goal. The plan for informational purposes occasionally estimates locations and costs of public facility improvements. The plan fully recognizes that complete environmental review will be necessary once specific public facility improvements are established. Therefore, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8 will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on April 29, 1988. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2805 and 2806 2. Exhibits - "A" - Citywide Map of Local Facility Management Zones "B" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 8 General Plan Land Use Map "C" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 8 Zoning Map 3. Local Facilities Management Plan 8 Dated December 21, 1988 BHraf 12/08/88 Exhibit "A" Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan City of Carlsbad Exhibit "B" LEGEND RL - Low Density RM RMH- OS - RC - - Med. Density Mod. High Density * Open ISpace ( 4 i Recreational Commercial ZONE 8 City of Carlsbad LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5621 REC'D FROM. ir •/.DATE.// //, - ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT RECEIPT NO. 82262 TOTAL Kaufman & Broad OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. SAN DIEGO DIVISION 12520 HIGH BLUFF DR • SUITE 120 • SAN DIEGO, CA. 92130 The Morgan Bank902 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 DATE AUGUST 24, 1987 PAY******$ 10,000 DOLLARS ****Q(PENTS TO THE ORDER OF CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 LAS PALMAS CARLSBAD, CA 92009 001066 CHECK NO. 001066 PAY THIS AMOUNT ONLY ::*****$10,000.00****** VOID OVER 90 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED Aumorijuel Signatures FEBRUARY 2, 1989 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORX CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LIBRARY PLANNING DIRECTOR-* ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTORX CITY ENGINEER V ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER X LIBRARY DIRECTOR FIRE CHIEFSoyr PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR FINANCE DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION* CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTA REAL WATER DISTRICTS* CITY CLERK DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES* MUNICIPAL PROJECTS OFFICEX RESEARCH & ANALYSIS GROUP CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FROM: DON RIDEOUT, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST NEW PAGES FOR ZONE 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Attached are new pages to insert in your copy of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. These pages contain minor changes to the wording of the water facilities section. The changes were requested by the Costa Real Municipal Water District after the Planning Commission hearing on this Plan. Please remove pages 154, 157, 159, 161, and 162 from your Zone 8 Document and replace them with the attached pages. The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan will be presented to the City Council on Tuesday, February 7, 1989. If you have any questions regarding the changes, please contact Steven Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer at Ext. 4354. EXHIBIT 73 WATER DEMAND/SUPPLY BY PHASE r PHASE 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 AREA KELLY (A) <D> <G> <C) KELLY (C) <H> (I) (K) (E) KELLY (J) (L) (N) (0) (E) (F) KELLY (P) (Q) (R) (N) KELLY (N) KIRGIS MAC ARID TOTAL DUELLINGS PHASED ACCUMULATED (1) 144 84 59 99 386 386 9 50 88 62 116 325 711 32 20 26 61 99 6.1 ac. 238 949 64 68 111 7 250 1,199 14 11 25 1,225 0 1,225 1,225 WATER REQUIREMENT GALLONS/DAY (2) 57,600 33,600 23,600 39,600 154,400 3,600 20,000 35,200 24,800 46,400 130,000 12,800 8,000 10,400 24,400 39,600 18,300 113,500 25,600 27,200 44,400 2,800 100,000 6,690 17.600 24,290 264,000 786,190 ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY SYSTEM ALREADY IN SERVICE OR TO BE CONSTRUCTED Existing 12" main in Park Drive (See Note 1) New 14" main in Cannon Road to serve this phase New 10" and 16" water mains in Oceanaire Ave to serve this phase. Also, high pressure water service from Evans Point Reservoir to serve Area "J". Continuation of mains in Oceanaire Ave. Construction of 10" water mains and P/R stations. Service from new facilities already constructed in Oceanaire and exten- sion of water from Evans Point Reservoir. Service from new facilities already constructed in Oceanaire and exten- Reservoir. New 12: main in Faraday Avenue. NOTES: 1. Actual phasing sequence may vary provided that all necessary infrastructure requirements are met. Dwelling units from Area D can be transfered to remaining areas south of Cannon Road (see Exhibit 15 on page 35). 2. Assumes CRNUD's Master Plan unit demand factors. MAJOR FACILITIES OF CRMUD IMPACTING ZONE 8: 1. Evans Point Reservoir - Estimated construction in 1991. 2. El Camino Real Transmission Main - Completion in 1988. 3. High Pressure Water Service - in Faraday Ave., west of El Caiiino Real - Completion r 157 Evans Point Reservoir The Evans Point Reservoir project, described in Appendix H, is a 2.5 million gallon facility that will provide for the future water needs of Zone 8 and adjacent zones. The Costa Real Water District has selected a site for the location of the Reservoir within Zone 8 (Village R). Zone 8 is conditioned to dedicate the site prior the recordation of the first final map, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, within the zone. It is possible that the Evans Point Reservoir may be needed by development within adjacent zones prior to any development within Zone 8. If the CRMWD District Engineer determines that the reservoir is needed for other development, the site will have to be purchased by those property owners for dedication to the CRMWD. As a condition of approval of Zone 8, reimbursement of all costs associated with the acquisition of the site and appropriate easements shall be made to the developer who purchased the site for dedication to the CRMWD. Reimbursement shall be made prior to the recordation of the first final map, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, in Zone 8. 5. Average 10-Day Storage Capacity The adopted performance standard requires a minimum ten(10) day storage capacity. Storage capacity within the system is currently 12.9 days. The District's system design assures that a minimum of ten days storage supply will be available. Projections to 1993 indicate that growth demands on future facilities will increase storage to 14.1 days. The storage capacity for the district is as follows: STORAGE CAPACITY Current - 1988 Projected -199312 Storage Capacity 168.0 MG 253.5 MG Average Daily Demand 13.1 MG 18.0 MG Days of Storage 12.9 14.1 12 Estimated expansion project cost: $7,000,000. 159 ^ 3. Prior to the recordation of a final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first in Zone 8, a financing mechanism guaranteeing the construction of the following water facilities shall be approved: Facility Location Facility Length (feet) Area E 14" Water Main 2,400 Area F 14" Water Main 800 Area G 14" Water Main 1,200 10" Water Main 400 Area H 14" Water Main 700 10" Water Main 500 Area I 10" Water Main 550 Area J 10" Water Main 850 Area K 10" Water Main 600 Area L 10" Water Main 500 Area M 10" Water Main 300 Area N 10" Water Main 400 Area O 10" Water Main 800 Area P 10" Water Main 250 Area Q 10" Water Main 400 Area R 10" Water Main 350 x—^• Macario Canyon 12" Water Main 2,400 4. The 14" water main in Cannon Road between El Camino Real and Faraday must be installed concurrent with the construction of Cannon Road. IV. FINANCING The construction of regional water facilities servicing the zone will be financed by the CRMWD. Local facilities will be paid for through water connection fees paid by property owners and/or developers prior to construction. Funding of major infrastructure improvements required for the development of Kelly Ranch has been provided in the form of Agreements and Bonds in favor of the Costa Real Municipal Water District, as provided by the developers of Kelly Ranch. These infrastructure improvements will also provide for the development anticipated on the Kirgis property. Funding for the improvements for the Macario Canyon Park will be provided by the City in accordance with the various funding mechanisms cited in the City's Park Master Plan. r 161 Exhibit 74 below shows the estimated cost of water facilities for each planning area and Exhibit 75 on page 163 describes the individual facilities to be financed, the estimated costs and timing of construction, existing budgeted CIP monies available and future funding options. Exhibit 74 WATER FACILITIES COSTS 13 KELLY RANCH PLANNING AREA ESTIMATED COST Existing 12" Existing 12" $ 87,600 29,200 53,960 38,240 13,970 21,590 15,240 12,700 7,620 10,160 20,320 6,350 10,160 8,890 SUBTOTAL $336,000 Macario Park (12" main) 71,520 16" Main (from future water tank) 60,480 TOTAL $468,000 14 A C E F 6 H I J K L M N O P Q R Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service 13 A detailed cost breakdown is provided in Appendix H. 14 City of San Diego unit prices. Current prices should be adjusted for inflation. 162