HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 149A; La Costa Master Plan; Master Plan (MP)4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION OF
SPECIFIC OR MASTER PLAN
DATE: SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
FILING FEE RECEIPT N0._ mSTER PLAN NO.
(for official use)
* « w * * Sf * * * * * * * « « « * * * * * * *•
I. A REQUEST IS HEREBY MADE TO ADOPT A Master Plan
(Specific or Master Plan)
FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: (exact legal description)
(See attached legal description)
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS ADDRESSED AS Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad. California AND IS LOCATED ON THE East
(North, South, East, West)
SIDE OF El Camino Real BETWEEN Olivenhain Road AND
(Name of Street) (Name of Street)
Palomar Airport Road .
(Name of Street)
II. We The undersigned state that we are
( I, We) ( I AM, WE ARE )
the agents for the owneraof the property described herein and hereby
(Owner/Owners)
give our authorization to the filing of this application:
(My, Our) ~
Name : Rancho La Costa, A Nevada Corporation
(Typed or Printed as shovm on Recorded Deed)
X Signature: ^Y^^Q^uhfiJli^^ • )^<ajt<>«>C^
Burton L. Kramer, Vice President
Name: La Costa Land Company, An Illinois Corporation
( Typed or Printed as shown on Recorded Deed)
xS1q!ia;:ure:'^^B<-'*^^^^^ ^T'^U^<*b<,^
Burton L. Kramer, Vice President
f^lame: The Trustess of the Centra],^tates, Southeast and Southwest Areas
(Typed/^r Printed a^fp«(ii offRecofded Deed) Pension Fund
Signature:^ ^ _
"'."Itie insurance^ and Trust company, Attorney in fact
Name: Ernest B. Bond, Assistantx^itoxRt^X<^iXtx f^FCRFTARY
(Typed-^r-jPrinted as s-iown on Recorded Deed)
A. P. DONIA ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT
" Specific/Master Plan Ar^ication 4 Page Two
III. EXISTING ZOKE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Planned Community
HAS A MASTER PLAN BEEN APPROVED? Yes.
DATE:
No.
OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
CITY OF )
1
SS
I, (we). We Burton L. Kramer and
(name)
declare to the best of our
(my, our )
and correct under the penalty of purjury:
EXECUTED AT
^being duly sworn depose and
knowledge that the foregoing is true
TCrtyT
DATE
(Month) (Day)
APPLICANT, OWNER AND/OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT:
lest B. Bond^saiatant yio«J?j«9^5i«K^( SECTY
(State)
(Year)
Burton L. Kramer
(Print Name)
p. DONIA ASST. VICE PRES.
c/o J. A. Donnelley
Donnelley & Hulden
2655 Fourth Avenue San Diego
California
92103
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
TO 449 CA (5-73)
(Corporation)
(Signature)
Costa Del Mar Road
(Mailing Address)
Carlsbad, California 92008
(City and State) (Zip)
( 714 ) 729-9111
(Area Code) (Telephone Number)
DAY OF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF San DiPgn
On May 22, 1975
TITLE INSURANCE
ANDTRUST
ATICOR COMPANY
SS.
I State, personally appeared BurtOn L. Kramef
111 known to me to be the ^i-CQ
^ known to me to be
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
— President, and
* known to m^e to be th. r.. 1 Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument,
y Known to me to be the persons who executed the within
J Instrumeiit on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
< acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
5 instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board
ot directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature-
Wanda Brock
Name (Typed or Printed)
(This area for official notarial seal)
PLAT TOILLUSTmTE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT D
SEPT. 5,1975
SCALE l"'20(J(r
^^AL DESCRIPTION FOR LA O
MASTER PLAN
All that real property in the City of Carlsbad, Covmty of San Diego, State
of California, described as follows:
All of Parcel 3 as shown on Parcel Map No.1188 on file in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County; that portion of the South Half of the South
Half of Section 19, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian
lying Westerly of the Westerly sideline of County Road(future Melrose Avenue)
S.A. 450 as described in City of Carlsbad Annexation 2:19; that portion of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian lying Easterly of the Easterly line of County of San Diego
Road Survey 1800-1 on file in the Office of the County Engineer of said
County; all of the Northeast Quarter and all of the South Half of Section 25,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian; all of Section 30,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, lying Westerly of
the Westerly sideline of the above mentioned S.A. 460; that portion of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, lying Westerly of the Westerly sideline of said S.A.
460; all of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 29; all
that portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Beimardino
Meridian, lying Easterly of the Easterly sideline of the above mentioned
Road Survey 1800-1; all of Section 36, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian; all of Section 31r Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San
Berjiardino Meridian; the West Half of Section 32, Township 12 South, Range 3
West, San Bernardino Meridian; that portion of Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 5, Lot 6,
Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Section 2, Township 13 Southi Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, lying Easterly of the East line of the above mentioned Road Survey
1800-1 and Northerly of the Southerly line of Record of Survey 7624, on file
in the Office of the County Recorder and shown on said Record of Survey as
North 89" 16' 23" Cast, Radial 398.31 feet all of Fractional Section 1,
Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian; all of Fractional
Section 6, Township 13 South# Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian; all of
Lot 1 and the un-niambered Lot in the Rancho Las Encinitas according to Map
thereof No.848^ on file in the Office of the County Recorder of said County,
lying Easterly of the East line of the above mentioned Road Suarvey 1800-1
and Northerly of County of San Diego Road Survey No.1631(Olivenhain Road) on
file in the Office of the County Engineer of said County; all of Lot 2, Lot
3, Lot 4, Lot 5, Lot 8 and Lot 9 of said Rancho Las Encinitas; all of Lot 11
of said Rancho Las Encinitas lying Northerly and Westerly of the following
described line;
Beginning at a point in the Bast line of said Lot 11 which bears North 2"
55* 51" West 2107,50 feet from the Southeast corner of said Lot 11, thence
leaving said East line South 87" 30' 15" West, 2505.00 feet; thence South
2' 55' 51" East* 2107.50 feet to an intersection with the South line of said
Lot 11; said point bears South 87* 30' 15" West, 2505.00 feet from the above
mentioned Southeast corner; all of Lot 6 of said Rancho Las Encinitas lying
West of the following described line:
Beginning at a point in the South line of said Lot 6 which bears North 86"
40' 45" East^ 1320.29 feet from the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence
North 2" 52' 55" West, 2644.62 feet to an intersection with the North line
of said Lot 6; said intersection bears North 75" 47' 10" East, 1340.37 feet
from the Northeast corner of said Lot 6; all of Lot 10 lying Northerly and
Northwesterly of County of San Diego Road Survey No.454, on file in the Office
of the County Engineer of said County, and that portion of said Lot 10 lying
Easterly of County of San Diego Road Survey N0.454A, on file in the Office of
the County Engineer, and Southeasterly of the above mentioned Road Survey No.
454.
EXCEPTING from the abd||^ described real property • . that portion thereof
lying within tbe boundaries of the following described Subdivision Maps:
La Costa Valley Unit No.l per Map No.5434
La Costa Valley Unit No.2 per Map No.5486
La Costa Valley Unit No.3 per Map No.5734
La Costa Valley Unit No.4 per Map No.5781
La Costa Valley Unit No.5 per Map No.6730
La Costa South Unit No.l per Map No.6117
La Costa South Unit No.2 per Map No.6462
La Costa South Unit No.3 per Map No.6533
La Costa South Unit No.4 per Map No.6545
La Costa South Unit No.5 per Map No.6600
La Costa South Unit No.6 per Map No.6604
La Costa South Unit No.7 per Map No.6612
La Costa Vale Unit No.l per Map No.7457
La Costa Vale Unit No.2 per Map No.7779
La Costa Vale Unit No.3 per Map No.7950
Alicante Hills per Map No.7784
La Costa Estates North per Map No.7992
La Costa Meadows Unit No.l per Map No.6800
La Costa Meadows Unit No.2 per Map No.6905
La Costa Meadows Unit No.3 per Map No.7076
La Costa Meadows Unit No.4 per Map No.7376
Spanish Village Unit No.l per Map No.7895
Santa Fe Glens per Map No.8059
La Costa Greens per Map Ho.6708
La Costa Condominium No.3 per Map No.6129
La Costa Condominiiim No. 4 per Map No. 6520
La Costa Canada per Map No.7205
all of the above mentioned Subdivision Maps are on file in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County.
Also EXCEPTING the following descrived parcels; all that portion of the
West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino Meridian in the County of San Diego, State of
California according to the Official Plat thereof lying Easterly and North
easterly of the Easterly Right of Way line of El Camino Real as shown on
San Diego County Road Survey No.1800-1, on file in the Office of the County
Engineer of said County. All those portions of the South Half of Section 26
and the North Half of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian in the County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the Official Plat thereof described as follows:
-2-
Beginning at the EastJJl^y terminus of the center^^^e of Costa Del Mar
Road as shown on Map of La Costa Valley Unit No.l, Map No.5434, said
point of beginning being in the arc of a 750.00 foot radius Curve concave
Northwesterly, a radial line to said point bears South 10" 43' 39" East;
thence Northeasterly along said curve and along said centerline as shown
on Map No.6129 of La Costa Condomininium No.3 through a central angle of
58° 16' 18" a distance of 762.77 feet to a point of reverse curvature with
a 430.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly, a radial line to said
430.00 foot radius curve bears North 68° 59' 57" West; thence Northeasterly
along said curve through a central angle of 47" 30' 01" a distance of 356.49
feet; thence tangent to said curve North 68" 30' 04" East, 59.52 feet to the
termination of said centerline in the boundary of said Condomini\im No.3;
thence leaving said centerline along said boundary South 21" 29' 56" East,
81.00 feet; thence South 35° 00' 00" West, 101.50 feet; thence South 13"
44' 14" East, 44.00 feet; thence South 41" 06' 36" East, 52.69 feet; thence
South 13" 44' 14" East, 28.70 feet; thence South 58" 25' 46" West, 16.77
feet; thence leaving said boundaary of Condominium No.3 at right angles South
31" 34' 14" East, 108.00 feet; thence at right angles North 58" 25' 46" East
, 325.00 feet; thence at right angles South 31" 34' 14" East, 161.60 feet;
thence North 63" 00' 00" East, 123.83 feet; thence North 17° 00' 00" East,
246.99 feet; thence North 7" 00' 00" West, 294.00 feet; thence North 1" 00'
00" East, 296.00 feet; thence North 6" 00' 00" West, 668.01 feet; thence
North 21" 00' 00" East, 262.99 feet; thence North 52" 00' 00" East, 71.49
feet to the Northeasterly terminus of a 320.00 foot radius cujrve concave
Southeasterly, a radial line to said point bears North 19" 40' 00" West,
said point being in the Southeasterly boundary of La Costa Valley Unit No.3,
Map No.5734; thence Southwesterly along said curve and said boundary through
a central angle of 20" 03' 18" a distance of 112.01 feet; thence tangent to
said curve South 50" 16' 42" West, 382.55 feet to the beginning of a tangent
708.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly; thence Southwesterly along
said curve through a central angle of 10" 41' 04" a distance of 132.03 feet
to a point in the arc thereof to which a radial line bears South 29" 02' 14"
East; thence non-tangent to said curve South 77" 47' 10" West, 20.51 feet;
thence South 60" 08' 36" West, 37.00 feet to a point in the arc of a 48.00
foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, a radial line to said point bears
South 70" 15' 51" East, said point being in the Easterly limits of Arenal
Road as shown on {lap No. 5486 of La Costa Valley Unit No.2; thence Northerly
along said curve through a central angle of 36" 57' 09" a distance of 30.96
feet; thence leaving said curve South 72° 47' 00" West, 48.00 feet to the
center of the cul-de-sac of said Arenal Road, said center being the Easterly
teanninus of a 720.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, in the center
line of said Arenal Road, a radial line to said point bears South 19" 13'
00" East; thence Southwesterly and Westerly along said curve and said
centerline through a central angle of 39" 14' 42" a distance of 493.17 feet;
thence tangent to said curve North 69" 58' 18" West, 52.81 feet to an
intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 60.00 feet South
easterly, measured at right angles from the centerline of San Diego County
Road Survey No.682, filed in the Office of the County Engineer of said County;
thence leaving said centerline of Arenal Road along said parallel line South
20° 01' 42" West, 1261.45 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1440.00 foot
radius curve concave Southeasterly; thence Southerly along said curve through
a central angle of 28" 37' 34" a distance of 719.45 feet to an intersection
with the aforementioned centerline of Costa Del Mar Road; thence along
said centerline North 81" 24' 08" East, 29.59 feet to the beginning of a
tangent 750.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly; thence Northeasterly
along said curve through a central angle of 2" 07' 47" a distance of 27.88
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
-3-
IIXCEPTING from the above aescribed parcel of land all of Lots 121 through
129 inclusive of La Costa Valley Unit No.l, according to Map thereof No.
5434, together with all of Palmar Court and that portion of the Easterly
Half of Estrella De Mar Road lying adjacent and contiguous to said Lots
as shown on said map:
Also EXCEPTING therefrom Lots 138, 139 and 140 of La Costa Valley Unit No.
2, according to Map thereof No.5486.
Also EXCEPTING that certain parcel of land described in deed to San Marcos
Sounty Water District recorded July 16, 1958 as Document No.113725.
Said parcel of land contains 3^ro acres more or less.
All as shown on attachment "A"
J#6913
February 4, 1975
^4-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment to Master Plan (MP-149)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 1976,
at 7:00 P.M. in the Council ^Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California to consider an application for an amendment to Master
Plan No. 149 for approval of various land uses of 4026 acres
located on the east side of El Camino Real, north and west of
City Limits, and as shown on the map below.
APPLICANT: La Costa Land Company & City of Carlsbad
Publ i sh: May 29, 1976 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
O
4=
4O00
I I I -I
SCALE
MAP DRAWN BY CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT FROM
D^™ PROVIDED BY RECON OF 5620 FRIARS RD. SAN DIEGO
FOR THE LA COSTA LAND CO.
Carlshad Joiirnal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County
3088 PIO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, js.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Joumal a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and 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:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AMENPMENT TO MASTER PLAN (JtP;jM».
NOTICE. IS HEBEBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission ofthe City of CarIsbad will ho^a public hearfogat«ieC«*.Cbuiiei»«hambWs, 1200 Elm Avenue, CarlsbK^,^f^oWa, at 7:30. KM.^o* Hhfesa^Illfcy H. !|9«S to consider an apphcatio^ftr anamelKJiBent to Jji«fer»#Nft44ifi,^^app*o»^of various land
uses on im acres locat«d dn th|«i»st side of El Ca«»W» Real, north and west of City Limits, and as shown on the miS beJflw. • ^
ThoM l»reon5,wishto?to speak oa tita invited to attend the public Seating. If you have anj|<aiestto»IKWe»«ie.«af 729-H81 and a^ for the PlanningDeeartment. i - >'
Applicant: LA qOSTA LAND CiMaPANY A-aTYflWARLSBAD '
CJ 50s: May 8, ifei ' ' tARLS«AFpLANNmG COMMISSION .i;i.a.y . .8 19.76.
R-I
0 I 500
SCALE •
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 1 Otii ^
nf , May 1976 day
J (0:1
Clerk of the Printer
IBCQStPt
Mr, Paul D. Bussey
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Paul:
RECEIVED''
JUN 03 1976
RII CARLSBAD Planning Department
1976
I have been reviewing the draft of the proposed ordinance for the Planned Community
Zone which will have been reviewed by the City Council on this date, as it would
apply to the Master Plan for La Costa, which will be before the City Council on
June 15, 1976.
It appears to me that the intent of the City Council in adopting the new ordinance
has pretty well been met through our proposed Master Plan. The specifics of the new
ordinance can be met by a supplement to be prepared in due time.
We would like to have the following subdivisions in process prior to the review and
adoption of the supplement to the Master Plan:
1. Rancher OS
2. Vale 4
3. Re-subdivision of Vale 2
4. Santa Fe Knolls - Phases One and Two
We will stipulate that we will not attempt to process other subdivisions prior to the
preparation of a supplement to the Master Plan (assuming City's capacity to expeditiously
process supplemental material).
My review of the new Planned Community Ordinance indicates the following may be re-
quired as a supplement:
1. A new map showing land uses by zone designation as compared to the method
used in our revised Master Plan.
2. The preparation of a land use and public facility economic impact report,
(most, but not all of the requirements of that report have been included in our
new Master Plan).
3. Community identification sign program. (Much work has been done on this,
but it should be completed).
(Continued)
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 729-9111
Mr. Paul D. Bussey, City Manager, Page -2-
City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California June 1, 1976
I think it would be well if you and I discussed this matter before the June 15, 1976
City Council Meeting. I am particularly concerned that the City clearly define what
material is needed to supplement the Master Plan.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J. Mbrey
Vice President
FJ^V'eem
cc: Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
Citi> of Carlsfbab
May 24, 1976 '
Frances and Walter Kunze
530 South Newbury Place
Arlington Heights, ILL 50005
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kunze:
Thank you for your letter regarding the La Costa Master Plan
Amendment. La Costa Land Company has proposed an amendment
to their adopted Master Plan which: (1) designates large
areas for single-family development, in place of the previously
approved condominiimi development; and (2) adds additional land
to the Master Plan which La Costa has purchased. I am enclosing
a map of the proposed amendment for your reference.
The Planning Cor::mission heard the mattrsr last week and voted
to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council.
The City Council will hear the amendment next month.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely yours,
Lllen Me a Cham
ASSISTANT PLANNER
AM:cpl
ATTACHMENT:
Map of proposed amendment
1200 ELM AVENUE M "N^^ wi TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 M'VsWa*!! (714) 729-1181
Citp of Carlsfbab
May 24, 1976
Delos A. McCoole
10201 Parkwood Drive
Kensington, MD 20795
Thank you for your letter regarding the La Costa Master Plan
Amendment. La Costa Land Company has proposed an amendment
to their adopted Master Plan which: (1) designates large
areas for single-family development, in place of the previous-
ly approved condominium development; and (2) adds additional
land to the Master Plan which La Costa has purchased. I am
enclosing a map of the proposed amendment for your reference.
The Planning Comniission heard the matter last week and voted
to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council.
The Council will hear the amendment next month.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely yours,
lam
ASSISTANT PLANNER
ATTACHMENT:
Map of proposed amendment
AM: cpl
Rich-Mar Union School Distnct RECEIVED
274 pico avenue • san marcos, California 92069 • phor>e |714) 744 1400 MAY 19 197S
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Pianning Departnnent
May 18, 1976
City of Carlsbad
Plan n i n f" D e D a r t ra e n t
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ger blemen:
Please be advised that we have perused the La Costa I'^'aster
Plan Amend.ment and fird that it is compatible with our
school district master plan.
We are referring sDecifically to the elementary site located,
near the intersection of Alga 3oad and the •proposed Melrose
Avenue. Also, the elementary school/park site located on
El -Fuerte. It is possible that a junio?:' high school site
\vdll be required. This will be a subject of discussion with
the representatives of T.a Costa in the very neai' future.
Yours truly.
George B. McClelland
D i s t r i c fc up e r i n t e nd e nt
Hich-ilar Union School District
IBM/ld
Effective July 1, 1976 the said sites will be under
the jurisdiction of San Marcos Unified School District
and La Costa will be working with the new district in
all phases of the master plan.
Escondido Union High School District will not be 4f
involved with the master p-i-an after July 1, 197
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carlsfdab
#
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
May 17, 1976
Mr. & Mrs. John Cropper
2113 Mercer Court
Claremont, Ca 91711
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Cropper:
The proposed La Costa Master Plan Amendment covers all vacant land
owned by La Costa Land Company within the City of Carlsbad. As such
it has no direct effect on your land or other improved land in the
existing La Costa Community.
The Master Plan is being amended for two main reasons:
1) To reflect La Costa Land Company's plans for more
sinsgsle-family development and less condominium development;
2) To reflect additional land purchased by La Costa Land
Company since adoption of its original Master Plan.
I am not sure to which park your letter refers. However, the Master
Plan reserves 4 park sites in addition to the 3 already reserved.
I am enclosing a map for your reference.
The City has not received any formal applications for approval of
the oil refinery. SDG&E and its subsidiary informally presented a
plan for an office park on the site to the City Council last fall.
The City has not received any formal applications for the office park
either. Therefore, no decisions have been made, or will be made in
the near future. . ~
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Si ncerelv.
:N MEACHAM
A'SSISTANT PLANNER
ATTACHMENT:
Map
AM:cpl 1
2113 JH^zcBz Couxi ^ ^
dLais-mont, daiifoinia
a.SL.u-0^^^^ ^/-^^^^^^ ^ .
530 So. Newbury Place
Arlington Heights, 111.
May 15, 1976 ' 60005
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen:
Because we are living in Illinois, we are unable to
attend the public hearing announced on the attached sheet
for May 19.
We are not familiar in any way with the amendment
being proposed and therefore will appreciate it if you
might send us any information that might be available
concerning the proposal or the outcome of the May 19
meeting. A self addressed stamped envelope is enclosed
for your convenience.
Thank you.
Yours very truly,
Frances and Walter Kunze
Owners Lot 640, La Costa
Meadows Unit No. 4.
RECEIVEU
MAY 19 1976
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Banning Department
41
SAN DIEGUITO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491
May 14, 1976
Mr. Bud Plender
Assistant Planning Director
Carlsbad Planning Department
1?,00 Flm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Revised La Costa Master Plan
Dear Mr. Plender:
I have recently been asked to comment on the revised La Costa Master Plan as to
the impact it may have on schools served by the San Dieguito Union High School
District. District officials have worked closely with La Costa in identification
of the high school site shown on the proposed map and feel that satisfactory
progress is being made in discussions with both the City Planning Department and
La Costa on this matter.
The number of children expected from the proposed dwelling units is below estimates
currently being used by the San Dieguito High School District in projecting enroll-
ment growth. District officials are currently projecting .30 students in grades
7 through 12 from single family homes of three or more bedrooms. Two bedroom multi-
family units are projected at .16 while single bedroom apartments etc. are expected
to produce only .06 students per dwelling unit. Based on the number of single and
multi-family units projected through "build out", the number of students anticipated
is below current District expectations.
District officials are aware that many variables can come into play that will
influence the long range plan in future years. The District has worked closely with
the developer and vMe are confident that we will continue to have their cooperation
in efforts to provide educational programs and facilities for students who may be
generated from the proposed developments.
Sincerely,
rintem
MAY 17
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Ptanning Department
Berrier
1 tendent
bfs
cc: Mr. Fred Morey
Mr. John Daily
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: David H. Thompson
President
Douglas M. Fouquet
Vice President
ADMINISTRATION: William A. Berrier,
Superintendent
William F. Howell
Clerk
Robert A. Morton,
Assistant Superintendent
Don W. Mitchell Ann P. Sensibaugh
John J. Daily,
Business Manager
May 1976
Planning Cominission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen:
I recently received from you a notice
regarding a public hearing to be held on Kay
19» 1976 regarding an amendment to Master Plan
No, 1^9 for use of land in the La Costa area.
Although I am unable to attend the hear-
ing, I am interested in the issues and the out-
cone. Would you please let me know what the
proposed amendment involves, and what the out-
come of the hearing is.
Thank you,
\ yi r^ .
Delos A, McCoole
10201 Parkwood Drive
Kensington, Mar^J^^^
RECEIVED
MAY 18 1976
CITY OF CARLSBAQ
Planning D^artmiint
May 11, 1976
LRCQStR
Carlsbad Unified School District
801 Pine Street
Carlsixjd, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Fred H. Lance, Business Manager
an Referenc^r^^^&-+72f^ La Costa Land Company Master Pl
Gentlemen: / f]P-''^ ^
This is in reference to your April 15, 1976 letter to the City of Carlsbad's Planning
Department regarding the tentative master plan of the La Costo Land Company.
We appreciate your help in this project.
It will probably be some time before we get into more specific planning in the
northern part of our land lying within your school district. It is certainly our
intention to work closely with you regarding the siting of the two proposed ele-
mentan/ school sites.
We would be glad to have our planner and engineer work with anyone designated
by the Carlsbad Unified School District to further define the plans. I would appre-
ciate it if you would indicate whom we should work with in this regard.
Sincerely,
cc: Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J. MojrW (j
Vice President
13 1976
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 729 - 91II
ANN R. CLARKE
PRESIDENT
DANIEL G, MUNOZ, PH. D.
VICE PRESIDENT
DOUGLAS J. HOLLOWAY
CLERK
MARY LOU SCHULTZ
LORETTA M. SMITH
ROBERT L. BRICKMAN, PH.D.
SUPERINTENDENT & BOARD SECRETARY
Cnctnitasi ^nion ^ci)ool Msitvitt
189 UNION STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
TELEPHONE 753-1152
CAPRI SCHOOL
941 CAPRI ROAD
CENTRAL SCHOOL
185 UNION STREET
OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL
910MELBA ROAD
PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL
608 THIRD STREET
PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL
2050 PARK DALE LANE
May 3, 1976
Mr. Donald Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Agatep:
We have reviewed the proposed Rancho La Costa Master Plan, particularly as it
applies to our school district.
We make the following comments:
1. The number of school sites within the boundaries of our district is three;
the tentative locations of two are being reviewed; one has been deeded us
(on Le Vante Street). The developer cooperates with our district In
locating such sites.
2. The developer has made appropriate arrangements with this district for
the provision of three school sites.
3. At this time, the developer is working with the district in placing a
second school site northeast of the apex of Olivehain and Rancho Santa Fe
Roads; the third site will continue to "float."
4. We remain satisfied that Rancho La Costa will meet its stated commitment
and deliver to us the remaining two sites graded to our architect's
specifications.
Since the Rancho La Costa Master Plan calls for development in three phases
covering a 15 to 25-year period, it is impossible at this time to make specific
commitments as to the placement of school sites for the area.
We are not in opposition to adoption of this Master Plan by the City of
Carlsbad.
Sincerely,
R. L. Brickman, Ph. D.
Superintendent
RLB:jm
cc Fred Morey
1200 ELM AVENUE B • TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ^^SbM liM (714) 729-1181
Citp of Cadsibab
April 29, 1976
Mr. Fred Morey
La Costa Land Company
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN,-
Dear Mr. Morey:
Attached are two copies of the Master Plan text. This draft
of the text makes changes suggested by you and other City
Departments, includes mitigation measures from the E.I.R.,
and includes a complete set of revised numbers compiled by
Planning Staff.
It's been several weeks since we last went over the text, so
you may not be aware of some of the changes in wording that
have been made. If you need clarification of any of the changes,
you may wish to come talk them over with me.
I have scheduled the Planning Commission hearing of this matter
on May 19, 1976. We will be preparing the final Staff Report
and Plan beginning May 10, so any comments you may have must
be in our hands May 7.
As a reminder, we have not heard from all school districts
serving La Costa. Letters must be received from the districts
by May 19 to avoid further delay.
Si ncerely,
A. Agatep
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENTS:
Master Plan Text (2)
cc: Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering
AM:cpl
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
801 PINE AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
April 15, 1976
Reference: MP-174
La Costa Land Company
Master Plan
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
Gentlemen:
At Its meeting of April 12, the Governing Board of this school
district reviewed the tentative Master Plan of the La Costa Land
Company (MP-174).
Upon information supplied by the school district administration, the
Governing Board saw no reason to question the proposed plan other
than to recommend that provisions be made for two elementary school
sites of approximately 10 acres each. It was felt by the district
administration and the board that this would be necessary in the
north section of the planned development because of the projected
population of the area as combined with the existing developed area
located in the school district. It is hoped that this information
will enable your department to proceed in considering the public school
requirements for the north section of the Master Plan.
It will be appreciated if you will again solicit our s^eview of the plan
as it pertains to the two school sites prior to its fitaal approval.
FHL:bt
Sincerely^^ours,
Fred Hi Lance _ _ -.^
Business Manager i"? C \ i< < f ' -'i i
APR 16 IS'^S
CiTY OF CARL S3A
Planning Departmeiu
ADMINISTRATION 729-9291
IHH WOOD!
CONSULTINo|^H||||^^H
n
• NOINEERS
RECEIVED
WOODSIDE/KUBOTA & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APR 0 7 1976
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2965RooseveltSt. .P.O. Box 1095 .Carlsbad, California 92008. (714) 729-1194 April 6 ,PI?9f lllg Department
Mr. Bud Plender,
Assistant Planning Director
Ci ty of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Subject: Master Plan - 174 - La Costa Master Plan -
Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
Dear Mr. Plender:
This office has reviewed the subject master plan, dated March 19, 1976,
in draft form, as prepared by the staff of your department, and we have
the following comments with respect to the public water system, which
serves those developments located within the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District:
1. Our District has previously corresponded with you by letters dated
January 23, 1976 and January 28, 1976, identifying the concerns of
our Water District in the presentation made originally by Rick
Engineering. Essentially, we have stated to you that the public
water service requirements for the entire La Costa area embrace
the service areas of three separate agencies, namely, San Marcos
County Water District, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and the
Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Accordingly, it would be
the most practical to have a general concurrence by all three
water agencies as to the goals for adequate water service.
2. Our interpretation of the official document indicates that the
"La Costa North" area is within our service area and we have
already reached an understanding with the developer and their
consulting engineer as to the need for a detailed engineering
study and an assimilation of the various components of the Water
District's master plan within Improvement District No. 2
3. On the basis of our ongoing programs with La Costa Land Company,
we believe that our District can adequately meet the challenges
for providing public water service to be in concert with the
proposed master plan.
In Orange County, Santa Ana
BNOINKERS
Page 2
April 6, 1976
Mr. Bud Plender
If you have any questions regarding the project, please contact the
unders i gned.
Very ti:::,uly yours^
Jack Y./Ki/bota, District Engineer
/ Carl sba^yrlunicipal Water District
cc: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
La Costa Land Company
Rick Engineering Co. - Carlsbad
JYK/le
CMWD 75-108
SAN DIEGUITO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491
April 5, 1976
Mr. Bud Plender
Assistant Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Plender:
Re: Case No. MP-174
The number of students projected in each area appears light. The number used by
the San Dieguito Union High School District is taken from a study done by the
Westinghouse Learning Corporation in December 1973. A page on student generation
has been attached for your information.
The High School District estimates that it receives approximately .30 students
in grades 7 through 12 from three bedroom homes with .16 from two bedrooms and
.06 from single bedroom apartments.
Sincerely,
u)
William A. Berrier
Superintendent
bfs
Attachment V F7\
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
ADMINISTRATION:
Douglas M. Fouquet,
President
David H. Thompson,
Vice President
William A. Berrier,
Superintendent
Don W. Mitchell, Clerk
Robert A. Morton,
Assistant Superintendent
Daniel J. Rodriguez William F. Howell
John J. Daily,
Business Manager
DWELUNG UNITpAMD STUDY AREAS
POPULATION YIELD BY DWELLING TYPE
An attempt was made to determine the population per dwelling type, and the
litiidcnt yield per dwell".i.j type for the four different grade groupings of K-6,
7-8, 9-12, and K-12. Then, based on these data an estimate was made of the
future student yield for eight different types of dwellings. The-Consultants
ured the hypothesis that the nuiriber of bedrooms, the price, the location, and
the type of dwelling, as to single or multi, were the major parameters that
influenced the number of public school students per dwelling. Thus, the future
population mix and yields for housing types were derived from a compilation of
various data including: census information on age groupings and persons per
household of census tract, county and city infonnation, builder and developer
estimates, public school records, and in some cases actual statistical samp-
ling of recently occupied dwellings. Each type of dwelling identifies the
total number of occupancy and the student yield. The Consultants do not pro-
pose that the future occupancy of dwellings can be forecast to such a degree
of accuracy to distinguish between the numbers 3.6 and 3.5. However, the
computer program allows an input of eight types of dwelling units. The estimates
listed in Table 2 were derived from the various data that were available.
TABLE 2
SAN DIEGUITO POPULATION YIELD BY DWELLING TYPE
Dwelling Type
People per
Dwel1ing K-5 •
Student Yield
7-9 10-12 K-12
Single Family 3.6 .43 .22 .19 .84
Single Family 3.5 .35 .19 .18 .72
Single Family 3,2 .26 ' .14 .14 ,54
Single Family 3.0 .16 -08 .08 .32
Single or Multi 2.5 .14 • .07 .06 .27
Multi Family 2.6 .19 .09 .09 .37
Multi Family 2.2 .04 .03 .03 .10
Adult only 1.9 .00 .00 .00 .00
It is apparent that a change has been occurring within the San Dieguito study
area. The national trend toward smaller families is paramount. The percent
of public sciiool en^^mcpt is constantly decreasin^^n relation to the
Lotal population. Irregularities in enrollments are transpiring. In com-
parison to a year ago, the new dwellings are being occupied by families that
are comprised of less school children.
The shift in population characteristics to less children per family is also
apparent in existing dwellings. There appears to be a migration of elemen-
tary students in the study area from expensive homes in one elementary dis-
trict to less expensive homes in another elementary district. The more
expensive homes vacated in this migv^ation seem to be reoccupied by families
with fewer elementary school children. Future updating of this study will
yield more information on this apparent trend.
Tables 3 through 7 present a listing of the projected housing starts for each
of the study areas and sub-study areas. The estimates are listed on an annual
basis for a ten-year period. A housing start, as used herein, is a dwelling
that will be constructed and occupied.
DEFINITION OF STUDY AREAS
In the conduct of this study the San Dieguito Union High School District v/as
divided into five major demographic study areas corresponding to the five
elementary school districts of Encinitas Union, C&rdiff, Rancho Santa Fe,
Solana Beach and Del Mar Union. This was done to provide historical stabil-
ity of the study areas and to provide demographic projections for the elemen-
tary districts as well as the high school district. In order to obtain a
more definitive analysis the area was further divided into twenty smaller
sub-areas. To some, degree the sub-areas follow the United States Census
tract and census block boundary lines. This provided an accurate population
count of each area as of April 1970. The boundaries of the five study areas
should remain fixed to maintain historical stability in the future. Sub-areas
could in the future be combined and divided, taking census tract boundaries
into consideration, as circumstances warrant. However, their general boun-
daries should remain intact to make future comparisons possible.
The ma,) inserted at the end of this chapter depicts the geographical area
contained within each of the study areas and sub-study areas.
10
1200 ELM AVENUE • • TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W^lOi/ (714) 729-1181
Citp of Carl£(bab
March 11, 1976
Bob Ladwig
Rick Engineering
P.O. Box 1129
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: La Costa Master Plan/Circulation Element - Proposed
location of Melrose
Dear Bob:
I have just reviewed your letter of March 5, 1976 to the Plan-
ning Director regarding the changing of the proposed location
of Melrose in the northeast corner of La Costa.
As we have discussed previously there are many questions that
arise, particularly with respect to obtaining concurrence of
three agencies (City, County and San Marcos) with respect to
modifying the General Plans.
I would recommend that the proposed La Costa Master Plan show
Melrose as it is shown on the existing Circulation Element of
Carlsbad's General Plan.
Very truly yours.
Tim Flanagan
City Engineer
TCF/sln
cc: Planning Director
• •
PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
March 5, 1970^^
. % ' A'
Mr. Don Agatep p "^'T Q
City Planning Director f^j^n
City of Carlsbad %^.C)/^^ ^6
1200 Elm Avenue c'^^i ^
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN/CIRCUIATION ELEMENT
Dear Don:
Jack Bevash has submitted to your staff a revised circulation plan.
I would like to point out that he has shown a different location for
Melrose in the northeast corner of La Costa. I would suggest, and
if you concur, that the present location be shown with a dashed line
as an alternate route.
I have discussed this change briefly with Tim Flanagan and there
are a lot of unresolved questions such as sphere of influence lines
between Carlsbad and San Marcos - amending the general plans of
Carlsbad, San Marcos, and the County.
There are some benefits, the major one being about three-quarters
of a mile less of major street to be improved and maintained by
some public agency. Also, the Meadowlark community "island"
would be eliminated with Melrose In the location of the present
Rancho Santa Fe Road.
If you or Engineering have any problems with this suggested change,
please advise.
Sincerely,
RCL:fm
cc: Messrs. Tim Flanagan, Jack Bevash, Irving Roston, Fred Morey
1200 ELM AVENUE • >^^, • TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181
Citp of Carlflibab
March 1, 1976
Mr. Bob Ladwig
Rick Engineering Co.
3088 Pio Pico Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
Dear Mr. Ladwig:
Enclosed are five (5) copies of the draft Master Plan
for your review and modification. I am also attaching
suggestions on the graphics as the ones in the text are
rough and need to be cleaned up.
After you've had a chance to review the draft text
and graphics, please give me a call and we can meet to
talk about approaches on the graphics.
Sincerely,
illen Meacham
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS:
LC Master Plan (5 cys)
Sugg, on graphics
AM:cpl
/
/
LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS IN GRAPHICS:
1) Conceptual Drawings - pages 2, 3, 4, 5.
These need to be redraw — more neatly — to reflect
La Costa's concepts.
2) Residential Land Uses - pages 11, 12, 13.
These need to be col or-printed or zip-toned to reflect
housing types (as opposed to arrows). Acreages in each
neighborhood can be reinstated.
3) Commercial Locations Map - page 14.
Same as residential land uses.
4) Parks and Open Space Map - page 15.
These need to be col or-printed, zip-toned or otherwise
highlighted. Arrow-comments can remain 'as is' or
be modified.
5) Phasing - pages 17, 18, 19.
These can be zip-toned, but need greater variation in
pattern. Patterns used were:
Phase I - 20% shading
Phase II - 30% shading
Phase III - 40% shading
6) Geologic Maps - pages 22, 24, 25.
If these are zip-toned they need to be reproduced by a
clear-printing method. We have originals if you need
them for better reference.
7) Circulation Maps - pages 29 and 30.
These maps need to be neatened up. It might be good
to highlight streets for street program — bikeways/
pedestrian/equestrian paths in that program.
8) Public Facilities Tables - pages 35 and 36.
These need to be typed, using revised figures agreeing
with those on pages 16-19.
9) Master Plan Map - In Back.
The 1600' scale map is fine for this purpose. If this
is a high-budget job, it would be nice to color-code
dwelling types corresponding to the code used in the
Residential Land Uses Section. Regardless, binding it
into the back as a 'fold-up' would keep the map handy
with the text.
1200 ELM AVENUE M M TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Wt^ll M (714) 729-1181
Citp of Carlfl(bab
March 1, 1976
Fred Morey
La Costa Land Co.
Costa Del Mar Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: TENNIS COURTS IN LA COSTA
Dear Mr. Morey:
As per our conversation on February 20, 1976, it is my under-
standing that La Costa Land Co. is interested in the construction
of privately operated tennis courts for the residents of La Costa.
One site you mention is in a C-2 Zone; the other is in the P-C Zone
A review of our Zoning Ordinance indicates that the process for
approval differs between the two zones. In the C-2 zone site,
which is not part of the adopted La Costa Master Plan, a
tennis club requires a Conditional Use Permit per Section
21 .42.01 0(5)(H). In the P-C Zone, however, tennis clubs may be
permitted only as recreational areas for the residents within
the planned community and as aoproved by Specific Plan. To faci-
litate future Specific Plan approval, I suggest that the Master
Plan contain recreation sites for statements exploring tennis
clubs as desirable recreational facilities.
The City cannot issue building permits for tennis clubs until
approval of a C.U.P. or S.P.; however, in response to your
question, building permits are not required for flat concrete
work, but inspections are necessary for water or electrical
lines, or any future buildina foundation.
As a reminder, the Planning Commi ss i on aid City Council may modi-^
fy the layout of the tennis courts, parking, landscaping or any
other aspect of the Plan to assure that the objectives of the
City are met.
If you have any future questions, please call me
Sincerely yours.
Bud Plender
Assistant Planning Director
8D:CD1
PHILIP HENKING BENTON
PRESIDENT - CIVIL ENGINEER
BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS FOUNOATiONE
6717 CONVOY COURT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
February 27, 1976
TtLEPHONE (714) 565-1955
Rtck Engineering Company
P.O. Box 1129
Carlsbad, CaHfornlo 92008
A^tenHon: Mr. Robert-C, Ladv/Ig
Subject: Review of Geologic & Seismic Safety,
Noise Element
La Costa A/\aster Plan
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that v/e have reyiev/ed the Geologic & Seismic Safety, Noise Element
of the La Costa Master Plan you forwarded to us.
It Is concluded irom a review of this that essentially the same procodures will be followed as
etre currently being used In evaluating geotechnical hazards, the soil and Foundation Investigations,
slope stability, etc.
It Is our opinion the itemized requirements are reasonable and applicable For the types of
development described and that the subfect Element can be complied with if adopted by the
City of Carlsbad.
Respectfully submitted,
BENTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Philip H. Benton, Civil Engineer
R.C.E. No. 10332
Distri (2) Addressee
PHB/mr
OA- ?^ o m <J Cl ^ O
•fJ, Of/
m
Z
o
„ <
a a
JACK BEVASH ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN
February 26, 1976
Mr. Donald Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Agatep:
Enclosed please find a summary fact sheet giving some background
information on the Westlake Community which may be of information
to you. In addition, you might write to them for copies of a
publication they issue called Westlake Update and perhaps get on
their mailing list. This publication whxch is issued quarterly
has interesting photographs and narrative material pertaining to
existing and future projects.
I have been unsuccessful so far in getting detailed plans of the
various neighborhoods but will continue to try to get you a
representative number. I have received also one copy of some
CC&R's which I will give you for review on my next trip down.
Sincerely,
JACK BEW^SH ASSOCIATES
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 1976
CITY OF CARLSBAO
Planning Department
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE I75O, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 879-0603
^ •T.J!-
CONTACT:
DATE :
DESCRIPTION;
LOCATION:
SITE:
DEVELOPER:
• Tie P/^^jntial Insurance Company i^^America
Westl^^ Village Project Office
950 Hampshire Road, Suite 118
Westlake Village, Calif. 91361
L. Wayne Harris, Project Director, (213) 889-9412
Rad. L. Sutnar, Assoc. Project Director
Stanley Cowan, public relations counsel, (213) 475-2029
August, 1975
FACT SHEET - Westlake Village, Calif.
A 12,000-acre master planned community encompassing a broad
spectrum of residential neighborhoods, housing types,
commercial centers, light industry facilities, social and
recreational amenities and open space.
38 miles northwest (45 minutes driving time) of Los Angeles
civic center, 15 miles west of San Fernando Valley via
Ventura Freeway (U.S. Route 101).
18 square-miles. Most of developable property in valley 900
feet above sea level, surrounded by Santa Monica Mts. to
south and Simi Range to north. Shaped like a golf club head
with leading edge of club facing west and irregularly broken.
Los Angeles-Ventura County line transects diagonally on a
northeast-southwest plane; approximately 3,000 acres in Los
Angeles County, 9,000 acres in Ventura County. Cooled by
breeze from Pacific Ocean five miles to southwest. Average
temperatures: day, 75°; night, 55°.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America - Westlake
Village Project Office.
In 1963, American-Hawaiian Steamship Company purchased the
12,000-acre Albertson Ranch for $32 million and commissioned
the preparation of the master plan. Prudential became in-
volved in 1966 when it provided a land loan amounting to
$30 million. In 1969, Prudential became an equity partner
and in January, 1973, the partnership was dissolved with
Prudential assuming the responsibility for future develop-
ment, management and marketing of its 9,000 acres.
The project office's primary role is to develop the raw
acreage for bulk lot sales to merchant builders. It will
not become involved in construction of residential units
or commercial and industrial facilities. Nor will it retail
individual single family homesites.
MASTER PLAN; By Bechtel Corporation with assistance of Stanford Research
Institute for Economic and Market Studies and Albert C. Martin
and Associates. Land planning by Jack Bevash Assoc. and
Luis Manzano & Assoc. Engineering by Mclntire & Quiros.
Other firms have also contributed to developmental planning.
Since start of development in 1966, there has been virtually
no major deviation from original master plan, in striking
contrast to other "new towns" which have been projected in
the past two decades.
.age ract Sheet Page 2
LAND USE;
(8/?5i
Type
Acres
Developed
Acres
Available
Residential (detached & cluster) 1,927 6,100
Drainage Easements 35 40
Commercial (retail & office) 110 220
Schools 57 147
Churches 14 18
Open Space (parks, lakes, golf 580 400
courses, etc)
Light Industry 230 237
2,953 7,162
INVESTMENT
COSTS:
WESTLAKE
LAKE:
POPULATION:
RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING MIX:
RESALE
ABPRECIATION:
NEIGHBORHOODS;
In excess of $60 million to 1975.
This includes cost of land, planning fees, streets, utilities,
sewers, lakes, parks, golf courses and other recreational
and community amenities, but excludes construction costs for
privately owned structures and related improvements. It
must be noted that only a financial giant, such as Prudential,
could sustain these investment costs in anticipation of
long-range returns.
Focal point for community. One of several recreational and
esthetic amenities contributing to success of project. Covers
approximately 150 acres. Completed in 1968 at cost of $4.5
million (includes $1.7 million for deim). Extensive use by
homeowners for sailing and fishing. Noted worldwide for
its almost perfect ecological balance. Owned and managed
by Westlake Lake Management Association.
Estimated 15,000 (8/75); projected - 55,000
(For community demographics and attitudes, see attached
digest of Westlake Village Community Profile, ASI/Behavior
Sciences Corp., August, 1974.)
Through 1974
Detached 3,062 units
Cluster (townhomes and condos) 1,305 "
Apartments (3 complexes) 728 "
In planning or under construction, 197 5
Detached 1,153 units
Cluster 132
Mobile Home Park 162 spaces
According to a recent survey (6/75) of resales in Westlake
Village, the market value of residential units has appreciated
an average of 11% a year since 1970.
25 distinct and boundaried neighborhoods.
Eight have major facilities such as a private clubhouse or
recreation center.
Two have neighborhood tennis courts.
Seven are oriented toward the lake
Five have neighborhood parks.
Virtually all have greenbelts or open space.
Westla )<^^illag e Fact Sheet Page 3
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS:
The homeowners associations are the primary vehicles for
residents' community participation and management of
association business. Each association's board of
directors and architectural committee provide basic policy
and ensure architectural consistency, one of the factors
leading to the preservation and enhancement of property
values.
Each association has representation on the Westlake Village
Joint Board, an umbrella organization which coordinates
policy common to the entire community.
Based on property owned, Prudential and builders have pro-
portionate representation in homeowners associations,
architectural committees and the Joint Board.
LAKE MANAGEMENT In Jan., 1974, the ownership and responsibility for manage-
ASSOCIATION: ment and maintenance of Westlake Lake were turned over to
the Westlake Lake Management Association, consisting of
representatives from neighborhoods that abut the lake.
The budget, in excess of $100,000 annually, is underwritten
by homeowners assessments and income derived from use of
facilities.
RECREATION:
COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT!
LIGHT INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT:
Swimming pools, tennis and clubhouse facilities in some
ne ighborhoods.
Golf: Westlake Golf Course, public, 5,000-yards, par-67.
Westlake North Ranch Golf Course, private, opened 7/75,
first 18 holes approximately 6,800-yards, par-72.
A third nine to be developed.
Tennis; Two private tennis clubs with total of 29 courts.
Riding: Three equestrian centers.
Sailing: Westlake Lake.
Fishing: Westlake Lake.
As of 8/75, approximately 110 acres of commercial develop-
ment were completed, including a major 15-acre shopping
center, office and warehouse facilities, a 65-acre auto
sales park, five restaurants and a 75-room motor hotel.
Recently completed or under construction are 10 office,
retail and warehouse facilities with a total of more than
365,000 square-feet.
Prudential currently has approximately 60 acres of
commercially zoned property for sale.
As of 8/75, approximately 230 acres completed. Major
industrial sites include companies such as IBM, Burroughs
Corp., State Farm Insurance, Control Data Corp., Bunker-Ramo
Corp. and Raypak Co.
Prudential currently has approximately 200 acres of indus-
trially zoned property for sale.
Westlake^illage Fact Sheet Page 4
CURRENT
DEVELOPMENT
NORTH RANCH:
Development of the 4,700-acre North Ranch (in Ventura County,
north of Ventura Freeway) is proceeding according to Specific
Plan #4 approved by The City of Thousand Oaks in October, 1972
Tentative land use: 1,590 one-half to 5-acre ranchettes.
on 3,165 acres.
2,092 units of medium density housing
on 652 acres.
3,068 units of high density housing
on 533 acres.
Also planned: A 220-acre golf course (18 holes completed, nine
to be developed) and country club with tennis
courts, a 160-acre County regional park, a major
equestrian center and neighborhood commercial
sites.
NORTH RANCH
PHASE I,
RESTbEt^TIAL
5WETI5PHEW:
Phase I to encompass approximately 500 acres.
317 very low density ranchettes.
498 medium density units.
143 high density units.
Initial developed lots for bulk sales to builders expected
to be available in December, 1975.
EDUCATION:
GOVERNMENTAL
JURTSDICTTOM;
Four private nursery schools. Four public elementary schools
(K-6). High school students bused to three nearby schools.
Sites have been set aside for additional school construction.
Negotiations currently underway with Conejo Valley Unified
School District for purchase of site and construction of a
new senior high in Westlake Village.
Westlake Village is separated by the Los Angeles-Ventura
County line. Most of the Ventura County portion has been
annexed by The City of Thousand Oaks. The Los Angeles
portion is unincorporated.
UTILITIES:
Water
Electrical (underground!
Gas
Ventura County
Westlake Water Co.
So. Cal. Edison Co.
So. Cal. Gas Co.
Los Angeles County
Las Virgenes Munic. Water Co,
So. Cal. Edison Co.
So. Cal. Gas Co.
Phone General Tel. Co, Pacific Tel. Co,
Refuse Collection
& Disposal
Private franchise
agents
Private franchise
agents
FROM: The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Westlake Village Project Office
950 Hampshire Road
Westlake Village, California 91361
SUBJECT: Digest of Summary Report: "Westlake Village, A
Community Profile." Prepared, by ASI/Behavior Science
Corporation, July, 1974
* More than half of the residents came from Los Angeles County,
but there has been a gradual trend among the newer residents
to come from Ventura County and out-of-state.
Some 72% say they have no intention of moving from Westlake;
17% are undecided. Yet of the 11% who indicate they are likely
to move, one-half indicate they would seek a community compar-
able to Westlake
One out of three households has a total family income
exceeding $30,000 annually, and more than five out of six
have annual incomes of more than $15,000. Forty percent are
in the professions, 30% are in managerial positions and 18%
are in sales. Half of them travel more than 30 miles to work,
yet 48% of this group said they would not be willing to carpool.
Some 82% of the adults have attended college, with 53% of the
men and 2 9% of the women having graduated.
The median age of the residents is 30-years-old. This compares
with 33-years-old for a comparable ethnic sampling in Los
Angeles County.
* More than three-fourths said that their property and the
community were fairly and honestly represented by the various
builders marketing housing products in Westlake. Fifty
four percent of the homeowners made downpayments of more
than 16% of the purchase price when they bought their homes.
Incidentally, 46% of the residents pay mortgage interest
rates of 7.25% per annum or less.
* More than three-fourths of the households who do not
have children state that they are not planning to have
any and 88% of the parents with children said they do not
plan on increasing the family size.
* Westlakers are joiners, with 38% belonging to a sports/
recreational group, 32% to a religious group and 27%
to a homeowners association. As income increases, the
tendency to belong to a sports/recreational group increases.
The golf course at Westlake is used by 45% of the residents;
tennis courts by 32%; the lake for fishing by 32% and the
lake for sailing by 29%. The hiking trails are used by 24%
and the equestrian trails by 11%. Some 21% own a boat and
8% a camper or trailer.
* Only 6% of the residents attend theater, museums or other
cultural events "frequently" in Los Angeles, while 35% do
so "occasionally". Yet 10% attend college and professional
sports events "frequently" and 34% "occasionally." Nearly
half of the respondents dine out more than four times a
month.
* In terms of shopping and services, the residents will
patronize Westlake Village merchants if they find them
satisfactory, but will not hesitate to go to nearby
Thousand Oaks if necessary. Interestingly, well over half
of the residents go to the major shopping centers in the
San Fernando Valley for clothes, appliances and furniture.
* They believe there is ample opportunity for developing new
friendships, particularly among children. A substantial
portion of the adult social activities involve friends
they have in the community. Opportunities for "swingin'
singles" to make new friends in Westlake are limited.
* An evaluation of community services placed fire protection,
medical services, street maintenance and community planning
and management high on the list. Rated poorly were cultural
and job opportunities.
* Westlake is seen by its residents as being good for children,
a very relaxed community in which to live, as stimulating
for men as for women and that it encourages conformity as
opposed to individuality.
* Forty percent said they would be in favor of public financing
if a deficiency in public services was noted. Some 38%
were undecided.
###########
JACK BEVASH ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN
February 16, 1976
Mr. Donald Agatep /v g>
Planning Director /: ^iS^ - Jy-'
City of Carlsbad /j'^'r '"^z -4^
Carlsbad, California '-v, ^"^^
We wish to respond to a request for comment on theOj^aft Circulation
Element of 3-3-76 as follows:
Dear Mr. Agatep;
Introduction - On Page 1 my only difference of opinion concerns the
introduction of the equestrian paths and your expressed intent to
have these, along with bikeways and pedestrian ways, located to pro-
mote their use for travel between neighborhoods within La Costa. In
my opinion. La Costa does not have the intention of utilizing eques-
trian paths for this kind of access. Equestrian paths will be rele-
gated to those areas of more steeply sloped terrain, within which
horse-oriented families will most likely live, and in close proxi-
mity to such equestrian training and stabling facilities as may be
located in areas under consideration. We believe horses can be
hazardous to pedestrians, bikers and autos when they are not suf-
ficiently separated from one another. Equestrian paths are often
muddy, dusty and situated along steeper terrain where pedestrians
and bikers have no place. I would, therefore, be very careful of
combining these paths as indicated in your text.
Circulation Objective - I would substitute the word "provide" for
"install"; I would not link "pedestrian/equestrian networks" since
they are likely, for the most part, to be separated from one another.
I would like to also substitute "housing construction within" in place
of "the subdivision of" on lines 3 and 4. I would like to add the
words "whenever possible" after the word "facilitate" on line 5, and
again separate "pedestrian/equestrian". On line 7 may we add the
word "within" after the word "for" at the end of the line.
Street Program - Poinsettia Lane should read "Carrillo Way".
Melrose Avenue has been and continues to be a questionable street in
its present alignment to all of us at La Costa. We have discussed
with you our suggestion that this street be realigned along present
Rancho Santa Fe Road on the eastern boundary of La Costa's property
and then joined to its shown alignment northerly on a better align-
ment to Palomar Airport Road. We enclose overlay drawing.
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE I75O, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO67 (213) 879-0603
JACK BEVASH ASSo€|kTES PLANNING, ARCHITE0URE, URBAN DESIGN
February 16, 1976
Page 2.
Mision Estancia in our opinion should be called out as "Mision
Estancia West" and "Mision Estancia East" since they are no longer
contiguous.
Street Policies - Item 5 should include the words "single family"
after the word "from", and also the word "fronting" after the word
"properties". Under item 6 we would suggest that you add at the
end of this sentence these words: "except under special circum-
stances when it may be approved by the city engineer".
Bikeway Program - We would like to delete the word "extensive" on
line 1. I would like to add a note that after careful consideration
by La Costa we feel that the bikeway program, however desirable it
might be to provide it throughout all of La Costa and Carlsbad,
should be carefully tailored to what is feasible and economic in
both installation, maintenance and supervision. We believe it
should be reduced in scale from what is indicated on your drawing,
and what funds are available should be expended in a basic spine
in the most desirable location and then expanded over a period of
time, based upon expressed need and demand by users. In general,
we prefer bikeways separated from heavily travelled vehicular roads,
and strongly endorse the primary one envisioned within the String
of Parks. Those contemplated along major travelled arterial ways,
should be separated by curb or at the very least by a brightly
painted line on the paved surface clearly visible by all motorists
and free of parked autos. My last comment relates to steep grades:
bikeways should not be provided alongside major arterial roads with
steep grades as they are more hazardous and least likely to be used
by riders.
The Pedestrian/Equestrian Path Program, I believe, should be re-
written. As stated earlier, the two cannot be linked since they are
in many cases mutually exclusive and will occupy different align-
ments. In most planned communities they are clearly separated from
one another for the reasons expressed earlier. Within the SDGE ease-
ment areas they should be clearly separated as well. On lines 7, 8
and 9 of the first paragraph, please delete the word "equestrian",
and on the balance of the text we would appreciate references to
separation of pedestrian and equestrian paths.
Enclosed please find two prints of our suggested draft revision of
the Circulation Element drawing. As you can see, we have somewhat
reduced the extent of the various elements and have eliminated cer-
tain portions which we feel are not in the best interests of both
the City and La Costa. Please note we have in many cases shown a
lii^TES PLANNING, ARCHITEI^JI JACK BEVASH ASSOWVTES PLANNING, ARCHITEWURE, URBAN DESIGN
February 16, 197 6
Page 3.
linkage of pedestrian and bikeways but not pedestrian and
equestrian ways. In the La Costa North area we suggest the
elimination of pedestrian ways within the golf course fairway
area and have suggested an alternative within the east col-
lector roadway right-of-way between Alga Road and the north
boundary.
We would very much appreciate your early response to these
comments and the suggested modifications.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Irv Roston
Mr. A. Meacham
Mr. R. Ladwig
2-16-76
//—f—? V
SAN DIEGUITO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491
February 9, 1976
Mr. Don Agatap
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Dear Mr. Agatap:
f/J/ Of
1 was recently provided a copy of the draft La Costa Master Development Plan Text
prepared by RECON and asked to comment on the public facilities section as it
applies to the San Dieguito Union High School District. First of all I would
like to corrent an erroneous statement in the sixth paragraph on page 21. The
new San Marcos Unified School District will replace Richmar Union and Escondido
Union School Districts, not Encinitas. In paragraph seven it might be clearer
to point out that the southem portion of La Costa is served by the San Dieguito
Union High School District by Oak Crest Junior High School for grades 7 and 8 and
San Dieguito High School for grades 9 through 12. Oak Crest Junior High should
be listed on page 22 with a capacity of 900 students and a projected enrollment for
1976-77 at 869. San Dieguito's projected enrollment for 1976-77 is expected to be
approximately 1834.
As indicated in the report. District officials have discussed with La Costa manage-
ment the acquisition of a high school site in the portion of the development known
as "La Costa Far South". Although both parties seem to agree that the area under
discussion is a suitable location for a high school, no substantive negotiations
have yet begun on District acquisition of the site. At this point District facilities
at the 9-12 grade level are extremely overcrowded and no funds are available at the
present time to build on any site that might be acquired as the result of these
negotiations.
The statistical information on the generation of students is difficult to define
since the boundaries of La Costa do not necessarily correspond to school district
boundaries. At the present time the San Dieguito Union High School District antici-
pates a student yield of approximately .30 students per dwelling unit for single
family or multi-family homes of three or more bedrooms. A figure of .16 students
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
ADMINISTRATION:
Douglas IVI. Fouquet,
President
David H. Thompson,
Vice President
Don W. IVIitchell, Clerk
William A. Berrier,
Superintendent
Robert A. IVIorton,
Assistant Superintendent
Daniel J. Rodriguez William F. Howell
John J. Daily,
Business IVIanager
Letter to Mr. Don Agatap
February 9, 1976 - Page 2
per dwelling unit is used to project the student population from single or multi-
family homes of two bedrooms while multi-family homes of one bedroom produce
approximately .06 students per dwelling unit. Since these figures are only for
grades 7 through 12 the numbers would have to be modified by the factor the
elementary districts are experiencing at the present time. In any case, the
number of students projected on Table VIc(Statistical summary of La Costa Far
South) , wotild seem to fall short of the numbers currently being experienced by
the San Dieguito Union High School District.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William A. Berrier
S up e rin ten den t
bfs
cc: Allen Meacham
P.S. The school architect has developed a "plot plan" of the proposed high
school site that incorporates District criteria. We would very much like
to have the opportunity to discuss this plan with you at your earliest
convenience.
A
PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
February 6, 1976
Mr. Allen Meacham
City Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Dear Allen:
Thank you for the copy of the proposed Circulation Element to the
Master Plan for La Costa.
On the second page under Street Program, we would like reference
made to the proposed traffic signal policy, or a proposed traffic
signal policy, when it becomes effective. Also all the references
to Poinsettia Lane should be changed to Carrillo Way.
Jack Bevash will be addressing a letter to you on some additions
or deletions to the pedestrian and bike path routes shown in the
Circulation Element. He also had some comments on description,
use, and design.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig ^
RECEi"/ED
FEB 0 6 1976
CITY OF CARl-SBAD
Planning Department
RCL:fm
cc: Irving Roston
Fred Morey
Jack Bevash
•
PUNNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
P.O. BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
February 6, 1976
Mr. Donald Agatep
City Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don:
Enclosed are two copies of the Land Use Element for the Master
Plan with La Costa's recommended changes.
Irving Roston, Jack Bevash, Heinz Schilling, myself, and the
rest of the La Costa staff have all put their comments into this
document.
We ask that you review these and incorporate our suggestions
into your final Master Plan Text.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:fm
Enclosures (2)
CC: Irving Roston
Fred Morey
Jack Bevash RECEIVED
FEB 06 1976
owe OE CARLSBAD
fiiSMtag Department
l/Ul(^ ^^^^ t^eAc///^^
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 2397 • LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA 92024 • 753-0155
January 30, 1976 RECEIVED
FEB - 2 ]97D
CITY OF CARLSBAD
City of Carlsbad engineering Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbcid, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Tim Flanagan, City Engineer
Re; La Costa Master Plan & EIR - Sewers
Gentlemen:
The Leucadia County Water District has completed its review of
the amended Master Plan for the La Costa Community together with the draft
EIR covering tha Master Plan.
The following comments are offered with regard to the above.
1. Referring to page 31 in the EIR, the second and third
paragraphs under "Sewers" erroneously state that the eff-
luent from the Leucadia Treatment Plant is being disposed
of at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, and that
0.515 mgd is being conveyed to Encina by way of the 8-,inch
force main in El Camino Real. This information should be
updated as the interim discharge to the Encina plant has
been permanently discontinued.
2. We have noted that the Master Plan text is essentially
the same as a preliminary copy dated May 1975, which was
used as a guide to project La Costa's growth in the recent-
ly completed Leucadia County Water District Planning Study.
One basic difference in the final Master Plan is that no
time frame has been assigned to the three phases of devel-
opment in the Plan. It would be extremely helpful for the
District if La Costa would provide us with an anticipated
development schedule for these three phases.
3. In the Master Plan and EIR, both population and flow pro-
jections are based on the assumption that existing La Costa
is fully developed and occupied with a population of over
27,000. We feel this is not a realistic approach because
in our opinion, existing La Costa may take 10 to 15 years
to fully develop. Our estimate, based on the 1975 census,
indicates an existing population of approximately 2,000
people.
DISTRICT OFFICE: I960 LA COSTA AVENUE • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
City of Carlsbad
January 30, 1976
Page 2
It must be assumed that occupancy in existing La Costa
will take place over a reasonable period of time, as will
other developments in the remainder of the District.
In general, provisions have been made in the Leucadia
Planning Study for the ultimate growth of the La Costa
Community as shown in the La Costa Master Plan. Early
accelerated growth in the La Costa area would necessitate
that the District plan to accelerate the construction of
the Green Valley Interceptor and of the transmission facil-
ities to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility.
Yours very truly,
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Richard E. Hanson
Secretary-Manager
REH/jrg
cc: Engineering-Science, Inc. (Greg McBain)
La Costa Land Company (Irving Roston)
Rick Engineering Company (Bob Ladwig)
WOODSIDE/KUBOTA A ASSOCIATES, INC.
KNOINKBRS
2965 RooseveltSt.« P.O. Box 1095. Carlsbad,California92008. (714) 729-1194 January 27 , 1 976
Mr. Allan Meacham
City of Carlsbad -
Planning Department
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Subject La Costa
La Costa
Carlsbad
Master
Master
Plan Amendment -
Development Plan Text -I,.
Municipal Water District.
Dear Mr. Meacham:
Thank you
regardi ng
foi1ows:
very much for the opportunity to confer with you today
the subject report. Our discussions are summarized as
1 We reviewed our presentation to your department with regards to
the draft environmental impact report and have identified our
District's activities with the La Costa Land Company to insure
the orderly development of the public water system for our District
service area.
2. We discussed with you in some detail the issues involving the over-
all scope of water service responsibility of all of the agencies
that serve the La Costa area. In fact, if appropriate, it would
be useful to have a full discussion with all of the water agencies
serving the area, so that there would be an organized and cohesive
presentation regarding the public service requirements for the
developments.
3. We are enclosing herewith a copy of our recent engineering report
entitled "South Aqueduct Connection" for your reference.
We welcome the opportunity to respond in greater detail to you so
the complete and accurate report will res.tftt. Please contact the
signed if you have any questions. ]
End .
cc: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Rick Engineering - Carlsbad
La Costa Land Company
In Orange County, Santa Ana
Recon - San Diego
JYK/le
that
under-
'^ck /r y Kubota , D^'strict Engineer
^/Carl/b^d Municipal Water District
PMTNERSMIP
Respond To:
• 3211 Jefferson Street, San Diego. Ca. 92110 • Telephone 714/297-4721
n 7130 Magnolia, Suite H, Riverside, Ca. 92504 • Telephone 714/682-8840
RICHARD F. JACOBSEN
EXCCUTIVE OlRECTOR
January 13, 1976
Allen Meacham
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Meacham:
Please accept our regrets for not responding to your request for comment on
the La Costa Master Plan Amendment by January 2, 1976. The plan was received
on December 29, 1975. Our comments are as follows:.
1. Public Utilities; While the plan anticipates the need for additional
water sources, as the community grows, aggresive action should be initiated
now and pursued to meet the anticipated demands beyond 1990. Additionally,
waste water treatment facilities should be pursued for the area concerned,
meeting the EPA standards. This could be planned in the form of a contingency
plan, should the use of current system be discontinued for any reason.
2. Community Services; Page 26, Paragraph 5. Tri-City Hospital has been
approved by this Association and the California State Department of Health for
the addition of 60 general acute beds. The Encinitas Hospital is now known as
the San Dieguito Hospital. The psychiatric hospital, noted at the top of page
27 is known as the San Luis Rey Hospital with room for 66 patient beds.
It is suggested that your plan also include what' Public Health Services are
available to the population within the geographic limits concerned and/or
what Public Health Services the population may determine to be necessaiby or
desireable. In addition, you should include the availability of Skilled
Nursing Care beds available for the area.
The review of your Master Development Plan for La Costa reflects much detail
directed toward the needs of the community and appears to be a well organized
effort. Exhibit I is returned as requested. We would be happy to receive
your complete plan when adopted. ^
Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.
ly,
(ichard F. Jacefcsen
'Executive Director
RFJ:es
RECEIVED
JAN 14 1976
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Joseph Wanket, Pres.
Howard G. Golem, V. Pres.
Thelma Miller, Treasurer
James Wood, Director
James E. Stewart, Director
MANAGER-SECRETARY
Bill Hollingsworth
Olivenkam Munidpal Water District
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
PHONE 753-6466
January 12, 1976
COUNSEL
Vem Peltzer
ENGINEER
Boyle Engineering
CHF. OPER. + MTNGE.
Jim Van Pelt
OFFICE SUPVR.
Doris Baker
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Att: Allen Meacham
Dear Allen:
Olivenhain has reviewed La Costa's master plan, and it appears that La
Costa is well aware of the water situation and what will be needed to provide
future service. Olivenhain and its consulting engineers are working closely
with La Costa and their Engineers. The District foresees no insurmountable
problems in serving La Costa's ultimate needs.
Sincerely,
OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David C. McCo'llom
Administrative Assistant
DCM/sl
P.S. Master plan to be returned at a later date.
ClTy %
'h
INTERSECTION OLIVENHAIN ROAD AT RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
COUNTY OF §JN DIEGO f
C. J. HOUSON
Director
COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY
Department of Sanitation & Flood Control Si
County Operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue, San Diego, Califq^a 92123 Telephone: 565-5325
0 7 JAM 1976
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Mr. Donald Agatep
Planning Director
SUBJECT: La Costa Comprehensive Master Plan
We have reviewed the La Costa Comprehensive Master Plan and feel there
is no need to comment on San Diego County's flood control program.at
the present- time.
Thank you for the courtesy of providing the subject comprehensive master
plan for our review.
C. J. HOUSON
By
1"^^ JOSEPH C. HILL
Principal Civil Engineer
EMC:11
Copy: Drainage Maintenance District (Zone 7)
DEEMS/LEWIS & PARTNERS
Planning and Architecture
2901 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
CONFERENCE REPORT
RECiiiVED
DEC 31 1975
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
PROJECT:
DATE:
THOSE PRESENT:
COPIES TO:
La Costa High School/San Dieguito Union High School District
24 October 1975
y^Mr. Don AgatqD, Planning Director
William S. Lewis, Deems/Lewis & Partners
Those attending
Mr. William A. Berrier, Superintendent, S.D.U.H.S.D.
Mr. Fred Morey, La Costa
PURPOSE OF MEETING: Review the Proposed La Costa High School Site
RESUME
The proposed La Costa High School site in the City of Carlsbad was discussed with
the following comments/recommendations being generated:
1. The 77 acre site is located on the new La Costa Master Plan, which is currently
being reviewed by the City of Carlsbad. The site location appears reasonable and
well-sited, particularly when considered as a site for the northern portion of
3.
the San Dieguito Union High School District.
open space, and Mr. Agatepadvised
use, slope, etc. Deems/Lewis &
slopes and inaccessible areas,
left as natural as possible.
The 77 acre size is more area than normally required for a high school in the
District; however this area includes a considerable amount of perimeter hillside
slopes which are not buildable, but would be set aside for open space buffer
between the school and the future residential neighborhood. The question was
raised regarding the City's criteria for such
that the City is flexible, depending upon its
Partners recommends that in such rather steep
that the District would recommend the area be
with a minimum of additional plan materials and watering systems. In certain
areas hydroseeding could be added to promote landscape coverage and heavier
buffering. Mr. Agatep suggested that the open space maintenance might become
a City maintained district, with the cost borne by the related property
owners.
The Master Plan of the campus was reviewed with the following recommendations
and comments:
a. The campus is designed in three basic elements: the academic complex,
athletics and field spaces, and the parking areas. The plan concept defines
the academic areas as located in the easterly protected "bowl" area, which
can be independently secured; the athletic fields that are accessible from
the north and west and which are normally used for community recreation
CONFERENCE REPORT
24 October 1975
Page 2
purposes in the SDUHSD; and the parking areas of approximately 900 cars
at ultimate phase, located so they serve the academic area as well as the
athletic fields.
b. Control of public ingress and egress to the campus is accomplished by
limited road systems into the campus. Natural buffers are used at the
perimeters of the campus to ensure that the campus can operate with reason-
able security and privacy, and that campus land use will be compatible with
the surrounding planned residential neighborhood.
c. Mr. Agatepadvised that an approximate 30 acre community park will be lo-
cated immediately north of the campus, and that a diversified multi use of
the campus parking facility would be recommended. This multi use of the
parking area by the high school and the adjacent park could be readily
accomplished if access to the parking is relatively convenient, the road
right-of- way into the campus is widened to + 100 feet, and that convenient
pedestrian walks towards the park are provided.
d. We pointed out that the campus, as designed, will form a logical extension
of the City's open space concept, linking the open space drainage channel at
the west of the high school with the open space park area north of the
campus for pedestrian circulation, as well as visual continuity.
e. Mr. Agatepcan foresee considerable community use of the athletic fields
during the week-ends and evenings, which would draw on a sizable population
base.
4. Overall, it would appear that the proposed campus will be a positive addition
to the La Costa Community and the City of Carlsbad.
NEXT ACTION
Deems/Lewis & Partners shall proceed with the campus plan, incorporating the above
recommendations.
WSL/all
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
€itp oi Cad^bab
December 17, 1975
Fred Morey
CostQ Del Mar Rd.
La Costa Land Company
La Costa, CA
Staff has developed a mrk program for the La Costa Master Plan. The
program has been organized to produce the Master Plan document I des-
cribed in my letter of November 24, 1975. As described in that letter
the text will include the following sections:
A) Conceptualized Communities
B) Design Program
C) Development Program and Policies
Land Use Element
Residential - type, tenure, price, density, socio-economic impact.
Housing Element.
Commercial - intensity, uses, market area
Community Core - intensity, uses, limitations
Open Space - summary of the Open Space/Conservation Element relation-
ship.
Parks - summary of Park Element relationship
Schools - Summarize locations, criteria, service areas.
Phasing - (Map) description. Urban Reserve activity if appropriate.
Circulation Element
Streets - Describe major. Criteria for minor.
Bikeways - Describe major. Criteria for minor.
Public Transit - Provisions for future use (North County Transit
System)
Walkways - Describe major. Criteria for minor.
open Space, Parks, Scenic Highways Element
Open Space - Define classes, uses, public vs. private. Major locations
(map). Standards for minor locations.
Parks - Define classes, uses, public vs. private. Major locations (map).
Standards for minor locations.
Scenic Highways - Potential Routes (map). Standards for selection.
Standards for development.
Maintenance - Methods (public, private, special district). Criteria for
choice.
Geologic and Seismic Safety, Noise Element
Soils - describe varieties and limitations (map)
Slope - describe ranges and limitations (map)
Faults - describe limitations (map)
Vegetation - describe varieties and use (map)
Geologic Limitations - Synthesize above, define areas of limited use
or special risk (map)
Noise Corridors - (map)
Noise Standards - Mitigation measures
Public Facilities Element
Sewer, Water, Streets, Flood Control, Fire, Police, Hospital, Library,
Solid Waste, Gas and Electricity.
As I outlined in the November 25th letter, much of this work will be completed
by City staff. As you requested in your December 9th letter we will send
you drafts of sections as we complete them. Obviously portions of some of the
sections will be written in a general manner initially. They can then be re-
written in greater detail after you have reviewed them and provided applicable
comment.
In previous communications, I indicated we are assuming that you will assume
the responsibility for the first tv/o sections; Conceptualized Communities,
Design Program. These sections I assume will be prepared in conjunction with
Rick Engineering and Bevash and Associates. We will insure these sections
are consistant with the remainder of the Master Plan. Therefore I would suggest
that you set the appropriate time and place for a meeting to discuss the
sections as soon as you have developed ideas as to their content.
Reviewing your December 9th letter, I see that two of your major questions
relate to Land Use and Phasing. I would propose that we hold off meeting on
these issues until staff has completed a draft of the Land Use section. After
we have both had a chance to review it we can then discuss specific questions.
-2-
Please contact this office if you have any questions about this letter.
Sincerely,
V^\^
Donald A. Agatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA/vb
cc: City Manager
LRCQStR December 9, 1975
Mr. Paul D. Bussey
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject; Park Agreement
Dear Paul:
As you are aware, we are working very closely with Don Agatep,
the Planning Director, in an effort to prepare for presentation to
the Planning Commission and the City Council, a new or revised
Master Plan for the Rancho La Costa area. The park agreement,
which has been discussed so many times, should be modified as
part of the development of the new Master Plan.
I would appreciate it if, at an early date, you could set a time
for John Stanley and I to discuss this situation with you and the
City Attorney.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA COMPANY
Fred J. Morey
Vice President
FJM/eem
cc: Vincent Biondo, Esq.
Don Agatep
RECEIVEE
DEC 10 1975
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAO, CALIFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHON E 729 - 9111
CRCQStn
December 9, 1975
Mr, Donald Agatep
Planning Director .
City of Carlsbad ^^Cjfef^Q
Carlsbad, California 92008 ^ ^ ^37$
OIT Y OP
Subject: La Costa Master Plan Status -'^nn/ng n ^^SB/\[)
Dear Don:
Thank you very much for the November 25, 1975 letter concerning the La Costa
Master Plan status and the subsequent time you provided to me for detailed dis-
cussions of that document.
Now that we have further clarified the situation through our discussions, I am
submitting a detailed reply to the November 25th letter.
Paqe 1 - Section I;
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - It is my understanding that no further work
by La Costa is required in regards to the EIR, except for the possibility that one
of the reviewing agencies may make comments that will call for additional work.
Paqe 1 - Section II;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - In your comments you noted that the Circulation
Element would have to be changed if Mision Estancia is to be aligned as proposed
in our Master Plan. You also noted a deficiency in the description of the relation-
ship to La Costa's development plan to the General Plan insofar as the Geologic
and Seismic Safety element is concerned. It is my understanding that City staff
intends to rectify this situation. However, Bob Ladwig of Rick Engineering will
review this particular point with you to make sure that La Costa provides what is
appropriate.
Paqe 2 - Section III:
A) Housinq - You noted that the City staff would amend the Master Plan text
provided by us to make sure that the housing provisions are consistent with
the housing element policy objectives by the City of Carlsbad. I would
appreciate it when you: staff prepares the amendments, if you would give us
the opportunity to review the changes so that we will understand what is in-
volved .
(Continued)
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 729 - 9111
Mr. Don Agatep, Planning Director
Carlsbad, California 92008
Page -2-
December 9, 1975
B) Geological Hazards and Seismic Safety; This relates to the discussion
in Section II, above. Again, Bob Ladwig will discuss this with you in more
detail.
C) Noise Element; Here you have indicated that your staff will add to our
Master Plan Text an appropriate discussion for noise policies and objectives
as they relate to El Camino Real, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Alga Road. Again,
we would appreciate seeing a draft of your staff's discussion as soon as it is
available.
D) Scenic Highway Element; We are aware that El Camino Real and Rancho
Santa Fe Road are candidate routes as scenic highways. You are aware that
we are very interested in having El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road,
at least in the area of the Rancho La Costa land holdings, attractive and
perhaps unique. The fending and landscaping along El Camino Real between
La Costa Avenue and Alga Road is indicative of our interest. It seems to me,
howevef, that it would be very difficult for the City and La Costa to establish
a mutually acceptable scenic highway plan for these two roads by the time the
Master Plan is otherwise ready for adoption. My suggestion is that the text
of the Master Plan indicate that further study is in order. I would then suggest
that we set up a separate schedule for the final resolution of this point.
Paqe 3;
E) Park and Recreation Element;
G) Open Space and Conservation; I will discuss these two items together,
because of the relationship one to the other. I think we have proceeded a long
way in our mutual understanding as to where we are going in these areas.
Rather than attempting to outline in writing where I think we are in regard to
the many facets, I am going to suggest to the City Manager that at an early
date, that we discuss our progress In this area. Rather obviously, an amended
park agreement should be part and parcel of the final approved Master Plan.
F) Public Facilities;
a) Because of the reduction in densitities, many of the tables in the
Master Development text should be amended. I am sure you will ne^d our help
in this regard.
b) We will provide you with a draft of an expanded discussion of the
potential for an expanded water reclamation program at La Costa. As you are
aware, we are working closely with the several agencies involved to determine
what kind of a water reclamation program would be best for all involved.
(Continued)
Mr. Donald Agatep, Planning Director,
City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California
Page -3-
December 9, 1975
H)
Paqe 4;
1. Open Space Requirements; We agree that it is very important that we
develop some kind of a formula assuring that as subdivisions are developed
that some percentage of the large scale open spaces that are being provided,
are used to partially satisfy the 66 2/3% open space requirement, where it
applies. As we have previsouly discussed, unless we make this arrange-
ment, the specific application of the open space requirement for subdivision
by subdivision can result in a ridiculous application of the intent of the
ordinance.
2. Land Use:
First Paraqraph; I am somewhat confused by this paragraph and suggest
that Bob Ladwig and I sit down and talk about specific proposals to revise
the text. After the three of us have come to a clear understanding of your
desires in this area, we will then further review it with La Costa principals -
particularly Irv Roston.
Second Paraqraph;
a) Community Core - We will give you a list of the possible land uses
we envision for the Community Core. Otherwise we suggest that in the
Master Plan it simply be indicated that no development can occur in the
Community Core area until more specific planning has been done.
b) The tentative map for Area "B" will show precise locations for both
the elementary and high schools near the Community Core.
c) At the same time that I am preparing this letter, I am sending a letter
to the City Manager requesting an opportunity to further clarify the parks
agreement with the City.
d) We will provide a paragraph outlining La Costa's general intent re-
garding "private parks" in the project. I have previously indicated to you
that we believe that the number and type of "private parks" will be dictated
by the desire and economic abilities of our residents and that in this area
at least, economics rather than public planning should guide the effort.
3. Circulation;
a) We will provide a paragraph indicating what we believe is appropriate
in terms of a bike system in the Rancho La Costa area,
b) We will provide a paragraph indicating the relationship of the Rancho
La Costa area to the El Camino Real corridor and the possibility that some
time in the future and on demand a feeder line through the La Costa area
might be appropriate. It is a significant plus to La Costa that it does border
a major northeast transit route.
(Continued)
4
Mr, Donald Agatep, Planning Director,
City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, Califomia
Page -4-
December 9, 1975
Paqe 5;
4. Graphics; Bob Ladwig of Rick Engineering will be working with you in preparing
needed graphics. We want to make particularly sure that when the Master Plan
comes before the Planning Commission and City Council that needed graphics are
available. Obviously Rick Engineering will be consulting with us if the cost of
additional graphics becomes significant,
5. Conceptual Communities; We will prepare a paragraph for your use identifying
rather specifically our concepts of the communities in the Rancho La Costa area.
If you agree with that paragraph, we can then use it as the basis for discussions
in the various parts of the text.
6. Phasing: Bob Ladwig and I would like to sit down with you at an early date
so that you can clarify for us what your concerns are. When Bob and I better under-
stand your thoughts, we will review them with others in the La Costa organization
to see if we can provide something for you which will take care of this situation.
Incidentally, it does not appear to me that the concept of Urban Land Reserve would
be appropriate for us in the Rancho La Costa area, since the entire project has been
so thoroughly master planned. I think of an Urban Land Reserve as being applicable
for areas where no Master Plan has been developed.
Paqe 7;
Timinq; You indicate that the earliest possible time for a hearing before the
Planning Commission would be the second meeting in January of 1976, or the first
meeting in February of 1976. We hope that it will be possible for a hearing to
occur on one of those dates. We will do everything we can to help you in this
regard.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J. Mbrey
Vice President
FJM/eem
cc: Mr. Paul Bussey
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
Citp of Carl£ibab
November 25, 1975
Mr. Fred Morey
Vice President
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Costa del Mar Road
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: La Costa Master Plan Status
Dear Fred:
For the purposes
submitted by the
of the following
of discussion
La Costa Land
categories:
the present status of the applications
Co. for Master Plan Amendment consists
1) Environmental Impact Report status,
2) General Plan Amendment status,
3) Master Plan Amendment status.
SECTION I:
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department is in receipt of the draft
Environmental Impact information, the proposed General Plan Amendment,
and the proposed Master Development Plan text, accompanying maps and
exhibits. In terms of the environmental impact report, the staff has
concluded that the information you have submitted is sufficient as
amended by staff. We are in the process of sending the draft EIR to
the appropriate reviewing agencies. It is intended that the draft
environmental impact report will be submitted to these agencies by
the end of this week, probably November 20, 1975. The reviewing
agencies will have an opportunity for a period of 45 days to respond
to the draft EIR, and at the end of the 45 day period, the staff will
prepare the final Impact Report and set the matter to public hearing
as provided in the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1974,
SECTION II:
The General Plan Amendment request has been reviewed by staff. The
proper comments on the required Land Use changes for Commercial Land
Use, Open Space and Land Use, and Residential Density changes in the
various residential categories have been made. The Circulation Element
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Page 2
will have to be changed if Mis'ion Estancia is to be aligned as pro-
posed in your plan. The one area that is not presently described
nor addressed is the relationship of La Costa's development plan to the
applicable sections of the General Plan elements, specifically the
Geologic and Seismic Safety Element. Specific reference is given to
those areas subject to slides. The Geologic and Seismic Safety section
of the General Plan Amendment in all probability will be added by the
City Planning Staff.
SECTION III:
The proposed map and development plan text and its attached exhibits
and graphics have been reviewed by the staff. Generally, we find the
general organization of the Master Plan text and the General Plan Amend-
ment satisfactory. General Plan consistency is evaluated as follows:
A) Hous i ng: There is a housing discussion contained within
the Master Plan text. The staff will review in detail
and amend where necessary the housing provisions contained
within your program for consistency with the housing element
policies and objectives of the City of Carlsbad.
B) Geologic Hazards and Seismic Safety: The staff will add the
appropriate section to address the policies and objectives
of the Geologic Hazards and Seismic Safety Element and their
relationship to the Master Plan.
C) Noise Element: Staff will add the appropriate discussion
for Noise policies and objectives as specifically as they
relate to El Camino Real, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Alga Road
and La Costa Avenue.
D) Scenic Highway Element: As you know, the City recently
adopted a program for the identification of Scenic High-
ways within the Carlsbad Planning area. Although specific
routes have not been established at this point, two candi-
date routes will be identified in the Master Plan: El
Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road. You may wish to
consider the Scenic Highways Study as provided in the Scenic
Highways Element for these two routes. The staff will address
the alternatives for creating a Scenic Highway corridor for
the sections of El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road con-
tained within your Master Development Plan.
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Page 3
E) Park and Recreation Element: I propose that the existing
Parks and Recreation Agreement with La Costa Land Co. be
expanded to provide for Public and Private parks within
the Master Plan area, and staff will outline in the Master
Plan text provisions for parkway maintenance within the
La Costa Master Plan area. Both of these provisions will
go a long way in defining the City's and La Costa Land Co.'s
obligations with respect to Open Space and Parks and the
respective maintenance responsibilities for each.
F) Public Facilities: Probably the most detailed section of
the Master Development text at this point is the response
to the provision of public facilities. One discussion that
should be expanded, with your help, is the section that dis-
cusses the potential for water reclamation.
G) Open Space and Conservation: As you know, we have histori-
cally had some difficulty in defining the intent and purpose
of the City's Open Space and Conservation Elements. I would
propose that the staff narrow the intent and purpose within
the La Costa Master Development text to insure that open
space areas are identified by mutually agreed upon policy.
Those policy statements that are generally stated in the
existing elements will be refined to the point that the La
Costa Land Co. and the City of Carlsbad will both benefit
by a precise set of policy statements. For example, the use
of San Diego Gas and Electric open space corridors for pedes-
trian and equestrian travel could be further defined by
saying that of the 150' contained within a SDG&E right-of-way,
approximately 20', 30' or 40' would be used for pedestrian
or equestrian travel. The standards for development within
that corridor would then be set by the Master Development
Plan.
H) Master Plan content pursuant to City of Carlsbad Planned
Community Ordinance:
1) Open Space Requirements: The Planned Community Ordinance
requires at 66-2/3% open space within the confines of a
Master Plan boundary. I suggest that with your assis-
tance, we show the relative percentage of open space
shown on the Master Plan, i.e., San Marcos Canyon, the
golf course and other major open spaces in proportion
to the total acreage contained within the Master Develop-
ment Plan. I would propose that a formula be developed
that would allocate given share of additional open
space to meet the 66-2/3% requirement to be required for
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Page 4
each development as it's processed through the City.
Hopefully, this formula would identify, for example,
20% or 30% open space of the 66-2/3% provided in the
Master Development Plan and then the respective allo-
cation per project be identified on a per acre basis.
I realize that this may be difficult, but I believe it
is necessary if we are going to implement the Master
Development Plan.
2) Land Use: The Master Plan text discusses residential
land uses, commercial land uses; schools, parks, open
space, etc. I would propose that we reorganize the
land use section to categorically define each of the
uses in terms of type and intensity or appropriate
residential density range. For example, low density
residential development normally consists of zero to
four DU/acre. Where single family detached dwellings
are the kind of residential use identified, I would
suggest that a density of, for example, 3.5 - 4 DU/acre
be identified, as opposed to a range of 0-4. Addition-
ally, we should also include a discussion of cluster
housing concepts.
The community core could be identified as a special
treatment area that would entertain a given variety
of land uses to be spelled out in a future Specific
Plan. To that end, I would recommend that the staff
add the proper land uses as you currently envision
them. For example, churches, professional services,
restaurants,, governmental and cultural facilities (in-
cluding the amphitheaters) could be identified. Uses
could also include specific commitments currently in
the negotiation stages with the School Districts. Parks
could be related directly to the City and La Costa Land
Co.'s effort to secure a Parks Agreement and identify
La Costa's intent to provide private parks.
3) Circulation: This section presently discusses mainly
streets and some bike routes, but I would propose that
this section be expanded to include a comprehensive bike
program and provisions for public transit (that can be
practically implemented). These are especially important
in light of recognition by CPD and other transportation
agencies of the El Camino Real corridor as a major north-
south transit route.
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Page 5
4) An important consideration is the provision of
graphics. Although there have been some graphics
prepared at this point, the Master Plan requirements
of the Planned Community Zone also require graphics
which show soil types, vegetation and natural features,
i.e., San Marcos Canyon. Also required is a slope
analysis for the entire project. I would propose
that the staff, in conjunction with Rick Engineering,
develop a comprehensive and clearly stated set of graphics
on standard sheet size (24" x 36"). As you know from
your experience in public administration, graphics prob-
ably are the most important tool that one can use to
communicate an idea.
5) A more nebulous but important section of the Master
Development text revolves around the identification
of the conceptual communities. Jack Bevash has dis-
cussed the concept during the recent meetings and pre-
sentations given to City Staff. I would propose that
within the Master Plan text, we clearly define the con-
ceptual communities that La Costa Land Co. envisions.
As an example. La Costa is presently a resort and spa
complex centering around the hotel, spa and golf course.
The expansion to the north would tie in with existing
La Costa, using the golf course as the connecting link,
Mr, Bevash has also identified a new family style com-
munity in what is called that La Costa Far South area.
I propose that La Costa Far South area be described
in the Master Plan text in terms of design concepts
and land use concepts that will be used to achieve a
self contained community. A third community which is
identified is the area in which La Costa Estates North
exists. Although not specifically characterized as
like the Resort area or La Costa Far South, I would
propose that this area, generally northeast of the golf
course and hotel, be described as a self contained com-
munity of its own although not receiving full commercial/
professional service that will be received th La Costa
Far South community.
6) One idea that has been discussed for some time with no
resolution is the phasing for the Master Plan for La
Costa. Although somewhat more difficult to accomplish,
I would think that at this time the section could address
the market demands (historic, present and anticipated)
and project those areas of development that would be
marketable within the next few years. Cities have
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Paqe 6
SECTION IV
historically used capital improvements budgeting as
a means of scheduling development within the communi-
ty, I would suggest that La Costa, in a similar fashion,
set up five year, ten year and fifteen year programs
which would look at the potential for development in any
given area within those time frames. To that end, the
Master Plan and the phasing discussion could discuss
timing for implementation of the total plan. Additional-
ly, like the capital improvements program, it could make
provisions for periodic review so that phasing could be
re-evaluated on a regular basis. Periodic review, if
accomplished every two years, would assist La Costa in
making major capital improvement expenditure decisions,
especially as it effects cash flow. An item that one
might consider in the phasing
nition of lands which may not
fifteen years. To that end.
Master Plan text discuss the
Costa Master Development Plan
concept of Urban Land Reserve
applying the Urban Land
long range development.
discussion is the recog-
be developed for ten or
I would suggest that the
relationship of
to the City of
You may wish
the La
Carlsbad's
to consider
Reserve in some areas sloted for
at the same time lookina at the
potential of tax benefit. Again long term
Reserve Program is anticipated to be 15-20
in the Urban
years hence.
The staff currently is evaluating the organization of the text and the
exhibits so that the discussion will track according to Land Use category
Staff is also outlining a proposed organization for the Master Plan text
and the General Plan Amendment report so that it will discuss the following
items with some continuity:
A) Conceptualized Communities
B) Design considerations for each community
C) Implementation of the Master Development Plan as it affects
each of the conceptualized communities and which will consider:
1) Land Use (the method of conveyance, by lot sale,
dedications, condominiums, developer programs, etc.)
2) Circulation (vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit)
3) Open Space, Parks and Scenic Highways
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Page 7
4) Geologic and Seismic Safety, Noise
5) Public Facilities
D) Graphics as they relate to each of the precedijig sections
The graphics will show:
1) Community definition with respect to the whole of La
Costa's Master Development Plan.
2) Geographic relationships of La Costa to surrounding
communities including Carlsbad, San Dieguito, San
Marcos, etc.
3) The Conceptualized Communities as they relate to and
implement the City of Carlsbad General Plan program.
Fred, I hope that the foregoing discussion of the status of the La
Costa Master Development Plan Amendment, including EIR status. General
Plan Amendment status and Master Development Plan status, are of some
assistance. I would hope that the information can be used by both
parties to fine tune your application so that we can proceed in a logi-
cal manner.
The timing for review of the Master Plan Amendment and General Plan
Amendment is somewhat dependent upon the review time committed to the
Environment Impact Review. As I indicated earlier in this memorandum,
the draft EIR will have a period of 45 days by other agencies. Subse-
quent to that 45 day period, it will probably take another 30 to 45 days
to oet it through staff review, rewriting, revision, etc., and then set
toihearing. Therefore, assuming today's date, I would anticipate that
the earliest possible time for a hearing before the Planning Commission
of the General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and EIR would be
the second meeting in January or the first meeting in February,
After the Planning Commission hearings, which may take more than one
meeting, the matter would be forwarded to the City Council for review
and consideration.
Therefore, to meet your time schedules,^you can look to February and
March as being the realistic time frame for public hearings for your
proposed Master Plan Amendment. I hope this memorandum is of some
assistance in scheduling your program. If you have any questions re-
garding its content or the intent of the statements made herein, please
contact me at your convenience.
Mr. Fred Morey
November 25, 1975
Paqe 8
Sincerely,
Donald A. Aqatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA:mdp
cc: Bob Ladwig, Rick Engineering
Jack Bevash, Bevash & Associates
Paul Bussey, City Manager
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
it; H'r CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Attention: Mr. Ron Beckman
Director of Public Works
Subject: La Costa North Sewer Service
Gentlemen:
November 10, 1975
NOV13 1975
CITY Of CARLSBAD
Engmeering Department
As you are aware, our company plans over a period of time to develop an area
we have designated as La Costa North.
Prior to the development of La Costa North, it is necessary that provision be
made for sewer service. As you are aware from previous discussions, part of
this area calls for sewer service by the City of Carlsbad and part of it by the
Leucadia County Water District. However, it appears that to provide service
within a reasonable period of time would call for the cooperation among several
agencies; the City of Carlsbad, Buena Sanitation District, and the San Marcos
and Leucada Water Districts. As the general purpose government, which has
as one of its responsibilities the overall approval of plans for the Rancho La Costa
area, it would seem appropriate for you to take a lead role with the other agencies
in solving this sewer problem. Obviously, Rancho La Costa, as a private developer
is in no position to bring the agencies together. Certainly, we are in a position
to do whatever is appropriate to help solve the sewer service matter.
We specifically request that you invite representatives of the appropriate agencies
to meet, discuss and take appropriate steps regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J. Mcw-i
Vice Preside
FJM/eem
COSTA DEL M^R ROAD . CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 7K • TELEPHON E 729 - 9111
cc: City Manager
City Planning Director
LRCOStR
September 25, 1975
Mr. Don Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don:
I think it would expedite matters for all concerned if Bob Ladwig,
you and I sat down and discussed the handling of the La Costa
Master Plan. I want to make sure that we do not waste a lot of
La Costa's or City of Carlsbad's staff time.
I would appreciate it if you would set this meeting up as soon as
possible after your return on Monday, September 29th.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LANK) COMPANY
J. Morey \
FJM/eem
cc; Mr. Irv Roston
Mr. Bob Ladwig
REC
EP 2 6 1975
CiTY OF CAi^ S::
Planning Depaiu,,-
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALI FORN IA 92008 • AREA CODE 7K • TELEPHON E 729 - 91II
1200 ELM AVENUE M A^^^, H TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ^WsJw Q^if (714) 729-1181
Citp of Carlsibab
September 23, 1975
Rick Engineering
3088 Pio Pico Dr.
Suite 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention Mr. Robert Ladwig, Vice President
Bob:
The staff has reviewed your Master Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment
applications. In order to detennine proper fees the staff has used the
following criteria:
General Plan Amendment Fee:
$100 Plus $5.00 per parcel.
$100 + (78 lots) X ($5.00) = $490.00
Master Plan Amendment Fee:
$100 plus $5.00 per parcel
$100 + (78 lots) X ($5.00) = $490.00
*Note: Lots are those parcel identified on the latest assessors rolls
as parcels within the boundaries of the proposed Master Plan
or General Plan Amendment.
Attached is a list of parcels judged by staff to fall wholly or partially
within the Master Plan area. If you feel that any of these parcels fall
outside of the Master Plan please bring them to our attention so that the
fee may be adjusted.
Official City processing of these two applications will begin with receipt
of your payment of the fees. If you have any questions regarding this matter
please contact my office at your convenience.
Respectfully,
Donald A. Agatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA/vb
PARCELS WITHIN LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
215-210-21 255-031-07
215- 060-09 • -05
216- 121-10 -08
216-130-52 255-030-09
223-050-43 -10
223-010-4 -11
223-010-7 255-041-14
223-010-8 255-010-09
223-010-10 -18
223-010-12 -15
223-010-18 -17
223-010-19 • 216-122-27
223-010-23 -28
223-020-4 -07
223-020-19 216-131-04
222-010-26 -05
222- 010-35 215-060-26
223- 030-17 215-061-01
223-031-01 -03
223-031-02 215-050-08
222- 150 215-020-18
223- 071-01 215-030-01
223-050-49 -02
223-050-50- -03
-45 -05
-48 -06
-47 213-030-11
-34
223-060-04
-05
-07
-08
-09
264-220-16
-26
-27
-25
-29
-18
-17
-15
-28
-30
-14
-13
-12
-11
-22
-23
-20
-21
1200 ELMAVENUE H ^W^J ll TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 <lPM (714) 729-1181
€itp of Carlsibab
June 26, 1975
San Diego County Assessor
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Attention Mr. Baker, Records Division
Dear Mrs. Baker:
Enclosed please find Request for Information Retrieval Forms.
We would like to receive two (2) sets of mailing labels con-
taining property owner's name, address and book page and par-
cel numbers.
Please bill: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, Attention
Donald Agatep, Planning Director.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Sincerely,
Bud Plender
Assistant Planning Director
BP/vb
LABELS PLirS CHECK USTIWG
n-MlR f.^iO ADDRESS LISTIHG
OWWER. ADORESS 4 VALUATIOH
Oiinin, ADDRESS, DESCRIPTIOH & SITUS
VALUATIOH ONLY
ALL TELEPROCESSIHG INFORMATIOM
• OTHER: 'B^K^pA/^g-pAfiPfl. Al/? I X
REOUES^EPARTMEMT: P^*^*^"'*^ 0:^^t
: r» i f^''^C|€: l"OJECT NUMBER OR NAME: £ARL*»lSAO, M Qm
? f- S-S'it'i^Ci^li JESTIMATEO NUMBER OF . . ^'
±ZQ0O (RiCtcj PARCELS REQUESTED:
SUBHIHED BY:
ROUTING CONTROLS
IT I V I s
N-
CODES OUTPUT SEQUENCE OUTPUT INFORMATION
0
p E R A I R
( 1 I I t I II II I II I I II II I I II
INQUIRY KEY
NAME or SITUS or PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
INu'JIRY KEY
Parcel •umbers
Beg i nn i n g Ending
It
.__ _3LiM''2^-_
Tax Rate Areas
Beginning Ending
Land Use Codes
Begi nn ing Endini
-
•
^ OPERATION CONTROLS
, Key Punch Key Verify
Oparator ' Tima Oparator Time
DATE.
PAGE OF 2^
iornms LAPELS OXLY
LABEL'S PLUS CHECK L1 STING
O^MER AHP ADDRESS LISTING
OWNER. ADDRESS & VALUATION
O^NER, ADDRESS, DESCRIPTION & SITUS
VALUATION ONLY
ALL TELEPROCESSING INFORMATION
OTHER:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
REOOEST^dpARTVENT: tCCj Of ^.A^^BAl
laoo £{JN\ PROJECT NUMBER OR NAME:
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PARCELS REQUESTED:
SUBMIHED BY:
ROUTING CONTROLS CODES OUTPUT SEQUENCE OUTPUT INFORMATION
I V I s
I
N
0 P E R A
5
R
I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I I I I II
INQUIRY KEY • INQUIRY KEY
Parcel Numbers
Beginn ing Ending
•
222^/^
22t^o3,l£i^L
22t^6^ JL%j2.
2Z3^/f
2^^^zjj0^i
Tax Rate Areas
Beginn ing Ending
•
Land Use Codes
Begi nn ing Ending
•
NAME or SITUS or PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OPERATION CONTROLS
Key Punch Key Verify
Operator Time Operator Time
SEC-:36 3-73 3H
DATE
PAGE 2 OF :Z.
•
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
3088 PIO PICO DR.
TELEPHONE
SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987 RECEfVED
June 17, 1975 JUN 19 1975
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department Mr. Bud Plender
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
Dear Bud:
The following is a list of pages from the County Assessor's
records that encompass the property within 300 feet of the
above Master Plan. Please contact the Assessors office and
confirm the estimate that I received. There are 68 pages on
the list and I estimate 1,500 to 2,000 owners. Please call
Bob Ladwig and inform him of the amount the Assessor esti-
mates to prepare the package of maps, names and names on gum
labels prior to instructing him to proceed.
The following are the pages;
Book Page Book Page
213 02 215 34
213 03 215 36
215 02 215 39
215 03 215 41
215 05 215 42
215 06 215 43
215 11 215 44
215 12 216 12 Sheet 1
215 13 216 12 Sheet 2
215 14 216 13 Sheet 1
215 15 216 13 Sheet 2
215 16 216 16
215 17 216 17
215 21 216 20
215 22 216 21
215 23 Sheet 1 216 23
215 23 Sheet 2 216 24
215 24 216 25
215 25 216 27
215 26 216 28
215 27 216 29
215 28 216 30
215 33 216 31
Mr. Bud Plender
June 17, 1975
Page 2
Book Page Book Page
216 32 223 17
216 47 223 18
222 01 223 19
222 14 255 01 Sheet 1
222 16 255 02 Sheet 1
223 02 255 02 Sheet 2
223 03 Sheet 1 255 03
223 03 Sheet 2 255 04 Sheet 1
223 05 255 04 Sheet 2
223 06 264 01
223 07 264 22
Thank you very much for your assistance with this project,
you have any questions regarding this request, please call,
If
Sincerely,
Frank Fitzpatrick
FF: rk
1200 ELM AVENUE ll ^^^,,'{3 TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 l^l^i^iiJi/ O?/ ! (714) 729-1181
Cit? of Carl^bab
June 11, 1975
Frank Fitzpatrick
Rick Engineering Company
3088 Pio Pico Dr.
Suite 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: La Costa Master Plan Property Owners List
In reply to your letter of June 4, 1975, I agree that the computer pre-
pared property owners list for notification for public hearing would be
very beneficial to you. Therefore, the City will request such a list
frcm the County Assessor. Will you please submit the request sheets to
the Planning Department so that we can make this request.
The cost of the printout will be paid to the County by the City. However,
you will be required to reimburse the City at time of submittal of appli-
cation for Master Plan Amendment.
Sincerely,
Bud Plender
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
BP/vb
• l41
PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TELEPHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
June 4, 1975
Mr. Bud Plender
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
Dear Bud:
Per your suggestion to Barry Bender, I have inquired at the
County about the computer prepared abutters list for notifi-
cation of the Master Plan public hearing.
I was informed that this service is available only to public
agencies.
<r'ls it possible for the planning department to request the
\owners list from the County Assessor?
\ I have a list of the sheets that are needed to order the print-
\ out.
V I was told the charge would be approximately fifty dollars
\($50.00).
\ I suggest the charge for this service could be included in the
\Application Fee as a special processing charge.
Please let me know if it is possible to be of assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED r-.:tt^:xuL
JUN 5 1975 Fitzpatrick
FF: rk
CITY OF CARLSBAO
Planning Department
A PLANNING CONSULTANTS ANO CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TELEPHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
May 23, 1975
Mr. Donald C. Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: LA COSTA MASTER PLAN
Dear Don:
Per our discussions, enclosed are the following exhibits which are
part of the amended La Costa Master Plan. These exhibits are a
preliminary submittal for your distribution to the various City depart-
ments for their review prior to our formal submittal of the entire plan.
The items that we are including are:
EXHIBIT "A"
Six (6) copies of the La Costa Master Development Plan
(1"=400'), and six (6) copies ofthe same plan reduced (1"=800')
along with the 800 scale transparency of the City's approved
Land Use Plan.
I will be attaching a separate letter to speak to the 1"=800'
scale overlay for a comparison to the existing Land Use Plan
and any need to request a general plan amendment.
EXHIBIT "B"
Six (6) copies of the 1"=400' scale Utility Plan.
EXHIBIT "C"
Six (6) copies of our 1"400' scale existing development plan
and existing topography plan.
Mr. Donald C. Agatep
May 23, 1975
Page 2
EXHIBIT "D"
Six (6) copies of our legal description and accompanying
plat describing the boundaries of the amended PC Master
Plan.
EXHIBIT "E"
Six (6) sets of ownership maps. These ownership maps are
made up of three (3) separate plans that were prepared for
various annexations tothe City of Carlsbad.
We ask that you review the enclosed exhibits along with my separate
letter speaking to the possible general plan amendment. When you have
had time to distribute these plans to the various staff individuals for
review, we would like to request that you set up a meeting to review the
entire package prior to a formal submittal of the Master Plan amendment
request.
On Wednesday, May 28, 1975, you will be receiving six (6) copies of the
La Costa Master Text, EIR, Phasing Plan, and application.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:fm
Enclosures
CC: Mr. Irving Roston - w/encls.
Mr. Fred J. Morey - w/encls.
Mr. Jack Bevash - w/encls.
•
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TELEPHONE • AREA CODE 714 • 729-4987
May 23, 1975
Mr. Donald C. Agatep
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: AMENDED LA COSTA MASTER PLAN/POSSIBLE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
Dear Don:
This letter is part of a package that has been submitted to you today
requesting your review of a preliminary draft of a majority of the
exhibits forthe proposed/amended La Costa Master Plan.
As part of our request to you to review the Master Plan documents, I
would like you to review the 800 scale copy of the City's Land Use
Plan (General Plan) as it relates to the reduced 800 scale of the
proposed/amended Master Plan.
Because of the scale and intent of both plans, and obvious differences
in the lines separating the various land uses; there could conceivably
by many minor changes required in the General Plan. We have analyzed
the two plans and feel that the changes are relatively minor with a few
exceptions.
There are several areas where land uses have been eliminated on the
Master Plan. One area would be the travel services designation shown
on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road at the south La Costa boundary.
This area is now entirely residential. You will find other areas where
the residential categories have changed, but generally in the direction
of a lesser use.
We ask that you review the two plans and make a determination on the
compatibility of the La Costa Master Plan to the City's General Plan. If
9
Mr. Donald C. Agatep
May 23, 1975
Page 2
it is staff's determination that a General Plan amendment is required,
this letter is our formal request for that amendment.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:fm
Enclosures
CC: Mr. Irving Roston
Mr. Fred J. Morey
Mr. Jack Bevash
JACK BEVASH ASSOCIATES PLANNING, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN
April 18, 1975
1975 Mr. Donald A. Agatep
Planning Director _
City of Carlsbad C/rV Qc f^.
Carlsbad, California 92008 ^^^fUr^g h^^^-^^ArO
Dear Don:
Appreciated very much having an opportunity to chat with you last
week about the many problems and opportunities La Costa and the
City of Carlsbad have in working closely together to develop a
quality community in your City. I hope we can continue these
periodic meetings so that we can have an exchange of ideas as we
develop our plans.
An interesting point came up during our recent restudy of the
Alicante Hills property. As you know, plans were approved for a
large lot division to be developed for multiple residential use.
We have studied several alternatives for redesign of this parcel
and modification of street system to permit quality single family,
detached housing, in lieu of the multiple use. One study proposed
the angling of single family lots to point the homes toward the
best view of the golf course, lagoon and ocean. This has been done
to advantage in several projects with which we have been associated.
We may recommend this to La Costa; however, I would like your opinion
on this idea and have made a sketch to illustrate the typical lot
layout, see "A", and the alternative angled lot idea as represented
by "B" or "C". The number of lots is the same, but it not only
allows the homes a better view but also presents a more attractive
street picture as you drive, because the houses are not all lined
up like soldiers perpendicular to the street, all in a row. I would
appreciate your comments and will call you early next week. Look
forward to seeing you on my next trip down to La Costa.
Sincerely,^
Jack Bev^^^h, AIA, AIP
AACK BEVASfi. ASSOCJiATES
n..,/ A,
jferb i
L/
Enclosure
1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE I75O, LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90067 (213) 879-0603
>:U.mi !mmmn.U:<i .mmm
(ZoK4G^h4^r^6^ Lor
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
ALICANTE HILLS
(EXISTING)
Single-family
units
Master Plan
0
Final Map
101
Multi-family
units
Population
Students
1,460
3,212
146
78
475
41
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO) 6,628,400 812,660
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 843,880 103,462
Solid-waste Gen-
eration
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
18,147.8
17. 3
2,683.8
2.6
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 2,482 304
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 273,020 40,375
Water Consumption
(GPD) 481,800 71,250
Single-family
units
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
VALE NO. 2
(EXISTING)
Master Plan Current Proposal
Multi-family
units
Population
Students
1,460
3,212
146
778
1,712
78
Gas Consimiption
(CF/MO) 6,628,400 3,532 ,120
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 843,880 449 ,684
Solid-waste Gen-
eration
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
18,147.8
17.3
9,672.0
9.2
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 2,482 1,323
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 273,020 145,520
Water Consumption
(GPD) 481,800 256,800
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
VALE NO.'S 3 AND 4
(EXISTING)
Single-family
units
Master Plan
Not included
Current Proposal
318
Multi-family
units 345
Population 1,713
Students 137
Gas Consiamption
(CF/MO) 3,010,020
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 383,214
Solid-waste Gen-
eration
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
9,678.5
9.2
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 1,127
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 145,605
Water Consumption
(GPD) 256 ,950
STATISTICAL REVISION
for the
RAIslCHEROS
(LA COSTA NORTHEAST)
Single-family
units
Master Plan
513
Current Proposal
75
Multi-family
units 0
Population
Students
1,539
164
225
24
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO) 2,329,020 340,500
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 296,514 43,350
Solid-waste Genera-
tion
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
8,695.4
8.3
1,271.3
1.2
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 872 128
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 130,815 19,125
Water Consumption
(GPD) 230,850 33,750
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
SANTA FE KNOLLS
(LA COSTA FAR SOUTH)
Master Plan Current Proposal
Single-family
units 912 590
Multi-family
units 0
Population
Students
2,736
292
1,770
189
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO) 4,140,480 2,678,600
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 527,136 341,020
Solid-waste Gen-
eration
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
15,458.4
14.7
10,000.5
9.5
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 1,550 1,003
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 232,560 150,450
Water Consumption
(GPD) 40,400 265,500
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
GREEN VALLEY KNOLLS
(LA COSTA FAR SOUTH)
Single-family
units
Master Plan
376
Current Proposal
223
Multi-family
units 280 213
Population
Students
1,744
148
1,137
93
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO) 2,978,240 1,979,440
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO) 379,168 252 ,008
Solid-waste Gen-
eration
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
9,853.6
9.4
5,424.1
6.1
Nvmtber of pri-
vately owned
vehicles 115 741
Sewage Generation
(GPD) 148,240 96,645
Water Consumption
(GPD) 261,600 170,550
STATISTICAL REVISION
LA COSTA NORTH
(NO CHANGE)
Phase
I
Phase
II
Phase
III Totals
Single-Family
Units 510 1,000 890 2,400
Multi-Family
Units 150 650 520 .1,320
Population 1,860 4,430 3,814 10,104
Students 178 385 338 901
Gas Consump-
tion (CF/MO) 2,996,400 7,491,000 6,401,400 16,888,800
Electrical
Consumption
(KWH/MO) 381,480 953,700 814,980 2,150,160
Solid Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
10,509 25,029 21,549 57,087
10.0 23.8 20.5 54.3
No. of privately
owned vehicles 1,122 2,805 2,397 6,324
Sewage
Generation
(GPD) 158,100 376,550 324,190 858,840
Water
Consumption
(GPD) 279,000 664,500 572,100 1,515,600
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
LA COSTA NORTHEAST*
Single-family
units
Phase I
75
Phase II
255
Phase III
258
Totals
75
513
Multi-family
units
830
830
750
750
1,580
1,580
Population
Students
225
24
1,826
2,591
83
164
1,650
2,424
75
159
3,701
5,015
182
323
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO)
340,500 3,768,200
4,925,900
3,405,000
4,576,320
7,513,700
9,502,220
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO)
43,350 479,740
627,130
433,500
582 ,624
956 ,590
1,209,754
Solid-waste Genera- 1,271.3
tion (lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day) 1.2
10,316
14,639
9.8
13.9
9,322.5
13,696
8.9
13.0
8 20 ,909
28,335
19.9
26.9
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles
128 1,411
1,845
1,275
1,714
2,814
3,559
Sewage Generation 19,125
(GPD)
155,210
220 ,235
140,250
206,040
314,585
426,275
Water Consumption 33,750
(GPD) . —
273,900
388,650
247,500
363,600
555,150
752,250
* Upper figures represent revised numbers
Lower figures represent unrevised numbers
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
LA COSTA FAR SOUTH*
Single-family
units
Phase I
1,185
1,660
Phase II
2,060
2,060
Phase III
626
626
Totals
3,871
4,346
Multi-family
units
Population
Students
Gas Consumption
(CF/MO)
333
400
4,288
5,860
413
640
6,891,720
9,352,400
1,000
8,380
760
2,860
8,170
486
13,892,400 15,826,440
4,193
4,260
20,838
22,410
-1,659
2,383
36,610,560
39,071,240
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO)
877,404
1,190,680 1,768,680 2,014,908
4,660 ,992
4,974,268
Solid-waste Genera-
tion (lbs/day)
(cubic yds/day)
24,227.2
33,109
23.1
31.5
47,347
45.1
46,160
44.0
117,734.2
126,616.
112.1
120. 6
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles
2,581
3,502 5,202 5,926
13,709
14,630
Sewage Generation 364,480
(GPD) 498,100 712,300 694,450
1,771,230
1,904,850
Water Consumption 643,200
(GPD) 879,000 1,257,000 1,225,500
3,125,700
3,361,500
* Upper figures represent revised numbers
Lower figures represent unrevised numbers
STATISTICAL REVISION
for
LA COSTA*
Single-family
units
Existing
La Costa
2,066
1,647
Future La Costa
Development
6,346
7,259
Total
La Costa
8,412
8,906
Multi-family
units
8,432
10,151
7-, 093
7,160
15,525
17,311
Population
Students
Gas Consxmfiption
(CF/MO)
24,748
27,274
1,506
1,542
47,660,920
53,562,920
34,643
37,529
2,740
3,607
61,013,060
65,462,260
59,391
64,803
4,245
5,149
108,673,980
119,025,180
Electrical Con-
sumption
(KWH/MO)
6,067,844
6,819,244
7,767,742
8,334,182
13,835,586
15,153,426
Solid-waste Genera-
tion (lbs/day)
cubic yds/day)
139,826
154,099
133 i 2
146.8
195,733
212,038
186.4
201.8
335,559
366,137
319.6
348.6
Number of pri-
vately owned
vehicles
17,847
20,057
22,846
24,513
40,693
44,570
Sewage Generation
(GPD)
2,103,580
2,318,290
2,944,655
3,191,461
5,048,235
5,508,255
Water Consumption
(GPD)
3,712,200
4,091,100
5,196,450
5,629,350
8,908,650
9,720,450
* Upper figures represent revised numbers
Lower figures represent unrevised niimbers
TABLE la.
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE IN EXISTING LA COSTA
(USING CARLSBAD LAND USE ELEMENT DENSITIES)
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Single-Multi-
Family Family Popu-SDUH CU RU EU EUH
Units Units lation (7-12) (K-12) (K-9) (K-6) (10-12)
La Costa Canada 22 0 66 3.5 0 0 3.5
La Costa Meadows 1 161 0 483 0 0 38.7 0 12.9
La Costa Meadows 2 0 838 1, 844 0 0 58.6 0 25.1
La Costa Meadows 3 143 705 1,980 0 0 83. 7 0 32.5
La Costa Meadows 4 163 0 489 0 0 39.1 0 13.0
La Costa Valley 1 77 96 442 0 34.2 0 0 0
La Costa Valley 2 6 0 18 0 1.9 0 0 0
La Costa Valley 3 5 0 15 0 1.6 0 0 0
La Costa Valley 4 77 460 1,243 0 0 50.7 0 20.0
La Costa Valley 5 0 680 1,496 0 0 47.6 0 20. 4
La Costa South 1 75 850 2,095 63.0 0 0 46. 0 0
La Costa South 2 0 448 986 26.9 0 0 17.9 0
La Costa South 3 0 58 128 3.5 0 0 2.3 0
La Costa South 4 69 0 207 11.0 0 0 11. 0 0_
La Costa South 5 0 825 1,815 49.5 0 0 33. 0 'A La Costa South 6 86 0 258 13. 8 0 0 13. 8 0^
La Costa South 7 144 0 432 23.0 0 0 23. 0 0
Alicante Hills 101 78 475 0 0 31.0 0 10.0
La Costa Estate North 92 0 276 0 0 22.1 0 7.4
Santa Fe Glens 179 58 665 32.1 0 0 30. 9 0
La Costa Recreation
Condominiums 3 and 4 0 96 211 0 9.6 0 0 0
-cont.-
La Costa-Greens
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 1
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 2
Spanish Village 1
La Costa Vale 1
La Costa Vale 2
La Costa Vale 3 and 4
Alga Hills
Total
0 210 462 12.6 0 0 8.4 0
0 160 352 9.6 0 0 6.4 0
0 260 572 15.6 0 0 10.4 1
107 0 321 17.1 0 0 17.1 0
241 211 1,187 51. 3 0 0 47.0 • 0
0 778 1,712 47.0 0 0 31.0 0
318 345 1,713 102.0 0 0 34.5 0
0 1,276 2,807 76.6 0 0 51.0 0_
2,066 8,432 24,750 558.1 47. 3 371.5 387.2 141.3
Key: San Dieguito Union High School = SDUH; Carlsbad Unified School District = CU;
Rich-Mar Union School = RU; Encinitas Union School District = EU;
Escondido Union High School = EUH
Table Ib.
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE IN EXISTING LA COSTA
(USING CARLSBAD LAND USE ELEMENT DENSITIES)
UTILITIES
Gas
(CF/ Electricity
Sewer District
LCWD Solid Waste
Population month) KWH GPD lbs/dav
La Costa Canada 66 99,880 12,716 5,610 373
La Costa Meadows 1 483 730,940 93,058 41,055 2, 729
La Costa Meadows 2 1,844 3,804,520 484,364 156,740 10,419
La Costa Meadows 3 1,980 3,849,920 490,144 168,300 11,187
La Costa Meadows 4 489 740,020 94,214 41,565 2,763
La Costa Valley 1 442 785,420 99,994 37,570 2,497
La Costa Valley 2 18 27,240 3,468 1,530 102
La Costa Valley 3 15 22,700 2, 890 1,275 85
La Costa Valley 4 1,243 2,437,980 310,386 105,655 7,023
La Costa Valley.5 1,496 3,087,200 393,040 127,160 8,452
La Costa South 1 2,095 4,199,500 534,650 178,075 11,837
La Costa South 2 986 2,033,920 258,944 83,810 5,571
La Costa South 3 128 263,320 33,524 10,880 723
La Costa South 4 207 313,260 39, 882 17,595 1,169
La Costa South 5 1,815 3,745,500 476,850 154,275 10,255
La Costa South 6 258 390,440 49,708 21,930 1, 458
La Costa South 7 432 653,760 83,232 36,720 2,441
Alicante Hills 475 812 ,660 103,462 40,375 2,684
La Costa Estate North 276 417,680 53,176 23,460 1,559
Santa Fe Glens 665 1,075,980 136,986 56,525 3,757
La Costa Recreation
Condominiums 3 and 4 211 435,840 55,488 17,935 1,192
La Costa Greens 462 953,400 121,380 39,270 2,610
-cont.-
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 1 352 726,400 92,480 29,920 1,989
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 2 572 1,180,400 150,280 48,620 3,232
Spanish Village 1 321 485,780 61,846 27,285 1, 814
La Costa Vale 1 1,187 2,052,080 261,256 100,895 6, 706
La Costa Vale 2 1,712 3,532,120 449,684 145,520 9,672
La Costa Vale 3 and 4 1,713 3,010,020 383,214 145,605 9 ,679
Alga Hills 2,807 5,793,040 737,528 238,595 15,860
Total 24 ,750 47,660,920 6,067,844 2,103,750 139,838
Key: Leucadia County Water District = LCWD
Table Ic.
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE IN EXISTING LA COSTA
(USING CARLSBAD LAND USE ELEMENT DENSITIES)
WATER DISTRICTS
SMCWD OMWD CMWD
Population GPD GPD GPD
La Costa Canada 66 0 0 9,900
La Costa Meadows 1 483 0 0 72,450
La Costa Meadows 2 1,844 276,600 0 0
La Costa Meadows 3 1,980 297,000 0 0
La Costa Meadows 4 489 0 0 73,350
La Costa Valley 1 442 0 0 66,300
La Costa Valley 2 18 0 0 2, 700
La Costa Valley 3 15 0 0 2,250
La Costa Valley 4 1,243 0 0 186,450
La Costa Valley 5 1,496 0 0 224,400
La Costa South 1 2,095 0 314,250 0
La Costa South 2 986 0 0 147,900
La Costa South 3 128 0 19,200 0
La Costa South 4 207 0 31,050 0
La Costa South 5 1, 815 0 0 272,250
La Costa South 6 258 0 0 38,700
La Costa South 7 432 0 64,800 0
Alicante Hills 475 0 0 71,250 La Costa Estate North 276 0 0 41,400
Santa Fe Glens 665 0 99,750 0
La Costa Recreation Condominiums
3 and 4 211 0 0 31,650
La Costa Greens 462 0 0 69,300
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 1
La Costa Valley
Condominiums 2
352
572
0
0
0
0
52,800
85,800
Spanish Village 321 0 48,150 0
La Costa Vale 1
La Costa Vale 2
La Costa Vale 3 and 4
1,187
1,712
1,713 ooo 178,050
256,800
256,950 ooo Alga Hills 2 ,807 0 0 0
Total 24,750 573,600 1,269,000 1,869 ,900
Key: San Marcos County Water District = SMCWD; Olivenhain Municipal Water District = OMWD;
Carlsbad Municipal Water District = CMWD
TABLE Ila.
PHASE I: STUDENT GENERATION BY DISTRICT
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
subtotal
Single- Multi-
Family Family
Units Units
350
80
80
510
150
150
School Districts
Population
SDUH
7-12
CU
K-12
RU
K-9
EU
K-6
1,380
240
240
1,860
84
26
110
32
19
51
EUH
10-12
11
6
17
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 75 225 18
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
subtotal
962
590
1,552
Total Phase I 2,137
Total existing
La Costa 2,066
Existing and
Phase I total 4,203
333
0
333
483
8,432
8,915
3,619
1,770
5,389
7,474
24,750
32,224
177
94
271
271
558
829
110
~ 164
94
~ 258
69 258 23
47 371 387 141
157 440 645 164
TABLE lib.
PHASE I: UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND VEHICLES
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
subtotal
Number
of Units
500
80
80
660
Population
Gas Electri- Solid No. of
(CF/ city (KWH/ Waste privately
month) month) (lbs/day) owned vehicles
1,380
240
240
2,270,000
363,200
363,200
289,000
46,240
46,240
7,797
1,356
1,356
1,860 2,996,400 381,480 10,509
850
136
136
1,122
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 75 225 340 ,500 43,350 1,271 128
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
subtotal
La Costa
Existing and
1,295
590
1,885
Total Phase I 2,620
Total existing
10,498
Phase I total 13,118
3,619
1,770
5,879,300
2,678,600
748,510
341,020
20,447
10,001
5,389 8,557,900 1,089,530 30 ,448
2,201
1,003
3,204
7,474 11,894,800 1,514,360 42,228 4,454
24,750 47,660,920 6,067,844 139,838 17,847
32,224 59,555,720 7,582,204 182,066 22,301
TABLE lie.
PHASE I: UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
subtotal
Sewer Districts
LCWD cc SMCWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
53,295
53,295
' Water Districts
CMWD SMCWD OMWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
64,005
20,400
20,400
104,805
207 ,000
36,000
36 ,000
279,000
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 12,750 6,375 33,750
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
subtotal
Total
Phase I
307,615
150,450
458,065
524,110
Total existing
La Costa 2,103,750
Existing and
Phase I
Total 2,627,860
542,850
265,500
808,350
104,805 6,375 279,000 33,750 808,350
1,869,900 573,600 1,269,000
104,805 6,375 2,148,900 607,350 2,077,350
TABLE Illa.
PHASE II: STUDENT GENERATION BY DISTRICT
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
subtotal
Single-
Family
Units
328
260
412
1,000
Multi-
Family
Units
460
190
0
650
School Districts
Population
SDUH
7-12
CU
K-12
RU
K-9
EU
K-6
1,996
1,198
1,236
4,430
99
132
37
76
231 113
EUH
10-12
14
27
41
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 830 1,826 58 25
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
subtotal
373
1,320
1,693
1,000
0
1,000
3,319
3,960
7,279
120
211
311
100
211
311
Total Phase II 2,693'
4,203
2,480
8,915
Existing and
Phase I total
Existing and
Phase I-II total 6,896 11,395
13,535
32,224
311 . 231 171 311 66
829 157 440 645 164
45,759 1,160 388 611 956 230
LA COSTA
NORTH
TABLE Ilib.
PHASE II; UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND VEHICLES
Gas
Number (CF/
of Units Population month)
Electri- Solid
city (KWH/ Waste
month) (lbs/day)
No. of
privately
owned vehicles
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
subtotal
788
450
412
1,650
1,996
1,198
1,236
3,577,520
2,043,000
1,870,480
455,464
260,100
238,136
11,277
6,769
6 ,983
4,430 7,491,000 953,700 25,029
1,340
765
700
2,805
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 830 1,826 3,768,200 479,740 10,317 1,411
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
subtotal
1,373
1,320
2,693
3,319
3,960
6,233,420
5,992,800
793,594
762 ,960
18,752
22 ,374
7,279 12,226,220 1,556,554 41,126
2,334
2,244
4,578
Total Phase II 5,173 13,535 23,485,420 2,989,994 76,472 8,794
Existing and
Phase I total 13,118
Existing and __
Phase I-II tota'18,361
32,224 59,555,720 7,582,204 182,066 22,301
45,759 83,041,140 10,572,198 258,538 31,095
TABLE IIIC.
PHASE II; UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Sewer Districts
LCWD CC SMCWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
Water Districts
CMWD SMCWD OMWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
95,795
20,400
73,865
81,430
105,060
299,400
179,700
185,400
subtotal 116,195 260,355 664,500
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 52,806 102,404 273,900
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
282,115
318,920 80,070 239,850
497,850
464,250
subtotal 601,035 260,355 80,070 239,850 962,100
Total Phase II 770,036 260,355 182,474 664,500 513,750 962,100
Existing and
Phase I total 2,672,860 104,805 6,375 2,148,900 607,350 2,077,350
Existing and
Phase I-II z==================z====^
total 3,397,896 365,160 188,849 2,813,400 1,121,100 3,039,450
LA COSTA
NORTH
TABLE IVa.
PHASE III! STUDENT GENERATION BY DISTRICT
Single-
Family
Units
Multi-
Family
Units Population
School Districts
SDUH CU RU EU EUH
7-12 K-12 K-9 K-6 10-12
Area 1 630 520 3,034 168 64 22
Area 2
Area 3
160
100
480
300
—
32
39 — 13
subtotal 890 520 3,814 — 200 103 — 35
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 0 750 1,650 — — 53 — 23
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH -
Area 1
Area 2
0
626
1,350
1,510
2,970
5,200
81
191
— — 54
160
—
subtotal 626 2,860 8,170 272 — — 214 —
Total
Phase III 1,516 4,130 13,634 272 200 156 214 58
Existing and
Phase I-II
total 6,896 11,395 45,759 1,160 388 611 956 230
Existing and
Phase I-III
total 8,412 15 ,525 59 ,393 1,432 588 767 1,170 288
TABLE IVb.
PHASE-III: UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND VEHICLES
Number
of Units Population
Gas
(CF/
.month)
Electri- Solid
city (KWH/ Waste
month) (lbs/day)
No. of
privately
owned vehicles
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
1,150
160
100
3,034
480
300
5,221.000
726,400
454,000
664,700
92,480
57,800
17,142
2,712
1,695
1,955
272
170
subtotal 1,410 3,814 6,401,400 814,980 21,549 2,397
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 750 1,650 3,405,000 433,500 9,323 1,275
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
1,350
2,136
2,970
5,200
6,129,000
9,697,440
780,300
1,234,608
16,780
29,380
2,295
3,631
subtotal 3,486 8,170 15,826,440 2,014,908 46,160 5,926
Total
Phase III 5,646 13,634 25,632,840 3,263,388 77,032 9,598
Existing and
I-II total
Phase
18,361 '45,759 83,041,140 10 ,572 ,198 258,538 31,095
Existing and Phc.se
I-III total *^24,007 59,393 108,573,980 13,835,586 335,570 40,693
TABLE IVc.
PHASE III: UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Sewer Districts
LCWD CC SMCWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
Water Districts
CMWD SMCWD OMWD
(GPD) (GPD) (GPD)
LA COSTA
NORTH
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
73,865 184,025
40,800
25,500
455,100
72,000
45,000
subtotal 73,865 250,325 572,100
LA COSTA
NORTHEAST 24,947 115,303 247,500
LA COSTA
FAR SOUTH
Area 1
Area 2
252,450
442,000
445,500
780,000
subtotal
Total
Phase III
Existing and
Phase I-II
Total
694,450
793,262
3,397,896
250,325 115,303 572,100 247,500
1,225,500
1,225,500
365,160 188,849 2,813,400 1,121,100 3,039,450
Existing and
Phase I-III
total 4,191,158 615,485 304,152 3,385,500 1,368,600 4,264,950