HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 92-01; Green Valley; Master Plan (MP) (2)EXHIBIT "XX"
RsD
P&O Technolog/es
^O1 W A' S'.ree:
S*j:\e 2500
San D:eao CA 9210!
FAX 619"'23-1-3022
619 232-4466
P Ian n in a
Engineering
Transportation
Environmental
Economics
Landscape
Architecture
December 1, 1993 An Employee-Owned Company
Mr. Bailey Noble, Chairman
Carlsbad Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: Green Valley Mini Commercial Site
Dear Commissioners:
City staff has requested the applicant, Carlsbad Partners, Ltd.,to delete Planning Area 5 land
uses from the Master Plan submittal. Planning Area 5 has accommodated a small commercial
facility for a numbers of years and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. The existing use on this site is commonly referred to
as the "Red Barn." Attached is a copy of the Master Plan which deals with this site which
staff has deleted from the plan. The applicant disagrees with this modification of the Master
Plan document, and believes Planning Area 5 should be retained in the Master Plan. The
following is an overview of the issues.
BACKGROUND
The three-acre site is an existing commercial use comprised of the "Red Barn", two small
parking lots and a graded pad. It has been used for commercial purposes for many years back
prior to the annexation of the parcel from the County of San Diego. The existing two access
points and parking lots were installed by the City of Carlsbad by agreement as part of the
widening of La Costa Avenue in exchange for the owner's dedication of right-of-way for both
La Costa and El Camino Real.
The applicant and the City staff have a difference of opinion with respect to the future use
of this portion of the Green Valley property. This has resulted ir, a star ^commended plan
and an applicant's requested plan alternative.
The applicant's plan is to continue the commercial land use of the site but when economically
viable, replace the existing "Red Barn" structure with a building nearer the corner and possibly
a small second structure to the south. This is illustrated on the attached site plan. Existing
access would remain the same, and the property would additionally be subjected to a site plan
Planning Commission December 1, 1993
City of Carlsbad Page 2
and architectural review process at a later date. At this master plan stage the central issue
is one of establishing the appropriate land use for this site.
The staff recommendation is that this entire area should be designated as open space and the
existing structure and parking areas removed.
ISSUES
There are three issues which have been put forward in discussions regarding this site; general
plan land use policies, specific types of land use, and traffic.
1. General Plan Land Use Policies
The issue regarding general plan land use is centered around the interpretation of
policies in the Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan
(COSCRMP).
The Green Valley EIR discusses the COSCRMP on pages 4.1-13 and 4.1-14. The
applicant feels that the discussion in the EIR of the COSCRMP is an incomplete
presentation of the plan's provisions as it relates to Planning Area 5. The EIR focuses
on the idea that this is one of a series of strips of land located between the existing
riparian corridor and El Camino Real which should be open space. However, in addition
to the material presented in the EIR analysis the COSCRMP states that: "Although the
ultimate use for the property at this major intersection may be commercial, this would
not preclude the establishment of a secondary (trail) staging area."
If the open space policies intended to include this existing developed areas as part of
the "additionalstrips of land between El Camino Real and the riparian corridor" to be
included as open space, this would not have been discussed as a possible commercial
site.
In addition, there is no reasoning in the COSCRMP or in any other applicable plan or
policy, how an existing building, two paved parking areas and a graded pad would be
considered an integral part of a natural open space system.
The only reasonable conclusion from an analysis of the COSCRMP is that this area was
not to be include as part of these "strips" to be designated as open space. The "strips
of land" do exist in several places on the property south along El Camino Real, and
they are properly included in the project open space area.
There is no policy basis for changing the existing use and access.
Planning Commission December 1, 1993
City of Carlsbad Page 3
2. Specific Land Uses
The issue regarding specific land uses has centered around the potential for uses that
would be seen as inappropriate in this location. These might include a gas station,
liquor store, fast food outlet, etc. In response the applicant has restricted the kinds
of uses to the very narrow range listed on Page IV-54 of the attached document. The
intent is a relatively low intensity use with small scale structures, a landscaped corner,
and drive and parking located behind the building. From a purely locational perspective
the intersection of the major arterial roadways is both very desirable and extremely
valuable. In fact, this locational circumstance is not present anywhere else on the
281-acre site.
The restricted types of land use, the master plan design criteria and the future site plan
and architectural review process allows protection such that the development of this
site will be an asset to Carlsbad.
3. Traffic and Circulation
The proposed site plan for Planning Area 5, which has been subject to further
refinements not included in the draft EIR analysis, does respond to all significant issues
related to compatibility with circulation at the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection.
A copy of the refined site plan is included in the attachment. The proposed site plan
has nowhere near the traffic impacts that the existing service station use on the
northeast corner of the same intersection as suggested on Page 4.1-16 of the EIR.
The two access points along El Camino Real already exist to serve the existing
commercial use and are much further removed from the intersection than the access
points into the existing service station.
Right-in and right-out movements are well established methods to solve access to
properties near intersections and along major streets. This is particularly true where
the amount of traffic requiring access is low. The original master plan proposal, plus
the subsequent refinements that have been suggested by the applicant, establish a
workable circulation system for this site.
SUMMARY
The applicant believes that the issues cited by the staff have either been resolved through
changes to the land use and design criteria, or are applications of policy inappropriate to the
circumstances. The staff alternative to terminate the existing use and remove all improve-
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
December 1, 1993
Page 4
ments from the site does not seem a reasonable response to the situation. We request your
approval of the applicant's alternative for this site.
Very truly yours,
P&D TEQHNOLOQ
/
>od, AIA
Associat/ Vice President
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
E. PLANNING AREA 5 - MINI-CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL
Description
Planning Area 5 is a small parcel (approximately 3.1 acres) in the northeast corner of Green
Valley. The. planning area is bounded on the north by La Costa Avenue, on the east by El
Camino Real, and on the west and south by Planning Area 1. The site is in a very high
visibility location and is very well suited for a small convenience-type commercial use (Figure
VI-31).
Site Development Standards and Design Criteria
All development within Planning Area 5 shall be in conformance with the C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial Zone (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.26), and the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Standards, except as otherwise noted in this chapter.
Use Allocation
A maximum of 1 2,000 square feet of gross floor area of convenience commercial uses shall
be allowed.
Permitted Uses
Any commercial use is permitted which is considered convenience commercial and appropriate
to the size and location of the site. Permitted uses may include the following:
Art store and gallery
Bank/savings and loan (with or without drive-thru's)
Convenience food store
Florist
Offices (business and professional uses)
Restaurant (including sit-down, with or without onsite liquor sales, and drive-thru's)
Uses which are not included in the previous list may be permitted upon approval of the
Planning Director if they are found to be uses normally associated with convenience
commercial use.
The maximum allowable height in this planning area is 25 feet for a building structure
including roof form and any other architectural elements.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technalnolos
!71 P&D Technologies Figure VI-31
PLANNING
SYSTEMS Planning Area 5 - Illustrative Site Plan
VI-55
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Setbacks
The minimum setback along La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for structures shall be thirty
feet (30') from curb as in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards. The minimum setback for parking shall also be thirty feet (30') from curb.
Parking
Parking shall be in conformance with the Carlsbad parking standards (Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chapter 21.44). Additional parking standards including parking lot landscape standards
are contained in the Special Design Criteria section which follows.
Architecture
General
1. The project design concepts shall reflect the key elements of the existing "Old
California/Hispanic" development along the El Camino corridor consistent with the
requirements of the El Camino Real Development Standards (February 1984).
2. All elements shall appear integrated into the overall project design concept. Designs
that appear arbitrary or are inconsistent in form or composition shall not be allowed.
Building Massing and Form
1. Building massing shall possess a balance in form and composition.
2. Building facades shall have a firm relationship to a human scale.
3. The arrangement and design of windows and doors, as a whole, shall be carefully
composed to compliment a building mass.
Building Entries
1. A relationship between site and building shall be firmly established. Site and landscape
features that create a link to the building entry shall be emphasized.
2. Primary building entries shall be from the parking area oriented away from the
intersection.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-56
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Height of Buildings and Structures '•,
1. The maximum total building height, including roof-mounted equipment and .screens,
shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height.
2. Unoccupiable structures such as tower-type architectural features and flag poles shall
not exceed twenty-five feet (25'). ;
Building Materials and Finishes :
1. Exterior materials selected for a building shall exhibit a hierarchy of order and be
consistently applied throughout a project.
2. Corrugated, metal-sided, pre-fabricated, and high gloss contemporary buildings are not
allowed.
3. Color palettes shall be predominantly light in shade, warm in character, and sensitive
in the use of color accents. ;
!
4. The use of tinted and/or moderately reflective glazing (such as green, blue, gray, or
bronze) is encouraged. Untinted mirrored glass and highly reflective gold tinted glass
shall not be allowed.
5. Monolithic glazing shall not be used as a dominant design theme. "Glass boxes" shall
not be permitted.
6. Exterior wood may be used, but must be finished with paint or solid based stain.
Building Roof Design
1. The building may use parapet-screened, built-up flat roof forms. Sloped or curved roof
forms may also be used if they are expressed as part of the overall architectural
design. Mansard roof forms shall not be permitted.
2. Due to the grade differences between this planning area and surrounding areas, roofs
will be visible from some existing development. For this reason, all roofs, unless part
of a specific design element (e.g. a standing seam roof portion), shall be finished in a
uniform color regardless of whether it is visible from ground level. All roof elements;
including roof-mounted equipment and components, the inside faces of equipment
screens, and back side of parapet walls; shall be painted to match roof color. Roof
forms that are part of the architectural theme of the building may be colored in
conformance with the approved material and color palette.
Green Valley Master Plan p&D Technologies
Page VI-57
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
3. Built-up or membrane roofing shall be effectively screened on all sides by the building
parapet. Parapet height must equal or exceed the height of the highest point of the
flat roofing.
Roof Drainage
1. Roof downspouts shall, in all cases, be routed internally.
2. A cover piece shall be required for roof overflow drains. This cover piece may be
either flush hinge-mounted or forward fixed-mounted. Cover pieces may be painted
to match the background building color or in a contrasting color and developed as a
design element.
3. Storm water from roof downspouts shall not be drained into landscape areas.
Mechanical Equipment Screening
1. Exterior components, whether roof- or ground-mounted, shall be screened on all sides
by the building itself, such as an extended roof or parapet wall, that shall be aestheti-
cally compatible with the architectural design of the building or screen walls designed
integrally with the building.
2. Equipment screening shall be at least the height of the exterior components to be
screened and shall effectively screen all such equipment as might be viewed from the
ground elevation.
3. Corrugated metal shall not be allowed as a screening material.
Screen Walls, Fences, and Retaining Walls
1. Screen walls and fences shall adhere/to parking setback requirements along public
rights-of-way.
2. Screen walls and fences shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height.
3. • Fencing and screening treatments must be designed as an integral part of the overall
architecture and landscape design.
4. All fencing shall be constructed of durable materials and shall be maintained in good
repair. Painted wrought iron, metal picket, masonry block (split face, stucco-coated,
plaster-coated, or texture finished) or tilt-up concrete panels are examples of
acceptable fencing materials.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-58
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Loading Areas ;
1. All loading areas shall be located to be unobtrusive from view from La Costa Avenue
and E! Camino Real. ;
2. Loading areas must be designed to not interfere with public streets. ,
Outdoor Storage i
1. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. :
Refuse Collection and Storage ;
1. Outdoor refuse enclosures shall be constructed of permanent materials aesthetically
compatible in scale, finish, and color with the overall project. Enclosures shall be of
sufficient height to completely screen the bins within and shall be provided with a
gate, in order to screen all refuse containers from adjacent public or private rights-of-
way.
2. Refuse collection areas shall be designed to contain all refuse generated ton site
between collections. j
Utilities and Communication Devices
1. Exterior on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage systems;
gas lines, water and sewer lines, and electrical and telecommunications shall be
installed and maintained underground. Exceptions to this provision are electrical
transformers and other similar equipment that is not typically placed underground.
2. Antenna and/or dishes for transmission or reception of any type of signals shall be
located so as to minimize their view from public areas. All such devices require
specific approval within the site development plan process.
3. Electrical equipment shall be mounted on the interior of a building wherever practical.
When interior mounting is not practical, such equipment shall be screened with walls,
berms, and/or landscaping.
4. On-site transformers shall not be placed within the building setback, nor where readily
visible upon site entrance. All transformer areas shall be screened by landscaping.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-59
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
5. All backflow preventers, including fire sprinkler backflow preventers and above-grade
utility connections shall be screened by landscaping and painted, when allowed by
code, so as to blend in with the adjacent background.
6. Fire sprinkler valves and alarms shall be placed to visually minimize their visual
presence.
Vehicular Circulation
1. The vehicular circulation system for the mini-convenience center is a through driveway
system connecting three entry points. Two entry points are limited to a right-in/right-
out movement. One entry point is a right-in only.
2. Two access points will be located along the El Camino Real frontage and correspond
to the existing points of access approved by the City of Carlsbad as part of the
previous dedications and improvements to La Costa Avenue.
3. The third access point is on La Costa Avenue immediately east of the crossing of
Encinitas Creek.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation
1. Efficient, safe pedestrian access shall be provided from the parking areas to the
building(s).
2. Where possible, the sidewalk along La Costa Avenue will be a widened sidewalk detail
consistent with the eight-foot (8') wide pedestrian/bicycle trail designated for this area.
The pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the entry point to the commercial center will be
adequately marked and detailed to allow bicycles to avoid any curbs or drainage
structures.
3. Bicycle racks shall be provided in a convenient, yet unobtrusive location.
Parking
1. Parking shall be regulated in accordance with the current parking standards of the City
of Carlsbad and the standards described within this guideline.
2. All uses shall meet or exceed the City of Carlsbad parking count standards.
3. Onsite vehicular circulation shall be clearly marked, direct, and efficient.
4. Designated spaces shall be provided in convenient locations for handicapped parking.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Technologies
Page VI-60
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
5. Designated bicycle parking areas shall be required. Bicycle parking areas shall have
racks and be unobtrusive.
6. Should drive-thru facilities be developed, circulation design shall preclude car stacking
into interior circulation driveways.
Utilities
Desiltation and Depollutant Plan
1. The Green Valley master plan for siltation and pollution control is contained in Chapter
V. The'portion of the plan related to Planning Area 5 is illustrated in Figure VI-41.
2. The siltation and pollution control for Planning Area 5 will use an urban pollutant gravel
filter system. The urban pollutant gravel filter will use standards of the City of
Carlsbad or an alternate technique or design if approved by the City Engineer.
Green Valley Master Plan p&D Technologies
Page VI-61
MflY 09 '94 16:57 PLf !NG SYSTEMS P. 02
CARLSBAD PARTNERS, LTD.
2364 Thanksgiving Tower
1601 Elm Street
Dallas, Tsxas 75201
il4/979~9072 * 214/754-yol6 Fax
K&y 9, 1994
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
AB Appeal of anning Aroval of
Dear Mr. Hoizmiller,
The subject item is listed as number 5 on the City Council
Agenda for way 10, 1994. Our May 4, 1994 request for
continuance of AB *12,648 (Master Plan/ SIR, LCFA and LFMP,
number 4 on the May 10 agenda), did not include a request
relative to AB #3.2,651. Howover, it is recognized that these
'two items are directly related. In that COfltettt, we
acknowledge that it would be appropriate to also continue AB
#12,€51, and respectfully request that this item be dealt
with in the same manner as AB #12,6-48.
Sinocirely/
.J. Curnes
RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7810 ; 4-12-94 7:30PM ; 2147549016^ 6194380894;8 1
SENT BY:DALLAS, TEXAS ^ 4-12-94 ; 9:15 ; 21«|49016^ 6i943B0894;# i
Carifibad Partners, Ltd.
2364 Thanksgiving Tower
1601 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
214/979-9072 • 214/754-9016 Fax
April 11, 1994
Mr. Mic&ael Holzmiller ;'
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
B*1 '
ByFax; 619438-0894
Council AB# 12,648, Green Valley Master Plan,
EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP Zone 87-23
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
We are continuing to work on an alignment resolution for Via Cantebria and our
"Street A", as was requested by the City of Encinitas at the last meeting. Also, a number
of questions were raised during public testimony we which would like an opportunity to
thoroughly review. As a result, I respectfully request that the Council grant a continuance
for the subject item (continued from the 4/5/94 hearing to 4/12/94) to May 3, 1994.
Sincerely,
T. J. Cumes
TJC/pw
P&D Consultants, Inc. MEMORANDUM
Planners I Engineers
401 West "A" Street
Suite 2500
San Diego, CA 92101
FAX (619) 234-3022
(619) 232-4466
Date: November 10, 1995
To: Christer Westman
From: Gary Wood
Subject: Levante Street, Green Valley Master Plan
Several comments to the Supplemental Information to the EIR recommended elimination of the Levante
Street entrance to Green Valley . The reasons cited are reduced environmental impacts to the Encinitas
Creek riparian corridor.
We concur with the staff recommendations that this entrance be retained in the Master Plan. However,
the reasons for this are not explained in the staff report. There are several important points that should
be noted:
1 . The Environmental Impact Report analysis concludes that the impact to the biological resources
can be reduced to below a level of significance by the mitigation measures.
2. The site plan for the residential and commercial areas have not been done. The Master Plan
should retain the Levante crossing to allow this point of access to be part of the future site
planning process. To remove it from the master plan would be presupposing that the points noted
below could all be resolved satisfactorily.
3. The focus of all residential access to Calle Barcelona may be difficult to achieve and still meet the
public safety and cul-de-sac standards of the City of Carlsbad. Even assuming the technical
requirements could be met, it would still create a situation where a brush fire or other incident that
blocked egress at that narrow southern point would trap all residents in the neighborhood with no
alternate evacuation route to the north, west or east.
4. Good land use and circulation planning principles support the retention of the Levante as an access
point. Eliminating it creates the situation where the only access to and from one's home is
through a shopping center. It is doubtful if this would an acceptable situation for any current
resident of Carlsbad and should not be imposed on future residents.
Based on the site plan studies and sketches prepared for the property if any access is restricted, the most
likely site plan approach is seen as either the restriction or de-emphasis of the vehicular connection
directly to the retail center. This would focus the residential access to Levante Street. In particular site
plan studies for an active retirement residential project indicate that this may be the preferred approach
underscoring the reason for keeping Levante Street in the Master Plan.
In summary, we believe these points should be included in some form in the staff report. Please call if
you have any questions.
Carlsbad Partners. Ltd.
/\LIfYSuite 100
Carlsbad. CD 92009
December 5, 1995
CROSSING
Kim Welshons, Chairperson
Carlsbad Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
Re: Green Valley Master Plan - Planning Area 5
Dear Commissioners:
The Green Valley Master Plan, Reduced Project Alternative, which
has been forwarded to the Planning Commission has been revised, at
the direction of the planning staff, to designate Planning Area 5
as open space. This makes the Master Plan consistent with the
staff recommendations for this area.
In our letter to the Planning Commission dated November 20, 1995,
Carlsbad Partners requested a very restricted land use designation
and discussed the reasons we felt this was warranted based on a
reasonable application of Carlsbad policies. The attached pages
are those that describe the restricted uses, development program
and design guidelines for Planning Area 5. If the Planning
Commission concurs with the applicant's request, these pages would
be added to the Master Plan and other references to Planning Area
5 within the document changed accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
Allen D. Farris
Carlsbad Partners Ltd.
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
R PLANNING AREA 5 - COMMERCIAL
Description
Planning Area 5 is a small parcel (approximately 3.0 gross acres) in the northeast corner of
Green Valley. The planning area is bounded on the north by La Costa Avenue, on the east
by El Camino Real, and on the west and south by Planning Area 1. The planning area is the
location of an existing structure, commonly referred to as the "Red Barn" which has been
used in the past for several different office and retail uses.
Site Development Standards and Design Criteria
The approval of a Site Development Plan is required prior to any development in this planning
area. All development within Planning Area 5 shall be in conformance with the C-1
Neighborhood Commercial Zone (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.26), and the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards, except as otherwise noted in this chapter.
Use Allocation
A maximum of 6,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be allowed.
Permitted Uses
Art store and gallery
Bank/savings and loan (with or without drive-thru's)
Florist
Offices (business and professional uses)
Restaurant (including sit-down, with or without on-site liguor sales)
The maximum allowable height in this planning area is 25 feet for a building structure
including roof form and any other architectural elements.
Setbacks
The minimum setback along La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for structures shall be thirty
feet (30') from right-of-way as in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards. The minimum setback for parking shall also be twenty feet (20') from right-of-
way.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-43
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Parking
Parking shall be in conformance with the Carlsbad parking standards (Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chapter 21.44). Additional parking standards including parking lot landscape standards
are contained in the Special Design Criteria section which follows.
Architecture
General
I.. The project design concepts shall reflect the key elements of the existing "Old
California/Hispanic" development along the El Camino corridor consistent with the
requirements of the El Camino Real Development Standards (February 1984).
Z. All elements shall appear integrated into the overall project design concept. Designs
that appear arbitrary or are inconsistent in form or composition shall not be allowed.
Building Massing and Form
J_^ Building massing shall possess a balance in form and composition.
2i Building facades shall have a firm relationship to a human scale.
3^ The arrangement and design of windows and doors, as a whole, shall be carefully
composed to compliment a building mass.
Building Entries
JK A relationship between site and building shall be firmly established. Site and landscape
features that create a link to the building entry shall be emphasized.
2^ Primary building entries shall be from the parking area oriented away from the
intersection.
Height of Buildings and Structures
jL The maximum total building height, including roof-mounted eguipment and screens,
shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height.
2^ Unoccupiable structures such a tower-type architectural features and flag poles shall
not exceed twenty-five feet (25').
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page Vl-44
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Building Materials and Finishes
JL Exterior materials selected for a building shall exhibit a hierarchy of order and be
consistently applied throughout a project.
Z. Corrugated, metal-sided, pre-fabricated, and high gloss contemporary buildings are not
allowed.
3^ Color palettes shall be predominantly light in shade, warm in character, and sensitive
in the use of color accents.
4.. The use of tinted and/or moderately reflective glazing (such as green, blue, gray, or
bronze) is encouraged. Untinted mirrored glass and highly reflective gold tinted glass
shall not be allowed.
$_._ Monolithic glazing shall not be used as a dominant design theme. "Glass boxes" shall
not be permitted.
6_._ Exterior wood may be used, but must be finished with paint or solid based stain.
Building Roof Design
!_.. The building may use parapet-screened, built-up flat roof forms. Sloped or curved roof
forms may also be used if they are expressed as part of the overall architectural
design. Mansard roof forms shall not be permitted.
Z.. Due to the grade differences between this planning area and surrounding areas, roofs
will be visible from some exiting development, for this reason, all roofs, unless part
of a specific design element (e.g. a standing seam roof portion), shall be finished in a
uniform color regardless of whether it is visible from ground level. All roof elements:
including roof-mounted eguipment and components, the inside faces of equipment
screens, and back side of parapet walls: shall be painted to match roof color. Roof
forms that are part of the architectural theme of the building may be colored in
conformance with the approved material and color palette.
2L Built-up or membranae roofing shall be effectively screened on all sides by the building
parapet. Parapet height must equal or exceed the height of the highest point of the
flat roofing.
Roof Drainage
1. Roof downspouts shall, in all cases, be routed internally.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-45
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
2± A cover piece shall be required for roof overflow drains. This cover piece may be
either flush hinge-mounted or forward fixed-mounted. Cover pieces may be painted
to match the background building color or in a contrasting color and developed as a
design element.
3^. Storm water from roof downspouts shall not be drained into landscape areas.
Mechanical Equipment Screening
_K Exterior components, whether roof- or ground-mounted, shall be screened on all sides
bv the building itself, such as an extended roof or parapet wall, that shall be
aesthetically compatible with the architectural design of the building or screen walls
designed integrally with the building.
2i Equipment screening shall be at least the height of the exterior components to be
screened and shall effectively screen all such eguipment as might be viewed from the
ground elevation.
3^ Corrugated metal shall not be allowed as a screening material.
Screen Walls, Fences, and Retaining Walls
_]_._ Screen walls less than 42 inches and fences shall adhere to parking setback
reguirements along public rights-of-way. Screen walls greater than 42 inches shall
adhere to the building setback reguirements.
2^ Screen walls and fences shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height.
3^ Fencing and screening treatments must be designed as an integral part of the overall
architecture and landscape design.
4^ All fencing shall be constructed of durable materials and shall be maintained in good
repair. Painted wrought iron, metal picket, masonry block (split face, stucco-coated,
plaster-coated, or texture finished) or tilt-up concrete panels are examples of
acceptable fencing materials.
Loading Areas
JK All loading areas shall be located to be unobtrusive from view from La Costa Avenue
and El Camino Real.
2. Loading areas must be designed to not interfere with public streets.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-46
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Outdoor Storage
JL. No outdoor storage shall be permitted.
Refuse Collection and Storage
JL Outdoor refuse enclosures shall be constructed of permanent materials aesthetically
compatible in scale, finish, and color with the overall project. Enclosures shall be of
sufficient height to completely screen the bins within and shall be provided with a
gate, in order to screen all refuse containers from adjacent public or private rights-of-
way.
2± Refuse collection areas shall be designed to contain all refuse generated on site
between collections.
Utilities and Communication Devices
li Exterior on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage systems;
gas lines, water and sewer lines, and electrical and telecommunications shall be
installed and maintained underground. Exceptions to this provision are electrical
transformers and other similar eguipment that is not typically placed underground.
2± Electrical eguipment shall be mounted on the interior of a building wherever practical.
When interior mounting is not practical, such eguipment shall be screened with walls,
berms, and/or landscaping.
3^ On-site transformers shall not be placed within the building setback, nor where readily
visible upon site entrance. All transformer areas shall be screened by landscaping.
4.. All backflow preventers, including fire sprinkler backflow preventers and above-grade
utility connections shall be screened by landscaping and painted, when allowed by
code, so as to blend in with the adjacent background.
EL Fire sprinkler valves and alarms shall be placed to visually minimize their visual
presence.
Vehicular Circulation
1^ The vehicular circulation system for the planning area is a through driveway system
connecting two entry points. The two entry points are limited to a right-in/right-out
movement.
2. The two access points will be located along the El Camino Real frontage.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-47
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation
JL Efficient, safe pedestrian access shall be provided from the parking areas to the
buildinq(s).
Z, Where possible, the sidewalk along La Costa Avenue will be a widened sidewalk detail
consistent with the eight-foot (8') wide pedestrian/bicycle trail designated for this area.
The pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the entry point to the commercial center will be
adequately marked and detailed to allow bicycles to avoid any curbs or drainage
structures.
3^ Bicycle racks shall be provided in a convenient, vet unobtrusive location.
Parking
*L Parking shall be regulated in accordance with the current parking standards of the City
of Carlsbad and the standards described within this guideline.
2, All uses shall meet or exceed the City of Carlsbad parking count standards.
3_._ On-site vehicular circulation shall be clearly marked, direct, and efficient.
4^ Designated spaces shall be provided in convenient locations for handicapped parking.
JL Designated bicycle parking areas shall be reguired. Bicycle parking areas shall have
racks and be unobtrusive.
6,, Should drive-thru facilities be developed, circulation design shall preclude car stacking
into interior circulation driveways.
Utilities
Desiltation and Depollutant Plan
1 . The Green Valley master plan for siltation and pollution control is contained in Chapter
The siltation and pollution control for Planning Area 5 will use an urban pollutant gravel
filter system. The urban pollutant gravel filter will use standards of the City of
Carlsbad or an alternate technigue or design if approved by the City Engineer.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-48
June 27, 1995
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Associate Planner
ALLEN FARRIS FAX TRANSMITTAL 06/26/95
At our biweekly meeting, 06/21/95, we informed Carlsbad Partners that staff was not suppose
to move forward with the processing of the SEIR until Carlsbad Partners had a meeting with
Marty to outline what kind of changes to the master plan development program they have
considered.
They explained that they have analyzed the fiscal impact of developing the property with a
project less than the maximum allowed by the proposed Master Plan in anticipation of
responding to the politics of the project. They don't, however, have a specific development
proposal to offer the City.
Their position seems to be that they acknowledge that development of the site will
ultimately be less than the maximum outlined in the proposed Master Plan, but that it would
be premature to decide what that would be right now. They would prefer that the SEIR be
released for comment on the Master Plan as proposed, that they conduct public information
outreach during the SEIR public review period, and that any limitations regarding the
development program of the Master Plan be created through discussions with the public and
staff.
Then, prior to public hearings on the Master Plan, the City would determine what an
acceptable level of development in Green Valley would be and staff would make the
appropriate recommendation to Planning Commission. Planning Commission would then
make their recommendation to City Council and City Council could decide when they want
to hear the project, before or after March.
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Carlsbad Partners, Ltd.
2111 PalomarRirporf (toad
Suite 100
Carlsbad. CR 32009
GREEN
CROSSINGS
GREEN VALLEY CROSSINGS
COMMUNITY FORUM
Aviara Oaks School
July 11 and 12, 1995
AGENDA
I. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Allen Farris, Project Manger, Carlsbad Partners, Ltd.
II. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS & PROCEDURES
Thomas Hageman, President, Planning Systems
III. PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS & CONSTRAINTS
Gary Wood, Senior Project Planner, P&D Consultants, Inc
IV. COMMUNITY DISCUSSION & INPUT
Rinus Baak, Principal, Baak Consulting Group
V. ADJOURN
Carlsbad Partners, Ltd.
2111 Palomarflirport Road
Suite 100
Carlsbad. CR 32009
GREPN
C R O
(3UESTIONNAI_RE
As part of our effort to modify the Green Valley Crossings
project, we'd appreciate your input as to your concerns and
preferences for the project. Listed below are many of the
concerns and preferences which have already been identified. To
help us in our efforts, please indicate your concerns and
preferences by ranking the items listed below from 1 to 5, where
5 is "most" or "highest ranking" and 1 is "least" of "lowest
ranking".
Rank P.escript ion QJ.Concern
Air Pollution
Pollution of Lagoon
School Capacity
_____ Traffic on Levante
Traffic at El Camino & La Costa
Traffic at 1-5 & La Costa
Impacts on Wildlife/Corridors
Visual Impacts
Mixing Residential and Retail Land Uses
Density of Residential Development
Size of Retail Development
Other:
Other:
Other:
Comments:
RankDescriptionOfPreference
Retail Development
Convenience Stores
Wholesale Outlets
General Department Stores
Hardware Stores
_____ Book Stores
Athletic/Sporting Supply Stores
Office Supply Stores
Drug Stores
Computer Stores
Movie Theaters/Entertainment
Restaurants
Boutiques
Other:
Residential Development
Apartments
Condominiums
Affordable Housing (15% Required by City)
Senior/Retirement Housing
Mixture of Residential Densities
Other:
Land Use Mix
All Retail Commercial
All Residential
Half Retail & Half Residential
Mostly Retail
Mostly Residential
Other:
Comments:
November 28, 1995
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Holzmiller,
The purpose of this letter is to express my opinion on the Green
Valley Crossings project.
I've lived in my home in the Rancho Ponderosa development for 19
years. Though it does not please me to see every field being
paved, I know it is inevitable. Therefore, I find it best to
work towards a compromise that will satisfy most residents as
well as the developer rather than try to completely stop a
project.
I attended the very first meeting regarding this project at a
home in La Costa probably 2 years ago. At that time, I was one
of many who opposed this huge project.
However, now that the project has been reduced by 50%, I am no
longer against it. In fact, I don't know why anyone would be.
We shouldn't chase off a developer who is willing to work with
the community. I urge you to approve this reduced project.
Sincerely,
Debby Wright
7966 Los Pinos Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92009
City of
Encinitas
November 22, 1995
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re.: MP 92-01/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05/LFMP Zone 87-23
Green Valley
Dear Sir:
The City of Encinitas is vitally interested in the proposed Green Valley
Development. The specific concern of the City of Encinitas is the proper
connections of the transportation system between the developments taking place
at this time in both Encinitas and Carlsbad. It is important that the connection be
made from Leucadia Boulevard northerly into the Green Valley area of the City
of Carlsbad west of the'Encinitas Creek.
The City of Encinitas has received adequate information from P&D
Consultants, Inc. to clarify the question of the provision of a traffic connection
from Leucadia Boulevard northerly into the proposed Green Valley
Development. We are satisfied that the agreement between the two cities is
being met if the Green Valley Master Tentative Map, showing the Calle
Barcelona alignment going westerly and turning southerly to connect to
Leucadia Boulevard, westerly of Encinitas Creek is indeed the tentative map
being presented and discussed.
I hope this will clarify our position. If you have any questions, please call
at 633-2776.
Sincerely
Hans Carl Jensen, P.E.
Subdivision Engineer
TEL 619-633-2600 / FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 619-633-2700 ^ recycled paper
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to the Protection of Coastal Sage Scrub and Other Threatened Ecosystems
Dan Silver • Coordinator
8424A Santa Monica Blvd. #592
Los Angeles, CA 90069-4210
TEL/FAX 213-654'1456
Nov. 22, 1995
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
ATTN: Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA
RE: Green Valley
MP 92-01/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/LCPA 93-06/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05/LFMP Zone 87-23
Hearing date, Nov. 29, 1995
Honorable Commissioners:
The Endangered Habitats League is an organization of Southern California conservation
groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and
collaborative conflict resolution. We are active participants in the Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan, a effort we strongly support. We wish to submit for the record the following comments on
the proposed project in Green Valley.
This site is a critical one for the eventual success of Carlsbad's habitat planning program.
A proper dedication of natural open space and adequate wildlife corridor width along the stream are
essential components. The Environmentally Preferred alternative, with a single stream crossing,
best approaches these requirements, and should be the basis for further improvement in terms of
additional natural open space. Related concerns are that the applicant be required to permanently
dedicate all open space to the City at this time, and that any stream crossing be designed as a
bridge.
An additional issue is the polluted run-off from both this project and neighboring projects
in Encinitas. Best management practices for non-point sources should be defined and made
conditions of approval, and a water quality monitoring program should be put in place.
Thank you for considering our views and for advancing the habitat conservation programs.
With best regards,
Dan Silver,
Coordinator
'4-5 APRIL, 1994
,JL Vjtn&T TD
619-753-0007
GREEN VALLEY PROJECT
Robert Payne
Post Office Box 3073
Carlsbad, California
92009
My name is Robert Payne, I am a ten-year resident of the
La Costa section of Carlsbad.
I received no information on the Green Valley project
until the 1 1 January meeting at Downey Savings and Loan \j
at the old Von's shopping center. At no time did any
representative of the Hunt brothers or the City of
Carlsbad solicit any comment whatsoever from myself or
anyone else that I know of in the area east of El Camino
Real.
On the night of 11 January, Rainus Baak, the local
representative of the Hunt Brothers, outlined the project.
I left the meeting with many questions. However, I
thought that Carlsbad City Planning had again required a
builder to design a project to exacting standards.
Since then, I learned otherwise.
In the 11 January meeting, I do not recall an in-depth
discussion of traffic. When Richard Barnes started a
group to study the Environmental Impact Report on the
Green Valley project, I selected the Circulation section
because I know more about cars than I do birds or
bushes.
In my reading and re-reading of the E I R, I called the City
of Carlsbad Planning Department many times. They now
know my name. The many staffers there gave hours of
their time. I thank them. They are the most professional
local government employees I have yet encountered in
my government dealings in several countries. Very
patient, very knowledgeable. Very willing to continue
delivering information even as I became very skeptical of
the validity of the EIR they had accepted.
I want to repeat a quote. A staffer told me, "When I need
to look something up, I go to the E I R. That's the focal
point. That should tell it all."
That is not the case.
City of Carlsbad Planning accepted the traffic study in
June, 1993. I studied the sections for 1995 first. I read
and re-read the document, I compared what the
document to what I know of the area.
The writers of the Circulation section do not mention the
upcoming projects in Encinitas, Ecke Ranch and Home
Depot. Perhaps the writers believed those projects to be
uncertain.
In the documents I am entering into the record with my
written script of my presentation, I am including data on
several other projects.
There is a total of ten other projects in progress in the
area. Ten projects. From these projects, the engineers
prepared their traffic studies. I cannot determine how
the traffic engineers came to their numbers. What
numbers come from what projects? What projects are
not included? Also, the studies show numbers that may
be out of date.
These are not numbers that emerged two weeks ago when
the City of Encinitas accelerated project approvals. Many
of these numbers are 2 years old.
Again, perhaps the writers of the E I R believed all these
projects to be uncertain.
However, in the last year, the situation changed.
The City of Encinitas voted approval for Home Depot.
The Encinitas Planning Commission accelerated the Ecke
Ranch project.
In the past, traffic engineers had estimated the average
daily auto trips to the Ecke Ranch project at 25,000. Now
the figures are 68,000 ADT.
The status of other projects changed.
The La Costa Resort began clearing their retail and office
center on the north-east corner of La Costa and El Camino
Real. That center will soon be re-developed.
Also, the Arroyo La Costa project fell into limbo.
These details are important because the new projects will
add traffic to the streets of La Costa. Also, the
difficulties of Arroyo La Costa makes one of the traffic
routes uncertain.
Home Depot will add 8,000 or more cars trips per day.
Ecke Ranch will add 68,000 or more.
The plans for the La Costa Resort corner are not known.
Allow me to sketch the traffic patterns on the streets and
roads that now exist.
the shoppers for the Green Valley shopping center
come from the East County on Rancho Santa Fe Road?
Maybe. Personally, I think there is plenty of shopping
centers to east. I doubt if Green Valley will draw from
the East County. Not when the shoppers must use
Rancho Santa Fe.
shoppers come from the I - 5 freeway? ^Will they
get off I - 5 at Encinitas Boulevard? Will they take
Encinitas Boulevard to El Camino Real to Green Valley?
That route is one long traffic jam.
The E I R does not assume Leucadia Boulevard from I - 5
to El Camino will be open in the foreseeable future. That
is good. That's realistic.
the shoppers take the La Costa off ramp? That will
be the best route. CalTrans told me the I - 5 / La Costa
interchange is in motion. I believe them. CalTrans is a
professional operation.
However, east of the interchange, La Costa Boulevard
with four lanes is a promise. We have the State of
California involved, we have Encinitas involved, we have
the US Fish and Wildlife Department involved.
Wetlands, gnatcatchers, sensitive habitat, sensitive
bluffs, sensitive politicians. All of it.
<jWill La Costa get expanded to four lanes? £Or will it stay
a promise? Like the promise of four lanes of Rancho
Santa Fe Road from La Costa to San Marcos? That was a
promise. And it's still two lanes.
I talked to several City offices about this. I asked them
what if La Costa did not get upgraded to 4 lanes. They
told me they already have the money to do the job. ^But
what if there is a hang up? There will not be a hang up.
iThen what happened to Rancho Santa Fe Road? That's
different they told me.
^Then what happened to Palomar Airport Road? £ls that
different? No, they told me, that's not different. That's a
delay. Only a delay.
Okay, £what about a restriction on Green Valley that they
cannot begin work until La Costa is upgraded? They told
me that is possible. But they must negotiate with the
developers and the developers don't want any more
negotiations.
Consider this: ^what will happen if the Green Valley
apartments and shopping center are finished and La
Costa Avenue isn't? The developers will want to open no
matter what. And the City of Carlsbad will issue the
permits. The City has done it before.
We need a stipulation that the Hunt brothers may not
begin construction on their project until the La Costa
Avenue upgrade is finished. Not designed, not funded,
not a done deal. A done upgrade. No interchange at I - 5,
no four lanes, no ground-breaking. Period.
Allow me to return to the east side of El Camino Real.
Originally, traffic engineers estimated 7,000 more trips
per day from the residents of the yet to be constructed
Fieldstone project, Arroyo La Costa. The engineers also
estimated that Calle Barcelona would carry 22.5% of the
Green Valley traffic.
The situation with Arroyo La Costa means 7,000 cars per
day will not be there. But Calle Barcelona isn't there and
maybe will never be there.
That's 22.5% of 33,000. 7,500 car trips per day.
^Where will that traffic go? I asked the City Engineering
office and they told me one/third to La Costa and
two/thirds to Olivenhain.
La Costa cannot carry much more traffic.
Olivenhain cannot carry more traffic. Road problems
make travel on Olivenhain an ordeal. And Encinitas does
not have the money to bring Olivenhain up to standard.
There is a street that can carry more traffic. However,
this street is Levante, which passes La Costa Heights
elementary school, Christ Presbyterian Day School, and
the Boys and Girls Club. This puts the lives of my
children at danger. The Environmental Impact Report
does not even mention Levante Street east of El Camino
Real.
Look at an aerial photo of the area. Levante looks like an
expressway. Yet four blocks east, homes line both sides.
Children play on the lawns and sidewalks. Parked cars
force children on bicycles to peddle into the traffic lane.
If the commercial center draws from the region, drivers
unfamiliar with our streets will accelerate east, powering
through the curves, then suddenly come to a 25 MPH
zone. Will they slow? How fast will they be going when
they pass La Costa Heights School? Will discount prices
at the mall cost us the lives of children?
.7 This is it:
The traffic situation has changed. There are no traffic
studies that include the cumulative traffic surges of the
new projects in Encinitas.
There is no study of traffic loads and patterns without
Calle Barcelona.
There is no mention of Levante Street.
And there is no stipulation that La Costa Avenue must be
completed before Green Valley begins.
Again. An updated traffic study. And Green Valley
construction does not begin until La Costa Avenue is
ready for the traffic.
And finally, no part of that 22.5 per cent of traffic goes
onto Levante Street. We got problems with speeding cars
already. Thousands more cars per day means Levante
becomes a killing zone. A zone of dying children. If a
child dies under a car because the City Council did not
anticipate obvious traffic patterns, that death is your
responsibility.
William D. Daugherty
2600 La Golondrina St.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 3, 1994
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ref: Green Valley Development
Dear Counci Imembers ,
It appears to me that the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, in the
name of securing more revenue in order to provide more services, are
racing to see who can most degrade the quality of life of their com-
munities. Green Valley area developments proposed for each city at
the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain will, in their
present form, seriously degrade the environment and economic value
of both cities.
According to data provided, the Green Valley, Ecke Ranch, Home Depot
and Fieldstone developments will add 120,000 vehicles to the 20,000
we have today. Even with proposed road improvements these vehicles
will cause serious traffic congestion. The extension of Leucadia
Blvd., from 1-5 to El Camino Real, will further add to the congestion.
Hydrocarbon and heavy metal residue from the roads and parking lots
will contaminate the streams and ground water unless an expensive
concrete drain and sump system is implemented. Periodic removal of
toxic contaminants from the sump will prove difficult and costly.
Mixing high density residential development with a retail discount
center has proven to create major policing problems.
Bridging the creek and riparian forest in two places, no matter how
esthetic the design, still segments the habitat and seriously reduces
its viability as a wildlife corridor. Putting bikeways and trails ad-
jacent to the habitat increases "edge effects" and further reduces its
value. Domestic and feral cats from the high density residential de-
velopment will decimate the wildlife population.
You may see dollar signs in these developments. I see a retail slum
at the entrance to Carlsbad. Must we look like a continuation of
Enci ni tas?
Does it occur to the counci Imembers that maybe the public does not
need all the amenities that government wants to provide? Does it oc-
cur to the counci Imembers that our quality of life is not always im-
proved by "things", but by how we feel about our surroundings?
Sincerely,
Will iarrf D. "Daugherty
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Vtdkattd to tht Prottttion of Coastal Sage Scrub and Other Threat^tttt Ecosyst<wis
Dan Silver • Coordinator
8424A Santa Monica'Blvd. #592
Los Angeles, CA 90069
TEL/FAX 213 • 654 • 1456
April 5,1994
To: Bud Lewis, Mayor of Carlsbad
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Agenda item'#8, Green Valley
Dear Mayor Lewis/ City Council members:
The Endangered Habitats League is an organization of Southern California
conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection and
improved land use planning. We believe that a successful Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program is essential to the future economic health and quality of life
of the San Diego region.
The Green Valley/ Los Batiquitos Lagoon area of your city supports a number of
threatened and endangered species, and contains habitat important to the eventual
success of the multiple habitat reserve planning. Historical losses of habitat within
the MHCP subregion have significantly limited our options for successful reserve
design in the north county— to a much greater degree than in the other subregions
of the county.
It is essential that all proposed development within high habitat value lands, or
lands containing important habitat linkages, be examined closely, and within the
context of MHCP planning process. Failure to integrate development within this
planning context would seriously jeopardize the program and place an undue
burden on future developments in your city, and throughout the north county.
The watershed for the Los Batiquitos Lagoon, and an essential east-west habitat
linkage would be seriously compromised if this project were to go forward as
presently proposed. We urge you to recommend a reduction in the intensity and
scale of this project.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Michael Beck
San Diego Director, Endangered Habitats League
2076 Sheridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024
April 4, 1994
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Csbd. Vi1 1 age Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Green Valley Master Plan
Dear Council Members:
The proposed development by Carlsbad Partners in Green Valley
violates many aspects of local and regional planning policies and
planning realities. We are especially concerned with the lack of
regional coordination in order to protect ultimate residents and
visitors from traffic impacts and to protect the region's
sensitive and fragile environments. Allowing development of this
piece is also a conversion of coastal agriculture, a valuable and
protected use.
With the local Natural Communities Conservation Plans (HMP, MSCP,
MHCP) still unfinished, and the "update and revision" of the
Carlsbad General Plan still not approved, approval of the
Carlsbad Partners Specific Plan is unwise.
We support and incorporate here by reference the comments by
Project Future to the Draft EIR/EIS of the proposed "updated"
Carlsbad General Plan. The new Carlsbad General Plan lacks
consistency, a lack of consistency worsened by the proposed
development of Carlsbad Partners in Green Valley.
Therefore, we ask you to postpone approval of this project at
least until the Carlsbad General Plan has been finalized.
We also incorporate by reference the comments concerning the
Green Valley Master Plan, Local Coastal Plan, LFMP Zone etc.,
presented by the Carlsbad Citizen's Group, by Kevin Johnson, and
by the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation.
Specific comments follow:
PLANNING AREA 5:
The proposed use of the northeast corner of the property (red
barn area) is not possible under the restrictions laid down at
the time of LCP approval for this property. Mayor Lewis and
Councilwoman Kulchin were present at the original Coastal
Commission approval of the LCP and should remember that adding
the transportation ROWs to the creek buffer required by the LCP
makes this corner unusable for the kind of development being
proposed.
WELTY/GREEN VALLEY page 2
In fact, Inez Yoder and I were present at the meeting of the
Coastal Commission when Carlsbad city employee Gary Wayne, in
company with Hunt employee Larry Clemens, tried to get the
Coastal Commission to re-open that part of the LCP to change the
restrictions so the Hunts could have the density of use they
wanted on that corner piece. The Coastal Commission told 'Wayne
they would either re-open the whole proposal for change or none
of it, and Hunt employee Larry Clemens quickly signalled Wayne to
leave things alone. Opening the LCP for change could have
resulted in alterations to the Aviara project unacceptable to
Clemens' bosses.
Since access to this portion would also require the City to alter
circulation rules and standards, we believe City Council should
deny any intensification of use at this corner, limiting any uses
in Planning Area 5 to continued use of the red barn.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff estimates of tax gains to this city from this project
should be compared to those projected for Aviara, and a reality
comparison should be factored in. Income projections are always
rosiest before approval. No expenditures have been figured for
infrastructure expenses caused by this project such as policing,
impacts to water, mid-project failure of financing, etc.
VISUAL QUALITY
The project will forever degrade the scenic values of this area.
Crib walls and manufactured slopes exceed accepted city standards.
We urge the council to require the proponent to comform to
existing city-wide regulations.
Light and light overspill will impact plant and wild life to a
degree not sufficiently discussed in the EIR, altering not only
Green Valley, but also impacting Batiquitos Lagoon. These
impacts are not sufficiently addressed in the documentation.
Council should be diligent in restricting lighting in this area.
AGRICULTURE:
How many acres will be removed from historic agricultural use by
this project? What percent of agricultural acreage available
within the city of Carlsbad is represented by this project?
The classification for farmland fails to acknowledge the impact
of climate upon soil and crops, the surprising diversity of
plants found naturally in the area, and the accumulated
experience of local growers, all of which signify this coastal
area as one of the most productive and diverse in the world.
WELTY/GREEN VALLEY Page 3
Local growers who are being forced out by development travel the
world to find climates as amenable to agriculture and field crops
as this one. If the city refuses to protect the agricultural use
of this property, the maximum conversion fee should be levied.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB: Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub must be
avoided. Coastal sage scrub has not yet been proved replaceable
on disturbed agricultural soil. Creating new coastal sage scrub
is a 25 year long project. If impacts are allowed, we urge the
city to postpone development until the new scrub has been proved
productive. Where gnatcatchers occur, we request the city to
condition the project to avoid all impacts through project
modification as recommended by the EIR.
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR: Access to this project can be provided by the
extension of Leucadia Boulevard. This is the EIR's preferred
option. We urge the council to condition the project to avoid
all impacts to the riparian area by eliminating creek crossings
and to provide access from Leucadia Boulevard only.
BUFFER ZONES: We urge the city council to require the developer
to keep his trail OUTSIDE the buffer zones, and to follow the
proposed mitigation in which cactus is used as a barrier planting
to keep people out of the nature reserves such as the creek and
sage scrub areas.
When trails are allowed inside buffer areas, the buffer no longer
serves its purpose. Creeks are expecially vulnerable. All
wildlife requires a "safe space" between themselves and human
beings. Fifty feet is not enough, much less fifty feet with a
trail included inside it. We would like to see a scientific
study that names species expected to inhabit this riparian area
and the range of buffer area these individuals require for safety,
The project should be conditioned to provide that study and to
conform to its recommendations.
BRUSH REMOVAL FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
Brush removal for fire protection should take place only within
the buffer zones. Buffer zones should be wide enough to provide
safety from potential sage and chaparral fires.
IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY
Run-off will increase sedimentation and pollution to Encinitas
Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. We urge council to require the
developer to establish collection basins and cleansing ponds to
WELTY/GREEN VALLEY page 4
protect Batiquitos from road and parking lot run-off. These
basins will have to be maintained in perpetuity. We urge the
city to establish and adequately fund an agency to maintain
these basins in perpetuity.
NOISE/MASS TRANSIT
Noise impacts are all traffic related. Where is a 21st Century
mass transit plan for Carlsbad? Rail transit up and down the
coast was all right in the 1800's, but not comprehensive enough
for a forward-looking megalopolis such as Carlsbad is striving to
be. This project should be conditioned to include convenient
mass transit access and facilities for local and regional users.
CIRCULATION:
Will the proponent be required to fund all proposed mitigation
measures contained in the staff report? We would like to see the
funding mechanisms included in the staff and permit documents.
FINDINGS:
We do not agree that the proposed project can be found to fulfill
goals "A1 or "F " of the General Plan Land Use element. The
project does not encourage the preservation or enhancement of the
environment, character, or image of the City as a desirable
residential, beach and open space oriented community. By
imposing road crossings over the riparian area, allowing night
lighting on the property, intruding into the coastal sage and
providing insufficient buffers as well as providing residential
housing with the potential impacts of children and pets into the
natural areas, this project will, over time, reduce and perhaps
destroy the natural values and fragile ecological areas, all of
which are part of the environment, character and image of the
City as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented
community.
Goal 1.A.2 is violated by this plan. Once this project is
developed, the "sense of natural spaciousness" and the "visual
relief" in the Cityscape disappears. Instead, this project will
become one with the project proposed by the Ecke's and even the
natural city boundaries of Carlsbad disappear. Carlsbad visually
unites with Encinitas due to this project.
Goal 2.A.I will be violated by this project. The City of
Carlsbad has not explored "all means of providing for open
space." Nor has the city yet provided sufficient recreational
space for the children and residents of the proposed housing.
What measures are proposed to keep resident children ou^" of the
preserved natural areas, further impacting and contributing to
the loss of City character and environmental goals?
WELTY/GREEN VALLEY page 5
RESIDENTIAL USE:
A designation of RMH is not compatible with surrounding uses. If
Carlsbad intends to be compatible with the commercial uses
existing and proposed for this area, the residential use should
be eliminated. If Carlsbad intends to be compatible with
residential uses, zoning should conform to La Costa or the
Encinitas designation of R-1, and the commercial uses should be
e1imi nated.
HYDROLOGY
The hydrological study is inadequate. The study was constricted
to too narrow an area. Bridges across the creek, while better
than culverts, are still not long enough to avoid impacts to
water flow. Upstream siltation will result and in time, flooding
can occur.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts are incorrectly figured. Projects in the
surrounding area were not dealt with in a realistic manner. We
refer to CEQA Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15130 which states "a
list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects
producing related or cumulative impacts" must be discussed. In
this EIR, not all related projects are included, and those which
are (example, the Ecke Project) do not reflect realistic figures.
Carlsbad Partners may like to believe that the Ecke project will
not be approved by LAFCO at the rate of impacts now proposed,
but the possibility needs to be discussed according to CEQ.A.
Finally we incorporate by reference the Batiquitos Lagoon
Foundation response to the Notice of Preparation for this
project, and note that many of the requests for information by
the Lagoon Foundation were not honored. We call for this
information and ask that project approval be postponed until such
information is forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Dolores Welty
(619) 942-9897
tfi
s:
MO
soccess OF
ferT
AT
OFF
A
lM"FO
WcOt-D feus^SC A
TH^T
4. ~ttt€5^ IS
I
A-
<$K^T£ pHfe^etfS'
fVwt)/flf, 1 IcwfevmiftLE cowrowDs.
*u THe ^Jestfr QE- -Re« 'A»n>/0e.
HAzAepeoS ^cJesiAiJc^ <^Me^A^
r
DOTl| s^-F^HTCBS
w
SrA*JT>Afeji>
<^n?o}fc>Arik}>
^RE^TTO
6o\jUD 12>^-
Ij^6> 01s UPe, UreUafa^
P^^U^MS
A
^l^^-re^
S"
1
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL HANDWRITTEN DRAFT DEPOSITED 5 APRIL, 1994
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE REWRITTEN AND TYPED 18 APRIL, 1994
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92008
GREEN VALLEY CROSSINGS E I R
SECTION 4.8: HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY
In the submitted Green Valley Crossings Environmental Impact
Report, the associates of Coleman Planning Group discuss the
mitigation measures to desilt and depollute the run off from the
parking lots, streets, and landscaped areas of the Green Valley
Crossings residential and commercial areas.
The mitigation measures proposed fail to anticipate the difficulty
of managing the toxins and heavy metals present in the rainfall run
off.
1. The mitigation plan anticipates no more than l/2inch of rain
in the first downpour of the rainy season. The systems proposed
in the EIR are inadequate. If the rain exceeds l/2inch, the
systems designed to stop toxins/heavy metals entering the Encinitas
Creek water flow, the Green Valley riparian area, and ultimately,
the Batiquitos Lagoon, will fail. As these toxins and heavy metals
may kill the lagoon, mitigation of the Green Valley project run off
must utilize multiple and redundant containments in series, in the
event the first tanks are overwhelmed by sudden rainfall exceeding
expectations.
2. The systems intended to contain project runoff are not proven
devices. To date, there is no record of success or failure on the
designs. City of Carlsbad Planning Department staff cite the
success of the systems now employed at Price Club project at
Palomar Road. However, the systems presently employed process less
run-off and discharge the separated run-off to a creek, then to the
Pacific Ocean. This system and situation does not even approximate
the size of the Green Valley Crossings projects and the delicate
creek-riparian-lagoon eco-system downstream of the Green Valley
Crossings project.
3. The containment vessels require forethought, financial
dedication, and stipulations extending throughout the coming
century. At no time may the toxins/heavy metals be allowed to
escape into the environment. This would release a plume of metals
and toxins into the delicate habitat of the lagoon.
4. There is no existing study on the interaction of the
hydrocarbon rich toxins and the heavy metals that will accumulate
in the containment tanks. Regardless of absence of rain during the
dry months, water from the residential section of the projects will
keep the tanks damp. Unknown reactions may create dangerous and/or
combustible compounds. In the event of fire and/or explosion,
hazardous substance emergency fire-fighting units may not be
promptly summoned. If standard duty fire-fighters with standard
water pumping equipment attempt to fight this fire, there could be
loss of life, lifelong health problems, and a toxic plume into the
lagoon, thus creating simultaneously a human and habitat disaster.
5. Also, there is the reality of periodic flooding of the Green
Valley riparian area. In the rains of January 1993, Encinitas
Creek overflowed El Camino Real. Canyons flowed with rivers. The
level of the Batiquitos Lagoon rose to La Costa Avenue. If the
containment tanks of Green Valley Crossings are not correctly
designed, water will back flow through the exit pipes and pump the
contents of the containment tanks into Encinitas Creek and
ultimately into Batiquitos Lagoon.
1 want to see a plan to deal with the reality of the toxins and
heavy metals created by the proposed Green Valley Crossings. The
plan should be the product of study and design by consultants other
than the Coleman Planning Group. In this deeply flawed EIR, the
Coleman Planning Group demonstrated an inability to see the obvious
and an ability to see what did not exist— in fact, I will see any
work by the Coleman Planning Group as suspect.
Again, the Green Valley Crossings project requires a new EIR
prepared by consultants who are professional and competent.
Acceptance of the EIR prepared by Coleman Planning Group risks not
only the delicate eco-system of the Encinitas Creek, the Green
Valley riparian area, and the Batiquitos Lagoon, but also the lives
of Carlsbad public service staff and residents.
Thank you,
ROBERT PAYNE
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
619 - 753 - 0007
Carlsbad Citizens Group for Regional Planning (CCG)
7623 Rustico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 5, 1994
To: Carlsbad City Council
Re: Green Valley Master Plan and Related Approvals and Amendments
Municipal Code
18.05.020
Sewer moratorium except in Leucadia and San Marcos Water Districts.
City manager to determine if new applications for building permits
are appropriate based on sewage capacity.
O In which district is Carlsbad Partners?
V^^^^BV
$£.40. Dedications and Improvements
y\<rl8.40.010 b(l)-regarding dedication and improvements for projects
that increase demands on ROW'S and streets.
18.40.010 b(3)-spread costs of streets, sidewalks etc. equitably
abutting property.
_, It appears that costs of El Camino Road Widening will be paid by
jJ\ project applicants. Please verify if this is the case. If
cumulative or growth inducing impacts create unexpected need for
infrastructure improvements, how will this be paid? Will existing
developments be required to pay for improvements?
18.40.060
Public improvements shall be done to city standards and guaranteed
by bond or cash deposit prior to issuance of building permit.
*) The problem appears to be the possibility of Neighborhood
Commercial and the dangerous access due to the busy intersections
at La Costa and El Camino Real (the 10th worst intersection in the
County) 1 '
Also, a possibility of new signal at Von's entrance which is below
minimum required distance from the intersection of La Costa and
ECR. The project does not conform to these policies.
.——•
18.42. Traffic Impact Fee
18.42.020 (e) Table of ADT's as used in Carlsbad.
Existing zoning is C/O/RMH. It is unclear whether ADT's would be
higher with existing or proposed uses. This depends on whether one
accepts staff's interpretation that about 500,000 sq. ft. each of
office and community commercial would be allowed under the existing
plan, or whether community commercial would be limited to 300,000
sq. ft as cited in the M.C. Please clarify this. Also, use of
retirement community instead of RMH could reduce ADT's in the
residential zone from 3,200 to 1,600 ADT's. as indicated on the ADT
/
chart.
Wr\y
19.04 Environmental Protection Measures
19.04.040 No project approval allowed unless impacts reduced to
acceptable level or overriding considerations with specific
findings are made.
Appears findings are not supported by sufficient evidence related
to Air Pollution, wildlife corridors (in that Planning Commission
recommended that Fish and Game suggest sufficient bridge crossings
for wildlife-this appears to defer decision to another agency)
Also cumulative traffic impacts and growth inducing aspects of the
project are weakly defended. Encinitas Ranch is basically ignored.
This code provision is not being followed since studies do not
accurately reflect ^.W/wccVio^ ^--V^i-ci .
19.04.060 (f) The decision making body having final approval voter
the project shall certify that EIR information has been considered
and reviewed prior to approving the project.
(19.04.240 and 19.04.250 and 20.04.070 1(B)) also say that PC and
CC shall review and consider information in the EIR before taking
action on other aspects of the project, and EIR shall be reviewed
as independent evidence (even if process concurrent with other
approvals). nlc\ a^e.,cA >••> ^-V^-^-^ OeoLtxo £1IL pr^" -lo j-Voye-o ( /q-^^i-^. .
vfr" J^j
19.04.070 (c) Discusses exceptions to Ch. 19, but mentions that
ryf'department head may determine that a project may have significant
impacts due ....cumulative impact of successive projects of the
same type and in same area. . .
Clearly the Ecke Ranch is a cumulative successive project.
sense would say Ecke should be considered.
Common
19.04.180 Planning Director should consult with any person having
special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved
with the project. The City manager may extend Draft EIR review
period if necessary for a full and complete report.
(^*\.The director should have consulted Encinitas regarding Encinitas
vjjr Ranch project. Carlsbad avoided discussion of foreseeable
\v" cumulative impacts.
r-A 19.04.190 Notice of completion of draft EIR
" tf Director can notice in one of three ways: Newspaper, direct mail to
property owners within 600' radius of property boundary, or posting
and off site in the project area.
w
Christor Westman provided a map of the 600' radius. He said
Carlsbad does direct mail and puts notice in the paper. Some
residents within the 600' area say they never received notice.
Some residents say they did receive notice.
-
19.04.200 Final EIR
Major issues raised when position of planning director is at
variance with the public comments shall be addressed in detail and
reasons why comments were not accepted shall be stated. City
Council can by resolution can set guidelines in addition to
requirements of this section for the contents of the EIR.
^v ^Response to many comments are vague and lack sufficient detail.
Council should require analysis of project site alternatives in
more detail and include proposed Ecke Ranch in cumulative analysis.
^9.04.210 PC can require additional information for a full and
complete report if needed.
19.04.220 City Council (CC) can require more information if they
feel it is needed. The report shall be supplemented to include
significant points raised at the hearing and not covered in the
report.
The EIR should have included cumulative impacts of proposed Ecke
Ranch, growth inducements, etc.
19.04.260 Required findings and mitigation
For significant impacts, project shall not be approved unless
findings made and each finding is supported by facts, unless
mitigation corrects impacts or overriding consideration, mitigation
measures are within another jurisdiction, etc.
Miscellaneous impacts not so addressed, including air quality
impacts and wildlife corridor impacts.
19.04.360 City shall adopt guidelines to implement Title 19 in a
form which will solicit sufficient information to allow planning
director to determine if a project may have a significant effect.
20.04.080 Soil Reports
For subdivisions, preliminary soils report, based on adequate test
boring shall be submitted.
(b)This can be waived Adequate information on soil qualities in the
subdivision area exists.
(c) if City has knowledge of preliminary soils report that
indicates soil problems that would lead to structural defects if
not corrected, a soils investigation of each lot in the subdivision
may be required. Investigation will include recommendations for
corrective action. APC and CC can approve subdivision if
^ recommendation is likely to prevent structural damage.
A Key point here is that it appears inadequate tests were done given
^ that the water table is very high and soils are highly
compressible. More boringsappear to be needed.
20.08.140 Fees of bridges, flood crossings, roads.
(g) Regarding public hearings prior to establishment of benefit
areas
(i) If owners of more than 1/2 of the area of property benefitted
by improvements protest the boundary's, costs, allocations of
costs, etc. than City cannot act on proposed proceedings for 1
year.
(20.16.042 & 043 regarding supplemental charges on area benefitted)
This may not apply if area of benefit is only Zone 23. We need to
clarify if adjacent zones will need to pay more since they could be
considered as benefitting from road/drainage improvements. The new
Drainage study seems to indicate that existing residences will not
have to cover costs of any new drainage facilities.
20.09 Drainage Fees
Regarding benefit areas and Planned Local Drainage Facilities
districts.
^x The Master Drainage & Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(commissioned 1988 and now in draft form) appears to almost
guarantee that existing developments in this zone will not have to
pay for any improvements to the drainage system. See notes on this
report in separate section.
VQ 21.12 Major Subdivisions
.,- .,21.12.015 Tentative Map (TM) cannot be accepted unless in
^.c^ compliance with Title 19 (Environmental Protection Measures) and
^ Title 21 (Zoning), including all required approvals of Title 21.
TM may not be in compliance if EIR is deemed inadequate due to
insufficient information and analysis.
21.12.015-2(c) TM can be processed concurrent with documents
\/3 required in Title 19 and 21 if applicant first waives time limits
for processing the TM required by Title 21 or Subdivision Map Act.
TM may be processed, but shall not be deemed received until the
Environmental documents are ccjnpjleted.?
-— TM "approval" provided EIR certification.
No tree planting proposal found.
—. TM "approval" first.
20.12.091 (3 & 4 & 8) TM shall not be approved if site is not
physically suitable for the type and density of development
proposed or that CEQA requirements have not been met. (5) If EIR
says that certain economic, social conditions make infeasible the
mitigation or alternatives then TM can be approved. (12) regarding
all requirements of the hillside development permit (21.95)
20.16.010 (13) Design of subdivision shall be in consistent with
21.95 (hillside development). Undevelopable areas shall be
preserved as open space.
Master Plan not in compliance.
s?i
\
20.44 Dedications for Recreation Facilities
20.44.090 Limits on land dedication and fees is limited to needs of
subdivision residents.
20.44.110 Master Plans in Planned Community Zone. Council can
require dedication or fees not to exceed obligations imposed by
this chapter on subdivisions with the Planned Community.
20.44.120 This chapter shall not apply to commercial subdivisions.
Have requirements been met?
Title 21-Zoning
21.04.065 Building height is measured from finished or existing
grade whichever is more restrictive. Grade means ground elevation
along and within the building.
Location of buildings not known.
21.05.095 Combination Zoning
Prior to approval of any combination zoning, it must be found that
all of the following apply:
(1) characteristics of site show that a single zone is inadequate
to allow proper planning and development in conformance with the
General plan.
(2) area is partially developed under an existing zone but
desirable uses of infill are not permitted under existing zone.
(3) Characteristics are such that combination zoning would allow
o- greater ability for land uses to be compatible with and protect
surrounding land uses.
Prior to approval of any permits for development of property with
combination zoning, a Specific Plan, (via Section 64450 Government
Code) shall establish the regulations and development standards for
such property and uses permitted.
It doesn't appear that (1) can be satisfied, (2) can be (3) is
doubtful considering the types of intensity proposed which required
more severe grading that\ smaller buildings which can better conform
to site conditions. Is a Master Plan properly taking the place of
a Specific Plan?
21-06-010 Overlay Zone purpose is to provide added regulations to
underlying zoning to:
(1) require development criteria are used to insure compliance with
\* General Plan and any Specific Plan.
(2) provide that development will be compatible with surrounding
developments.
(3) insure developments occurs with due regard to environmental
factors.
(4) allow a granting of a zone where this would be appropriate only
with addition of specific conditions.
(6) promote orderly, harmonious and attractive development and
promote general welfare by preventing uses not properly related to
or that would adversely impact the site, surroundings, traffic
circulation or environmental setting.
Project is questionable on (1) due to non compliance with existing
General Plan. The project seems incompatible with surrounding
developments which are residential and rural (2). Environmental
factors have been somewhat considered (3) except traffic, grading,
creek crossings, and compatibility. This list of failings applies
to (6) as well.
21.06.020 Permitted Uses in Overlay Q Zone
(b) PC or CC must find that (bl) the requested use properly relates
to site and environmental setting, is consistent with various
elements and objectives of the General Plan, is not detrimental to
uses permitted in the area, does not adversely impact the site,
surroundings, or traffic circulation.
(2) That site is adequate in size and shape for the proposed use
(4) that the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to
handle the traffic generated by the project.
The project seems to fail since creek habitat, traffic, and
wildlife will be negatively impacted.
21.06.090 Development standards in Overlay Q zone.
A site development plan for affordable housing may allow less
restrictive uses than elsewhere specified if the project is in
conformity with the General Plan and have no* detrimental effect on
public health, safety and welfare. But PC and CC can require site
plan to be more restrictive than the underlying zoning.
21.16 R-3 Multi-Family Zone
21-16-016 Senior citizen housing allowed with conditional use
21.16.070 maximum density is 20 DU/acre or 30 DU/acre if the PC
finds the project consistent with the General Plan and the
Municipal Code.
This project may not be in conformance with the M.C.
21.24 RD-M Zone
Allowed uses include Multiple Dwellings.
21.24.120 Dwelling Units per lot (b) if General Plan establishes a
' x>.c range of density, then density shall be the lowest in the range
^ unless a finding that a greater density within the range is
justified via the General Plan.
21.28 C-2 General Commercial
v-, 21.28.030 maximum height is 557 with site development permit if
' ^uildi11^3 are not disproportionate to other buildings in the area
and (d(6)) the site must develop with regional commercial that
accommodates large anchor tenants.
Is EIR expecting a 55' possibility?
21.38 Planned Community
21.38.060-B: Master Plan limits height to 35' if roof is at least
at a 3/12 pitch. A master plan may impose a lower height limit.
A lower height is justified for this visually sensitive property.
21.38.060-C: Open Space OS of at least 15% of total master planned
«>$ J/) area is required. Council can reduce this if proposed open space
V • p^^is found adequate and is integrated with a proportional amount of«
off -site open space, (iv) these
indicated on the master plan.
open space areas are to be
There is another policy that says the 15% OS should be usable and
not part of constrained lands.
JI21.38.060-G: flood control structures shall be shown on the Master
21.38.060-J: Proposed developments shall be consistent with the
topography to reduce grading. The graphic is to show where
significant grading is anticipated and for what reasons it is
necessary.
21.38.060-2-A: Master Plan text is to describe a program for
preserving and maintaining open space areas.
No compliance?
Ci ^5 ^ ,-^
21.38.060-2-B: land use and public facility economic impact report
that contains (i) justification for the propositions of the various
land uses based on the projected population and acceptable
marketing or planning techniques. (ii) projected fiscal impacts
the development will have on ability of the city and other
governmental agencies to provide necessary services. This report
shall include the approx. cost of dwelling units, expected taxes
and costs of necessary public services. The report shall be
prepared by an economic consultant independent of the applicant (at
applicants expense) .
Insufficient detailvs <uJ
21.38.060-3: a landscape open area plan including graphic showing
areas to be landscaped, left natural, used as recreation, bike or
pedestrian ways, and proposed ownership and who shall have
maintenance responsibilities in each OS area.
Compliance?V
April 4 , 1994
Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
and Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear City Councilpersons :
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the Green Valley Project:
Residence
400 multi-family residences are much too high density.
. will promote crime
. will these be slums waiting to happen?
. not enough water (not enough water now)
. with no garages - vehicles will be parked all over
Boads
There is too much congestion on La Costa and El Camino Real
now.
. more lanes promote more traffic
. more congestion
. La Costa Avenue needs to be widened to handle present
traffic pattern.
Retail Stores
There are already too many retail stores in the area.
There are 15 or more strip shopping malls between La Costa
Avenue and Encinitas Blvd.
. empty retail space is available NCW in these malls.
. unsightly dirty parking lots surround the kinds of
stores being proposed.
Sincerely,
Corinne Klein-Hildebrandt
Alan Hildebrandt
7409 Brava Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Phone: 436-4925
2395 TERRAZAPANGA • CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • PHONE / FAX (61 9) 431-2006
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
PMA IS A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING AND -RUINING COMPANY THAT HAS AT ITS COMB A GROUP OF POLICE
RESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS WITH OVSR 14 YEARS EXPERIENCE WORKING AS A TEAM, INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS WTTHMORE THAN 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN MANAGEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. TOGETHER THIS TEAM DEVELOPED SANDIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S AUTOMATED CRIME ANALYSIS FUNCTIONS, REDESIGNED ESSENTIAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS, AND
CONSTRUCTED THE SUPPORT OP STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL OPERATIONS. FOR OVER TEN YEARS, THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED
BY THIS TEAMS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR ITS SOLID CONCEPTUAL BASE AND fTS PRACTICAL, EFFICIENT METHODOLOGY.
PMA TEAM MEMBERS ARE Dt DEMAND FOR CONSULTING AND TRAINING PRESENTATIONS IN THE AREAS OF CRIME ANALYSIS,
STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL PLANNING, LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS. PROGRAM PLANNING AND
EVALUATION, POLICE MANPOWER UTILIZATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT RESEARCH, TEAM PROBLEM SOLVING, PATROL
DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION, MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, AND CAREER CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM
(C-CAP) IMPLEMENTATION.
BELOW IS A PARTIAL LIST OF AGENCIES SERVED BY PMA •
KANSAS Crrv, MQ; CONSTRUCTION op DATA ORGANIZATION AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; ESTABLISHING CRIME ANALYSISSUPPORT; EVALUATION OP PATROL PROJECTS AND EXPERIMENTS; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH; STRATEGIC LEVEL
CRIME RESEARCH; DEVELOPMENT OF PROBLEM SOLVING CROUPS; DIRECTED PATROL CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT.
SAN DIEGO, CA; ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES; ESTABLISHMENT OF CRIMEANALYSIS SYSTEMS; DEVELOPMENT OP TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING PROCESS; FORMS DESIGN; AIDS TO CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION; AUTOMATION OF ANALYSIS FUNCTIONS; DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM; USEOF SENIOR CITIZENS VOLUNTEERS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
CALIFORNIA OFFICE or CRIMINAL JtiypCE PLANNING; C-CAP TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
iNTERNATIftNAI. A&^ftClATION OF CHIEFS r>F POLICE; AUTOMATION OF CRIME ANALYSIS FUNCTIONS; AUTOMATION OF
INVESTIGATIVE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PROGRESSIVE PATROL ADMINISTRATION TRAINING; ADVANCEDCRIME ANALYSIS TRAINING.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE! CRIME ANALYSIS TRAINING COURSE.
PATERSQN, NJ« CRIME ANALYSIS PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION.
SAN MATEri ICAP PROTECT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION; OPERATIONAL USB OF CRIME ANALYSIS
INFORMATION; USE OP VOLUNTEERS w CRIME ANALYSIS.
f CA: ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS PLANNING FOR CHANGE PROGRAMS; CRIME ANALYSIS AND TACTICAL ACTIONPLANNING TRAINING WORKSHOPS.
HONOLULU, qpk STAFFING AND UTILIZATION STUDY; DEVELOPMENT OF PATROL ALLOCATION AND DEPLOYMENT PLANS;
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING MODEL; ALTERNATIVE CALL-HANDLING PROCEDURES; DISPATCH STAFFING.
HAWTHORNE. r.A; ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING FOR CHANGE PROGRAMS; ESTABLISHMENT OF TEAM PROBLEM-SOLVING
PROCESS; TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING; PATROL ALLOCATION STUDY; CRIME ANALYSIS RESEARCH; MANAGING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND CASE TRACKING DEVELOPMENT, PATROL/PLAN UTILIZATION TRAINING; ORGANIZATIONAL AUDIT;
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH- PATROL/PLAN INTERFACE PROGRAMMING; ALTERNATIVE PATROL SCHEDULE EVALUATION.
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: STAFFING AND UTILIZATION STUDY-, LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT Aimrr,
ORGANIZATIONAL RB-STRUCTURING; PATROL ALLOCATION STUDY.
PALO ALTO,. PA; ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING FOR CHANGE PROGRAMS; ESTABLISHMENT OF TEAM PROBLEM SOLVINGPROCESS; CRIME ANALYSIS AND TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING TRAINING WORKSHOPS; PATROL ALLOCATION STUDY;MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CA; PATROL DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOCATION PLANNING; ASSESSMENT OP SHERIFF SERVICE TO
CONTRACT CITIES.
FAIRFIELD. CA: CRIME ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT; USE OF VOLUNTEERS.
ORANGE. CA: CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES; ESTABLISHME^ OF TEAM PROBLEM SOLVING
PROCESS FOR CRIME ANALYSIS.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS: EDITING INSTRUCTIONAL MANUALS; USE OF RETIRED PERSONS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT; CRIME ANALYSIS MODELS.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CA: USB OF VOLUNTEER MANPOWER; OPERATIONAL USE OF CRIME ANALYSIS INFORMATION
WORKSHOPS.
SANTA ANA^ CA; USE OF VOLUNTEERS; PATROL STAFFING AND SCHEDULING.
MARIN COUNTY. CA: USE OF VOLUNTEER MANPOWER; ESTABLISHING CRIME ANALYSIS PROCEDURES; TACTICAL ACTION
PLANNING TRAINING WORKSHOPS.
WASHINGTON AND OREGOVJJJTATES CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AGENCIES: CRIME ANALYSIS TRAJNLNG WORKSHOPS.
MQNTERY COUNTY. CA: MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY C-CAP WORKSHOP; TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING
WORKSHOPS.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY C-CAP WORKSHOP; TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING TRAINING
WORKSHOPS.
CARLSBAD. CA: RECORDS FUNCTION AND AUTOMATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
OCEAXSIDE. CA; C-CAP READINESS SEMINARS; AUTOMATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT; CRIME ANALYSIS SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT; PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION STUDY; DATA QUALITY CONTROL ASSESSMENT; MANAGING
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS; DETECTIVE STAFFING; CASE TRACKING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
Los ANGELES COUNTY. CA; CRIME ANALYSIS SUPPORT OF DIRECTED PATROL AND TACTICAL PLANNING USING
COMPUTER MAPPING.
GARDEN GROVE. CA; CRIME ANALYSIS PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPUTER MAPPING.
BERKELEY. CA: PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION STUDY; PATROL BEAT DESIGN.
UNION CITY. CA: DIRECTED PATROL SUPERVISORY WORKSHOPS; TACTICAL ACTION PLANNING TRAINING WORKSHOPS.
CHARLOTTE. N.C; PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION STUDY; PATROL EFFECTIVENESS AND GOAL SETTING
METHODOLOGY.
IXGLEVVQOD. CA; INFORMATION/RECORDS FLOW STUDY; PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION STUDY.
BERMERTOX. WA: PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION; SUPPORT SERVICES STAFFING.
SAN RAFAEL. CA: PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION; DIRECTED PATROL SUPERVISORY WORKSHOPS; TACTICAL
ACTION PLANNING TRAINING WORKSHOPS; MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SUPPORT.
DF.CATUH. IL: PATROL DEPLOYMENT; DIRECTED PATROL WORKSHOPS.
LOS AX(!ELES. CA! PATROL STAFFING DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TIME STUDY; DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE
DEPLOYMENT STRATEGIES; COMPUTER DEPLOYMENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT; PATROL/PLAN UTILIZATION PROCEDURES
AND TRAINING; CRIME ANALYSIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT; CRIME ANALYSIS TRAINING COURSE DEVELOPMENT; C-CAP
READINESS AND IMPLEMENTATION; CRIME ANALYSIS AUTOMATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT, COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING,
SERVICE EXCELLENCE THROUGH QUALITY MANAGMENT.
JACKSONVILLE. FL; PATROL DEPLOYMENT AND ALLOCATION STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION DESIGN.
OBJECTIONS TO THE GREEN VALLEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BY
GEORGE J. SULLIIVAN
DIRECTOR, POLICE MANAGEMENT ADVISORS
RESIDENT, 2395 TERRAZA PANGA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
On the evening of April 6, 1994, the Carlsbad City
Council will consider certification of an environmental
impact report and applications for a general plan
amendment, master plan, local coastal program
amendment, and a local facilities management plan.
City council approval and certification should be denied
at this time because the design of the project will result
in the social deterioration of the La Costa area, and a
reduction of the peace, tranquility, and quality of life of
all Carlsbad residents.
This will occur because of serious design flaws in the
current Green Valley plan. The existing plan will result
in higher crime rates, much higher than are currently
experienced hi this part of the city. This conclusion is
based on the following facts and
observations:
According to the 1982 U.S. Department of Justice
publication, "Safe
and Secure Neighborhoods" and "Territorial Control in
High and Low Crime Neighborhoods", by Greenberg,
Rohe, and Williams":
1. High crime neighborhoods have a much lower
proportion of single-family dwellings.
2. High crime neighborhoods have significantly more
blocks with major thoroughfares and few blocks with
small neighborhoods streets.
3. Blocks in low-crime neighborhoods tend to be more
homogeneously residential. Low-crime neighborhoods
have significantly more blocks with little or no
commercial activity.
4. Boundaries of low-crime neighborhoods are less likely
to be on a major thoroughfare, and less likely to have
commercial land use.
5. Low-crime neighborhoods have more private types of
parking facilities than high-crime neighborhoods. This is
consistent with the pattern of greater privacy and less
accessibility to outsiders than in high-crime
neighborhoods. Land-use patterns, housing
characteristics, and boundary types significantly
influence the crime rates in an area.
6. Residents of low-crime neighborhoods are more
residentially stable and more likely to own their homes,
than residents of high-crime neighborhoods.
The authors summarized by stating, "The findings
suggest that maintaining the residential character of
neighborhoods and limiting access to outsiders may
effectively inhibit crimes such as burglary, robbery,
larceny, and auto theft." (page 121).
The authors also suggest limiting the amount of
commercial development at neighborhood, boundaries,
and discouraging the city from widening streets in
predominantly residential areas, (page 124).
Let us preserve the safety of our current and future
neighborhoods by not mixing commercial/retail facilities
with high-density, low-stability, non-home owner,
residential units
One does not need to go far to see the relationship
between mixed-land use and crime frequencies. For
example, hi Carlsbad, hi the month of February, the area
of the city with the most commercial/
retail and high density housing occurs in beats 41 and
42. These beats also account for nearly half of the
serious crime in the city, but only encompass one-
seventh of the city's area. The remainder of the city with
relatively separate residential and
commercial areas take up 85% of the area, but only half
the serious crime, (see attached map).
Not only is the Southern area of the city in danger of
reducing its quality of life for the above reasons, the
people who will live hi the Green Valley development
will experience even greater risk to property and
personal safety than their neighbors to the North and
East. In T.D. Crowe's "Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design", published by the National Crime
Prevention Institute, the author states three major
principles for crime reduction.
1. Access control operates to denote transitional zones.
If these physical or psychological barriers are to succeed
in controlling access by demarcating specific spaces for
individuals, potential offenders must perceive that
unwarranted intrusion will elicit protective territorial
responses form those who have legitimate access.
In the case of the Green Valley proposal, there will be
unrestricted access from the commercial parking areas to
approximately 400 units. Offenders attracted by the
strip malls environment can potentially target
neighborhood residents and property.
Furthermore, the precious natural resources surrounding
the area will be susceptible to vandalism.
2. Non-uniform surveillance operates to increase the
likelihood that intrusion will be observed by individuals
who care, but are not perceived by potential offenders as
being officially responsible for regulating the use and
treatment of spaces.
Unfortunately, the current design of the Green Valley
project actually inhibits this natural surveillance
principal by its placement of buildings in the midst of
dense bush and wooded surroundings. Offenders can
easily conceal themselves in the surrounding terrain.
3. Territorial reinforcement implies that a given space
has a particular identity and those who can legitimately
use that space are known to those who may control
access and provide routine surveillance .
While the owners of the shopping strip, its operators and
employees may possess a sufficient stake in the
commercial space, it is not so certain that this will be
true for the residential rental
units, due to the temporal nature of renters.
In summary, this presents only a few of the many issues
that surround the proposed Green Valley Project. But,
the issues presented here are serous ones. They involve
the deterioration of the social environment through
increases in crime and disorder. The present plan has
critical flaws and must he modified before approval or
certification by the City Council. I ask you to deny
approval of the Green Valley project at this time.
1 -X*-
P»<=co
-TOT
cVH
^%*?
is
-jro
gj-xv
v.f,..-; J,V
S .j
-Vo
J a
^
pn.fr
3.J
\v-\-V-o ck c
__d!Wi_Ai
^
A-o
PIP j ^^"-*- -J
--fo p
(Vx
s i
"hD S
^MdOjCJLw _a^S-<2-<CQ L 4 -^ f^, p tp CL c
oc.
a
< Co I
e. jv^^u o 0.0 U£TH poor ^°il./ "Zj '
7 r-.
•___yi ng a_
Co \
.oe
6SkouV.(\_ UP,
A i"
LJfCL
}S
n f (: 5^-n
/l /£
.t^5
$ Si
c^x Co«wfiU/9mCe-
n
61
O^C.Y^tJL.
t -3
t/v [^^9
q
VA-S (JLC-JL,JDJi
CX / ta^^g,
•h
K-,-jo
Lr^pCUik^
.. _ Ai
f-
-t /v\ i V
^
iky JUeS
arv, -fkjtS 5vfk=
C S
i S OA^a l.Pcl\- -tt/xt r^o-?^',f
/vu -fz <2.q -fz o r\ __ -f
^ e._o
-^Vv
C)
r
•V
I
f -*rk-e (J
a
'
a
a<^io| -)-Q /w?
MR. MICHAEL HOLZMILLER
2075 LAS PALMAS,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009
APR 1 8 1994 18 APRIL, 1994
COMMENT ON:GREEN VALLEY CROSSINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SECTION 5.0 / ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
In the submitted Green Valley Crossings Environmental Impact
Report, the associates of Coleman Planning Group discuss the
existing use of the Green Valley farm lands and the environmental
changes caused by agricultural use.
Omissions and misrepresentations mar the presentation by the
Coleman Planning Group. This quote from section 5.1, pages 5-1
and 5-2 illustrate a series of serious omissions:
"Agriculture poses at least two threats to Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve from pesticide infil-
tration and increased erosion rates. Pesticides decrease
water quality and have proven to be a hazard to several
species of wildlife. Some persistent pesticides become con-
centrated rapidly through the natural process of normal food
chains. Agriculture also disrupts soil binding which is
important in preventing excessive runoff, or erosion. Runoff
from frequently disked fields transports sediments which fill
riparian areas with abnormal sediment amounts."
To gain information on agricultural land use, I called the San
Diego Farm Bureau at 619 - 745 - 3023 and spoke with Mr. David
Owen.
With information provided by Mr. Owen, I counter the first
assertion by the associates of Coleman Planning Group, that of
pesticides threatening the eco-systems of the Encinitas Creek and
the Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve. The Coleman Planning
Group does not mention that pesticide application is a process
regulated by State and Federal laws, involving permits and
licenses, with severe penalties for violations of law. Nowhere
does the Coleman Planning Group mention the abuse of pesticides by
residential applicants. Agricultural use of the Green Valley lands
guarantee maximum protection of the delicate Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon eco-systems from pesticides. Residential
development of Green Valley removes all protections whatsoever.
If the Coleman associates had the dedication to their work to call
the San Diego County Farm Bureau at 619 - 745 - 3023, they would
learn this in one phone call.
Allow me to counter the second assertion, that of frequent disking.
The disking of fields is a practice at the discretion of the indi-
vid.ua! manager of agricultural lands. If the Coleman associates
read newspapers, trade publications, or had the dedication to their
assignment to call the San Diego County Farm Bureau, they would
learn that farmers now employ several different disking techniques,
ranging from zero disking to deep disking, as the particular crop
demands.
The Coleman Planning Group omitted information on the careful
regulation of pesticide applications. They also omitted
information on the various disking techniques now employed in
agriculture. These omissions lead this reader to believe Coleman
Planning Group drafted this EIR with the intention to present
farming as the least desirable use of the Green Valley land.
I cannot believe the Coleman Planning Group, with years of
experience in preparing Environmental Impact Reports, did not know
of the San Diego County Farm Bureau or of the various State and
Federal laws regulating the operation of agricultural lands.
If the Coleman Group did not know the facts of agricultural use of
lands, or did not know of who to consult for information on agri-
cultural land use, the Green Valley Environmental Impact Report
should be discarded and the Coleman Planning Group should be dis-
qualified from the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports in
the future.
If the Coleman Group did know the facts of agricultural land use
and omitted those facts, they should be held liable for all the
expense created by this deeply flawed EIR.
Thank you,
ROBERT PAYNE
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009 619 - 753 - 0007
2122 Placido Ct.
Carlsbad, CA^ 92009
November 26, 1994- • \ . . . ..
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Villaqe Dr.
Carlsbad, CA:' 92008
Dear Mr. Lewis:
CITY COUNCIL READING FILE
It's about chanqinq Green Valley into 'a place with more
homes and jobs. What they plan on doinq isj puttinq
apartments and places for work . * Where: I? lifve,-riqht up the
,, street from Green Valley, there is a moderate amount of
.traffic in the morninq. lTfetehey%eha;ngfifeGr^n«iyaliey;,^there. -^-*ZiBc»»^^iVifo?^jii^^ia5^Jfea^w<*»^^iWife*;-!-j:d .1.*'$«*.*;will be more^traf f ic..in .the.^mA^l^^gj^au^^^Q^^l^people
wake up earlier so that-1h¥yscan- al-lrqet^toC"schooIT
•11 be
-•••f_t -Jiii^ w«^.~.-..«^^--«^^' »»»•••«-;'"^"T-*'*1*^^ .more peopleTrin qanqs. ^.hatj^js^e^c^ y *,
k ids^ >fi tlT^ng ^ j o i n i nq
Boy/Girl Scouts and about x others 'joinihq7shorts, "f^NOw that
leaves about z kids left. Out: of that only Jibout n kids are
qoinq to just; stay home and watch T.,V. -, Not Jill >of the those
kids will become qanq members,,;; some wilL jusjr-jplay in the^ ;
street. Those.who do now run a far iess chance of qettinq
hit than they will if they chanqe Green
that,Another concern^are more shops cominq Sn:;!>i I think t, •xi&3!i£eyL-'"3S •iaBfe*«jSS8S!i'H-',g"vVM*>»a>--!'-TEy-««*,v!fl<gaea<»iit.>.n~«.r.»- .. T..j9gse»r»!«te.s«Kri""-'^ — •*. c •«,shoul^n' c*BDUir«anv» more*ahloDs®=Pn«i3i^iJ^(^hle^s<^have;;be
and hasn't been bouqht yet.'fll^Anpther«-~»azwMilgJRfp*w^**3i£i¥<r**'~>-': «•-•*•e r ?^^F^t o o«ha s nexample ^ ,, , «.««.,«
why don't they* just-fill those bui-ldinqs and'jjwait on Green
.Valley.. Also ^with the shops'^'irhere" are alre^ady\enouqh of
them as it is .:-s After, all they'll; probably .put^he 'same ; kind
of thinqs as others hkve put; in places all ^pund jit. ,.^ '^
Sincerely,
Greqory Carroll
-..
^•^v,;^
no n&rice OF
Notes for April 5th, 1994 meeting of the City Council of Carlsbad:
Your honor and members of the City Coumcil
My name is Anthony Carter. My wife and I live at 7797-100 Caminito Monarca in
Monarch Villas, Monarch Villas is a 132 condominium complex located on the corner of
Levante and El Camino Real. All of the homes in Monarch Villas are within 500 feet of
the perimeter of the Green Valley Project; ours is less than 300 feet!
Tonight I would like to address the issue of FAIRNESS
It is my understanding that as prescribed by law in Carlsbad, all property owners
within 600 feet of a proposed development must be legally notified by mail of all
public meetings of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed project. I also
calculate that there are less than 1000 homes within 600 feet of the project.
I would like to state for the record that my wife and I have not received any
notices in the mail regarding the Green Valley project, including the mailing by the
city of the public meeting being held here tonight.
In addition, I speak for a group of residents who did not receive any notices in the
mail regarding meetings of the Planning Commission concerning the Green Valley
Project. At the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Monarch Villas Homeowners
Association on March 24th, when asked, none of the members present stated that
they had received notice of the Planning Committee meetings.
In my opinion THIS DOES NOT SEEM FAIR.
As we did not receive any notices, we were not in a position to study the proposal
being presented tonight nor make any comments regarding the project.
It seems strange to me, that, unless they were not aware of the project, no written
comments or recommendations were made by any residents of Monarch Villas
regarding the Environmental Impact Report or any of the documents mentioned in
tonight's agenda item 8 (the Master Plan, the General Plan Ammendment, the
Tentative Map, the Hillside Development Permit or the Special Use Permit) as, from
the turnout tonight, it seems logical that many people would have wanted the
opportunity to make comments if they had received proper notice.
We are not here tonight to voice total opposition to the development, but we
respectfully request a 90 DAY POSTPONEMENT of City Council action so that we
will have a reasonable chance to suggest some modifications and mitigations to the
proposal which will be more in keeping with the family neighborhood aspect of this
beautiful part of Carlsbad.
In my opinion, the property owners from Texas and the City government of Carlsbad
should be fully aware of our serious concerns to the proposed plan and sympathetic to
the issues being raised tonight. THIS SEEMS ONLY FAIR
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this matter to your attention
"jT)7s-7- • d&-^^^§(' dU^ Cj^
n A " ra- ^&jA m^ri.(>u/*5
To the
In the seventies, we bought our home in quiet, beautiful La
Costa. We enjoyed a scenic low density rural/suburban com-
munity around a world class resort. This changed soon after
the City of Carlsbad annexed ouf area.
The City of Carlsbad then launched a program of unrestrained
building in La Costa. Successive City Councils overruled
our objections. After excessive approvals by City Council,
even City Staff admits Carlsbad is over condo-ed. Traffic
in La Costa became a problem as did crowded schools. An
out-of-state developer promised a world-class resort north
of the Batiquitos Lagoon — an unfinished shell reminds us
of that scheme. Developers built shopping plazas at our
major intersections. And years later, many of the retail
spaces remain empty.
Now BIG-BOX discount stores are proposed for Green Valley,
once a beautiful expanse of flower fields at the south gate-
way of Carlsbad. Four proposed projects will span the La
Costa/Encinitas border. Traffic to and from these develop-
ments will generate ,Over 100,000 cars trips per day on El
Camino Real between Encinitas and La Costa Avenue.
Green Valley at the intersection of El Camino and La Costa
is ten miles from the City Council chambers. But it is OUR
neighborhood, our streets, our town. We did not buy homes
in La Costa knowing there would be 100,000 more cars coming
onto our streets (5 times the present traffic).
The City Planning Commission approved the Hunt Brothers pro-
prosal for Green Valley without considering the traffic gen-
erated by all the other projects either approved or about to
be approved. San Dieguito School District consultations
were brushed aside. Accounting does not appear to have been
taken of the present large number of unsold homes as well as
vacant retail space in La Costa.
The City Planning Commission did not use the latest infor-
mation on the surrounding area, in calculating impacts of
Carlsbad Partners' project in Green Valley. It all needs
further study before it goes before City Council. April 5th
Public Hearing is premature.
How do we require the City Council to apply good regional
planning principles to La Costa's build-out? How do we
require our leaders to show basic common sense?
Address:
Phone:
MARILYN RUDOFF
7732 PALACIO DRIVE,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009 753 - 0007
I DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE.
I DID NOT RECEIVE DUE PROCESS IN THE PLANNING
OF THIS SPECULATIVE, DESTRUCTIVE PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT WILL BE A DISASTER.
First, this is an unneeded project- Carlsbad already
has apartments cannot be rented, condos and houses
that cannot be sold, and hundreds of thousands of
square feet of vacant commercial space that cannot be
leased. The out-of-state speculators prepared their
own market studies to justify this project. The City
of Carlsbad accepted those studies without
examination. This project can only be judged as land
speculation.
Second, this a speculative project that will require the
City of Carlsbad to provide public services without
the certainty of tax revenues from the commercial
section of the project. Carlsbad is now providing
police and fire services to hundreds of empty resi-
dential units and commercial spaces. Vacant homes,
condos, offices, and retail outlets do not generate
revenue- yet police must patrol the areas and firemen
must remain on 24-hour standby. Nor do empty units
and retail fronts repay the investments in streets and
utilities. Look at the abandoned hotel on the north
shore of the lagoon. Does an empty shell earn money
for Carlsbad? Money wasted on protection for vacant
projects denies our community protection for our
homes- and steals funding from every other city
service.
Third, this speculative, tax-wasting project will end
the life we enjoy in La Costa. Traffic, crime,
pollution, noise, water-rationing. The traffic alone
will radically alter life in our area. We paid higher
real estate prices for homes in a community of quiet
neighborhoods and rolling green hills. Then comes
the crime and asphalt of a discount outlet sprawl.
This is not intelligent, planned development- this is
apartment projects, vast parking lots, and discount
outlets. Did we pay premium home prices for land
speculators to exploit our investments?
Fourth, this speculative, tax-wasting project will put
the children of La Costa Heights School in danger.
The Environmental Impact Report does not even
mention Levante Street east of £1 Camino Real. But
look at an aerial photo of the area. Levante looks like
an expressway. Yet four blocks east, homes line both
sides. Children play on the lawns and sidewalks.
Parked cars force children on bicycles to peddle into
the traffic lane. If the commercial center draws from
the region, drivers unfamiliar with our streets will
accelerate east, powering through the curves, then
suddenly come to a 25 MPH zone. Will they slow?
How fast will they be going when they pass La Costa
Heights School? Will discount prices at the mall cost
us the Jives of children?.
^ Xso .
(.,.t ror m^ rc>"i of \- i ^
:'/
V-
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER 25 APRIL, 1994
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING OFFICE APR 2 5 1991*
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE, «, ^,-**^aQ *»raAr»
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009 •
FAILURE TO NOTIFY AND PROVIDE DUE PROCESS ON GREEN VALLEY PLANNING
To Michael Holzmiller:
In the 25 March 1993 edition of the Carlsbad Sun, I saw in the back
pages of the newspaper a small Public Notice of Preparation for the
Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley land south of La
Costa Avenue and west of El Camino Real. I enclose a copy.
I wrote your office 20 April, within the legal deadline, to object
to the pointless development of Green Valley. I include a copy.
I never received a reply. Unfortunately, I assumed the Planning
Office had shelved the Green Valley project until such time as a
responsible developer approached the Planning Office with a
realistic concept of development.
However, I attended a public meeting 11 January where the
representative of the Hunt family of Dallas told the residents of
Carlsbad what the Hunt family, dba Carlsbad Partners, would build
on the Green Valley land. This came as a complete surprise.
As I had written your office objecting to the envisioned
development, I expected either a reply from your office or a mass
mailing announcement of community hearings. I received neither a
reply, or announcement, at any time before the public meeting in
January 1994.
that meeting, I learned that the City of Carlsbad and the
Carlsbad Partners had proceeded to design the project without input
from the La Costa community.
I object to the ill-advised project known as Green Valley
Crossings. The project will devastate the immediate La Costa area
and change forever the social, economic, and environmental quality
of Carlsbad.
The small announcement in the Carlsbad Sun alerted this individual
resident to the planning process. However, I am the only resident
in my neighborhood who saw that Public Notice. Your office did not
adequately notify my neighbors. Nor did your office offer the due
process of community involvement in the planning of the Green
Valley project after I wrote in response to the Public Notice.
The Green Valley Crossings projects as envisioned by the Carlsbad
Partners are deeply flawed. These commercial and residential
projects will destroy this area of Carlsbad and affect my life and
the lives of my wife and children. I came to Carlsbad to escape
the traffic, pollution, noise, and crime of Los Angeles. Also, I
do not want to pay taxes to provide city services to commercial and
residential projects that cannot succeed in the existing economic
environment of Carlsbad.
I want the Green Valley disaster stopped before it happens.
ROBERT PAYNE
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009 753 - 0007
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER 20 APRIL, 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
To the Planning Commission:
In regard to the plans to develop the open land, known as Green
Valley, west of El Camino Real and south of La Costa Avenue:
There is no point.
Does the south Carlsbad / Enciail^as yr>ea need more strip malls?
No. Retail spaces are vacant^ pVo^entyXmanagers cannot rent out
the shops. Developers cannot r^coyer cneir\investments on existing
commercial space. Why build me
Does the south Carlsbad^'/€ncdsnavtas area need more houses and
apartments? No. Houses standXemgpty on eveVy street in south
Carlsbad. Realtors cannot sel\ hoVses and condos. Why build more?
Does the south Carlsbad X Encinitas area need more traffic? No.
Heavy traffic is already degrj/aing the quality of life in Carlsbad.
Development of the Green Valley project will dump more commercial
and residential units on a glutted market. Traffic will increase
to intolerable levels— as evidenced by the Encinitas area of El
Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard.
If the Carlsbad Planning Commission wants to manage the growth of
Carlsbad and maintain the quality of the retail and residential
areas in south Carlsbad, the Commission will block all development
of the Green Valley project.
There are options that will enhance Carlsbad. Add Green Valley to
the state park on the north side of La Costa Avenue. Hold the land
empty for future development. Make the land a city park.
Carlsbad is nationally recognized as a leader in city planning.
I am sure the Planning Commission can discover a higher and better
use for this last open space in south Carlsbad. Any option is
preferred to empty shop fronts, vacant houses, and jammed streets.
ROBERT PAYNE POST OFFICE BOX 3073 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
January 4, 1995
Gregory Carroll
2122 Placido Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: MP 92-01 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
Dear Mr. Carroll:
Thank you for your interest in the Green Valley project. Your observations will be entered
into the file.
As you may be aware, the City Council directed Carlsbad Partners to conduct supplemental
studies of the proposed Green Valley Master Plan. Those supplemental studies are
currently being conducted and may be completed within the first quarter of this year, 1995.
Once the studies are completed the proposed Master Plan will be assessed in light of the
supplemental information and subsequently be brought before the Planning Commission and
City Council at public hearings.
If you own property within 600 feet of the proposed project, you will automatically receive
notice of the public hearings in the mail. The hearings will also be noticed in the
newspaper. If you are not a property owner but would like to receive notice of the public
hearings, please provide us with your name and address along with 64 cents for postage.
If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at this office by mail
or by telephone at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
Sincerely,
'^^
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
c: City Manager
Bobbie Hoder
File
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161
CITY OF CARLSfiA RECAST FOR ACTION
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Referred to
D Please Handle
D Investigate and Report
D Draft Reply for
D Please Call Requestor
Respond Directly/Send Copy of Response w/RFA
Signature
RETURN COMPLETED REQUEST TO BY
Requestor's Name
Address
q.v
Date
Phone ,
Explanation of Request Up&Q >€, Mf '• COffOll Of]
Requestor Notified of Action Taken: Ores D No
Handled By Dept./Div.Date
(Return original white copy with response)
2122 Placido Ct.
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
November 26, 1994
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Villaqe Dr
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
CITY COUNCIL READING FILE
t r~
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I am. writing, about the development of. Green: Valley. I
chose this because it will affect me a lot. That's because
it is very close to where I live.
It's about chanqinq Green Valley into a place with more
homes and jobs. What they plan on doinq is puttinq
apartments and places for work. Where I live, riqht up the
street from Green Valley, there is a moderate amount of
traffic in the morninq. If they chanqe Green Valley, there
will be more traffic in the morninq because not all pellple
will be able to work close to their homes. So they miqht
have to chanqe the bus schedule to make the kids have ,taa
wake up earlier so that they can all qet to school on rame.
Another point is that with more children there'll be
more people in qanqs. That's because there'll be about y
kids with nothinq to do after school so about n kids~joininq
Boy/Girl Scouts and about x others joininq sports. Now that
leaves about z kids left. Out of that only about n kids are
qoinq to just stay home and watch T.V. Not all of the those
kids will become qanq members, some will just play in the
street. Those who do now run a far less chance of qettinq
hit than they will if they chanqe Green Valley.
Another concern are more shops cominq in. I think that
they shouldn't put any more shops in until others have been
filled. Close to Green Valley is the old Olive Garden.
It's been .closed and hasn't been bouqht yet. Another
example is the ol<? Sizzler. It too hasn't been bouqht. ..So
why don't they just fill those buildinqs and wait on Green
Valley. Also with the shops, there are already enouqh of
them as it is. After ail thev'll probably put the same kind
of thinqs as others have put in places all around it.
Sincerely,
Greqory Carroll
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Novembers, 1995
Mr. Allen Farris
Carlsbad Partners LTD.
PO Box 210129
Dallas TX 75211
SUBJECT: MP 92-01/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/LCPA 93-06/HDP 92-15/SUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project is enclosed. This preliminary
report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.)
meeting which will be held on Monday, November 20, 1995. A twenty (20) minute
appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibits(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your
colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Christer
Westman, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
CITY AD
Director
GEW:CW:kc
Enclosure
c: Thomas Hageman
Allen Farris
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1 576 • (619)438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Novembers, 1995
Mr. Thomas Hageman, President
Planning Systems
Suite 100
2111 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad CA 92-9
SUBJECT: MP 92-01/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/LCPA 93-06/HDP 92-15/SUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project is enclosed. This preliminary
report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.)
meeting which will be held on Monday, November 20, 1995. A twenty (20) minute
appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibits(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your
colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Christer
Westman, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
CITY/OF CARLSBAD
GARY/E. WAYNE/
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:CW:kc
Enclosure
c: Gary B. Wood
Allen Farris
2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 9, 1995
Mr. Gary B. Wood
P&D Technologies
Suite 2500
401 West "A" Street
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: MP 92-01/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/GPA 93-01/LCPA 93-06/HDP 92-15/SUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project is enclosed. This preliminary
report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.)
meeting which will be held on Monday, November 20, 1995. A twenty (20) minute
appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions
concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibits(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your
colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Christer
Westman, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
JARY/E. WAYNf
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:CW:kc
Enclosure
c: Thomas Hageman
Allen Farris
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
January 10, 1996
Gary B. Wood
P&D Technologies
401 West "A" Street, Suite 2500
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT 92-08/HDP 92-15/SUP
92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
At the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 1995, and December 20 1995,
your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-1 (Erwin) to APPROVE AS
AMENDED your request. Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others
automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final
dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:CW:kr
Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3855, 3856, 3857, 3859, 3860, and
3861
c: Allen Farris, Carlsbad Partners Limited
Thomas Hageman, Planning Systems
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 23, 1994
Ben Smith
3017 Azahar Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: GREEN VALLEY - MP 92-01
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed are copies from the California Environmental Quality Act regarding statutes of
limitation.
If you should have any further questions, please call me at 438-1161 extension 4448.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
enclosure
c: file LTR=SMTH.001
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1 576 - (619)438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 23, 1994
Richard Barnes
7623 Rustico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: GREEN VALLEY - MP 92-01
Dear Richard:
I was able to trace the history of the zoning on the Green Valley property back to 1983
when the property was annexed into the city.
Prior to the annexation it was within the County of San Diego San Dieguito Community
Plan as 234 acres of R-L (Residential Low 2.9 dwellings per acre), 39 acres of FP
(Floodplain), and 7 acres of NC (Neighborhood Commercial). The County zoning was
Commercial (C), Limited and General Agriculture (A-l-8, A-70-8, A-72-8), and Floodplain
(FP).
Coastal Commission Land Use Designations were 2 acres of Neighborhood Commercial
(NC), 59 acres of Ecological Resource Area (ERA), and a 219 acres of Agricultural
Cropland, Specific Plan 2.8 dwellings per acre [AC(SPA, 2.8)].
If you have any further questions, please call me at 438-1161 extension 4448.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
c:file LTR-BRNS.OOl
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 28, 1994
Mrs. Anna Caples
3117 Vista Rica
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
RE: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - MP 92-01
Dear Mrs. Caples:
Enclosed is an excerpt from the Green Valley Master Plan. Full documentation can be
found at the La Costa branch library or the main branch library.
I understand that the project has been scheduled for hearing with the City Council on April
5, 1994.
If you should have any further questions, please call me at 438-1161 extension 4448.
Sincerely,
(^fmt^
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
enclosure
CW:lh
LTR-CPLS.001
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161
BAAK CONSULTING GROUP
PROJECT AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
X
May 4, 1993
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
2075 Las Palraas
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
Re: Green Valley Project
Dear Michael,
Thank you for allowing us to present the Green Valley project at
our meeting of April 27, 1993. We understand that you may have a
variety of concerns about the project which could not be covered
during this introductory meeting. Therefor, we look forward to
your continued willingness to review project direction and
progress as the details are worked out.
To clarify my involvement, I have been asked by the Carlsbad
Partners, Ltd. to bridge the gap between the day-to-day project
activities and assurance that the project fully conforms to all
your ordinances, implementing policies, and strategic direction.
In that regard, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with
you from time to time to do some "reality" checking.«
Thanks again for your courtesy, and we look forward to your
continued active participation and candid direction.
Yours truly,
Marinus W. Baak, P.E.
Principal
10265 MESA MADERA DRIVE • SAN DIEGO • CA 92131 • (619) 578-6331