The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLFMP 87-22; Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22; Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)13-31 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5621 REC'D FROM.J lil •*•—< t .DATE.?f ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01/20 0;.01 oiActeeo w(m-m o CITY OF CARLSBAD A>/<5. CARLS8AO, CA /,*/ TOTAL THE LUSK COMPANIES P O BOX C-19560 - IRVINE, CA 92713 PHONE (714) 250-6058 No. H 17380 L-ASI Will! I IF!! BHAHOI SCCUnifY PACIFIC NAIIOM/M RANKwini ill n f,/M if OHMIA 01 13 88 PAY EXACTLY ***5,OOODOLI AHS AMD 00***$5,000.00 \ I'll /M 'f I' "0 I) i° CITY OF CARLSBAD i ? aeon' i: i E aoooo it 31:10 s-o 20E.B SAMMIS - CARLSBAD ASSOCIATES 17922 FITCH AVE. IRVINE, CA 92714 January 12, 1Q88 102 16-24/692 1220(7) PAY TO THE - ORDER OF_-CITY OF CARLSBAD — $f**5,000.00**!$F -Five Thousand and no/100- ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT OFFICE FOR. WELLS FARGO BANK 4590 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 Filing Fees 1DOLLARS APpWcATION COMPLETE DATE: AUGUST 19. 1988 STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: LFMP 22 - LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 22 I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2780 recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2781 recommending APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND As shown on Exhibit "A" Zone 22 is located in the southwestern quadrant of the City south of Palomar Airport Road, west of 1-5, and north of Batiquitos Lagoon. As shown on Exhibit "B" Zone 22 is a mixed use zone. Of the zone's 420 total acres, 50.8 are residential, 61.6 are residential/office, and 33.1 acres are travel service/residential. Nonresident!al General Plan land uses include 52.1 acres of Open Space, 32.8 acres of office, 22.7 acres of travel service/commercial, 4.2 acres of travel service, and 6 acres of planned industrial. The remainder of the zone is circulation element roadways and railroad right of way. III. ANALYSIS 1. Does the proposed Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 fulfill the purpose, intent, and specific requirements of Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management Program)? 2. Is the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 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. LFMP 22 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 2 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 Local Facilities Management Plan identifies one facility which currently does not conform with the adopted performance standard. Parks - A shortfall of 4.24 acres exists in Park District 3 (Southwest Quadrant). As part of this Local Facilities Management Plan an attempt has been made to bring this facility into conformance with the adopted performance standard. The following chart provides a brief summary of the eleven public facilities analyzed in the plan. LFMP 22 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 3 ZONE 22 PUBLIC FACILITIES SUMMARY CHART As of 10/19/88 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 I Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until 2003. Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard. Park District 3 (southwest quadrant) does not meet the adopted performance standard without mitigation measures. 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 through buildout of the zone. Existing open space meets the adopted performance standard. An ongoing work program will assure the open space performance standard is maintained through buildout. The adopted performance standard is being met. 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 22 OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 4 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 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 22 will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on May 4, 1988. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2780 and 2781. 2. Exhibits - "A" - Citywide Map of Local Facility Management Zones "B" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 22 General Plan Land Use Map "C" - Local Facilities Management Plan - 22 Zoning Map 3. Local Facilities Management Plan 22 Dated October 19, 1988 BH:af October 3, 1988 EXHIBIT A Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan City of Carlsbad EXHIBIT B LEGEND C Commercial TS Travel Services RM Residential Medium Density (4-8 RMH Residential Medium-High Density (8-15 D.U/AcO O Professional & Related P/l Planned Industrial OS Open Space TC Transportation Corridor General Plan ity of LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 22 EXHIBIT C Palomar Airport Road LEGEND CT-Q Commercial Tourist Qualfied C-2 CommerciahHeavy RD-M Residential Medum RMHP Mobie Home Park R-1-10 Single-Family P-M Planned Industrial OS OpenSpace O Office Zone TC Transportation Corridor Zoning City of Carlsbad LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 22 1 ' 1i i i f ' 1) : 2) 3) 4) 5) ! 6>I 7) ! i ' 8) : ji ») i !j i I 10) i 11) y~^ '^; PUBLIC ^C /**• FACILITIES SUMMARY — <. V SHEET _ CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED STANDARD CITYWIDE QUADRANT City Administrative Until 2006 N/A Facilities Library Wastewater Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Distribution Yes - Until 2003 Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ZONE 22 N/A NO** To Buildout Yes To Buildout Yes To Buildout Yes To Buildou** Yes To Buildout Yes To Buildout Yes To Buildout VABSystem N/A a Not Applicable ** No residential development may occur in the Southwest Quadrant until the park shortage is rectified. C.I.P FUNDING 1987-88 1990-91 1992-97 1997 + i $1.3M Acquisition Alta Mira •j $3.68M Improvements Alta Mira (32 acres) $1.5M Community Center Alta Mira $4.7M Improvements (41 acres) $7.0M Macario REIMBURSEMENT/AVAILABLE FUNDS $1.725M HILLMAN $2.975M REMAINING t SOUTHWEST QUADRANT DEVELOPER Hillman Sammis AMOUNT $1.75 Mil/15 ac /5 ac TIMING 1992 - 1997 Some Day COMMUNITY PARKS; 1. 2. Alta Mira (Acquisition only) 32 acres City 10 ac (12) acres Sammis 10 ac 10 extra $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Alta Mira (Improvements) 32 acres City 32 ac = $3,680,000 10 ac = $1,150,000 Zone 19 Park 24.25 ac Dedicated = $0 15.00 ac Improved = $1,725,000 Hillman 9.75 ac Remaining Undeveloped Land BUDGET $1,300,000 [700,000] 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (Tito uf Carlabafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 County Clerk County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-ll 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 December 27, 1988 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on December 20, 1988, approved the following project: Project Title: Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 22 8808Z405 _ Keith Lee _ (9161 445-0613 _ State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Project Address/Location: West side of Interstate 5 south of Palomar Airport Road. Project Description: Facility analysis of existing General Plan. 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 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 OvefridTng^Considerations was not adopted for this project. 1989 !% DEPARTMENT nC/fy Qf Q MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 2-2. BH:af 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, Encmitas, 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 aforesaic I am over the age of e'ghteen 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, fora 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 '- NOTICE OF I PUBLIC HEARING , NOTICE IS-HEREBY GIVEN th»t; the Planning Commission of the , City of Carlsbad will hold a publichearing at the Council Chambers,[1200 Elm Avenue, Cajlsbad, Cali- i fornia, ati6 00 p m -on Wednesday,1 October 19,-4B88,' tOaConsider; approval of a Local Facilities Man- ' agement Plan Zone 22 on property i generally located'westo'f 1-5, south, of Palomar Airport Road, and north} of Batiquitos Lagoon, and moreI particularly described as* I Portions of sections 20,28 and 29, [Townsliip 12S, Range 4W and por- tion of Rancho Agua Hediondaj Those persons wishing to speak 1 on this proposal are cordially invit- i ed to attend the public hearing. If 1 you have any questions, please call -the Planning Department at 438- If you challenge (he Locaf Facili- ' ties Management Plan m cdurt, you may be limited to raising only those iissues you or someone else raised ! at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correSpon- I dence delivered to the City of Carls- ( bad at or prior to the public hear- ! ing. , t . Case File LFMPZone22 Applicant Rick Engineering Com-pany \ , ~ ' 'CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNINa COMMISSION October 7 19 88 19 19 19 , 19 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad JCounty of San Diego, State of Palifnrnia nn The 7tnCalifornia on day of October, Clerk of the Printer 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, Encmitas, CA 92024 (619)753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid, I am over the age of e'ghteen 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION #202-2M-12/87 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCA-TION The area generally boundedby 1-5 on the east; Palomar Airport Road, on the north, the, Pacific Ocean on the westand Ponto Drive on the south PROJECT,, DESCRIPTION I^ocal Facilities, Managenfen\ Plan1 Zone22 which guarantees the adequacy of the follOjW,ing|facinUes 'to adopted performance standardsconcurrenjftwitlliSSevelopment Facilities include city administra-tion, libraries, fire, schools, openspace, parks; water, sewer, drain-age, and circulationThe City of Carlsbad has con- ''ducted ah environmental review of the above described project pur-,suant to the'Guidelines for Imple- mentation o|a$he Caiifornia,iEnyi- ronmental Quality Act and the En- vironmentar Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad As a result of Said review; a Negative Declara- tion (declaration that the project will not have a-significant impacton the environment) is herebyissued for the subject project'Justi- fication for-this action is-on file in the Planning Department >r * A copy of the Negative Declara- xtion with supportive documents ison file in the Planning Department,2075 Las Palmas'Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009 Comments from the public are invited Please sub- mit comments In writing to the , Planning Department within ten i (10) days'of date of issuance Dated May 4,1988 Case No LFMP22 Applicant Rick EngineeringMICHAEL J HOLZM1LLER Planning Director O 3915 May 4,1988 ' May 4 88 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 4th day of Mf Clerk of the Printer .PLANNING DEPARTMENT Cit? of Cartebab NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The area generally bounded by 1-5 on the east, Palomar Airport Road on the north, the Pacific Ocean on the west, and Ponto Drive on the south. >. ^ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22 which guarantees the adequacy of the following facilities to adopted performance standards concurrent with development. Facilities include city administration, libraries, fire, schools, open space, parks, water, sewer, drainage, and circulation. 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: May 4, 1988 CASE NO: LFMP 22 APPLICANT: RicJc Engineering PUBLISH DATE: May 4, 1988 BH:af ' MICHAEL J. HOILZMILLER Planning Director >•• * „;•: f'fi' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. LFMP 22 DATE: 4/25/88 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3. II. Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Dr.. Suite 202 (619) 729-4987 (Bob Gentles)Carlsbad. CA 92008 January 18. 1988DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES 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? 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 X MAYBE NO 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? X_ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X_ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X_ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X_ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X_ h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X. -2- YES MAYBE NO 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)? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X_ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? x d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X_ 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) ? X_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X_ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X_ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X_ 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? X_ 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X. -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- YES 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? c. Scliools? 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? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 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? 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. Archeoloaical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 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 snort-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.) X_ 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? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 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 -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) due to its view proximity to the Pacific Ocean. 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 13- Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. -8- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X 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. Dsfite 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- City of Carlsbad Comrnuriitv DeveIot>rrient June 15, 1990 Martell Montgomery Robert Barelmann La Costa Engineering 1967 North Highway 101, Suite B Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Mr. Montgomery: Your offer of payment of "fair share" facilities and improvement obligations for the La Costa Downs Subdivision speaks directly to the purpose and intent of the Growth Management Program. The demand for facilities out paces the supply when a fair share fee program is in place. With that program sufficient funds for construction of required facilities are not collected until the last unit is built, while the demand begins with the first unit. The Growth Management Program realizes that ultimately no developer will be required to pay more than their fair share, but that all facilities identified in the facility plan must be guaranteed prior to any construction. Your contention that no other single family final subdivision has had to deal with this condition is in error. Local Facilities Management Zone 6 was approved on November 10,1987, and no development permits allowed after that date until financing for needed facilities was guaranteed. I would recommend that you work with the other property owners in Zone 22 toward a sufficient financing plan. Sincerely, MARTIN ORENYAK Community Development Director MO:BWH:bjn 2O75 Las Palmas Drive •Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859»(619) 438-1161 Cit ^^ ^^^gf^^--^- I fyn^ of Carlsbad Development June 20, 1989 James T. Waring Miller, Boyko and Bell 550 West "B" Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101-3599 PACIFIC COAST HOTELS Dear Mr. Waring: The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter of May 19th regarding the status of the Pacific Coast Hotel (Ted Blonski Project). The City Manager participated in a meeting with myself, the City Engineer and the Planning Director, where all issues relative to this application were discussed. It was our consensus opinion that the staff could not support the project as submitted until those issues identified at the Planning Commission are resolved. BUILDING HEIGHT The 35 foot height limit is not open for negotiation. Under no circumstances will staff carry forth a recommendation for an increased building height along this view corridor. Simply removing the peak roofs may bring the building into technical conformance with the ordinance, however, it may create an architectural style and design that could not be supported by staff. I would encourage an early submittal of elevations for staffs review and comments. ZONE 22 PUBLIC FACILITIES^ As you know the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan has been approved. All that remains is the development and approval by the City of a Public Facilities Financing Plan. You currently retain the option to process without this Plan. However, no permits could be issued prior to the City approval of a Zone 22 Financing Plan. I would encourage you to contact other developers in Zone 22 and develop a strategy for the implementation of such a Plan. Please contact Phil Carter at 434-2819 if you require further information regarding the status of all conditions relative to Zone 22. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive •Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859*(619) 438-1161 Mr. James T. Waring June 20, 1989 Page Two CARLSBAD BOULEVARD The major remaining issue is obviously this project's impact on the alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. The stability of the bluff is of obvious concern, however, it is but one element of the proposed corridor study. The major purpose of the study is to identify future alignments of Carlsbad Boulevard taking into consideration public recreational opportunities, environmental protection, proper aligning of intersections, traffic circulation and safety, and potential uses of parcels remaining after the alignment Your offer to do a bluff study along your right-of-way, as you can see, would only be a small piece of the puzzle. Our recommendation remains the same for you as it is for other potential developers along Carlsbad Boulevard. That is, we could not recommend approval of any project in the corridor that could potentially preclude an alignment of Carlsbad Boulevard until all of the above mentioned issues are addressed and resolved. You obviously have two options available to you; wait until the corridor study has been completed and design your project within the confines of the new alignment or submit a design that is totally within the existing fee boundaries. Please contact the undersigned when you have made a decision on which avenue you wish to pursue. Ic•"K^ _^ - ' ~xr~~~ MART Community Development Director bjn c: City Manager City Attorney Planning Director City Engineer Theodore Blonski 0000000000000000000000 TEL^p.438-i'0981 Dec.29.88 11=43 P.01UJj( I JA' :K HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES 5421 Aienida Eiumtn • Suite B Cai/siW, CaJi/orm« 92008 (619) 438-4090 December 28, 1988 City of Carl* bad 2075 Las Palmes Or. Carlsbad, California 92009 Atln: Philip 0. Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Fi. ^nce Pla-is for Growth Management Zones 20 and 22 - Status Report This, report '• •* provided in follow up to our recent telephone conversation i-egarding preparation of the financing plans required as • onditlons of approval in Zones 20 and 22. The Zone 20 financing Plan circulation section is being updated and . oordinatad with the major property owners in Zone 5, Zone 19 and Zone 22. Preliminary discussions have been held an<i work has begun to determine an equitable basis for sharing costs and guarantees. t anticipate additional Inter zone property owner meetings after the first of the year. Our g,,al is to have a completed plan in to the City tor formal it view by mid February. The Zone 22 Mnancing Plan initial draft will be distributed to the participating property owners this week. After making any n- pessary revisions it will be submitted for preliminary ^taff con-ment. 1 anticipate forwarding the draft plan fur review during the second week of January. This is beinq done at the preliminary draft stage (as it was with the Zont- 20 Financing Plan) to solicit your participation early in the process. As you are aware, we are anxious^ to proceed in cooperation with the Cit/ and surrounding property owners to resolve the issue of financing the facilities Identified in the recently adopted Zone Plans. This is exhibited by the willingness of the Zone 20 and Zone 22 property owners to coordinate with surrounding ^ones and our offers to assist City efforts In any way possible. If you have -my questions, or need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. We look forward to working with you in 1989. cerely, , k E. He'nt torn incipal Coasultant Zone 20/22 finance Plans f'l* The Sammis Company 17922 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, California 92714 (714)863-1121 FAX (714) 474-8012 Novmeber 3, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Financing Plan for Local Facilities Management Zone 22 The Zone 22 property owner group has begun to formulate a financing plan based based upon the local Facilities Management Plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on October 19, 1988. The Lusk Company, Pat O'Day, and Newport National Corporation are working with us on the first draft of the plan. We will be holding a meeting with other Zone 22 property owners to seek their approval of our drafting the plan on their behalf. We will send a draft copy for your review as soon as is practical. On behalf of the property owners, we look forward to working with you on this final phase of the City's Growth Management Program. Sincerely, THE SAMMIS COMPANY Tom Williams Development Coordinator P.S. Thanks for your help in getting Planning Commission approval on the Local Facilities Plan. TW2.20:lmb cc: Steve Cox, The Sammis Company Marv Steadmann, The Lusk Company Pat O'Day Scott Bruseau, Newport National Corp. Jamie McCann, Newport National Corp. Don Steffenson, The Lusk Company Pete Mickael, The Lusk Company 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mJWjm TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WlHiLffM (619)438-1161 ^t$F (Ettg 0f Carhsbafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 1, 1988 Bob Gentles The Planning Group of Rick Engineering 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Gentles: Thank you for the resubmittal of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan on October 31, 1988 with the Planning Commission's corrections. As we discussed on October 26, 1988, we will be able to schedule the Plan for City Council review once an error free copy is attained. It is apparent that with minor revisions, the Plan will have achieved that state. Sincerely, B- BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner c: Zone 22 Property Owners Philip 0. Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Steven C. Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer BH:af zone22\b-gentles.1tr 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 September 21, 1988 TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 of PLANNING DEPARTMENT Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 22 Dear Mr. Gentles: Review of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan has identified the following necessary corrections to be made and reviewed by City staff prior to the noticing for public hearing. 1,Exhibit 9 and 15 - Net developable = 187.6. "I" total should be included in 100% total. Include OS-2 under "I". Exhibit 10 - RMH net = 60.25, TS/C net = 39.5. Include OS-2 in OS. 0 square footage = 699,138. Exhibit 11 and 12 do not match Exhibit 14 or page 15. correct. Please 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Exhibit 13 - RMH net acres = 35.2, 0 square footage = 699,138. Explain TS/C gross, net, and square footage. When corrected, redo totals. Exhibit 14 - RMH-1 net = 10.95, RMH gross total = 78.7, RMH net total = 76.75, TS/RMH-1 square feet = 113,692, TS/C net = 19.1, TS/C square feet = 332,798, TS/C/P net total = 28.5, TS/C/P square feet = 455,637, total net = 187.6, total square feet = 1519371. Adjust remaining square feet accordingly. Exhibit 17 - footnote 5 "...Resolution No. 88-322." Fill in exhibit and page number on page 31. Fill in exhibit number on page 32. Exhibit 34, page 59 - Explain footnotes 5 through 7. Must increase demand and adequacy analysis with inclusion of Zone 20 phasing. Include Zone 20 mitigation to show how demand is met. Page 95 - total area = 187.6 acres, demand = 28.14 acres. Page 41 - a) 2 page 41s. b) change "by" to "at". Previous comment. Page 49 - Carlsbad's share of Phase IV expansion = $11 million plus. Previous comment. September 21, 1988 Page 2 13. Page 65 - Misspelled "facility". Under proposed facilities, 2nd paragraph, should read "The proposed facilities in this plan...has been identified in the...drainage facility would continue along the railroad right of way and...desiltation basin adjacent to the north shore of...A detailed hydrology analysis..." 14. Page 67 - Misspelled "forthcoming" 15. Page 68 - Exhibit 67 missing. 16. Page 70 - Revise first funding option to identify only master plan facilities which currently may be subject to reimbursement. Previous comment. 17. Page 73 - Misspelled "intersection". 18. Page 74 - Show % of 1-5 S/B at Poinsettia. 19. Page 86 - Remove * footnote. 20. Page 87 - P.A.R. (Avenida Encinas to 1-5). Show estimated cost. 21. Page 88 - Poinsettia (Avenida Encinas to 1-5). Show estimated cost. 22. Page 113 - Exhibit 56 unacceptable. Previous comment. 23. Page 118 - Exhibit 59 unacceptable. 24. Page 121 - Lead into proposed facilities. Previous comment. 25. Appendix 4 - Traffic exhibit in drainage section. Upon completion of these corrections, please contact this office for a review. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior BH:af zone22\correct.ltr c: Zone 22 Property Owners Philip 0. Carter - Assistant to the City Manager Steven C. Jantz - Associate Civil Engineer 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •JWllB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 IfflLS^ (619) Ctto of (Earlahafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 14, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Gentles: The Department Head review of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan has identified the following necessary technical corrections to be made and reviewed by City staff prior to the noticing for public hearing. WASTEWATER 1. Page 40 - a) Inventory - last sentence - Wastewater Treatment is provided primarily at the Encina WPCF and also Oil* • • • b) Up-date Capacity Analysis Exhibit 26 (Attached) 2. Page 43 - a) Remove sentence projecting 1143 EDU's per year b) First paragraph under phasing - fix WPCF 3. Page 44 - Replace Exhibit 28 with Update (Attached) 4. Page 45 - Below City's 4 Point Action Plan, add: ...ensure additional treatment capacity at Encina WPCF. On September 13, 1988 the Carlsbad City Council approved a Treatment Capacity Lease Agreement with the City of Vista. The lease provides up to 1.2 MGD of additional Treatment Capacity at Encina WPCF for the Carlsbad Sewer Service District. As indicated on Exhibit 28, this lease will provide adequate Treatment Capacity until the completion of the Phase IV Expansion of the Encina WPCF. A condition of the Lease Agreement with Vista is that Carlsbad complete and prepare for the activation of the Calavera Hills Treatment/Reclamation Facility. This is also in compliance with the City's action plan previously Bob Gentles September 14, 1988 Page 2 5. Page 46 - 6. Page 48 - 7. DRAINAGE 1. Page 64 - 2. Page 65 - 3. Page 68 - also in compliance with the City's action plan previously discussed. The City is currently pursuing alternatives to best activate this treatment facility in conformance with the terms of the lease agreement. a) Remove top paragraph b) Remove conditions 3, 4 and 5 Carlsbad's share of phase IV - $11,902,000 Revise page xxi Exhibit 36 a) Show existing storm drain lines which cross Carlsbad Blvd b) Legend - existing misspelled c) Show proposed lateral storm drain collecting runoff of Carlsbad Blvd. to lagoon. Proposed Facilities a) Describe facilities in Current Master Plan (i.e. Line DA) b) Describe reasons for modification c) Then support with analysis in appendix d) At the end of this section mention lateral storm drain along Carlsbad Blvd. This line will be addressed in Revised Master Plan Mitigation Revise to Read: Prior to the approval of any Development Permit within Zone 22, the Developer shall pay the current drainage area fee established at the time of issuance of such Development Permit. Also, the Developer must enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established in the forthcoming Bob Gentles September 14, 1988 Page 3 4. Page 70 - CIRCULATION 1. 2. Page 73 - 3. Page 80 - 4. 5. 6. Page 81 Page 85 Page 86 7. Page 87 - 8. 9. 10. 11. Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 92 Revised Drainage Master Plan. Exhibit 38 Reimbursements only available on Master Plan Facilities Redo Graphics Include - The above trip distribution exhibits indicate that the following road segments and intersections outside Zone 22 are impacted by more than 20% of traffic generated from Zone 22: Exhibit 44 Add appropriated footnote to Poinsetta and Avenida Encinas: Intersection fails in 1989, see proposed mitigation a) Remove first paragraph b) Add Poinsetta and Avenida Encinas a) Revise time to failure of Avenida Encinas b) Remove footnote a) Condition A - Add: Also, a detailed cost estimate must be provided. b) Year 1989 - Provide 4 lanes of Avenida Encinas a) Combine #2 and #3 (Palomar Airport Rd.) b) 1st will be Interchange c) 2nd will be Interim improvements Same as above for Poinsettia a) Check estimated costs b) Word changes for issue a) Redo Graphic Check timing Bob Gentles September 14, 1988 Page 4 SEWER 1. Page 105 - a) Change Exhibit No. b) Use Master Plan Designations (also on Graphic) 2. Page 107 - Redo Graphic 3. Page 108 - Change school to 220GPD/60 students 4. Page 110 - Refer to Master Plan 5. Page 111 - a) Add Interceptor Headings b) Use Master Plan Designations c) Footnote - Includes flows from Carlsbad Sewer Service District WATER Staff submitted latest water section to CRMWD on September 12, 1988. Corrections may be required after review by CRMD staff. As soon as you have made all requested corrections, please contact this office. Please remember the public notice deadline for the October 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting is September 21, 1988. Failure to make that deadline will activate project termination procedures due to state mandated processing timelines as documented in previous correspondence. If you have any questions regarding staff's comments, do not hesitate to contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer SCJ:kd c: Zone 22 Property Owners Phil Carter - Assistant to the City Manager Brian Hunter - Senior Planner 2075 LAS.PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 of (Eartebafc PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 13, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Gentles: The Department Head review of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan has identified the following necessary nontechnical corrections to be made and reviewed by City staff prior to the noticing for public hearing. 1. Page viii - 2. Page xiv - 3. Page xvii - 4. Page xvii - First sentence identifies "three" facilities. Correct response is "one". First sentence, last paragraph gives incorrect page number for Exhibit 3. Wastewater, correct answer is yes with no explanation. Library, correct answer is yes until 2003. 5. Page xxiii- Open Space, Condition 1 to be amended to read "...contributes to meeting the open space performance standard over and above meeting all other City standards and development regulations and..." 6. Provide separate exhibit showing owner, mailing address, parcel number, reference number, and acreage. 7. Exhibit 9, page 9 - Include D in chart. Delete J from 100% constraints. Show J and J/2 and title partial constraints. Do not round up (i.e., 2.9/2 = 1.45). Work math to two places right of decimal. OS-1, do math. Same comments for Exhibit 15. 8. Exhibit 17, page 23, footnote 5 - Zone 20 LFMP, adopted September 6, 1988, City Council Resolution No. 88-322. 9. Phasing appears optimistically early (comment only). 10. Locate Exhibit 20 in proper section. Bob Gentles September 13, 1988 Page 2 11. Begin each section with performance standard. Do not paraphrase any performance standard. Repeat verbatim from CFIP (City Admin. & Library). *• 12. Page 28 - 2.9% leased. 13. Page 29 - Construction 92-97, S=Sewer Enterprise Fund, W=Water Enterprise Fund. 14. Exhibit 21 - Footnote 5 is 1992, adjust supply accordingly. Zone 22 phasing does not match Exhibit 16. 15. Page 31 - Delete your financing discussion and replace with financing section from Zone 20. Provide financing matrix after this page. 16. Page 33 - Total owned 24,600, not 24,000. 17. Exhibit 23 - Phasing does not match Exhibit 16, footnote 5 should read Phase I expansion of South Carlsbad Library, footnote 6 should read Phase II expansion of South Carlsbad Library. Delete footnote 8 or explain. 18. Page 36, last paragraph - Change "appropriated" to "scheduled". 19. Page 54 - Assumption 1, add "(except those which have satisfied the requirement through another means)." Assumption 7, write four and three tenths numerically (4.3). 20. Exhibit 32 is inaccurate and confusing. Delete as following charts are sufficient. 21. Exhibit 34 - As Zone 20 now adopted include Zone 20 phasing and mitigation. Change or delete footnote 2. 22. Under "Projected Open Space" page 98 after last paragraph - Add "Issue - On August 9, 1988, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. NS-21 regarding open space. The ordinance creates a 15 member citizens committee to review the current open space plan. The Planning Commission by minute motion (7-0, August 17, 1988) recommended that the criteria for determining performance standard open space should be further defined. Development proposals will be reviewed per the existing policies in effect at the time of discretionary action." 23. Page 100 - Special Condition 1, see comment number 5. Bob Gentles September 13, 1988 Page 3 24. Page 104 - Adequacy Findings - Delete last sentence. Replace with "New schools will have to be provided by the School District to accommodate future demand. The timing and location of future school facilities will be identified through the revision to the School Location Plan." Delete your mitigation and replace with Zone 20's. 25. Exhibit 62 - City Admin. Safety Center Phase II is funded by PFF and S&W. Indicate. 26. Exhibit 35 and 62 - Delete "of PFF" Zone 22. You will be receiving the technical engineering comments via separate correspondence. As soon as you have made all requested corrections, please contact this office. Please remember the public notice deadline for the October 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting is September 21, 1988. Failure to make that deadline will activate project termination procedures due to state mandated processing timelines as documented in previous correspondence. If you have any questions regarding staff's comments, do not hesitate to contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:af c: Zone 22 Property Owners Phil Carter - Assistant to the City Manager Steven C. Jantz - Associate Civil Engineer 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE mjTW.jB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 W^HM^V (619)438-1161 X^7 (Eitg of flterlabab PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 12, 1988 Robert J. Greaney Costa Real Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Greaney: Enclosed for your information is the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan water section which has incorporated your agency's comments. Thank you for the time and effort that has been expended upon this plan. It is tentatively scheduled for the October 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that date (approximately September 21, 1988) you will receive a complete copy of the Zone 22 Plan. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer SJ:af c: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PO BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 August 18, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive 92009 RE: ZONE 22 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: As we discussed, the timetable for completing the processing of the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan to meet state mandated time constraints is quickly running out. Despite a gallant effort by all parties, the targeted goal of having Zone 22 go to the Planning Commission on September 21, 1988, does not appear to be achievable. Therefore, per your suggestion, the major property owners within Zone 22 respectfully request the withdrawal of our application with the intent to immediately refile the application. Our agreement to withdraw the application at this time should satisfy your concerns of complying with State mandated processing time frames. We trust that our withdrawal will not unduly delay the completion of the Zone Plan upon resubmittal. It is our intent to continue to complete the Zone Plan in an expedient fashion. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RFG:RCL:kd.005 cc: Mr. Don Steffensen, THE LUSK COMPANY Mr. Tom Williams, THE SAMMIS COMPANY Mr. Pat O'Day, O'DAY CONSULTANTS PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR • SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PO BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 August 19, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD _JLO-75__Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 __ RE: ZONE 22 RESUBMITTAL RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: The property owners within Zone 22 have instructed us to refile the application for the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan. Three complete Plans, containing all of the revisions you have requested, have already been submitted for your review. As we understand the preliminary time schedule, you will review our latest submittal by August 26. Fifteen copies will then be submitted for final review. The targeted Planning Commission hearing date is October 5, 1988. Should you need any further documentation to officially re- establish our application for the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan, please contact us as soon as possible. Sincerely, Robert c. Ladwig RFG:RCL:kd.006 cc: Mr. Don Steffensen, THE LUSK COMPANY Mr. Tom Williams, THE SAMMIS COMPANY Mr. Pat O'Day, O'DAY CONSULTANTS 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •^W.jB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WHUW (619)438-1161 CLlttj uf (Eetrlabalu PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 4, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company, Planning Division 3088 Pio Pico Drive, #202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 22 Dear Mr. Gentles: We would like to set a meeting for August 9, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. to comment on your latest submittal. In addition, the following is the projected timetable for completing the process. City Council - October 18 Planning Commission - September 21 Plan to Commission - September 7 (75 copies) Plan to Department Heads - August 15 (15 copies) Due to state mandated time constraints, these dates are nonnegotiable. Two weeks after the Department Head submittal (August 29) you will receive a final comment/correction list. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Phil Carter Steven Jantz Zone 22 Property Owners RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, #202, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-4987 PLANNING DIVISION July 6, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter City Manager's Office CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZONE 22 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: On behalf of the major property owners in Zone 22, we are respectfully requesting an extension of 90 days to complete the processing of the Local Facilities Plan for Zone 22. We are very close to resolving all of the issues that have been identified by the City. We feel confident that the issues identified and the solutions proposed can be resolved within the next 90 days. The only two major issues identified in our May 20, 1988 meeting were Open Space and Parks. We have been discussing with you criteria that may be acceptable to the city to resolve these two issues. We have just recently received the City's comments to our April 15th submittal on Circulation issues. There do not appear to be any new issues that would cause any undue delays. Should you need any further information, please give us a call. Sincerely, Robert F. Gentles RFG:kd.001 cc: Mr. Bria^ Hunter, CITY OF CARLSBAD Mr. John, Brand, THE LUSK COMPANY Mr. Tom Williams, THE SAMMIS COMPANY t*' 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE m^rWjM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 VT^r^M (619)438-1161v~ OlftQ Of PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 6, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 22 Dear Mr. Gentles: Enclosed please find a copy of our previous correspondence dated June 16, 1988. As we have not received either an extension request or a resubmittal that responds to the comments of the May 20, 1988 meeting, staff will be required to take your plan forward immediately with a recommendation of denial unless an extension or withdrawal request is received by July 12, 1988. An extension request would still require the plan to be completed by the end of this month. If that timetable is overly optimistic considering your workload demands, a withdrawal of the plan may be in the best interest of all parties. If you have any questions or need this letter clarified, please contact me at 434-2819 or 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Assistant to the City Manager BH:POC/af Encl. c: Steven C. Jantz y Brian Hunter \s Zone 22 Property Owners (Ettg 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •Jwl/lB TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 W^T/J^^P (619)438-1161 PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 16, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 22 Dear Mr. Gentles: On May 20, 1988, we had our last response to comment meeting. At that time we indicated that the State mandated timelines were going to expire in July, therefore, we would need to be taking your plan to public hearing in June. As your plan is not completed you either need to request an extension or request a withdrawal. Otherwise, we are required to take your plan forward with a recommendation of denial. As we expect that we will continue to work on this plan, we require a resubmittal that responds to our comments from the May 20th meeting posthaste. You will be receiving the comments on your traffic and circulation submittal early next week. If you have any questions or need this letter clarified, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Philip O. Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Steven Jantz, Associate Engineer Zone 22 Property Owners 4 i 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE m,JWJM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD. CA 9200JM859 ^^/Jj (619) 438-1161 Cito of (Earlsbab PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 24, 1988 Robert Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZONE 22 TRAFFIC STUDY Staff has completed its review of the Circulation Traffic Study for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22. The following is an itemized list of comments regarding the data contained in the above mentioned traffic report. A. Palomar Airport Road 1. Table 2 on page 59 indicates an improved level of service at Palomar Airport Road and 1-5 in 1990 and at buildout. Please indicate what improvements would be required to ensure that that intersection operates at an improved level of service. 2. The existing road classification used in your chart indicates that this road was analyzed as a four-lane major arterial from Avenida Encinas to 1-5. Actually this portion only works as a two- lane road. Therefore, the average daily traffic as presented within this report when compared to the City's Guidelines Manual indicates that this segment operates at a Level of Service F. 3. The same chart also indicates that a second level of analysis was performed. Does the result of this additional analysis indicate that it is a Level of Service D as shown on the chart? Also, please supply the worksheets showing the second level of analysis. 4. That portion of Palomar Airport Road between Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a two-lane collector. The average Page 2 daily traffic indicated within this study compared to the Guidelines Manual indicates that this road segment would operate at a Level of Service D in 1989. Continuing this section will fall below the performance standard in 1992 as it would operate at a Level of Service E. B. Pojnsettia Lane 1. Portions of Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and 1-5 is indicated in this study as a four-lane secondary arterial. However, the street physically operates as a two-lane collector. There is adequate right-of-way to accommodate the full width of four lanes but transitions will be required at the bridge over 1-5. The traffic report also indicates that a dual left turn from southbound Avenida Encinas to eastbound Poinsettia Lane is proposed. The right-of-way of Poinsettia and the alignment of the bridge would make the dual lefts an unacceptable situation. Major transitions will be required at the point where the 1-5 bridge meets Poinsettia Lane just west of 1-5. It seems that there may not be a safe situation when the restripping as proposed is completed. This would also affect that portion of Poinsettia west of Avenida Encinas because that portion then transitions down to two lanes as it crosses the railroad tracks. Please provide a sketch which would show proposed lane widths and stripping necessary to accommodate their proposal for the 1989 improvements. 2. The report recommends that in 1995 there is a possibility of needing six lanes in that portion of Poinsettia. Please provide a sketch showing ultimate right-of-way and lane widths to accommodate six lanes and indicate if additional right-of-way is necessary. 3. The two lane portion of Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Encinas and 1-5 when compared to the City's Guideline Manual would operate at a Level of Service D in 1991 unless certain improvements are done. Page 3 4. The Zone 19 traffic study prepared by U.S.A. indicates that the southbound and northbound ramps at Poinsettia Lane and 1-5 require signalization. This plan does not indicate that signalization is a proposed mitigation in that year. Please explain. 5. The Zone 19 plan also indicates that the Poinsettia Lane bridge over 1-5 is needed to be widened in 1992. This plan indicates the widening is not needed until 1993. It would seem to indicate that the Zone 19 Traffic Study when adding the traffic from Zone 22 would seem to recommend that the bridge would be widened much sooner than the proposed 1993 date. This traffic study also mentions that the two bridges crossing the railroad tracks should be improved at the same time as the freeway overpass bridges. However, the railroad tracks are a separate issue. The bridges over the freeway are controlled by CALTRANS and certain permits and schedule of construction must be coordinated with CALTRANS. However the bridges over the railroad right-of-way would be the responsibility of development within this zone and should be treated as a separate issue and not tied together with the construction of the overpasses. Even though these bridges seem to fail later than the bridges over the freeway, construction would most likely take place at the same time. This plan should propose mitigation separately and not be tied together. Also, this plan recommends that multiple zones should coordinate the construction of the freeway overpasses. An acceptable financing proposal would require the property owners within the zones which impact those bridges to join together and develop a financing mechanism to ensure the widening of these bridges to conform with the proposed phased construction scenarios of the individual zones. But, nonetheless, this zone does impact the bridge and has been determined that the bridge will operate below the adopted performance standard. Therefore, this zone must propose that the bridge be improved and also recommend a financing mechanism to ensure that the bridge will be widened when needed. Also attached to this letter is a chart which shows the road segments impacted by traffic from Zone 22 and the respective level of service when the average daily traffic is compared to the City's Guidelines Manual. As can be seen three road segments would fall below the performance standard. These road segments seem to fail earlier than those presented in the traffic study. Page 4 If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, STEVEN C. JANTZ Associate Civil Engineer SCJtaf c: Philip O. Carter Brian Hunter Dave Hauser Lloyd Hubbs ROAD SEGMENTS L.O.S. |1988 |1989 |1990 |1991 |1992 |1993 — ' P.A.R. Avenida Encinas/I-5 N.B. Avenida Encinas/ Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad Boulevard P.A.R. to La Costa Poinsettia Avenida Encinas/I-5 N.B. Avenida Encinas/ Carlsbad Blvd. Avenida Encinas r — ~ 2 Ln Collector 2 Ln Collector 4 Ln Major Art. 2 Ln Collector 2 Ln Collector 2 Ln Collector P 1 E C A A A A F D A A A A r -1 F D A B A A* r 1 F D A D A A r 1 F ' E A F A A A* A* A A A A •After Mitigation as proposed 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE B 2Wj»B TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TK*P$lJ?M (619)438-1161 (Ettg 0f (Eartebaft PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 16, 1988 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 22 Dear Mr. Gentles: On May 20, 1988, we had our last response to comment meeting. At that time we indicated that the State mandated timelines were going to expire in July, therefore, we would need to be taking your plan to public hearing in June. As your plan is not completed you either need to request an extension or request a withdrawal. Otherwise, we are required to take your plan forward with a recommendation of denial. As we expect that we will continue to work on this plan, we require a resubmittal that responds to our comments from the May 20th meeting posthaste. You will be receiving the comments on your traffic and circulation submittal early next week. If you have any questions or need this letter clarified, please contact me at 438-1161. Sincerely, BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BH:af c: Philip O. Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Steven Jantz, Associate Engineer Zone 22 Property Owners STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVIERTOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET , SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Brian Hunter City Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 June 1, 1988 Subject: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22 SCH# 88050402 Dear Mr. Hunter: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Rm. 121, Sacramento. CA 9S814 -- 915/445-0613 NOTICE COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORM JT Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22 See NOTE Below SCH 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency:_City of Carlsbad 3a. street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive 3c. county: San Diego . 3. Contact Person; Brian Hunter . 3D. city; Ca rlsbad , 3d. Z1p:_92009 PROJECT LOCATT:* «. county; San Diego 3e. Phone; (619) 438-1161 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No._ . *a. C1ty/Conroun1ty:_ 4c. Section Carlsbad _Range_ 5a. Cross streets: l-5/Poinsettia Avenue 6. Within 2 ailes of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 b. Airports 7. DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA NOP Early Cons 5h For Rural,30' Nearest Community:. c. waterways Pacific Ocean 01 02 03 y Nea Dec 04 Draft EIR 05 Supplement/ Subsequent EIR (If so, prior SCH t 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 01 General Plan Update 02 New Element 03 General Plan Amendment J NEPA Notice of Intent06 07 08 09 10 11 04 Master Plan 05 Annexation 06 Specific Plan 07 Redevelopment 08 Rezone 09 Land Division (Subdivision. Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE 01 Residential: Units Acres 02 Office; Sq.Ft. Acres Employees 03 Shopping/Comnercial: Sq.Ft. 04 05 ..Industrial: So.Ft._ Acres _Employees_ Sewer: MGO 06 Mater: MGO 07 Transportation; Type Envlr. Assessment/ FONSI praft EIS OTHER'' Information Only __Final Document Other _Use Permit ..Cancel Ag Preserve 10 _ 11 _ 12 Xother Local Facilities Management Plan loX other: Local Facilities 'Management" Plan 9. TOTAL ACRES; U20 08 Mineral Extraction: Mineral. 09 Power Generation: Wattage I Type: 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT 01 Aesthetic/Visual 02 Agricultural Land 03 A1r Quality 04 Archaeological/Historical 05 Coastal 06 Fire Hazard 07 X Flooding/Drainage 12. nJNDIMG(approx.) Federal $ 08 09 10 11 12 13 X Schools 14 Septic Systems 0 Geologic/Seismic Jobs/Housing Balance Minerals Noise • Services State S 15 _ ee 16 _ 17 _ 18. 19. 20 _ 21 0 2L.Sewer Capacity Soil Erosion Solid Waste Toxic/Hazardous XTraffic/Circulation Vegetation Water Quality Total S 22 X Water Supply 23 Wetland/Riparian 24 Wildlife' 25 Growth Inducing 26 Incompatible Landuse 27 Cumulative Effects 28 Other 0 13. PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING; , ...Present land use is agricultural, state park, mobile home park, transportation corridor, commercial, single family residential, & open space. Zoning is commercial - 14. PROJECT QEscaiPTioN: Tourist, Multiple family, planned industrial, office, single family, and open space. Project is a Local Facilities Management Plan which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with development to adopted performance standards. Facilities addressed include city administration, libraries, fire, parks, open space, schools, water, sewer, drainage and circulation. 15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:Date NOTE: Clearinghouse win assign Identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH Number already (e.9- from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft cocument) please fill it in. sidy exists for a project AUhNCIES Resources Agency A1r Resources Board••MM*** Conservation X Fish and Game •••••••M x Coastal Commission Caltrans District X Caltrans - Planning Caltrans - Aeronautics•MMMMB California Highway Patrol Boating and Waterways Forestry State Water Resources Control Board - Headquarters Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) '~ * •£*• Department of Water Resources Reclamation Board Solid Waste Management Board Colorado River Board CTRPA (CalTRPA)i* TRPA (Tahoe RPA) Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm X Parks and Recreation 1 Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Comrn _x_ State Lands Comm Public Utilities Comm Energy Comm • ' Food and Agriculture Health Services Statewide Health Planning (hospitals) Housing and Community Dev't Corrections General Services Office of Local Assistance Public Works Board Office of Appropriate Technology (OPR) ! Local Government Unit (OPR) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy . Other FOR SCH USE ONLY Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts __ Date to Agencies Date to SCH Catalog Number Proponent ' Clearance Date Notes:/ , Consultant Contact Address Phone 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE H^JTW JM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ^^i^Ji ' (619) 438-1161 ^^^<£ttg uf CUarlaLuiLi PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 13, 1988 Costa Real Municipal Water District 5960 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 ATTN: Robert Greaney, District Engineer RE: ZONE 22 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 22 3. Draft phasing assumptions for Zone 22 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 May 13, 1988 Page Two Your review and comments are part of an overall plan preparation which needs to be completed by May 31, 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 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE m^jfW^B TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ^SssSw (619) 438'1161 <£ttg 0f PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 12, 1988 Mr. John Blair, Superintendent Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: ZONE 22 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 for your review: 1. The adopted performance standard for school facilities 2. Draft buildout assumptions for Zone 22 3. Draft phasing assumptions for Zone 22 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 May 12, 1988 Page Two Your review and comments are part of an overall plan preparation which needs to be completed by May 31, 1988. If you need further information or assistance, please call me at 438-1161. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, i BRIAN HUNTER Associate Planner BHraf Enclosure c: Phil Carter RICKENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, #202, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-4987 PLANNINGDIVISION April 15, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - ZONE 22 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: Urban System Associates have completed their revision to the Circulation Section of Zone 22. They have responded to the seven items contained in your March 8, 1988 memorandum. Specifically the following items have been provided: 1. Road segment capacity analysis has been updated by adding Figure 13 to the analysis (page 7-H) and adding a new Table 3 (Page 12-B). 2. Table 4 (old Table 3) identifying phasing for Circulation Element roads. 3. Appendix B-G of the traffic study have been included within the text as Exhibit 3la - 3If. 4. The exhibit showing the profile for Avendia Encinas has been modified to include horizontal curve data. 5. Traffic impacts from adjacent Zones 3 and 4 have been incorporated into our analysis (see page 7 of Appendix 3). 7. The level of service analysis for Ponto Drive at Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road at Carlsbad Boulevard has been included (Table 2). 8. Included a separate map of the proposed realigned Palomar Airport Road of Carlsbad Boulevard. / Mr. Phil Carter April 15, 1988 Page Two 9. Table 4 (old Table 3) has been modified to reflect that the bridge over the railroad tracks at Palomar Airport Road will be required concurrent with improvements to Palomar Airport Road to the east. Please contact me should any other information be required. Sincerely, Robert F. Gentles RFGrss.OOl APRIL 15, 1988 TO: BRIAN HUNTER FROM: STEVEN JANTZ RE: ZONE 22 COMMENTS Wastewater Item 1, Page 6: a) The title should read "Wastewater Treatment". b) The chart Exhibit 23A should be enlarged and expanded for easier reading. c) Staff will provide the up-dated existing flow readings to be included in chart 23A. Therefore, the last 4 columns in the chart will be revised accordingly. Item 2, Page 35: a) Place Exhibit 23 within the text underneath the heading of Phasing. b) The existing demand of 5.25 MGD will be up-dated as previously mentioned for chart Exhibit 23A. c) Do not add the treatment capacity of Calavera Hills to the total available capacity. Currently Calavera Hills is not operational and has not been determined that it will operate in the year 1990. d) Phase IV capacity at Encina will not be 6.92 MGD but will be 8.50 MGD. Note: This also does not include capacity at Calavera Hills. e) Under subnote 4 - Carlsbad Sewer Service District currently assumes a flow rate of 220 gallons per EDU. Item 3, Page 36: Under adequacy findings - As stated previously in this section, Carlsbad currently does not have adequate treatment capacity to the year 1995 unless Phase 4 expansion is completed. Item 4, Page 37: Exhibit 23B - Encina capacities and Calavera Hills capacities shall be up-dated as previously discussed. Drainage Item 1, Page 50: a) Hake all references to Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility to Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. b) Reverse the descriptions for Item #8 and Item #5. Item 2, Page 51: Remove all descriptions to alternative 1 if that is not to be proposed within this plan. This plan should only discuss proposed facilities which is alternative 2. Item 3, Page 52: This plan is proposing a desiltation basin to handle run-off from this area. Propose an approximate size of this basin. Item 4, Page 53: a) Under proposed facilities, note the estimated cost for those facilities. b) Under adequacy findings - This plan indicates that the existing facilities in Zone 22 are of sufficient size to handle run-off from the Zone. However, facilities 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be analyzed for ultimate capacity in the forthcoming revised Master Plan. There may be concern about the ultimate capacity of these facilities. If this analysis indicates that these facilities are inadequate to carry ultimate flows, future development within Zone 22 will be required to participate in a mitigation program. Item 5, Page 54: a) Under special conditions for Phase A - Remove designation to final map and replace them with development permit. b) Any development within Phase A will be required to pay the current drainage fee established in the current ( Master Plan in effect at the time of issuance of a development permit. -2- H ' c) The second paragraph under Phase B, specifically indicate that items B, C, D, £ and F as shown on Exhibit 29 will be required upon the first development within Phase B. Item 6, Page 54A: Substitute final map under special conditions for Phase C with development permit. Sewer Item 1, Page 74: In the performance standard, the last line should read the trunk line capacity must be provided concurrent with development as required. Item 2, Page 76: Under projected buildout assumptions - The area within basin 1, does this include the Blonsky property. Item 3, Page 77A: a) Remove all designations to Mr. Wayne Caulkins and only refer to State Department of Parks and Recreation staff. b) Under buildout demand - Place Exhibit 37 within this portion of the text. Item 4, Page 78A: a) In the second paragraph is an indication that the Vista Carlsbad Interceptor will need up-dating at some future date. Explain when that will need up-grading, how much and who is responsible for the construction. This is all explained in the Sewer Mater Plan. b) Replace treatment plant in the third paragraph with Encina WPCF. c) Remove all indications to Mr. Wayne Caulkins. d) Under the third paragraph - qualify it by the statement "Therefore, this system will not be the responsibility of development outside of the state park. -3- Item 5: Under Phasing - remove the line "Development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase." Item 6: Under Adequacy Findings - Add the sentence, "Except the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor will need up-grading in (indicate the date) as previously described." Water Item 1, Page 82: a) Under Performance Standard - The second sentence should read, "The line capacity must be provided concurrent with any development as required." b) Exhibit 39 was not included with this submittal. c) Indicate the item number before the facility as shown on Exhibit 39. Item 2, Page 84: a) In the description for the state parks - Next to campsites add 3400 persons and next to day use parking spaces add 1424 persons. b) Under Technical Assumptions - Include the note, "The following Chart Table 40 is a list..." Item 3, Page 87: List all proposed facilities and an estimated cost and location. Item 4, Page 88: a) Under Average 10-Day Storage Capacity - Remove the name of Mr. Robert J. Greancy. b) Include Adequacy Findings - this section is not here. c) Under Phasing - Include Exhibit 41 within the text. d) Under Mitigation - Indicate a cost estimate for the proposed water lines. -4- Circulation We are still awaiting for the revised Traffic Study and Circulation Section for this zone. SJ:af -5- RICKENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, #202, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-4987 PLANNINGDIVISION March 31, 1988 Mr. Phil Carter Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: ZONE 22 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: We have completed our amendments to the text and exhibits for Zone 22 as outlined in the City's initial technical review comments on February 25, 1988. We have highlighted our response to the City's comments on the "Comment Summary Sheet." While most of the requested amendments were minor in nature, a few specific modifications should be brought to your attention. 1. We have made all the changes requested on the constraints map. However, the reduced scale exhibit (Exhibit 5) has not been changed. We will provide the reduced scale exhibit upon staff's final acceptance of the map. 2. By changing the Blonski parcel to Travel Service, several changes to the buildout assumption had to be made throughout the report. The total residential units projected in the zone has been reduced by 45 units and the non-residential square footage has been increased by 50,965 square feet. 3. The Wastewater section has been completely reworked to follow what was approved for Zones 11 and 12. 4. The Water and Sewer sections have been revised to be consistent with the most recent amendments for Zone 18. 5. The Parks section has been modified using the base infor- mation from Zone 19. 6. The Traffic section is currently being revised and should be submitted the week of April 4th. Mr. Phil Carter March 31, 1988 RE: ZONE 22 Page Two We hope we have responded to your initial comments in a satisfactory manner. I am available at any time to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Robert F. Gentles RFG:sls/7561-G.12 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 TELEPHONE (619)438-1161 City of Cartefcab COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT March 9, 1988 Mr. Bob Gentles Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Bob: Please find attached a memo to me from Steve Jantz regarding the review of the Circulation section submitted for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. Please provide this information to your consultant so that they may update the Circulation section of the Plan as quickly as possible. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. PHILIP O. CARTER Growth Management Manager bjn c: Brian Hunter Steve Jantz MEMORANDUM March 7, 1988 TO: PHIL CARTER FROM: STEVEN JANTZ ZONE 22 CIRCULATION The following is a list of issues which must be addressed in the traffic study analysis for Zone 22. This information is necessary to complete the technical review for the Circulation Section of this Zone Plan. 1. Conform with the criteria established in the guidelines manual for the preparation of Zone Plan Traffic Studies, specifically: A. Road segment capacity analysis (existing through buildout) B. Circulation element road improvement phasing C. Include percent spilts and road segment analysis in text 2. Show horizontal curve data on 200 scale map of Avendia Encinas. 3. Revise analysis beginning with 1988 as existing condition. 4. Include projected traffic impacts of adjacent zones (i.e. Zone 3 and 4). 5. Show level of service analysis of the following intersections: A. Ponto at Carlsbad Boulevard B. Palomar Airport Road at Carlsbad Boulevard 6. Show detailed geometries and L.O.S. of the realignment of Palomar Airport Road at Carlsbad Boulevard. 7. When will the bridge over the railroad tracks along Palomar Airport Road need widening. STEVEN C. JANT2 Associate Civil Engineer SCO:rp c: Brian Hunter AGENDA February 25, 1988 11:00 AM Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 22 Initial Technical Review Meeting I. Purpose of Meeting II. Introduction of the Key Players III. Processing Procedures IV. General Comments Regarding the Zone 22 Plan V. Planning Commission Public Hearings Date VI. Scheduling of Future Meetings VII. Other Items BH:af ZONE 22 COMMENT SUMMARY SHEET COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION Constraints Map; OS-2; map shows 5.2 net, summary shows .1; show floodway RMH-1; net developable 10.95 RMH-4; map shows 3.2 net, summary shows 3.9 O-l; net developable 3.35 6-2; map should deduct Ave. Encinas RM/O-1; map does not show net TS/C; map shows 22.7 net, summary shows 19.1 net PI; map shows 6.0 net, summary shows 5.5 Lots along north side of Rain- tree not vacant; 160 room Motel 6 under construction Executive Summary; Exhibit-6; P/I and O adjacent to south, should be PI/0, freeway and RR should be TC, and northern- most RMH now TS. Exhibit 7; RDM now CT-Q, PM-O should be PM/O, Legend - CT-Q .is Commercial Tourist with qualified development overlay, and freeway and Rr.should be TC COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION Exhibit 8; show APN's andC» Phasing; Exhibit 12; Show Motel 6. Explain Lanikai and Solamar. City Administration; Exhibit 18, Redevelopment located north of Elm. Current Citywide population and square footage don't match Pg. 21: Redevelopment = 3,200 sq.ft. Las Palmas = 22,627 sq. ft. Pg. 22: Construction '92-'97 On all planning projection charts throughout in- corporate all zones approved to date (1/6, 11/12, 19) Library; Current Citywide population and square footage don't match. Pg. 27 - Total owned square footage = 24,600. Redo inventory of approved facilities and mitigation. Parks; Put HPI park in Zone 19 Redo per Zone 19 To suggest an alternative that is an intensification without mitigation is un- feasible. Strict reading of ordinance suggests alternative of any sort unfeasible. -2- COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION Wastewater; 1. Exhibit 23 Graphic: a) show location of Calavara Hills b) indicate sewer district boundaries c) Encina is not within Zone 22 2. Include chart which indicates % ownership and current flow readings for each sewer district. 3. Describe Calavera Hills treatment facility. 4. Incorporate mitigation alternatives in previous zone plans. 5. Check buildout numbers with those presented in the revised sewer master plan. Drainage; 1. Break out analysis for existing and proposed storm drain system by drainage basin. The proposed storm drain system tributary to the Batiquitos Lagoon will be required prior to the issuance of a development permit within the Batiquitos Lagoon sub- basin. 3. Who is responsible for proposed desilting basin. -3- COMMENT RESPONSE ACTION Drainage (Cont) 4. Then indicate (in mitiga- tion) that development tributary to proposed facilities will be re- quired to construct at time of development. Sewer; 1. Use and make reference to revised sewer master plan. 2. Carlsbad shares capacity in both interceptors, show % ownership and capacity rights. 3. Use sewer generation rates as identified in revised master plan. (Also, Exhibit 37) Proposed buildout faci- ties - Remove references to DeK^er Wilson. This info is contained in revised master plan. 5. Graphic is crowded. 1. Mitigation - All develop- ment within Zone 22 shall pay the required water district connection fees. Circulation; —4 — 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT %^JJM (619) 438-1161 X^7 City of Cartebab January 14, 1988 Mr. Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering Company 365 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Dear Mr. Ladwig: Staff has finished its content review of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 which was resubmitted on December 14, 1987. The plan as revised now meets the basic guidelines established for the preparation of a Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, the plan is being officially accepted for technical review and processing as allowed under Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The official acceptance date will be given when the $10,000 processing fee, as established by City Council Resolution No. 8799, has been deposited with the City. Following the receipt of this deposit and the completed E.I. A. form, staff will begin its technical review of the plan. Please submit this as soon as possible. As required by the Growth Management Program, a schedule for Planning Commission Public Hearing will be prepared within 60 days following the official acceptance of this plan. Staff will be contacting you when it has identified areas during the technical review process which need to be revised or updated. If you have any question, please call me. Sincerely , PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst PCtaf cc: Michael 0. Holzmiller Brian Hunter^/ Steve Gantz PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Citp of Cartebab November 20, 1987 Mr. Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering Company 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 22 Dear Mr. Ladwig: Staff has completed its content review of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22 as submitted on October 20, 1987. Overall, this is one of the best first submittals staff has reviewed, however, it is not acceptable because the following items were not included in the plan: 1. The entire plan must be page numbered. This includes the appendices. 2. The General Plan map, Exhibit 6, is missing the Elementary School Site. 3. Exhibit 12 is missing the City numbers for specific projects. 4. There is no table and map showing future open space. State beaches do not count for open space. 5. There is no discussion of water reclamation. As you can see these are relatively minor items, but must be included in the plan so that it may be acceptable for technical review. During this content review, staff noticed that Exhibits C, I, and E were mentioned although they don't appear in the plan. It should also be mentioned that the Library section is not consistent with the Executive Summary discussion and should be updated accordingly. Please include these with your next submittal. Again, this is an excellent first submittal. Please review staff's comments and the guidelines for preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan contained in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and make the necessary changes before re- submitting the plan. Bob Ladwig November 20, 1987 Page Two When these changes are ready please contact me and you may have someone insert the revised pages into the plans already submitted to staff. This should save you time as well as the expense of providing additional copies of the plan. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst cc: Michael J. Holzmiller Mike Howes Wilma Diepersloot PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 October 20, 1987 Mr. Phil Carter Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4839 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 22 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Phil: On behalf of the three principle land owners within Zone 22, we are pleased to submit the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 22. It is our belief that the Plan, as submitted, is as complete as is practical at this time. All of the items contained in the Check List published by the City have been addressed and are included within the Plan. We are aware of ongoing discussions the City is having with various other Zone Plan owners in regard to additional information that may need to be incorporated into each Local Facilities Management Plan. As these items are finalized, we expect to be notified so the Plan can be supple- mented. The format used for Zone 22 follows the format of the City prepared plans for Zones 3, 4 and 6 as close as possible. For quadrant-related documentation, the information contained in the City prepared Zone Plans was used unless more current information was available. The discussions on City Administrative Facili- ties, Libraries, Parks and Circulation have taken into considera- tion recent actions by the City Staff and the City Council. We look forward to receiving your comments on the Local Facilit- ies Management Plan for Zone 22. We are available to answer any questions you may have at your convenience. Sincerely, #/-Robert C. Ladwig RFG:RCL:sls/7561-G.04 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab September 2, 1987 Mike Fagan SAMMIS PROPERTIES 2650 Camino Del Rio North, San Diego, CA 92108 #110 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 22 Dear Mr. Fagan: The City Attorney has determined that the Local Facilities Management Plans are projects under CEQA and, therefore, will be required to address all of the appropriate requirements. As a result, the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I will be required to be made a part of the official Local Facilities Management Plan submittal. The guidelines for preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan will be updated to include this requirement. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 . (619)438-1161 Citp of Cartebab September 2, 1987 John Brand THE LUSK COMPANY 17550 Gillette Avenue Irvine, CA 92713 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 22 Dear Mr. Brand: The City Attorney has determined that the Local Facilities Management Plans are projects under CEQA and, therefore, will be required to address all of the appropriate requirements. As a result, the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I will be required to be made a part of the official Local Facilities Management Plan submittal. The guidelines for preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan will be updated to include this requirement. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 dtp of Carlsfmb September 2, 1987 SAMMIS CARLSBAD ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 1129 Carlsbad, CA 92008 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 22 Dear : The City Attorney has determined that the Local Facilities Management Plans are projects under CEQA and, therefore, will be required to address all of the appropriate requirements. As a result, the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I will be required to be made a part of the official Local Facilities Management Plan submittal. The guidelines for preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan will be updated to include this requirement. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POCrbjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CAHLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4359 PLANNING DEPARTMENT H^HL^M (619)438-1161 ^pj^l^^gltyy Citp of Cartefcab September 2, 1987 Pat O'Day COMMUNITY PARTNERS 7750-2H El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92009 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 22 Dear Mr. O'Day: The City Attorney has determined that the Local Facilities Management Plans are projects under CEQA and, therefore, will be required to address all of the appropriate requirements. As a result, the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I will be required to be made a part of the official Local Facilities Management Plan submittal. The guidelines for preparing a Local Facilities Management Plan will be updated to include this requirement. All CEQA guidelines are a part of the application processing requirements . If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 438-1161. Sincerely, PHILIP O. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bjn c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Mike Howes Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers ^Carlsbad Unified School District 801 Pine Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 729-9291 "Excellence In Education" BOARD OF TRUSTEES JULIANNE L. NYGAARD President J. EDWARD SWITZER, JR. Vice President DONALD M. JOHNSON Clerk JOE ANGEL Member JAMES McCORMICK Member , DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION THOMAS K. BRIERLEY, Ed.D. Superintendent SUSAN-HARUMI BENTLEY Assistant Superintendent Instructional Services JOHN H. BLAIR Business Manager GERALD C. TARMAN Director Personnel Services ROBERT LAWRENCE Manager Facilities/Maintenance/ Operations July 9, 1987 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive f" Carlsbad, CA 92008-4859 Attention: Dee Landers - .-C^--' Subject: School Location Planning Carlsbad Unified School District has recently received a number of inquiries regarding school sites and plans for school sites, particularly in the southwest quadrant of the City. As you may be aware, Carlsbad Unified School District, in conjunction with the Planning Department, has contracted with Planning Systems, 6994 El Camino Real, #205J, Carlsbad, California, for the development of a computer program and system which will enable us to project a new school location plan directly related to the 25 zones of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Unfortunately, we are still about three months away from even a rough new school location plan. Accordingly, in order to ensure adequate school sites for future needs, it has been determined that the best course of action right now is to retain those sites shown on the 1982-83 School Location Plan for current planning purposes. This plan is reflected in Figure 16 Schools, page 46 of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Upon completion of the Planning Systems project, it will be possible to revise and update the plan with new school locations and requirements. The one change which has occurred was the determination that High School #3 on the old plan probably will not be needed due to planning to increase the capacity of the present high school, along with projected future student loads in those grade levels. Distinguished School Board Award 1984, United States Department of Education Planning Department -2- July 9, 1987 It now appears that the initial elementary school to be constructed in the southwest quadrant will be in Zone 19/6 just beyond the present end of Alga Road. This site was agreed to by Carlsbad Unified School District and HPI Development Company on April 9, 1986 while th£ Pacific Rim County Club and Resort EIR was being prepared. It may be possible to develop this site as a K-8 campus, depending upon the emerging needs of south Carlsbad. If you have any further questions, please call me at (619) 434-0626. Sincerely, n H. Blair st. Superintendent Business Services JHBrnjg c: John Brand, Lusk Company Pat O'Day, O'Day Consultants Robert Ladwig, Rick Engineering Co. Mike Pagan, Sammis Company DATE JUNE 2, 1987 GENERAL PLAN CATAGORY RM-1 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 RMH-4 0-1 0-2 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 — MTS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 *OTHER ---- = -- = = = s:s 1 TOTAL ZONE GROSS ACRES 5.2 12,8 14.1 18.7 4.2 3.8 29.0 59.0 2.6 17.5 15.6 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 156.7 420.0 I CONSTRAINTS 100% A 1 B | C I D | E FIGIHII 2.5 2.8 2.8 0.5 195.2 161.5 . Ss = s=ss ssss =»======: 0.0 *****|61.5 0.4 0.3 13.0 0.3 14.0 SSSSSJSB: 0.0 5.1 5.1 ssssss: 0.0 ssasss: 0.0 TOTAL 100% 0.0. 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.5 13.0 5.4 156.7 0.0 | 184.4 50% J 1 K 2.9 ' 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 5.4 0.2 9.8 0.0, NET DEVELOPABLE 5.2 11.0 14.1 18.7 3.9 3.4 26.5 56.1 2.6 17.4 15.6 19.9 5.5 IM » 30.8 0.1 .0 Esssssssrsssssss 230.7 Olc o/c t>l° HL 6« etc. ali. oK oiS Oil 100% CONSTRAINTS: A - MAJOR POWERLINE EASEMENTS E - RIPARIAN WOODLAND B - CIRCULATION (FUTURE DEDICATION) F - WETLANDS C - RAILROAD TRACKS R/W G - FLOODWAYS D - SLOPES > 40% 50% CONSTRAINTS: J - SLOPES 25% TO 40% * OTHERS: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 64.4 ACRES; 1-5 29 ACRES; ' POINSETTIA LANE 1.8 ACRES; ATSSFRR 61.5 ACRES L,1' H - PERMENANT BODY OF WATER I - OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES K - SCHOOL SITE OVERLAY DEDICATION — /007o 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^Pf/^Jf (619)438-1161\y^ City of Cartetmb June 15, 1987 Bob Gentles Rick Engineering 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, California 92008 ZONE 22 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS Staff has reviewed your revised buildout projections for Zone 22 There are still further items of information that must be provided to complete the analysis for this zone. These include the following: 1. RM/O-1 - 11.4 acres for school site dedication must be subtracted from the gross acreage. 2. Dedicated roads must be subtracted from the gross acreage. Although not part of the circulation element, dedicated roads are City property and not available for development. They must be subtracted from the gross acreage. 3. The zone boundary should be shown as including land to the center line of Avenida Encinas. 4. On all properties that have a split general plan designation, assume they will generate proportional development (i.e., RM/O = 50% RM and 50% 0). Buildout acreage and projections should be based on this assumption. •<t 5. Include the State beach as a separate category. Address the criteria established by the State Parks Master Plan as well as what facilities are used and the demand generated. Items 1, 2, and 3 were previously requested in my letter of May 21, 1987, and until they are provided, further analysis of Zone 22 will not continue. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. ADRIENNE M. LANDERS Associate Planner AMLtdm c,c: Gary Wayne Phil Carter /K/ JUsyv-t*,^-^- ; d . PLANNING CONSULTANTS ANDCIVILENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800 June 19, 1987 Mr. Michael Holzmiller CITY OF'CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LFMP ZONE 22 (JOB NUMBER 7561-G) Dear Michael: We would like to request a modification of the requirement to submit a property owners' list and addressed stamped envelopes for the formal submittal of the Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) for Management Zone 22. The purpose of the original requirement was to notify all property owners' within a given zone and within a 600-foot radius of that zone, of any public hearings regarding the LFMP. The City of Carlsbad, in preparing the LFMP's for Zones 2 through 5, set a precedence by notifying the property owners' of the public hearings with a notice in the local newspaper. We propose that a notice of public_hearing_jreg_arding the LFMP for Zbne~2"2 be published in the local newspaper in lieu of mailing individual notices. Please let us know your response at your earliest convenience. Sincer CC:cea/001 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WS&J (619)438-1161 City of Cartebab June 29, 1987 Cheryl Cunningham Rick Engineering Company 365 South Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Dear Cheryl: We have reviewed your request to modify the Growth Management Program requirement to submit a property owners' list and addressed, stamped envelopes for the formal submittal of the Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 10, 11, 12, 18, and 22. We are willing to accept an individual request on a zone by zone basis to modify the Local Facilities Management Plan noticing requirement in lieu of receiving individual stamped envelopes at the time the plan is officially submitted. Each of your specific zone requests have been given to the project planner working on that specific zone. We believe in some cases your request may be acceptable, however, for other zones it would not. If you have any questions, please call me, J. t* PHILIP 0. CARTER Senior Management Analyst POC:bjn RM/6 -*1 n va<,so.sot ^m/o -afc 2 43/ /^ -//o,ASS H '3 /J57 3, /O <3 D /54 41^o/ o-l IV VVV3 0 il 5-V 73 _^/_0 17*L 0S-/SO.r ) WILSON JONES COMPANY G75O6 GREEN MADE IN U S A •DATE JUNE 2, 1987 GENERAL PLAN CATAGORY RM-1 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 RMH-4 0-1 0-2 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 *OTHER asssssssssfts 1 TOTAL ZONE GROSS ACRES 5.2 11.8 14.1 18.7 4.2 3.8 29.0 59.0 2.6 17.5 15.6 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 156.7 :ec=scs=: 420.0 CONSTRAINTS I 100% A 1 B I C I D I E FIG HII 2.5 ----- 2.8 2.8 0.5 — -—- 195.2 161.5 sssssstssescsssssss: 0.0 |*****I61.5 0.4 0.3 — •--- "*""*" 13.0 0.3 — — - ssssss: 14.0 5.1 ""-""" ~ •m — — - _-_-._ TOTAL 100% 0.0. 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.5_______ 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.5 13.0 5.4 156.7 &P*$& NET 'JT r-™ DEVELOPABLE I 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 5.4 0.2 •i-y 0.0 I 5.1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 184.4 9.8 0.0 5.2 1 V/ 1 -UTfl-|/0.<? 14.1 \r i 18.7 |^ 3.9 iy 1 3.4 Iv6 26.5 1^ -SfrrT I if. 71 2.6 |v/ 1 17.4 I/ i 15.6 !>/ 19.9 Iv/ 1 5.5 \S_____________ i 1____________ i _ 30_:8 Y 0.1 I/ 1-.-.._.-.»«_. 1 .0 1 sssssssssssasss \ I 230.7 I E - RIPARIAN WOODLAND P - WETLANDS 6 - FLOODWAYS 100% CONSTRAINTS: A - MAJOR POWERLINE BASEMENTS B - CIRCULATION (FUTURE DEDICATION) C - RAILROAD TRACKS R/W D - SLOPES > 40% 50% CONSTRAINTS: J - SLOPES 25% TO 40% * OTHERS: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 64.4 ACRES; 1-5 29 ACRES; ' POINSETTIA LANE 1.8 ACRES; ATsSFRR 61.5 ACRES H - PERMENANT BODY OF WATER - OTHER ENVIRgNMENTALJJEATJJRES __ K - SCHOOL SITE OVERLAY DEDICATION MANAGEMENT ZONE 22 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G June 1, 1987 GENERAL PLAN ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTIALDESIGNATION RM-1 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 Totals RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 ?RMH-4 " TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 Totals 0-1 O-2 Totals TS/C P-l OS-1 OS-2 Totals Others* Totals ExistingApproved Remaining GROSS 5.2 59.0 2.6 66.8 12.8 14.1 18.7 4.2 17.5 15.6 82.9 3.8 29.0 32.8 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 52.1 156.7 420.0 NET 5.2 •*fr**"J¥3 2.6 ' *~ AK« fi',%- 14.1 18.7 _£*3.9WUiuiITTT^ — 1 15.6 80.7 3.35 26.5 29.85 19.9 5.5 30.8 0.0 30.8 0.0 230.65 UNITS 31^ f 3&f-2&& 15 ^ $ ,3*3-3/5 ±2$rtlS 162*^ ~-**^215*X -^^200^ 179^ 927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,310 268 0 1,042 SQUARE FEET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43,778 346,302 390,080 346,737 71,874 0 0 0 0 808,691 248,292 65,340 495,059 * Others: Carlsbad Boulevard - 64.4 acres, 1-5 - 29 acres, Poinsettia Lane - 1.8 acres, AT&SFRR - 61.5 acres. ** Non-residential calculated at 30% for non-subdivided parcels and at 40% for subdivided parcels. /038 MANAGEMENT ZONE 22 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS COMMERCIAL/OFFICE EMPHASIS RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G June 1, 1987 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RM-1 RM/0-1 RM/O-2 Totals RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 RMH-4 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 Totals 0-1 0-2 Totals TS/C P-l OS-1 OS-2 Totals Others* Totals Existing Approved Remaining ACREAGE GROSS 5.2 59.0 2.6 66.8 12.8 14.1 18.7 4.2 17.5 15.6 82.9 3.8 29.0 32.8 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 52.1 156.7 420.0 NET 5.2 X**W\ 2.6 63.9 11.0 14.1 18.7 3.9 17.4 15.6 80.7 3.35 26.5 29.85 19.9 5.5 30.8 0.0 30.8 o.o 230.65 UNITS 317 o 0 31 126 162 215 45 0 0 548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 579 268 0 311 NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET 0 733,114 33,976 767,090 0 0 0 0 227,383 203,860 431,243 43,778 346,302 390,080 346,737 71,874 0 0 0 0 2,007,024 248,292 ^ 65,340 1,693,392 * Others: Carlsbad Boulevard - 64.4 acres, 1-5 - 29 acres, Poinsettia Lane - 1,8 acres, AT&SFRR - 61.5 acres. ** Non-residential calculated at 30% for non-subdivided parcels and at 40% for subdivided parcels. /039 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WWJW (619)438-1161 N$|$7 City of Carlstmb May 21, 1987 Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZONE 22, BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS To complete analysis of the buildout projections for Zone 22, it will be necessary for you to provide additional information. This includes the following items: 1. Specific Plan 186 area, please provide: a. The gross and net acreage. Net acreage should not include dedicated streets. b. The developed square footage c. The vacant acreage 2. Recalculate the non-residential acreage based on 30% for vacant land that can be subdivided in the future. Dedicated streets should not be included. 3. Indicate the school site on RM/0 - 1. 4. There should be some discussion of the possible realignment of Palomar Airport Road due to the possible land exchange and subsequent change in land use designation and acreage. 5. The zone boundary should be shown as including land to the center line of Avenida Encinas. 6. Please provide the required information in a format similar^that shown on the attached sheet. As I mentioned on the phone, the buildout numbers you provided are similar to what we have. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. ADRIENNE LANDERS Associate Planner AL:dm Attachment 214-45 RAINTREE DR -MACADAM IA DR 0 BLK J& PIANGES OLD /fa <?-/3 3-&> NEW /-/^ /7 /at/? ZO-Z2 YR •^46 86, 36 CUT ^7 /7JS /74O f74l MAP 10899-CARLSBAD TCT NO 81-5 . i, . ., ^^m Prepared Sept. 1986 by: .'•lr"-"..-V'•'•'• •' :' >'W^ Research/Analysts Group •< ; • '- """••' '•••'- '' "'-. . /.' '".(619)438-5618," 4- CITY OF'CARLSBAD" \^ > vA, :;; •"<•"• ZONE 22-v •*.<'•.•>•'•.'/•> ':%. .,.' :;,.c.v, :-,,.'._;• *. « ACREAGE' SUMMARY-/ ";, 'v ^vf'r1^ .yH?* >£> ' '"-r •"•/'"';•: • •/Vi.V . -. p 5ENERAL PLAN ' '•'•'' ''," "•>'—"' ', •' ^\ *' ''"' :100%"-""" '25%-40%''V '•'"••''". '•/""• '•! aAND USE DESIGNATION., • ' ', GROSS'-^r .CONSTRAINED,, SLOPE v••'; • l' NET?- i". ! ij RESIDENTIAL: RL Low Density (0-1 RLM Low-Med Density RM Medium Density. (4-8) RMH Med-Hi Density (8-15)' RH High Density (15-23) t < :OMMERCIAL:' 's CBD Central Bus. District C Community N Neighborhood RC Recreation ' ;<--•£:..•/" •''- '1 '.!-f-^ -'^ '-' ;"'L-L':--\S .•'1''..',-''- ';."^,^" •• V-"1'" TS Travel" Services- ,' ---,7;'' "-''.,"'7.9^ V.^/-.-:/.- 0^0 ."->-^'.^:*v,r;; C /.-^ • K^","';"'•?i9 0 Professional' & Related-.;. , , 23'.6; %>,./3 ;:- O.O'x ;;;',,\ , !''--'' ,' '-"^ ' ', 23.6. RRE Extensive Reg11 Retail;- '•' " -'-'::' ";v^>V'-; - -"v'.', '*;••' 'y'-v,'1". '••••'• --•'"-'.'' '••'-" f» RRI Intensive Reg'l Retail- '' / - ' '\'-';';.v''. X' "' •?'^"'^>'.^''>'*'' '"• ;.u'' , -'-",RS Regional Service'. CNDUSTRIAL: " ' '] . .'-.-..V '-',.- ' .^V/' ... ' ''\-' PI Planned Industrial 0.0 ; , .O._0' ' -, • . : 0.0 ' '' " ' '" ''' ' " E Elementary School' >..-'•''' .-7~11.5/>: ";<?>{ O.'O ^ '•"•'':f-;;V•'••''•'',:•/> .-;' '•' '11.5 J .Junior High School' ,'.-•- ' - ;- i::i H High School • ,' ' . . "'•':_>VI HC Continuation 'School' •'••-. ,., P Private School >' 'p' G-, Governmental Facility/1-;,-' ;.-,-•• U' Public Utilities'- . ,, V'v NRR- Non-Res id'1 Reserve; ;"';,v, OS" Open Space \ n"_ - .,-\-: VC 57.3,;, x'r- ' 9.7-^;; ;;/,s •'",;/,/",' ;;;!' 47.6 RR Railroad' - ''•" "/v'Yf.-, :-, 2 8.0:'-t\ •:•',;-" " 28.0 ^•":i;^fr-Sv'.-/ O '"':'.'i-''"' ,-";0.0 ' FW Freeway ' u . • : , - •• - 'v 35.9; .vV-" . 35.9.;^ ,- ;Cr-'> l-V'- v'--' 'J .>':"0.0 MAJ Major-Arterial1 ' -• ;•" • ' 8^9"->'-;--- ( Q~.9*'-. •"^'"".V'.y ..-.:•;. " '•' /1'.f'0.'o:>' MIN Minor Arterial , ,, 30.3-./V -30.3i-, "^ .,,'.;—•,,: ,""'0.0 COL Collector Street , '13.8., V' 13.8 ( 't/v ,-' • 0.0 185.7r • 126.6'' ' '• "''''• ' 59.1 POTAL ! ,•".'•> 393.5.;< .''""' 131.1 ' " ,.-v '.."'. ," 262.4 \SSUMPTIONS: ,. , • V '-. '„•''•' . . ., . ' ^1) 100% constrained acres include Riparian areas, transmission lineeasements, slopes greater than 40%,'and ma;jor 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. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 (619)438-1161 City of Cartefcab May 21, 1987 Bob Ladwig Rick Engineering 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 202 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZONE 22, BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS To complete analysis of the buildout projections for Zone 22, it will be necessary for you to provide additional information. This includes the following items: 1. Specific Plan 186 area, please provide: a. The gross and net acreage. Net acreage should not include dedicated streets. b. The developed square footage c. The vacant acreage 2. Recalculate the non-residential acreage based on 30% for vacant land that can be subdivided in the future. Dedicated streets should not be included. 3. Indicate the school site on RM/0 - 1. 4. There should be some discussion of the possible realignment of Palomar Airport Road due to the possible land exchange and subsequent change in land use designation and acreage. 5. The zone boundary should be shown as including land to the center line of Avenida Encinas. 6. Please provide the required information in a format similarf°that shown on the attached sheet. As I mentioned on the phone, the buildout numbers you provided are similar to what we have. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. VJULJ ADRIENNE LANDERS Associate Planner AL:dm Attachment PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 January 19, 1987 Ms. Dee Landers Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS FOR ZONE 22 (RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G) Dear Dee: At our meeting of December 22,, 1986 we discussed with the City the need to generate two sets of buildout projections because of the dual General Plan designations on several of the parcels in Zone 22 (attached). One projection assumes that residential will be built to the maximum as permitted by the Seapointe General Plan. The other emphasizes a commercial/office buildout with only a minimal amount of residential development. As you can see, the extreme residential projections would yield an addi- tional 1,039 units in Zone 22. The minimal residential develop- ment for the zone has been projected to be an additional 271 units. Realistically, the final residential buildout for the zone will probably be somewhere in between the minimum and maxi- mum. It should be pointed out that even if the maximum number of dwel- ling units were built, the total number of units would still be below the City's original projection for Zone 22. I have also attached for your review the constraints map with an itemized description of the constraints identified. Ms. Dee Landers January 19, 1987 RE: ZONE 22 Page Two Please review the attached information for accuracy and completeness. If a meeting is necessary to discuss our findings in more detail, please advise. Sincerely, Robert F. Gentles RFG:ss/0122 Attachments cc: THE LUSK COMPANY Attention: Mr. John Brand CITY OF CARLSBAD Attention: Mr. Phil Carter MANAGEMENT ZONE 22 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS COMMERCIAL/OFFICE EMPHASIS (RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G) January 20, 1987 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RM-1 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/RMH-3 0-1 0-2 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 OTHER* TOTALS ACREAGE GROSS NET 156.5 UNITS 6.2 59.0 2.6 6.2 56.1 2.6 36 0 0 TOTAL 36 12.8 14.1 18.7 17.5 15.6 3.3 11.0 14.1 18.7 17.4 15.6 3.2 126 162 215 0 0 0 TOTAL 503 3.8 2.9 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 3.35 2.9 22.7 6.0 30.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 420.0 232.3 539 Units Existing - 268 Units Remaining 7 271 Units £ * AT & SF RR, Carlsbad Boulevard, 1-5, Poinsettia Lane Note: Non-residential land (156 acres) exists in the Zone. 40% average a maximum of 2,717,272 square feet is possible. At /029 MANAGEMENT ZONE 22 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS (RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G) January 20, 1987 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ACREAGE GROSS NET UNITS RM-1 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/RMH-3 0-1 0-2 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 OTHER* TOTALS 6.2 59.0 2.6 156.5 6.2 56.1 2.6 36 337- 15,- TOTAL -33B- 12.8 14.1 18.7 17.5 15.6 3.3 11.0 14.1 18.7 17.4 15.6 3.2 126 162 215 200 179 37 TOTAL 919 3.8 2.9 22.7 6.0 46.5 5.6 3.35 2.9 22.7 6.0 30.8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 420.0 232.3 Existing - 1,307 Units 268 Units Remaining - 1,039 Units * AT & SF RR, Carlsbad Boulevard, 1-5, Poinsettia Lane Note: Non-residential land (61.05 acres) exists in this Zone. At 40% coverage, a maximum of 1,063,735 square feet is possible. /030 LEGEND - BUILDOUT PROJECTIONSGROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ZONE 22 DATE 4/1/87 GENERALPLAN1 CATEGORY RM-1 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 RMH-4 0-1 0-2 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 •OTHER TOTALZONE GROSSACRES 5.2 12.8 14.1 18.7 4.2 3.8 29.0 59.0 2.6 17,3 15.6 22.7 £.0 46.5 5.6 156.7 420.0 ACRES OF IQO% CONSTRAINTS A B 2.5 2.8 2.8 0.5 95.2 104 C fif61.5 61.5 D 0.4 0.3 13.0 0.3 2_ 14.1 E F , 5.1 5.1 G H , I < ' K 1 TOTALACRESOF100% 0.4 0.3 2.5 2.8 2.8 0.5 13.0 5.4 156.7 184.5 ACRES OF 50%CONSTRAINTS 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 \ 5.4 .2 9.8 NET DEVELOPABLEACRES 5.2 11.0 14.1 18.7 3.9 3.35 26.5 56.1 2.6 17.4 15.6 19.9 5.5 30.8 0.0 1 0.0 230.65 CONSTRAINTS: A - MAJOR POWERLINE EASEMENTB - CIRCULATION C - RAILROAD-TRACKS R/W D - SLOPES > 40% E - RIPARIAN WOODLANDF - WETLANDS G - FLOODWAYS H - PERMANENT BODY OF WATERI - OTHER ENVIRON. FEATURE K - SCHOOL SITEEOVERLAY DEDICATION •AT & SFRR, CARLSBAD BLVD., 1-5. POINSETTIA LANE LEGEND - BUILDOlir PROJECTIONSGROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ZONE 22 DATE 1/15/87 GENERALPLANCATEGORY RM-1 RMH-1 RMH-2 RMH-3 0-1 0-2 RM/0-1 RM/0-2 TS/RMH-1 TS/RMH-2 TS/RMH-3 TS/C PI OS-1 OS-2 1 •OTHER I DIAL1 ZONE GROSS ACRES 6.2 12.8 14.1 18.7 3.8 29.0 59.0 2.6 . 17.5 15.6 3.3 22.7 6.0 A6.5 5.6 156.5 420.0 ACRES OF 100% CONSTRAINTS A 1 B 2.8 2.8 C 1 D .4 .3 .1 13.0 .3 14.1 E 1 F G 5.1 5.1 H I K TOTALACRES OF 100% 6.2 i^d RTF tfrr? & 2*rT 56.2 2.6 17.5 15.6 3.2 22.7 6.0 33.5 .2 156.5 398.0 J ACRES OF 50% CONSTRAINTS 2.9 .3 .2 .2 5.4 .2 NET DEVELOPABLEACRES 6.2 11.0 14.1 18.7 , 3.35 29.0 56.1 2.6 17.4 15.6 3.2 22.7 6.0 ! 30.8 0.0 0.0 232.3 CONSTRAINTS: A - MAJOR POWERLINE EASEMENTB - CIRCULATION (FUTURE DEDICATION)C - RAILROAD TRACKS R/W D - SLOPES > 40% E - RIPARIAN WOODLAND F - WETLANDS G - FLOODWAYS H - PERMANENT BODY OF WATERI - OTHER ENVIRON. FEATURE J - 25-40% S'OPESK - SCHOOL SITE OVERLAY DEDICATION , *AT i SFRR, CARLSBAD BLVD., 1-5, POINSETTIA LANE $£®teVTa«rThe . , . Council 1457 :Crest >fcs . • '•••- "&V Enciriitas, .Calif. 9202^; April 14, 1987 Calif. 92008-1989 . V^SST*- *JLocal Facilities Management ^Kuan forgone 22 (Twenty-two). r ,,.-,.,•-.-, Public Hearing Tuesday&April 21, 1$?. ;^ Request for DevelopmentX^nsultan^/Consortium to prepare plan as i;- ; per Section 21.90.120 (d^&HBarlsbad Municipal Code Ju :, x; Rick Eng. (Job 75ol-G), John Brandi Lusk, Michael Fagani Sammis, ' ? • ,;;, Robert Gentile; Rick Eng., Robert Ladwig; Rick Eng. In regard to the letter of February 20, 1987, various phone calls have been made .concerning flooding problems from the diverting of water and all drainage from the Lake Shore Garden Mobile Park through the south of Ponto properties; Prior to the building of the Poinsettia railroad overpass and .Poinsettia Lane, there was no flooding in this area. We now find the storm drain water from Hotels and other commercial developments in the Encina road developments npw,^deliyering water, into our facilities. torm drain water was to flow into the sediment basin on the Sammis pro- perty * in the lagoon arid into the sediment basin at the Encina outfall. No water was to flow through the open areas of Ponto and into the State Beach as is ^x%wf happening. We realize there has been some grave errors made by engineer \ lnHthis^area and that a fix is now in the line to restrict the flow for a short dtirai^ion, coming south through our property. We have been assured by City ;Engin^«ping that this will be corrected when any further construction is P^mitt'ed"- on the parcels which have benefited by diverting of the waters properties.- •• • , •','."' ' --'spoken 'with the Coastal Commission (Adam Bimbaum) and he agrees with he is aware of what has happened, in the northeast corner of the ;.|i "railroad -right-a-way at the southeast corner of the bridge where the raiser f,, box is located and where the large pipe is placed under Poinsettia to flow to the Encina basin, through Section Zone 22 (Lusk and Sammis Properties) ^\;r weeks ago I spoke with Lloyd Hubbs,P.E. and he was looking into this However, I have yet to hear from him. I did speak with Phil Carter Planning and he stated that in the plans there was no address to the watier the Mobile Park or the new construction on Encina Ave. Pat vEngineering Dept., is aware of the problem and has stated that flow north to Encina sediment basin outfall if any .development the areas north of Poinsettia as the large pipe is under the take all of this flow from the raiser box.- This will stop- floo'ding of units at Ponto Storage and put the conditions back to where they ;b¥fbrie jbuilding the 24-inch storm drain on Poinsettia and flowing the rather than to the north as it had done, for years.i ' . *" ',•,''-.wish to get into the matter that ithis jwater problem is now contained | 9 (Don ^Sammis-.Lake Shore Gardens area) rather than the Zone 22;,etc.) and "pass-the-buck" so that nothing gets done/to stop this problemiwhich had made a nice parcel out of a lake site at the parcels. ,. ' • -; ... , -...,,,- ;-' *'] with the roads and how, they will .affect our property, gew^t'SsVsaWdVj'pf course, parks and traffic—none, of which has been addressed as »-^eido not wish a great deal of bonding and Assessments to be placed on to benefit other parcels which are noW rendered useless due to , which are beyond the cost which can be paid by the owners themselves. P-059-753-306 thru 317. cert mail} list, etc. RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 P1O PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 11 29 . PHONE . AREA CODE 61 9 • 729-4987 February 20, 1987 Mr. Dale Schreiber 1457 Crest Drive Encinitas, California 92024 RE: ZONE 22 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7561-G Dear Dale: Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the City of Carlsbad Engineer on August 8, 1984. The letter and attached map have to do with draining the areas north of Poinsettia and east of the tracks to the north rather than to the south as shown in the City's Master Drainage Plan. The Local Facilities Plan will show this alternative as the recommended solution for drainage in this area. At the property owners' meeting at the Olympic Resort, you said that you wanted to see the drainage plan before you would sign the authorization to have the Plan prepared. Hopefully, with this information and our discussions regarding showing this alter- native in the drainage section in mind, you can sign the authori- zation for the preparation of the Zone 22 Plan. We would appreciate you returning that to us after you have had a chance to review the attached letter. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd/039 Enclosures cc: THE LUSK COMPANY Attention: Mr. John Brand (with enclosures) THE SAMMIS COMPANY Attention: Mr. Michael Fagan (with enclosures) RICK ENGINEERING'S COMPANY Attention: »"Mr. Robert Gentles (with enclosures) RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD. CA 92008 P.O. 80X1129 • PHONE . AREA CODE 61 9 • 729-4987 August 8, 1984 Mr. Ron Beckman City Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: LUSK PROPERTIES - DRAINAGE (J#7561D) Dear Ron: At the request of our client, John D. Lusk & Son, Rick Engineer- ing has reviewed plans for the construction of Poinsettia Lane, Drawing No. 234-4. Sheets 14 and 15 of these plans show the construction of a 24" temporary storm drain that runs south from Poinsettia Lane in the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF)right-of-way approximately 2,000 feet. Sheets 2A and 3A show a 54" storm drain under Poinsettia Avenue at a gradient of 0.2%, draining southerly. In reviewing these plans with respect to adhering to the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Carlsbad and handling the developed runoff from properties owned by Lusk and others, we find several problems which are listed below: 1. The 54" pipe at 0.2% does not have the capacity to adequately handle the runoff from the properties to the north of Poin- settia. 2. Because it would be difficult to drain through the beach bluffs, the storm drain facilities would have to extend 4,800 feet to the south, to Batiquitos Lagoon. 3. Because there 'is no benefit to AT&SF for the master storm drain facility to drain to the south, getting permission to construct the facility may be difficult. We would like to propose some possible solutions to the problems. They are as follows: 1. Run the master storm drain to the north from Poinsettia, connecting to the triple 8 feet by 10 feet box culvert under Avenida Encinas at the sewer treatment plant. The elevation at the box culvert is such that adequate grade should be available to keep the storm drain to a manageable size. The distance to the box culvert would be approximately 2,100 feet '"Mr. Ron Beckman August 8, 1984 Page Two rather than the 4,800 feet necessary to drain to the south. The railroad would have good reason to allow the storm drain in their right-of-way. There presently is an open concrete ditch which could be eliminated by picking up its runoff in the storm drain. 2. Eliminate from construction plans for Poinsettia Lane, the short length of 54" pipe shown on Sheets 2a and 3a. The grade the pipe was set at and its slope would not adequately provide for drainage from the north. We also ask that you approve in concept, draining the master facilities to the north from Poinsettia Lane. Calculations and exhibits are provided with this letter showing the impact of this additional drainage on the box culvert. Please have the construc- tion plans for Poinsettia Lane modified to eliminate the 54" pipe on Sheets 2a and 3a. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bob Stockton BS:cp Enclosures cc: Don Steffensen/Lusk & Company SCHOOLS I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD School capacity to meet the projected enrollment within the Zone as determined by the appropriate school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS A. Inventory Zone 22 falls completely within the boundaries of the Carlsbad Unified School District. Currently there are no schools in the Southwest Quadrant. Elementary school students in Zone 22 attend Jefferson Street or Pine Street Elementary Schools. Secondary school students attend Valley Junior High and Carlsbad High Schools. The Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use Element identifies general locations for future school sites in each school category. One elementary school site has been identified by the General Plan Land Use Map in Zone 22. The locations are a result of joint study conducted by the City and Carlsbad Unified School District in 1982. A recent update of this study shows a continued need for three and possibly four elementary school facilities in the Southwest quadrant of the City at buildout. The 1982 study made assumptions about density in the Southwest quadrant based on severe reduction in density by the California Coastal Commission In some cases this was as low as one dwelling unit per 10 acres for large "agricultural" areas. ' Since this time the restrictions imposed by' the Coastal Commission have been revised to allow densities consistent with the -General Plan. Given the very restrictive locational factors in school siting, and the committments to development in the Southwest quadrant, there are limited viable school sites. The originally identified elementary school site in Zone 22 continues to provide a workable location. 1. Buildout Projections In Zone 22 there are presently 268 dwelling units. As the Zone builds out there will be an additional 598 units. These units will add approximately •3&&- students to the school demand generated by Zone 22. Based upon standard generation , rates , the Carlsbad Unified School District utilizes the student generation factor of .5 students per household, the following represents the buildout projections for Zone 22. 119 The total projected students are proportionally assigned as elementary, junior-high and high-school students as follows: , TQTAT UNITS STUDENT GENERATION RATE X i5 " •" School Elementary K-6 Junior High 7-8 High School 9-12 EXISTING UNITS 268 Total Students Percent Total • 54 .15 STUDENT POPULATION -^^JfcM* -f i ,•*ssr V- Assined Students .31 Total: STUDENT GENERATION X School Elementary K-6 Junior High 7-8 High School 9-12 FUTURE UNITS School Elementary K-6 Junior High 7-8 High School 9-12 Total Students 134 134 134 Percent Total • 54 .15 .31 Total: STUDENT GENERATION STUDENT POPULATION 134 Assigned Students 72 20 42 , 134 STUDENT POPULATION Total Students .5 Percent Total ' .54 .15 .31 Total: Assigned Students B. Phasing ' , Upon full bujLLdout, Zon'e 22 will generate approximately %3&o students using the assumed student generation faqtar of .5 students per DLmt unit*. In reality, the 4»& projected students may be high due to the fact that the majority of the future units are multi-family and the existing units are mobile-home parks which traditionally do not generate as many school children. For planning purposes, the accepted generation factor has been used. 120 The Carlsbad General Plan designates three new elementary schools, one junior high and one high school at buildout in the Southwest quadrant. On June 24, 1987, the Carlsbad Unified School District adopted; a policy that advises future residents of the district that .the assignment of students to particular schools will be done on a district-wide basis and not necessarily by attendance areas. Based upon this new policy, it is hot feasible to attempt to predict when a. school site in or near Zone 22 may be needed. This decision will rest with the School District as projects are being considered. C. Adequacy Findings The Carlsbad Unified School District is currently providing capacity for the existing demand generated by Zone 22. New schools are necessary and w.ill be provided by the District to accornodate future demand. III. MITIGATION A. Special Conditions Prior to the approval of a final map for any projects within Zone 22, an agreement shall be entered into between the Carlsbad Unified School District and the affected property owner(s) that shall provide for the following: 1. The deeding of an acceptable school site to the Carlsbad Unified School District. 2. /A financing plan approved by the City and CUSD guaranteeing the construction of the necessary elementary school facilities. Currently, it appears that Mello/Roos Bonds offer the most friable method for financing school facilities in this part of the community. If any reimbursements a.nd/or school fee credits are to be given, the school agreement/financing plan shall provide a mechanism to do so .121 ,