Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 98-01; Villages of La Costa; Master Plan (MP) (3)/ '• October 13,1998 TO: SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Management Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS I have reviewed the draft language for the affordable housing sections of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The following are my suggested changes/modifications: 1. Master Plan Requirements - The second paragraph states that should the actual number of market rate units be less than that which was approved, then the number of inclusionary units would be reduced accordingly. Because the Housing and Redevelopment Department is not involved in the tentative map process, we would not aware of any reductions total units approved. This situation creates a monitoring problem for this department. In past mater plan projects (Rancho Carrillo & Poinsettia Properties), staff has required that the total number of inclusionary units be clearly stated in both the Master Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement. Should the developer construct fewer units, the Affordable Housing Agreement could be amended. Such an amendment could be done administratively. Please direct the applicant to revise this section accordingly. 2. Timing - The first paragraph, second sentence should state that the developer shall receive approval of a Site Development Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the recordation of the first final map or issuance of any development permit. Second, the bullet points listed in this section seek to establish specific timing for the approval and construction of the affordable units which is in conflict with previous actions and policies of the Housing Commission. The applicant should be aware that previously approved master plans have been able to construct between 25% - 35% of the market rate units prior to construction of their affordable project, and must complete the affordable project prior to constructing 50% -75% of the market rate project. The exact percentages depend on the construction phasing and financing mechanisms involved. However, the timing of the affordable units will be determined by the Housing Commission and City Council through the approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement. Please direct the applicant to delete the last three bullets items. 3. Approach - The developer proposes to meet their inclusionary housing obligation through the construction of on-site affordable housing units, second dwelling units and payments into the Carlsbad Homebuyer Assistance Program (CHAP). First, the Housing and Redevelopment Department does not support the payment of fees into the CHAP as a means of satisfying the project's affordable housing requirement. Staff has stated this to the applicant previously. Please direct the applicant to delete all references to this option. Second, it is the current policy of the Housing Commission to allow a developer to satisfy up to 20% of their inclusionary housing requirement through the provision of second dwelling units. The applicant should be aware that the City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan Housing Element. With the recent changes to the housing element regulations, second dwelling units will not count towards meeting the City's regional share of affordable housing. Therefore, it is highly possible that through the housing element update, second units may no longer be an option for meeting a project's inclusionary housing obligation. The draft language should be revised to state that should the project produce second dwelling units, there is no guarantee they will be counted towards meeting the developer's inclusionary housing obligation. Third, the Housing and Redevelopment Department supports the construction of on-site affordable housing units. 4. Greens/ La Costa Ridge/Oaks - The language in these sections should be revised relative to the comments above. As we discussed previously, we may want to discuss this project at our Wednesday morning housing team meetings. Also, you may want to direct the applicant to meet with the Housing and Redevelopment Director and/or myself to discuss the above comments. Please let me know how you want to proceed. CRAIG RUIZ CR:cr £itv of CgFVlsbad Planning Department October 15, 1998 Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Jack: MP 98-01 - CHAPTER 5 OF THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN Enclosed are Planning Department comments on the remainder of Chapter 5 of the second draft of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. This covers pages 5-73 through 5-195. Comments on pages 5-1 through 5-72 were provided at our meeting on October 7, 1998. Please revise the draft master plan as requested. We can discuss any questions you may have concerning these comments at our scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. One of the primary issues with the neighborhood development standards is the need to resolve the conflict in setback standards between the individual neighborhood standards, setbacks established in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan and the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. Review will proceed on the remaining chapters. You will be provided with Engineering Department comments on Chapter 5 as soon as they are available. Sincerely, DON NEU Senior Planner DN:kc Enclosures Fred Arbuckle, Morrow Development Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-11 61 • FAX (760) 438-0894 © C £itv of CaTrlsbad py Planning Department September 15, 1998 Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Dear Jack: MP 98-01 - CHAPTER 4 OF THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN Enclosed are Planning and Engineering Department comments on Chapter 4 of the second draft of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Please revise the draft master plan as requested. We can discuss any questions you may have concerning these comments at our scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 23, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. Review will proceed on the remaining chapters. You will be provided with comments on Chapter 5 as soon as City staff has completed reviewing that chapter. Sincerely, . &&crr\ / 4tf DON NEU Senior Planner DN:mh Enclosures Fred Arbuckle, Morrow Development Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 ® Memorandum TO: Senior Planner, Don Neu FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: September 15, 1998 MP 98 - 01 : Villages of La Costa - The Greens of La Costa 2ND REVIEW OF TEXT CHAPTERS 1 - 4. Engineering Department staff has completed a 2ND review of the above-referenced project. As we have discussed and keeping on schedule for our bi-weekly workshop/meetings, I have attached comments for chapters 1 thru 4. Please pass these comments along to the applicant or his representative with the understanding that more will follow. GENERAL COMMENTS: The traffic issues of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will need to be addressed. The Zone Plans, and the Master Plan must resolve appropriate mitigation and phasing of development. The adjacent projects, Bressi Ranch, and Tech-Built (Tchang) have also been notified of this important issue. Rather than 3 separate traffic reports that point the responsible finger at each other or 3 different solutions that are unacceptable or unfeasible, a common report or common model based upon approved assumptions would be ideal. Additional improvements i.e.: The extension of Poinsettia Lane from I-5 to Melrose Drive and similarly, the extension of Faraday Ave. from El Camino Real to Vista will need to be constructed up front concurrent with development. We believe that the ECR / PAR intersection will fail before we can approve the project as proposed. The arterial classification of Alicante Road has not been resolved. The existing Circulation Element identifies both Alicante Road and El Fuerte as Secondary Arterials, the master plan and Bressi Ranch development would complete this arterial loop. As a by-pass or arterial of least resistance, this designation makes sense. Given the above mentioned issue with El Camino Real / Palomar Airport Road greater traffic projections should be anticipated. All exhibits should be updated to show Melrose Ave., El Fuerte and Carrillo Master Plan areas. TABLE OF CONTENTS: A cover sheet with Commission and Council Resolution Numbers with approval dates should be provided. A change or revision table should be provided anticipating the growth or evolution of this as a master plan document. The Master Plan cover sheet can also reflect the associated application numbers for this project. Again room to grow and identification of other projects as an index should be anticipated. CHAPTER 1: 1.4.1 -6c. The discussion of "remainder" parcels should be omitted in chapter 1. 1.4.2-4. The Floodplain Special Use Permit should be part of the Master Plan application, up front. We cannot approve development or alignment plans without the preliminary application and associated findings. What if the special use permit is denied ? How could the remaining master plan areas stand alone ? 1.7-6 and the following paragraph: The special Use permit / floodplain applications may require mitigation or alteration that should be accounted for in this portion of the text as well as leaving room for dedications or agreements that will eventually control the floodplain areas. CHAPTER 2: This chapter should identify the proposed arterial access and street system as well as the proposed pedestrian element. CHAPTER 3: Section 3.2.2 (entire section) should be rewritten to read more like the City's substantial conformance policy. Generally the "up to 10%" and Administrative amendments should follow existing process and procedure. 3.4 Rewrite the latter part of this section to comply with master plan amendments 1st and followed by appropriate mapping remedies ie: Lot Line Adjustment, Re-subdivision, or Parcel Map for adjustment plat purposes. 3.4 - 3. A grading plan may not be required for all development. Reword "shall" to "may". Add "In compliance with grading ordinance or more specifically Chapter 15.16 C.M.C. 3.7 A Local Facilities table would be appropriate to tie these two plans together. There will be phasing issues and facility requirements that should be made clear up front for all to understand. CHAPTER 4: 4.2.2 We did not review conceptual grading plans with this round of process. If stockpile or borrow sites are proposed this section should be revised. I believe a "rough" grading concept will be acceptable with final or precise grading to occur as part of additional development with specific design issues to follow. The "rough" grading will be limited to small areas leaving a more stable, natural terrain for "precise" or final grading to occur later.. 4.2.3 Areas of grading for the master plan may not be as extensive as shown on exhibit 4-2. The areas shown on exhibit 4-2 are vague and cannot be located to contour or to property line. Perhaps another exhibit of "rough" grading would be more clear. A better suggestion would be to delete reference to an obscure exhibit altogether. 4.3 This section should include reference to proposed arterials, Alicante Road and Oaks Road. The exhibit should also be revised to show Oaks Road and Alicante Road. 4.3.2 Please include discussion about cul de sac streets and the cul de sac policy. Secondary access requirements and turn around issues would also be appropriate. Access as emergency in contrast to secondary should be discussed. This topic is always a problem with future development and trying to retro-fit a call box or turnaround that provides a queuing area off the street and away from the first proposed unit or driveway. A few details would help resolve these problems. Points of access should be accommodated based upon the maximum proposed units. Exhibit 4-6 A 56' / 36' street section is for a "cul de sac street. Also discussion about wider sections and secondary access based on number of units or lots would be a good idea. 4.4.1 -5. Setbacks for all garages or parking areas shall be 20' minimum. (Otherwise the car overhangs the sidewalk) 4.4.2 4.6 Include discussion about corner sight distance 4.7.3, keep fences back from encroachment. 4.9 Views are discussed in a planning and layout sense. Additional discussion about view easements and property rights and also about private maintenance issues. The only view preservation or maintenance restrictions I am aware of are for sight distance corridors related to vehicular and pedestrian safety. Thank You for your patience and teamwork. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. CLYDE WICKHAM Associate Engineer Land Development Division c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, Land Use Review September 11, 1998 TO:SENIOR PLANNER - NEU FROM: Recreation & Park Planning Manager ALGA NORTE PARK SITE In response to your memorandum requesting information regarding the Alga Norte Park site and the Villages of La Costa, I would like to confirm with you that our Department is anticipating the acquisition of the entire 32.9 acre site for recreational facilities. Depending upon the ultimate number of units and densities associated with the Villages of La Costa, we realize that the City will be required to pay RECM $175,000 per acre for any additional land which is dedicated over their required amount. Furthermore, the 1996 Agreement (Section 4.7 "payment program") is very specific and clearly outlines the cost to purchase the excess parkland, the funding sources and the time schedule for payment in addition to the discretion that the City Council has in relationship to all of the above items (Attachment). It should also be noted that the City is not interested in a joint use development with the Carlsbad School District which would utilize any portion of the 32.9 acre park site. We plan on using the entire 32.9 acres for active recreation activities, i.e., athletic fields, sports complex and swim pool/complex. From our perspective RECM's requirement to dedicate a site for the Carlsbad School District should in no way delay or interfere with the liEsyocable Offer of Dedication for the 32.9 acre Alga Norte Park site. KENRRICE Attachment: c: Assistant City Manager Planning Director Sr. Management Analyst - Keith Beverly Park Planning Coordinator 4.7 Payment Program If the City accepts the Park IOD in an amount in excess of the amount of total Parkland Requirement as computed in Section 3.2 as adjusted from time to time, the City shall pay RECM for such excess dedication. The amount of excess parkland shall be determined by subtracting the amount of parkland required in Section 3.2, as adjusted from time to time, from the number of acres actually accepted by the City under this Agreement, plus any remaining Existing Parkland Credits. The total payment, due RECM for excess parkland accepted, if any, by the City shall be equal to the amount of excess parkland computed as described above times $175,000 per acre which amount shall be the total payment due. Payment to RECM shall be made from Park In-Lieu Fees collected in the Southeast Quadrant deemed to be available by the City Council at V the earliest opportunity. If Park In-Lieu fees from the Southeast Quadrant are insufficient or unavailable to fully pay RECM the amount due under this section, the City shall annually review the amount of Park In-Lieu Fees received within the Southeast Quadrant and shall pay to RECM any fees that are deemed to be available by the City Council on a first priority basis until the total amount due has been paid. No interest shall accrue on any unpaid balance. The City shall in any event make the first payment under this section to RECM by the thirty-first day of July following the date of acceptance of the Park IOD. The City Council may, at its discretion, approve an earlier payment, if funds are available. The City is not obligated in any way to make payments to RECM from any source other than Park In-Lieu Fees collected in the Southeast Quadrant. 4.8 Accommodation in Northwest Master Plan RECM shall continue to include the location of the Park IOD in its future planning for the Northwest, and shall provide for alternative development should the City determine to satisfy all or a portion of the Southeast Quadrant Requirement from other property or in another manner. The parties agree to cooperate reasonably in the future planning process for the Northwest in order to achieve the purpose of this Agreement. August 31, 1998 TO: RECREATION & PARK PLANNING MANAGER FROM: Senior Planner/Neu ALGA NORTE PARK SITE Processing of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan is proceeding. The La Costa Greens Village Development Plan portion of the Master Plan includes the area of the future Alga Norte Park site. Based on decisions made at our July 29, 1998 meeting I have instructed Fred Arbuckle the project applicant that the City wishes to maintain the ability to develop park uses on the entire 32.9 acres identified in the 1996 Parks Agreement. The result of this decision for the La Costa Greens Village is the displacement of the proposed Carlsbad Unified School District elementary school site. In response to my correspondence Fred Arbuckle has sent the attached letter concerning the Villages of La Costa project's park demand, projected future park fee revenue from the southeast quadrant, and other related issues. Please review the attached letter. For planning purposes it needs to be confirmed that the City will purchase the additional acreage over and above what is required by the proposed project. The project applicant is also requesting that the city identify the potential revenue source and timing for payment of the acquisition costs in excess of the required dedication, less the existing credits. Otherwise the proposed master plan will contain two potential school sites. One will be on a portion of the Alga Norte Park site in case the city does not acquire the entire site. An alternative school site would also need to be identified in the master plan. I appreciate your attention to this matter as it has a major impact on the land use plan for the La Costa Greens Village of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Your written response will provide direction for the Planning Department and the project applicant as we proceed in working through the project issues. Should you have any questions regarding this request please contact me at extension 4446. DON NEU DN/b Attachment Senior Management Analyst/Beverly Park Development Coordinator Principal Planner/Landers Associate Engineer/Wickham VALLE^ August 11, 1998 Don Neu Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Dear Don: I am in receipt of two of your letters regarding the siting of a Carlsbad School Site within our La Costa Greens property. These letters indicate that the Parks Department has elected to take all of the area (32.9 acres) reserved under the terms of the 1996 Parks Agreement. Please understand that we acknowledge the 1996 Parks Agreement and do not wish to modify its terms. However, there are several important issues which must be resolved and facts which should be discussed before we all agree that the entire reserved area will ultimately include only a park. 1. The reserved area of 32.9 acres exceeds the park needs of the Southeast Quadrant by 14.29 acres. I have attached a table which indicates that the total park needs for the quadrant at buildout is 123.85 acres and the supply is 105.24 acres prior to the development of Alga Norte Park, leaving a net need of 18.61 acres. The inclusion of the entire 32.9 acres of Alga Norte Park results in a total of 138.14 acres or a supply 14.29 acres in excess of demand. 2. The reserved area of 32.9 acres exceeds the park requirements of the Villages of La Costa's future demand by 24.19 acres. Based upon our current Master Plan submittal, our development will generate a need for 15.54 acres. The 1996 Parks Agreement memorializes the fact that after the development of La Costa Valley we will have 6.831 acres of Parkland credits remaining. Subtracting this credit amount from our 15.54 acres of need, leaves 8.709 acres of unmet park requirements. Therefore, we will be required to dedicate 8.709 acres of Alga Norte Park to meet our park requirements and the City will be required to purchase the remaining 24.19 acres of park. 3. There are not sufficient revenues from future developments to offset the cost of acquiring the 24.19 acres of park. We show that a total of 1262 new homes will be built in the quadrant, other than those within the Villages of La Costa. This will generate a need of 9.901 acres of park or 14.29 acres less than the 24.19 acres the city will have to acquire. If we assume that all 1262 homes pay the maximum park fee of $1575 per single family home, it will generate only $1,987,650. In accordance with the 1996 Parks Agreement, the City must pay for $175,000 per acre for any land used for the park in excess of our required dedication, less the existing credits. This amounts to a total of payment of $4,233,250 for the 24.19 acres. This amount exceeds the future fees by $2,245,600. We need to understand the source and timing for payment of these additional funds. 4. Joint Use versus Adjoining Uses. If we were to allocate a full 10 acres of the 32.9 acres to the school, we will still have 22.9 acres available for the park. This results in a net of 4.09 acres in excess of quadrant demand (see No. 1 above; 18.61 acres of unmet quadrant demand prior to Alga Norte Park). Therefore, we are able to meet quadrant demand while having both facilities in place adjacent to one another. We are not requesting parkland credit for the school facilities against our park requirements. We do believe, however, that both the school and park uses could take advantage of common parking and play field areas. This will allow increased efficiency of the remaining areas which may already exceed spatial requirements. 5. Delay of Processing. We do not believe that this issue should cause any delay in the processing of the Master Plan application. Section 4.8 of the 1996 Parks Agreement states that RECM's future planning "shall provide for alternative development". I believe we can agree on an alternate site within Carlsbad School District, annotate the Master Plan accordingly, and proceed with the EIR as we resolve this issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Fred M. Arbuckle President, Morrow Development, Inc. •^r "^ City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 27, 1998 Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5431 Avenida Enemas, Suite J Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: MP 98-01 - SECOND DRAFT OF THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN Dear Jack: I have completed reviewing Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the second draft of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan submitted on August 5, 1998. Comments are noted on the enclosed copy of the first three chapters. Please revise the draft master plan as requested. We can discuss any questions you may have concerning these comments at our scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. Review will proceed on the remaining chapters. I will provide you with comments on Chapter 4 as soon as I have completed my review of it. Sincerely, DON NEU Senior Planner DN:mh Enclosures Fred Arbuckle, Morrow Development Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894 LA COSTAW VALLEY August 11,1998 Don Neu Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Dear Don: I am in receipt of two of your letters regarding the siting of a Carlsbad School Site within our La Costa Greens property. These letters indicate that the Parks Department has elected to take all of the area (32.9 acres) reserved under the terms of the 1996 Parks Agreement. Please understand that we acknowledge the 1996 Parks Agreement and do not wish to modify its terms. However, there are several important issues which must be resolved and facts which should be discussed before we all agree that the entire reserved area will ultimately include only a park. 1. The reserved area of 32.9 acres exceeds the park heeds of the Southeast Quadrant by 14.29 acres. I have attached a table which indicates that the total park needs for the quadrant at buildout is 123.85 acres and the supply is 105.24 acres prior to the development of AlgaNorte Park, leaving a net need of 18.61 acres. The inclusion of the entire 32.9 acres of AlgaNorte Park results in a total of 138.14 acres or a supply 14.29 acres in excess of demand. 2. The reserved area of 32.9 acres exceeds the park requirements of the Villages of La Costa's future demand by 24.19 acres. Based upon our current Master Plan submittal, our development will generate a need for 15.54 acres. The 1996 Parks Agreement memorializes the fact that after the development of La Costa Valley we will have 6.831 acres of Parkland credits remaining. Subtracting this credit amount from our 15.54 acres of need, leaves 8.709 acres of unmet park requirements. Therefore, we will be required to dedicate 8.709 acres of Alga Norte Park to meet our park requirements and the City will be required to purchase the remaining 24.19 acres of park. 3. There are not sufficient revenues from future developments to offset the cost of acquiring the 24.19 acres of park. We show that a total of 1262 new homes will be .built in the quadrant, other than those within the Villages of La Costa. This will generate a need of 9.901 acres of park or 14.29 acres less than the 24.19 acres the city will have to acquire. If we assume that all 1262 homes pay the maximum park fee of $1575 per single family home, it will generate only $1,987,650. In accordance with the 1996 Parks SALES INFORMATION 1760] 736-1777 P. O. Box 9000-685 • CARLSBAD. CA. 92018-9000 • TELEPHONE [760] 929-2701 • FACSIMILE [760] 929-2705 Agreement, the City must pay for $175,000 per acre for any land used for the park in excess of our required dedication, less the existing credits. This amounts to a total of payment of $4,233,250 for the 24.19 acres. This amount exceeds the future fees by $2,245,600. We need to understand the source and timing for payment of these additional funds. 4. Joint Use versus Adjoining Uses. If we were to allocate a full 10 acres of the 32.9 acres to the school, we will still have 22.9 acres available for the park. This results in a net of 4.09 acres in excess of quadrant demand (see No. 1 above; 18.61 acres of unmet quadrant demand prior to Alga Norte Park). Therefore, we are able to meet quadrant demand while having both facilities in place adjacent to one another. We are not requesting parkland credit for the school facilities against our park requirements. We do believe, however, that both the school and park uses could take advantage of common parking and play field areas. This will allow increased efficiency of the remaining areas which may already exceed spatial requirements. 5. Delay of Processing. We do not believe that this issue should cause any delay in the processing of the Master Plan application. Section 4.8 of the 1996 Parks Agreement states that RECM's future planning "shall provide for alternative development". I believe we can agree on an alternate site within Carlsbad School District, annotate the Master Plan accordingly, and proceed with the EIR as we resolve this issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Fred M. Arbuckle President, Morrow Development, Inc. 7682 <£/ ^etmino • SPuite 2O9 tfotoUti 92009 436-4665 8-10-98 Don Neu City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Re: PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE 11 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Don: Our signature on this letter signifies that as property owners in Local Facilities Management Zone 11 we agree to allow Morrow Development, Inc. to prepare the amendment to Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan. However, our signature on this letter does not waive any rights we have to comment on or protest the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment when it is heard at a public hearing. We also understand that Morrow Development, Inc. will pay all costs associated with the proposed amendment. Sincerely, 'c / fjar MAG Properties Te.;d Aroney J^ Date City of Carlsbad Planning Department August?, 1998 Fred Arbuckle Morrow Development P.O. Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 SUBJECT: MP 98-01 - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN ISSUES Dear Fred, I received the submittal of the second draft of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan on August 5, 1998. The purpose of this letter is to remind you of previously requested information needed for the review of your proposed project, provide the current status and steps necessary to resolve the issue of providing an elementary school site within Local Facilities Management Zone 10, and finally to provide to you in written form the basic stage at which the project must be prior to a scope of work being developed for the Environmental Impact Report that will need to be prepared on the proposed project entitlements. The city transmitted review comments on the first draft of the master plan to you along with a letter deeming the master plan, general plan amendment, and zone change applications complete on May 21, 1998. Included with that letter was a list of issues of concern which in some cases requires the submittal of information that is not included in the text of a master plan. The requested information is still required but has not yet been submitted. Please submit a written response to the items listed in the city's letter dated May 21, 1998 indicating how the issues identified have been dealt with. A written response also needs to be provided indicating how comments noted in the master plan text and on the conceptual grading plan were addressed. One method of addressing this for the master plan text would be to provide strikeout/underline copies of the master plan text. City staff is open to other suggestions as to how revisions made from the first draft of the text can be indicated. For your information the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 and the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 will be reviewed by Don Rideout who is the project manager for those two applications. Neither LFMP has been deemed complete at this time. I have been in contact with John Blair of the Carlsbad Unified School District and Dennis Cunningham of Planning Systems the district's consultant concerning the Zone 10 Elementary School site noted on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. As you are aware from our recent 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 conversations and my August 4, 1998 letter regarding the Alga Norte park site, the school site proposed in the draft master plan will be displaced by the Parks Department reservation of the entire 32.9 acres identified in the 1996 Parks Agreement. The school district representatives have indicated that a school site is necessary within LFMP Zone 10. Several sites within LFMP Zone 17 have already .been rejected by the state Bureau of Aviation according to John Blair. The site needs to be a minimum of 10 net useable acres. The district representatives have also indicated that you may be proposing to adjust the school district boundary so that all of Zone 10 will be within the Carlsbad Unified School District. If the boundary were to be adjusted it would provide more opportunities for providing the necessary school site. It is requested that you analyze the proposed master plan with the idea of providing several alternative school site locations. The sites will then need to be reviewed by the city, school district, and the state for their acceptability. The identified sites or sites would then be included in the master plan documents. Should the preferred school site be within the San Marcos Unified School District boundary it would have to be noted as an optional site should the school district boundary be relocated. A site within the current boundary of the Carlsbad Unified School District would also be required. The master plan would have to identify the type of residential use, number of units and the development standards for the neighborhood planning areas should it not be developed as a school. Environmental review of the project cannot be initiated until almost all project issues are resolved. When staff completes reviewing the master plan and only a few minor issues remain an initial study will be prepared to scope the content of the required environmental impact report (EIR). A preliminary listing of environmental issues for the project will then be provided to the assigned staff planner in the Special Projects team of the Planning Department who will coordinate with you and your consultant the preparation of the Program EIR for the project. In the meantime studies that identify existing or potential resources on the property can be done such as archaeology and paleontology should you so desire. Should you have any questions concerning the issues covered in this letter please feel free to contact me at 438-1161, extension 4446. Sincerely, Don Neu Senior Planner DN:dch Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 4, 1998 Fred Arbuckle Morrow Development P.O. Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 SUBJECT: MP 98-01 - ALGA NORTH PARK IN THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN Dear Fred: On July 29, 1998 a meeting was held between Planning Department and Parks and Recreation Department staff for the purpose of determining the required acreage for the future Alga Norte Park site. The Parks Department would like to reserve in the proposed master plan exclusively for park use the entire 32.9 acres identified in the 1996 Parks Agreement and the existing easement dedication. As a result of this decision the master plan should be revised to be consistent with the Parks Department's determination. The 32.9 acre area is a minimum net area that should not include right-of-way for the proposed extension of Alicante Road. As a result of complying with the 1996 Parks Agreement, a new site must be identified for the Carlsbad Unified School District Elementary School site that was proposed north of the 25.8 acre park site. That school site was only 6.8 gross acres in area which is much smaller than the minimum acreage identified in the past by the school district for an elementary school site. Pursuant to the provisions found on page 22 of the General Plan Land Use Element, I will be contacting the school district's facilities planner to arrange a meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to determine if the district will require a school site within Local Facilities Management Zone 10 and if so the desired size and location. Pending issues such as these need to be resolved prior to an Initial Study being prepared to scope the environmental issues requiring analysis in an Environmental Impact Report for the project. I will update you in regard to any requests made by the Carlsbad Unified School District concerning a school site in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. Sincerely, DON NEU Senior Planner DN:mh Adrienne Landers Mark Steyaert Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 Uiduiig Design Group, Inc. July 15, 1998 RECEIVED Mr. Clyde Wickham . . . . * c City of Carlsbad * JUL ' rr^ ENGINEERINGCarlsbad, CA 92009-1576 DEPARTMENT RE: COLINA ROBLE (CT 98-02/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-01) (LAD WIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. JOB NO. L-1039) Dear Clyde: - -- I have obtained some information from the City of Encinitas reference Rancho Santa Fe Road that I thought I should pass on to you. I am still concerned about the requirement to do full major arterial grading through the flood plain area of Encinitas Creek within the Wiegand Property/Colina Roble. As I have indicated before, we have no problem showing the dedication of the 102 foot right-of-way within the property but would prefer to grade the road as a secondary arterial. The information that I received from Encinitas does support a position for a roadway narrower than the Carlsbad standard for a major arterial. Please find attached to this letter two items that I have obtained from the City of Encinitas. The first is a series of items from Rob Blough, who is their traffic engineer. The items that he sent is the copy of the circulation element, their roadway classifications and a description of their various roadway levels as well as examples of augmented roadways. The second item is from Gary Barbaric, who is their Advanced Planner. What he had sent me was the minutes from the City Council meeting in Encinitas of July 10, 1996. Item No. 7 on the top of the last page was the Staff recommendation to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road immediately south of Carlsbad from an augmented local street (2 lane to a collector road) to a four lane divided road. According to Gary, there was considerable opposition from the people along the roadway and the Council tabled the matter. In addition, according to Gary, whom I have mentioned is their Advanced Planner, there are no plans to bring this back up to the Council or to change the classification. The current classification of the roadway is an augmented local street. The existing road classification, the augmented local road, is a two lane road with one lane in each direction. The augmented status allows the City to add additional turning lanes at intersections to help traffic mitigation. 703 Palomar Rirport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009 (760)438-3182 FflX (760) 438-0173 Mr. Clyde Wickham July 15, 1998 Page 2 I think this information supports our request to dedicate the full 102 foot right-of-way, to grade and improve the road based on a secondary arterial which is 84 feet wide. I understand that the current circulation element does show Rancho Santa Fe Road in this area as the 102 foot road and again, we would support reserving the right-of-way for this type of roadway. Based on what the City of Encinitas has adopted immediately to the south of this area along with what the City of Carlsbad has done in estimating the cost for Rancho Santa Fe Road (CFD #2) in this area based on a secondary collector. I would request that you allow us to grade the Rancho Santa Fe Road within our ownership to secondary arterial standards. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, LAD WIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. Robert C. Ladwig, President RCL:baw.074 Attachments cc: Jeff Gibson, City of Carlsbad (With attachments) Bob Johnson, City of Carlsbad (With attachments) Bob Wojcik, City of Carlsbad (With attachments) Doug Helming, Helming Engineering (With attachments) David Bentley (With attachments) 703 Palomar Rirport Road 4 Suite 300 *• Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 438-3182 FRX (760) 438-0173 JUL 14 '98 09:58AM CITY OF ENCINITAS P.1/5 City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Bob Ladwig Company: Phone: Fax: 438-0173 From: Rob Blough, Traffic Engineer Department: Engineering Services Department Phone: (760)633-2705 Fax: (760)633-2818 Date: 7/14/98 Pages including this cover page: Comments: RECEIVED -Kit MV-MC IE*:;M OR "JUL 14 '98 09:58fiM CITY OF ENCINITflS P. 3/5 2 <D I I 3n im I : ill*• £ o c I * 5 *5 •> = o 1 | F I. o1 3 9o ^3wa ro 5fl! I •JUL 14 '98 09:59AM CITY OF ENCINITAS P. 3X5 f > IB) Iffi >a M 4B 8S'-12tfR.Q.W..J 5. ^""" 5 ". J* ro « •^^^B M : mil °. s L*" L«" n *fi£ Q. I &> E . 5"® -J-^T•so.!?!!* S,,^ € ID IP -5 M -tl _t IB 3 — Ciaa^s:s.a ie = S£^3I'ijS'" „«"!v a-.., ft ?ri g.ff-r^a^al—» e a —to." £ ^•gT-'S^1"<£ % rr rr A^A (u £ A A ** —e i »< S -j we M f"srs5ii^ ?8"P5'l--a *£:r?"5£zgE1 § *e£"SS:" Si2:o £•= "^S — •<=^"G-^*-gT 7» r • g?S |iS,*|fff??sh&3 «?2rrt<S^S:S.S-^ itfsa*1 a3| S^STJ:^ft3^^?=-tfio^.os--tofioaa«v1 n -*,K m *^>- » « 3 Tf A CD r*- ^ ^ ^r»AQ.*«)a»-f3pi ra « *mn<-« =f m a n -*<f= -i-naw '"esifi. m <i<it e."S v'rg-«5;rs^ ?M B"sr''^Sx a^si»5e«»-f ^ --S6.B *• t i *s^IiOrf ^f^iril S <5-^< ' 5— _IB « 5.ff ra iff_• " & 5. <» g«' S.Q--!S2 *?£«2.-!=. S: -SSfte,8'a Q-*> =--ti w Q *> "•. es.*1-*-I^SSS" n <D T ^ »sss —. — it) n -JUL 14 '98 10:00AM CITY OF ENCINITAS p-4/5 Collector Road - A four-lane undivided (no median) roadway, with a typical right-of-way width of 70-84 feet and a curb to curb pavement width of around 64 feet. Its function is to distribute traffic between local streets and major and prime arterials. Although some collectors serve as through routes, their primary function is to provide access from surrounding land uses. Local Street - This category of roadway is designed to provide access to individual parcels in the City. Local streets consist of two lanes with a typical right-of-way width of 50-70 feet and a pavement width of 40 feet. The Circulation Plan described in Figure 2 designates only those local roadways that provide an additional function beyond that normally expected for a local roadway. For example, a "designated local" may function as a collector in certain areas of the City. An undesignated local roadway refers to those facilities that are not indicated or. the Circulation Plan described in Figure 2. For planning purposes, the closing of a designated local roadway will require a General Plan Amendment while the closing of an undesignated local roadway will not. Each of the last four classifications above may be further described based upon improvement refinements necessary where physical constraints exist and to insure the preservation of community character. Augmented Roadway - Any of the last four roadway categories (not Freeways) can have an augmented designation. The intent is to provide a means ofincreasing the capacity of a given type of arterial by maximizing the utilization of the basic lane configuration. Such augmentation can range from simply adding lanes at intersections to adding or expanding a median and/or other midblock measures to Improve traffic flow and reduce side friction. The augmented local may in its simplest form be just a two-lane local street with special intersection treatments such as signalization and/or added lanes as shown in Figure 5. A more highly augmented form would have a central median for turn movements and would restrict access to the extent possible. Augmentation of a prime arterial may vary from added lanes at intersections to access control strategies such as provision of local frontage roads. An augmented form of a local street is more important as far as the circulation system is concerned, for example, since this roadway may function as a collector roadway while it is developed to local roadway standards. C-18 3/29/89 -JUL 14 '93 10:00AM CITY OF ENCINITAS P. 5/5 v—, \ T .01 .si .01 t .92 .U 01 \ \ \Y r .32 .0 09 Qt T ,92 .til.il. || i i .i -oT'VsTI.Sl 1 I ' Bc CO *£CO XLU uC C-28 JUL 14 '98 10:31PM CITY OF ENCINITflS P. 1/4 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,CA 92024-3633 DATE;SEND TO FAX # TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: 633-2818 Community Development Engineering fire Administration Fire Prevention Public Works - OS 73, COMPANY: FROM: s! PP ATTACHED 'HONE: Call ASAP D Please Handle D Review & Call Review & Return Q F.YJ. PerOurConvercaiion d Please Reply bv.As Requested RECEIVED JUl 1 4 199B LADWIG DECiON GR JUL 14 '98 10:31RM CITY OF ENCINITRS "MINUTES OFENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY10,1996, 6:00 P.M., 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Bond called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. Present: Mayor James Bond, Council Members Lou Aspell, John Davis, Chuck DuVivier, and Gail Hano. Absent: None. Also City Manager Wasseremao, City Attorney Krauel, City Clerk Cervone, Assistant City Present: Manager Benson, Community Development Director Holder, Engineering Services Director Archibald, Sheriff's Captain Wood, Senior Planner Barberio, Management Analyst Phillips, Planning Technician Strehle, Deputy City Clerk Greene. There being a quorum present, the meeting was in order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CLOSING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR Hano moved, DuVivier seconded to dose and adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. Ayes: Aspell, Bond, Davis, DuVivier, Hano; Nays: None. * The title of ordinances listed on the Consent Calendar are deemed to have been read and further reading waived. 1. Approval of Minutes; 6/19/96 Regular Meeting. 6/26/96 Special Meeting. 6/26/96 Regular Meeting. Contact Person: City Clerk Cervone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Minutes. 2. Approval of 07/10/96 Warrants List Contact Person: Financial Services Manager Suelter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Warrants List 3. Appeal of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IQDt Requirement for a Home Remodel at 1090 Devonshire Drive; Appellant: Nina MflcConnel. Contact Person; Engineering Services Director Archibald. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the appeal be upheld and that the LO.D. requirement not be imposed. 07/10/96 Reg. Mtg. Page 1 Mtg. #96- */£._, Bk. #10, Page/57 JUL 14 '98 10:32flM CITY OF ENCINITflS : P. 3/4 07/10/96 Regular Meeting*»• 4. ^Adoption of Ordinance 96-11 Amending Chanter 1.10 of the Encinitas Cable Communications Ordinance to Repeal Section 1.10.1104 Regarding Amendments. Contact Person; Management Analyst Phillips. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 96-11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC V _, • None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Georgia Griffiths and Geoff Miller spoke in opposition to traffic lights being installed on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Bob Bonde requested that the Village Park Way gates be removed. REGULAR AGENDA The following item #5 was removed from the agenda prior to distribution: Ss - Council to meet with applicants Tor Appointments to fill vacancies on both Parks -and Recreation Commission-and Senior Citizen's Commission. Contact Person* — Gity Ckrit Ccrvone; 6. Administrative Hearing for an appeal of Community Development Director's determination that a Mapping Error Does Not Exist on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps for property located at 622 Encinitas Boulevard. APPELLANT: Richard F. Campbell. Sunshine Gardens. Contact Person: Senior Planner Barberio. Senior Planner Barberio gave a brief explanation of the issue and said the staff recommendation was to affirm the decision of the Community Development Department to uphold the determination that a "mapping error" in the General Plan designation boundaries did not exist on the property located at 622 Encinitas Boulevard. Greg Gamut, attorney for the appellant, and Wayne Pasco, representing Pasco Engineering, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. DuVivier moved, Hano seconded to direct staff to research a number of designated land use options for the property with or without a general plan amendment requirement and report back to Council in September, 1996. Motion carried. Ayes: Aspell, Davis, DuVivier, Hano; Nays: Bond. Mayor Bond declared a recess from 7:33 to 7:54 P.M. Mayor Bond and Council Member DuVivier did not participate in #7 to avoid a possible conflict of interest 07/10/96 Reg. Mtg. ' Page 2 Mtg. #96- 4# . Bk. #10. Page f JLJL 14 'tlU lUJd^Hfl (-J.IY Uh b.r«_.mi I Hb »» wa • 7/^0/96 Regular Meeting Publfe-Hearing to adopt Resolution No. 96-58 certifying the Final Supplement Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Redassification General Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment (Attachment A), including adoption of the ^required findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and to adopt Resolution No. 96-56 approving a General Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the Citv of Encinitas General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Plan Map to redassirV Randho Santa Fe Road (from El Camino del Norte north to Olivenhain Road\ from an Augmented Local Street (2 lane^ to a Collector Road (4 lane undivided), and to amend the General Plan Circulation Plan Man to clearly delineate the Coastal .Zone boundaries (Attachment B1. (Case No. 95-229 GPA/LCPA/EIRV Contact Person; Senior Planner Barberio. Senior Planner Barberio stated that the project was a General Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment to am&nK the City of Encinitas' General Plan Circulation Plan to reclassify Rancho Santa Fe Road from an augmented local roadway to a collector roadway and to amend the General Plan Circulation Plan Map to clearly delineate the Coastal Zone boundaries. The reclassification was a mitigation requirement of the certified Final Supplemental EJR for the adopted General Plan Amendment to delete Highway 680 from the General Plan Circulation Plan. i Staff recommendation was to adopt Resolutions 96-58 and 96-56. Hano moved, Aspell seconded to table this item to a future Council meeting. Motion Carried. Ayes: AspeJl, Davis, Hano; Nays: None; Absent* Bond, DuVivier. Mayor Bond declared a recess from 8:23 to 8:31 P.M. THE FOLLOWING ITEM (#8) HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO JULY 17,1996 & Public Hearing to Consider Adoption-of Resolution 96 47 and Introduction of Ordinance No» 96 10 to Amend-the Encinitas Ranch-Specific Plan» Local Coastal Program^ Development Agreement, and Tract-Map- Conditions 94066 Relative to Phase One-Development, Affordable HousingrTrails» and Zoning/Land-Use-change from Open Space to Mixed Use for 2.34 Acre Parcel Located Adjacent to Via Cantcbrifl:-Contact Persons—Project Manager Murphy* 9. Consideration of Request from Encinitas Geologic Hazard Abatement District No. 1 for the Citv Council to Forgive tha 1995 GHAD Costs and Approve the 1996 Expenses. Contact Person: Assistant Citv Manager Benson. Assistant City Manager Benson stated that the GHAD was formed by the Council in November of 1994, and that the Council had previously approved a cumulative loan of $50,000 for 1995 GHAD expenses and a loan of $44,000 for 1996. The loans-were intended to provide operating funds until such time that the GHAD could form some type of self-funding revenue stream, such as an assessment district. Included in the 1995 loan was $14,700 for an Assessment District Feasibility Study. The Study was received and reviewed by the GHAD Board and the Board rejected all three elements of the Study. Subsequent to rejecting the Feasibility Study, the GHAD Board passed a motion to ask the City Council for forgiveness of the 1995 GHAD costs and to approve the 1996 GHAD expenses until such time as the GHAD was determined to be a self-sustaining organization. 07/10/96 Reg. Mtg. Page 3 Mtg. #96- f3L . Bk. #10, Page /53 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DATE: July 14, 1998 TIME SENT: /£>: / < Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): 2 TO: Fred Arbuckle COMPANY: Morrow Development PHONE #: 929-2701 FAX #:929-2705 FROM: Don Neu DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 438-1161 ext. 4446 FAX: (760) 438-0894 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Mark Steyart of the City Parks Department has indicated that the proposed size of the Alga Norte Park site does not comply with the options of the 1996 Parks Agreement and the easement dedication associated with that agreement which the City would like to exercise. He stated that the City Council has informed the Parks Department that the City should purchase any additional acreage beyond what is required for the proposed development so that the park site totals the maximum of 32.9 acres provided for in the 1996 Parks Agreement. This would displace the proposed Elementary School site. The final size of the park site must be resolved with the Parks Department. In addition, approval of the school site location and size must be provided by the Carlsbad Unified School District. These two issues should be resolved prior to resubmittal of the Master Plan as they have the potential to cause a revision to the Neighborhood Planning Areas. Planning Department staff will be meeting with Parks Department staff to discuss planning for the Alga Norte Park. I will inform you of the results of that yet unscheduled meeting. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can discuss these issues further. | | Return Fax 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 (760)438-1161 City of Carlsbad Planning Department Assistant Planning Director Principal Planner Landers Principal Planner Turner Senior Planner Blackburn Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn and Associates I | Return Fax 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 (760)438-1161 July 14, 1998 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR FROM: Principal Planners PLANNING FOR ALGA NORTE PARK AND SCHOOL SITE This is to request a meeting with appropriate Parks staff to discuss parks plus other, potentially related, facilities planning in the South East quadrant. As you are aware, the Planning Department is working with the developers of two master plans in the South East quadrant, the Villages at La Costa and Bressi Ranch. While the two proposals are at slightly different stages, staff is working with both developers both to site and size the public and semi-public facilities in the plans. In addition to roads, these public and semi-public facilities include: the City's Alga Norte Park, an elementary school, and the required "community facilities" sites (for churches, senior citizens recreation, youth-serving facilities, or service organizations ). We would like to discuss the following specific points and proposals: 1. Is the parks acreage in South West adequate to meet growth management standards? The Villages at La Costa Plan is calling for reducing the original 33-acre site for Alga Norte Park down to 25.8 acres because of reduced unit yields in the Villages master plan. The balance of 6.8 acres is now being shown for an elementary school site (which may be smaller than CUSD would like). We understand that the City might be interested in acquiring additional acres for Alga Norte beyond what the Villages at La Costa alone is required to dedicate. In addition, Bressi is requesting a density bonus of 500 additional dwelling units, for a total of 979 units. Is there enough land to acquire both needed and desired park acres if CUSD builds a school here? 2. Would it be possible for a youth-serving group, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs or YMCA. to build or lease and then jointly use facilities on City-owned park land? Would your department be interested in pursuing such a venture? The idea here is that one or both of the master plan developers might provide funds to construct facilities, in lieu of designating land to meet their community facilities obligation. Placing such facilities in or near a park or school might be preferable to siting them on isolated sites, such that children might have to walk long distances and cross major streets to get from a school to an after-school youth program. Such a combination of uses might suggest a need to acquire additional parks acreage. Because of topographic and habitat limitations the amount of developable land in these two master plan areas is quite limited. We are trying to find PROJECT MEMO % ^ . . , CITY~OF CARLSBAD — RllANNING'DEPARTIVrcNT -f- <~ ' ^ ' ;, - x< „ TO C / FROM DATE TIME 19 PROJECT/PERMIT NO SUBJECT $ a a q Of C/rc.u/o~ficn' on ggr a~ ^' ' 1 "* - >—PlamTrng'DiijJL.'tei'/Acting Agent * ^ "" ° ! WHITE Job Site YELLOW-'File PINK Inspector" Orfy CIRCULA TION ELEMENT TABLE 1: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Local Streets; * provide immediate access to adjoining properties * are designed to discourage through-traffic * carry a minimum amount of traffic (estimated average daily trips: 500 maximum) Collector Streets: * provide immediate access to adjoining properties * serve as the connecting link for traffic between local and arterial streets * generally carry light to moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 500 to 5,000) Controlled Collectors: * provide no access or limited access to adjacent properties * serve as a major connecting link for traffic between local and arterial streets * carry moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 5,000 to 10,000) Secondary Arterials: * provide limited access to adjacent properties * serve to move traffic between collector streets and larger arterials or the freeways * have two traffic lanes in each direction with a painted median * carry moderate traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 10,000 to 20,000) Major Arterials: * prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists * provide intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and regional roads * have a minimum of two traffic lanes in each direction with a raised median * carry moderate to heavy traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 20,000 to 40,000) Prime Arterials; * prohibit access to adjacent properties unless no other alternative exists * provide for regional and intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and other regional roads * carry very heavy traffic volumes (estimated average daily trips: 40,000 or more) Page3 LINSCOTf LAW J& GREENSPAN ENGINEERS ENGINEERS &. PLANNERS • TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 135 • San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619 299-3090 • Fax: 619 299-7041 June 23,1998 Mr. Fred M. Arbuckle Morrow Development P.O. Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 SUBJECT: Alicante Road Classification Dear Fred: Based on our telephone conversation on Tuesday, June 23, we have looked into the issue of the classification of Alicante Road. You indicated that the City would like it upgraded from a Collector to the next highest classification, a Secondary Arterial. Based on recent Series 8 Model runs we conducted for Zones 10 and 11, no upgrading of this facilities is warranted due to the relatively low Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) forecasted for Alicante Road from Alga Road to Melrose Drive. Approximately 6,500 ADT are projected along this segment at Buildout. Based on City of San Diego and County standards for two lane Collectors with forty feet of roadway and no fronting property, this roadway segment would operate at LOS C at the Collector classification. Enclosed please find the City and County of San Diego Street Classification Standards. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN hn Keating, P.E. Principal Enclosures BT/jh Letters/arbuckle.ltr PhilipM. Linscott, P.E. (Ret.) Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. (Ret.) Paul W.Wilkinson, P.E. John P. Keating, P.E. David S. Shender, P.E. Costa Mesa- 714641-1587 • Pasadena - 818 796-2322 « Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 " An LG2WB Company iii1 ii•* "< | RV C n ^4 5ft5^ n a 1i9( B9iii 11£E Ii <L !• 1 P | £ M •w jjn n n•s * b • 7 t•I ii i iIi CD _Q > "co — """"" "*"* ~^ q| -*- QJ — -" cdS LLJ Q S3 0 £§ cc1 1 1 -s >^^^ t \ ~* C/} ° BegC/DLJ_ Oi CJ ^5>CQ JH oQJ-_M LLJ w- _J © >< £o LU £ \. "-? JS o C LUO_OCO. ^0 TC3 CC LU E cc ^B.3 = <«^_ QU4CQ § CC 5- |sQ. HIo ^3 1 £ O LU 1 h- p < 1 ST •2 i V 1 QLU_J LU CC "J§ •'o -o«~ CO X CD _, COTD] 22 1 CD CD || d~S 2 > 9 CC T3 CD JO <aooc Eg- rfl *" CL CD 2 O(— CO -^1 |s- H c CC ^^ 0)s 000_ ' co"o ooo CO CO ooo o" ooo^-~ in ooo co"CO inin ^o CO bo CM CO COCM b - •^ COco co EXPRESSWAYDivided highway will] only selec-ted public road access with fullgrade separationsr0 0o oo h-Tin oo0 o"in ooto o0oP^J- CO oo CM CM"CM V inin ^o CO bo CMCJ CJO •-co CO CDCO ^PRIME ARTERIALDivided highway, signalized Inter-sections, access control, or extralanes as requiredo fvj- CO oo co"co ooto CJ oor--^r CM OOCO •5J7 V inin ^o r- bo CJ COen CO - b CO ^J. CJ ^MAJOR ROAD4-lane divided road, access &parking controlled as necessary0OCM T^CO 0 O CO o" CO Oo CJ oo CO CM"CM 0of-co^ —V in "*3" vO ^~ boN. CO CO b CO ^.CM 1 COLLECTOR4-lane undivided roadoo CM to"* ooCD o" oo o 0 •» — •^J- o0C7> T—V in "•3" ^o en b0 i — bCO o b co CM 'r~ 1 LIGHT COLLECTOR2-lane undivided road"0o CM co" ' 00CO o" oo r--" oo T ^J- 00cn_T— V o"3" ^o CM boin CO o CM CM CO CM • I RURAL COLLECTOR2-lane undivided road, extraR-O-W allows greater flexibility& upgrade^^ oo CM co" 0 Ocn o" oo oo*— ^3^ OOcn_ i — V o ^3" ^o CJ bom bCO b b CO CM1 1 RURAL LIGHT COLLECTOR2-lane undivided road, Increased"curve radii" standards"0o CM CD"••" o0cn o" OO oo 1 — •^" oocn T— V of *•? CM b0in b0 b oco CO CM1 1 RURAL MOUNTAIN2-lane undivided road appropriateonly In rural mountain areas"0oCM co" 0 Ocn o" oo o 0 1 — T" 00cr. <r— V inCM •*"?o^CM b0 8 b bco CO CM "* 1 RECREATIONAL PARKWAY .Recreational routes lor travelpleasure purposesto Q O CC•z.o1— _l oG-o o•z. \\ \ ooin T" I1 tl 11 ^o CM 8co b CD b b CO CM• 1 | RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION |I1 1 ooin i1 1 I1 5° in boCM COin CO CO b CO CJ • 1 | , RESIDENTIAL STREET |I1 1 oo CM 11 1 I1 ^•Sin 8CM CMin CM CO b ^J. CM • 1 | RESIDENTIAL LOOP STREET |ooCOCM" 1 b CO b "*" CO CM | RESIDENTIAL INTERIM ROAD j TABLE 2 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS, LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) AND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) June 1993 STREET CLASSIFICATION Freeway Freeway Freeway Expressway Prime Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Collector Collector (no center lane) (continuous left-turn lane) Collector (no fronting property) Collector (commercial-industrial fronting) Collector (multi family) Collector (single family) LANE S 8 lanes 6 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes CROSS SECTIONS 102/122 102/122 102/122 78/98 72/92 64/84 52/72 40/60 50/70 40/60 40/60 LEVEL OF SERVICE A (.50) 60,000 45,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 4,000 2,500 2,500 — B (.70) 84,000 63,000 42,000 42,000 35,000 28,000 21,000 10,500 7,000 5,500 3,500 3,500 — C (1.00) 120,000 90,000 60,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 5,000 2,200 D (1.1-1.3) 140,000 110,000 70,000 70,000 55,000 45,000 35,000 25,000 13,000 9,000 6,500 6,500 — E (1.2-1.6) 150,000 120,000 80,000 80,000 60,000 50,000 s 40,000 30,000 15,000 10,000 8,000 8,000 — LEGEND: XXX/XXX = Curb to curb width (feet)/right of way width (feet): based on the City of San Diego Street Design Manual. XX,XXX = Approximate recommended ADT based on the City of San Diego Street Design Manual. NOTES: 1. The volumes and the average daily level of service listed above are only intended as a general planning guideline. Levels of service are not applied to residential streets since their primary purpose is to serve abutting lots, not carry through traffic. Levels of service normally apply to roads carrying through traffic between major trip generators and attractors. --- LMQrbk; b:table.lmq ^^~ -^ City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 23, 1998 Mike Howes Hofman Planning Associates Suite 120 2386 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98-04 - BRESSI RANCH Attached is the list of traffic study assumptions to be used for the above referenced project. These assumptions will also be provided to the applicant for the Villages of La Costa project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4471. ELAINE BLACKBURN Senior Planner Mark Rohrlick Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Dee Landers Don Neu Ken Quon Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 9!P04 - BRESSI RANCH June 24, 1998 Page 2 Notes and Assumptions For Traffic Study 1. Please note that the traffic study for this project must be consistent with the traffic study being prepared for the pending Villages of La Costa Master Plan project. The sites are directly adjacent and so, while some impacts may differ between the two projects, the land use and traffic generation assumptions should be consistent. Staff (both Planning and Engineering) will also coordinate our efforts to be sure that this consistency occurs. In order to do this, it will also be necessary that the traffic studies for both projects clearly state the assumptions made for land uses and for existing and/or proposed roadway linkages and the timing of when the roadway segments are assumed to be installed. 2. The traffic study should use SANDAG's City of Carlsbad Sub-area Model for land use assumptions. (The standard SANDAG Series 8 model assumes an intensification of land uses/density not currently agreed to by the City. The City of Carlsbad Sub-area Model does not include this intensification but reflects, instead, the City's established Growth Management densities.) 3. The traffic study should include all of the necessary analysis to satisfy Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. The project will probably meet the criteria to be identified as a "large project" under the CMP. 4. The traffic study should take into account the following pending and/or anticipated City and adjacent-jurisdiction projects: a. McClellan/Palomar Airport 2020 Master Plan b. "Villages of La Costa proposed Master Plan (pending)- c. Raceway (pending) d. Byron White parcel (pending) e. Tchang (pending) f. Tamarack Square (pending GPA/ZC) g. Terraces at Sunny Creek (pending changes to land uses) h. Rancho Carrillo i. La Costa Glen (care facility in Green Valley) j. San Elijo Ranch k. University Commons I. any other major projects pending in surrounding jurisdictions which might impact the traffic in the project areas 5. In addition to the above list (Item 4), you will need to contact the surrounding jurisdictions and put together a list of pending relevant projects (Item 4.1 above), then submit that list to the City's project engineers (Ken Quon for Bressi and Clyde Wickham for Villages of La Costa). The project engineers will review the list and provide the final list to both applicants to ensure consistency. EIR 98-04/GPA 98-03/ZC 98^-04 - BRESSI RANCH June 24, 1998 Page3 6. Information and assumptions regarding land uses^trip generation and distribution, trip assignment, and the street segments and intersections to be evaluated should be submitted to City engineering staff for review and agreement before very much work is done on the studies. The network assumed is critical. Also, current traffic count data must be used. The City will provide you with what we have. However, you will probably need to do some new counts in some locations. 7. Specific mitigation measures for any identified deficient locations must be indicated in the traffic reports. City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 21, 1998 Fred Arbuckle Morrow Development P.O. Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 SUBJECT: GPA 98-01 /ZC 98-01 /MP 98-01 /MP 149(Q) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS, THE RIDGE AND THE OAKS The items requested from you earlier to make your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendments, application no. GPA 98-01 /ZC 98-01 /MP 98-01 /MP 149(Q) complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Don Neu, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL JTHOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DN:mh c: Gary Wayne Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates Adrienne Landers Jim Jackson, Real Estate Collateral Management Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. GPA 98-01/ZC 98-01 IMP 98-01 IMP 149(0.) Planning: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Master Plan text and conceptual grading exhibits containing requested Planning and Engineering Department comments and requested revisions. Please revise the text and plans as indicated. Should you have any questions regarding the requested revisions or wish to discuss any of these items please contact Don Neu at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446. 2. Density calculations are required based on constraints mapping using the existing General Plan Land Use Designations. This will allow a base number of units to be established. The purpose of this analysis is to establish how the number of units requested compares to the total number that could be permitted without amending the General Plan. This information is critical to the general plan, local facilities management plan, and environmental impact report assessments. Required constraints mapping must comply with the City's application checklist requirements and contain the required stamp and signed statement of the engineer of work. 3. The concept grading plans should include the quantity of cut and fill on each separate area of cut or fill. The concept grading plans should also include major road and arterial grading to be done as an approved or excluded quantity because of the circulation element road classification. This will show areas where significant grading is proposed. If a mass grading plan or village grading/arterial grading plan is proposed it should be identified up front. The major concept to be implemented is for proposed development to be compatible with the existing topography as much as feasible to reduce the amount of grading required. The master plan must also demonstrate how the grading operation is proposed to be phased to reduce the creation of haul routes over newly completed roads and the prevention of impacts related to grading operations to new neighborhoods of the master plan as well as existing neighborhoods. 4. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the most recently approved Hillside Development Ordinance. The amended ordinance contains new development standards such as building setback requirements from the top of slope which impact the buildable areas of lots. Please review the new ordinance and consider its impacts on the achievable size of units. 5. On the constraints map and/or the concept grading plans clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for the before and after conditions for the FEMA flood plain. 6. The master plan must clearly identify what development permits are required to be approved for each individual neighborhood. Any neighborhood with lots sizes less than 7,500 square feet requires the approval of a Planned Unit Development Permit for separate lots or a Condominium Permit for airspace ownership units. Both would require the approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Hillside Development Permits may also be required. This will depend on whether Master Tentative Tract Maps are done and the proposed grading design of these maps. The other nonresidential neighborhoods will require other types of development permits which are indicated in the Planning Department review copy of the master plan text. 7. Separate neighborhoods should be established in the master plan for recreational vehicle parking areas and community facility use sites such as child care center. Calculations pursuant to requirements in the Planned Development Ordinance are required to determine the adequacy of the size of proposed recreational vehicle parking areas. Enclosed in the draft master plan text is a copy Planning Department E-mail indicating the area requirements for community facility use sites. Please revise the plan to comply with the area requirements for both of these facilities. 8. The master plan text must clearly state which neighborhoods the proposed recreation centers are intended to serve and the required timing for their completion. Please refer to the comments in the draft master plan text. 9. It is requested that the Master Plan contain a requirement that a minimum of 20 percent of all units on a ridgeline be single story. Please incorporate this as a requirement into the development standards for the master plan. 10. Please leave all net acreage figures in the master plan as they are necessary for calculating the allowable number of units and projecting facilities demands. 11. Please include the full size encumbrance exhibits for all three villages in the° master plan appendix. 1 2. An application to vacate existing right-of-way for Rancho Santa Fe Road needs to be submitted and processed concurrently with the other project applications so that the environmental review covers this action. 13. The development standards of the master plan should include a requirement that patio and trellis plans be submitted for all small lot projects which require the approval of a planned unit development permit or a condominium permit. 14. A circulation impact analysis is required for the proposed project as noted on the application checklist. This analysis is also needed for the Local Facilities Management Plans and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which will be prepared for the proposal. A single analysis will be utilized for each of these documents to avoid inconsistencies. It is most efficient to meet with City staff to agree on the report methodology prior to it's preparation. City staff can review and comment on the report so that a city approved circulation impact analysis is available for use in the Local Facilities Management Plans and can also be given to the environmental consultant for inclusion in the EIR. 15. A noise study is listed on the application as a required item to be submitted for the Master Plan. This item can be prepared as part of the environmental impact report and does not need to be submitted at this time. 16. Section 21.38.060 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance lists the required information to be included in the master plan text. The land use and public facility economic impact report listed in this section will need to be prepared. It is advisable to delay preparing this report until all major master plan issues have been resolved and the proposed land uses are set. 17. The proposed zone change application is not necessary and should be withdrawn. Please submit a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn and that the fees paid for that application be refunded. 18. Affordable housing provisions must be identified for the entire Master Plan. The proposal on page 2-8 of the draft master plan is not acceptable as it does not identify the provision on-site of affordable housing. 19. Please provide exhibits and justification for the required findings in the Open Space Element of the General Plan to allow for the adjustment of existing General Plan Open Space. 20. Both local facilities management plans contain property owned by persons or entities other than the applicant. Signatures of all property owners are required to be submitted for these applications or as an alternative getting the City Council to authorize the local facilities management plan applications. 21. The draft local facilities management plan texts will not be reviewed until the master plan issues are resolved particularly the constraints analysis for determining the allowable number of units pursuant to the existing general plan land use designations. 22. Corporate resolutions providing authorization for the persons signing the public facilities agreements has been requested by the legal staff of the City Attorney's Office. Please provide this information so that the public facilities fee agreements can be processed. Engineering: 23. A large scale map - one for each area - that shows the proposed development on a master plan scheme with existing contours, all necessary infrastructure, streets and arterials, boundaries, and adjacent development information, (see application requirements item #l. REQUIRED PLANS). Multiple maps could be provided to separate planning or other land use items from more important Engineering items. 24. Alignment plans for all arterials : Poinsettia Lane, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Questhaven Road, and Melrose Drive should be part of the Package_£nd__£art of the environmental review process. |i . For Poinsettia Lane (west), one is already in process, to the east one is already approved and under construction. For Alicante, check the Carrillo Ranch or Lennar Master Plan application. We know that Melrose Dr. south to Encinitas is an issue but the proposed alignment should be feasible regardless of the political argument. 25. Complete all aspects of the corridor plans, including grading or adjacent design, sound walls or fences, special setbacks and trail access should be identified. 26. Grading plans or overall mass grading concept plan by village should be provided (if proposed). Areas separated by arterials should be either phased as part of the entire Roadway grading or balanced to stand alone. Once the roadways are graded, the separated villages should balance earthwork. 27. Drainage facilities and phasing of drainage improvements should be addressed. The City's Master Plan is left open in this area because of the design and development flexibility that was anticipated. This is the time to resolve and create the infrastructure plan and to study downstream mitigation. 28. The sewer and water facilities should also be considered as part of the master plan in a total / village / district plan. If any special conditions or responsibilities are proposed they should be identified. 29. Ideally each neighborhood section should be complete with a general description of what is required for each area and what is to be constructed as a village or master plan improvement. Exhibits should be provided that clarify and Flip flopping back and forth to understand what is applicable, or what is necessary from other documents is not effective. An example of textjor; each ^Jjlag^£soju|d" bse; 1. Access (primary & secondary) as shown on exhibit 1. 2. Signals (Shown on exhibit 1, with installation to occur when volumes and warrants are satisfied, and as directed by the Traffic Engineer of Carlsbad.) 3. Sight Distance corridors to remain clear (ref. Section / page). Monument or entry signage must be located as shown on exhibit 1. 4. Sewer, water, storm drain, & reclaimed water requirements. Possibly this could be as simple as all services and facilities are provided as shown on exhibit 2. Facilities have been designed to accommodate the maximum allowed density for this village. No reimbursements or cost sharing required. Changes to approved design will require district or City Engineer approval. 5. Future grading permits will be required. No import or export of earthwork is specifically approved by this master plan. The site has been rough graded and only minor balanced grading is anticipated. All grading shall be designed and processed in accordance with CMC chapter 15.04.010 Exhibits should be clear and conclusive for purposes of a Master Plan. 1 or 2 exhibits may be necessary to provide clarity and to separate Engineering and Planning requirements. 30. Submit Circulation, Sewer, and Drainage studies to support the proposed design. Separate plans can be designed that show more detail and specific design requirements and not over clutter to the general master plan or neighborhood site plan. By having general overview plans and underlying detail plans, a complete description of the villages and neighborhoods be can presented. 31. The phasing plan should be improved to show all services and phasing or proposed timing of construction. Sewer, Water, Storm Drains, Reclaimed Water Systems, Streets, Schools, Parks, and other facilities need to be addressed. I know these are redundant from the Zone plan, and we will defer to the zone plan for specific details, but a tie or connection should be made to connect development with public facilities. 32. Melrose Ave. south of La Costa is a Major Arterial identified in the City's circulation element of the General Plan and should be preserved as a 102' right of way. The proposed amendment of the general plan to reduce this arterial is not supported and the direction from staff and the City Engineer has not changed. Dedicate full width right of way, construct full width intersection and the adjacent frontage areas. The road could transition or be constructed to a lesser width south of the first intersection. Again full width dedication is required. 33. The proposed remainder parcels are technically not "legal lots". They have restrictions that prohibit development until further subdivision. We will require full dedication of all arterials and all elements of the General Plan to be provided up front, even if the remainder lot concept is used. We would rather see the master subdivision or village (large lot) subdivision developed similar to the Aviara Master Plan. Future subdivision of neighborhoods from master subdivided villages is easier than adding a remainder designation and more discretionary review later. 34. Be more specific about the availability of public services. The master plan is supposed to outline and plan for the orderly development of these. The Public facilities section is vague and non descriptive. Be more specific about the proposed master plan systems and the lesser village or neighborhood systems. If the entire infrastructure is proposed to be constructed with the master subdivision it should be identified. C^IHJACHENTHORN & ASSOC 5431 Avenida Encinas • Suite J Carlsbad, California 92008 Fax (760) 438-0981 (760) 438-4090 RECEIVED May 1, 1998 MAY 0 1 1998 CITY OF CARLSBAD DonNeu PLANNING DEPTCity of Carlsbad * 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: Villages of La Costa Master Plan Resubmittal Dear Don: Enclosed are the revised Villages of La Costa Master Plan, Zones 10 and 1 1 Local Facilities Master Plans, and related materials in response to your comments on March 25, 1998. For your convenience, we have enclosed a matrix responding to each item on your comment letter. We will be contacting you in order to set up a meeting early next week to review our re-submittal documents. If you have any question or concerns, please contact us at (760) 438-4090. Sjaferely, F:\Documents\LaCosta\resubmittal.doc -1- Villages of La Costa May 1, 1998 Page 1 of 3 1. 2. 3. 4. Please submit three copies of the Preliminary Title Report which is current within the last six months. Submit a reproducible 1" = 500' scale map of the subject property showing requested General Plan designations with the acreage involved and the surrounding General Plan, zoning and land use. Provide a location map at a scale of 1"= 200' on 8!6" x 11" size paper. The following information from the Master Plan application checklist is needed to evaluate the proposed land use plan: a. Approximate contours at 5* intervals for slopes over 10% (both' existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within 100' perimeter of the boundaries of the site. Existing on-site trees; ;those to be removed and those to be saved. b. Earthwork volumes; cut, fill, import and export. c. Clearly show and label the 100-year flood line for the before and after conditions for the FEMA flood plain. 5. 6. 7. A constraints map is needed for the entire Master Plan area. The map should include the information listed on the Master Plan application checklist for a constraints map. A circulation impact analysis is required for the proposed project as noted on the application checklist. This analysis is also needed for the Local Facilities Management Plans and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which will be prepared for the proposal. A single analysis will be utilized for each of these documents to avoid inconsistencies. It is most efficient to meet with City staff to agree on the report methodology prior to its preparation. City staff can review and comment on the report so that a City- approved circulation impact analysis is available for use in the Local Facilities Management Plans and can also be given to the environment consultant for inclusion in the EIR. A noise study is listed on the application as a required item to be submitted for the Master Plan. This item can be prepared as a pan of the environmental impact report and does not need to be submitted at this time. Response: Per meetings with staff, this requirement will be included in the June 26* revised plan submittal. Response: A 500' scale map reproducible is included in the enclosed submittal package. Response: Exhibit 1-3 of the Master Plan satisfies this requirement. Response: Conceptual Grading Plans for the three villages are now included in Appendix B of the Master Plan. Response: Earthwork volumes are now described for each village in Section 4.2 of the Master Plan. Response: The 100-year flood lines for the before condition are shown on the project constraint maps. The 100-year flood lines for the after condition are shown on the Conceptual Drainage Plans of the individual Village Public Facilities Plans, Exhibits 5-6, 6-6 and 7-6 of the Master Plan. Response: Constraint Maps were included with the Local Facilities Management Plans. Response: The Circulation Impact Analysis is currently being prepared, in accordance with the Staff comments regarding appropriate methodology. This item should be treated in the same manner as Item 7. Response: Per city comments, a noise study will be prepared at a mutually agreeable later date. 879/05.000 O:\CUENTS\MORROW\LUP-APP2. WPD Villages of La Costa May 1, 1998 Page 2 of 3 8. Replacement text and exhibits showing the proposed changes to the existing La Costa Master Plan using a strikeout and highlighted system to not revisions is required to be submitted. Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Section 21.38.120. Response: The La Costa Master Plan replacements were previously submitted by Jack Henthorn & Assoc. 9. Section 21.38.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Master Plan area for a child day care center of reasonable size for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the first building permit. Other community use sites are also required pursuant to Policy C. 12 on page 31 of the General Plan Land Use Element. Response: Day care and RV storage site locations have been added to the Village Development Plans for La Costa Greens and La Costa Oaks. Language addressing the 5-year reservation requirement for day care centers has been added in Section 2.5.9, General Provisions, of the Master Plan. 10. Section 21.38.080 of the Zoning Ordinance contains a listing of the required contents of a Master Plan. Graphic plans of the proposed development are required that include the following: a. A map and legal description of the property with a north point scale not less than one inch equals two hundred feet, showing the date of preparation and the name and address of the plan's preparer. Response: Complete legal descriptions of the Master Plan area will be included in the Master Plan as Appendix A. Encumbrance maps will be individually submitted. b. Location of the various land uses indicated by the use of zoning designations. Response: Master Plan proposed zoning is shown on Master Plan Exhibit 2-2. c. The location of public and quasi-public facilities such as schools, fire stations, transmission lines and booster stations. Response: Public and quasi-public facilities are shown on the individual Village Public Facilities Plans, Master Plan Exhibits 5-6, 6-6 and 7-6. School and park locations are shown on Master Plan Exhibits 2-1, 2-2 and 5-1. d. The locations of major circulation systems and collector streets and their relationship to the circulation element shall be indicated. Bike ways, pedestrian paths, interconnecting open space areas and other special access means shall also be shown. Response: The classification of each roadway is indicated on the Village Circulation Plans, Master Plan Exhibits 5-4, 6-4 and 7-4. Trail locations and relationships of trails to open space areas are shown on the Village Trails and Recreation Plans, Master Plan Exhibits 5- 5, 6-5 and 7-5. Trail locations are also shown on individual Neighborhood Plans. Bicycle routes have been added to the Village Circulation Plans. Facilities for water supply and sewerage disposal, including sewer and water trunk lines, fire station sites, storm drainage and flood control structures and any other public facility needed to properly service the proposed community shall be indicated. Response: These facilities are all shown on the Village Public Facilities Plans, Master Plan Exhibits 5-6, 6-6 and 7-6. Phasing of development shall be indicated. Adequate pubic facilities, open space, recreation areas and street systems shall be provided for each phase. Response: Village Phasing Plans are shown on Master Plan Exhibits 5-46, 6- 22 and 7-36. The phasing of public facilities is now shown in color on the Village Public Facilities Plans, Master Plan Exhibits 5- 6, 6-6 and 7-6. 879/05.000 G:\CLIENTS\MORROW\LUP-APP2.WPD Villages of La Costa May 1, 1998 Page 3 of 3 A map showing topographical contours at no less than twenty-five foot intervals. Existing trees and other natural features shall be indicated on such map. Response: Topographic contours, existing vegetation and other natural features are shown on the project Constraint Maps. h. Proposed development shall be consistent with the topography to reduce the amount of grading. The graphic is to indicate where significant grading is anticipated and for what reasons it is necessary. Response: These requirements are addressed by the new Conceptual Grading Plans located in Appendix B of the Master Plan. Section 21.38.060 (2) lists the required information to be included in the Master Plan text. The land use and public facility economic impact report listed in this section will need to be prepared. It is advisable to delay preparing this report until all major Master Plan issues have been resolved and the proposed land uses are set. Response: Per city's advisement, the economic impact report will be prepared at a later date with the Environmental Impact Report. 11. The proposed zone change application is not necessary and should be withdrawn. Please submit a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn and that the fees paid for that application be refunded. Response: Per discussions with staff, the zone change requirement is still under consideration by the applicants. It is premature to withdraw at this time. This should not be an incomplete item. 12. Density calculations are required based on constraints mapping using the existing General Plan Land Use Designations. This will allow a base number of units to be established. Density calculations are also required based on constraints mapping and the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations. The purpose of this analysis is to establish how the number of units requested compares to the total number that could be permitted without amending the General Plan. Required constraints mapping must comply with the City's application checklist requirements and contain the required stamp and signed statement of the engineer of work. Response: Density calculations were previously provided to the City by Jack Henthom & Assoc, under separate cover. 13. Affordable housing provisions must be identified for the entire Master Plan. The proposal on page 2-8 of the Draft Master Plan is not acceptable as it does not identify a method of providing the required inclusionary housing. Response: Affordable housing requirements will be satisfied through participation in the Carlsbad Housing Assistance Program (CHAP). Affordable housing is now addressed in the Master Plan hi Section 2.4.1.3 and on Pages 5-6, 6-5 and 7-6 of the individual Village Development Plan chapters of the Master Plan. 14. Please provide exhibits and justification for the required findings in the Open Space Element of the General Plan to allow for the adjustment of existing General Plan Open Space. Response: In addition to the HCP/OMSP areas, open space areas are identified hi the Open Space sections of each Village Development Plan chapter (Sections 5.2.2, 6.2.2 and 7.2.2). 879/05.000 G:\CLIENTS\MORROWUJUP-APP2. WPD — ~^f City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 25, 1998 Fred Arbuckle Morrow Development P.O. Box 9000-685 Carlsbad, CA 92018-9000 SUBJECT: GPA 98-01/ZC 98-01 IMP 98-01/MP 149(Q)/LFMP 10/LFMP 1KB) - VILLAGES OF LA COSTA - THE GREENS, THE RIDGE AND THE OAKS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10, and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 11 , application no. GPA 98-01/ZC 98-01/MP 98-01 IMP 149(Q)/LFMP 10/LFMP 1KB), as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached is a list of information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, February 13, 1998, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. The master plan and local facilities management plan texts are presently being reviewed. A separate letter indicating issues of concern to staff with the proposed project will follow. For your information It has been determined that since the project requires the approval of legislative actions it is not subject to the processing deadlines established in the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact your staff planner, Don Neu, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4446, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sinceraly, J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DN:mh Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers Elaine Blackburn Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates Jim Jackson, Real Estate Collateral Management 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. GPA 98-01/ZC 98-01 IMP 98-01 /MP 149(Q)/LFMP 10/LFMP 1KB) Planning & Engineering: 1. Please submit three copies of the Preliminary Title Report which is current within the last six months. 2. Submit a reproducible 1" = 500' scale map of the subject property showing requested General Plan designations with the acreage involved and the surrounding General Plan, zoning and land use. 3. Provide a location map at a scale of 1" = 200' on 81/2" x 11" size paper. 4. The following information from the Master Plan application checklist is needed to evaluate the proposed land use plan: a. Approximate contours at 5' intervals for slopes over 10% (both existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within 100' perimeter of the boundaries of the site. Existing onsite trees; those to be removed and those to be saved. b. Earthwork volumes; cut, fill, import and export. c. Clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for the before and after conditions for the FEMA flood plain. 5. A constraints map is needed for the entire master plan area. The map should include the information listed on the Master Plan application checklist for a constraints map. 6. A circulation impact analysis is required for the proposed project as noted on the application checklist. This analysis is also needed for the Local Facilities Management Plans and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which will be prepared for the proposal. A single analysis will be utilized for each of these documents to avoid inconsistencies. It is most efficient to meet with City staff to agree on the report methodology prior to it's preparation. City staff can review and comment on the report so that a city approved circulation impact analysis is available for use in the Local Facilities Management Plans and can also be given to the environmental consultant for inclusion in the EIR. 7. A noise study is listed on the application as a required item to be submitted for the Master Plan. This item can be prepared as part of the environmental impact report and does not need to be submitted at this time. 8. Replacement text and exhibits showing the proposed changes to the existing La Costa Master Plan using a strikeout and highlighted system to note revisions is required to be submitted. Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Section 21.38.1 20. 9. Section 21.38.020 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the master plan include graphic plans and text to reserve a site within the master plan area for a child day care center of reasonable size for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the first building permit. Other community use sites are also required pursuant to Policy C.12 on page 31 of the General Plan Land Use Element. 10. Section 21.38.060 of the Zoning Ordinance contains a listing of the required contents of a master plan. Graphic plans of the proposed development are required that include the following: a. A map and legal description of the property with a north point scale not less than one inch equals two hundred feet, showing the date of preparation and the name and address of the plan's preparer. b. Location of the various land uses indicated by the use of zoning designations. c. The location of public and quasi-public facilities such as schools, fire stations, transmission lines and booster stations. d. The locations of major circulation systems and collector streets and their relationship to the circulation element shall be indicated. Bikeways, pedestrian paths, interconnecting open space areas and other special access means shall also be shown. e. Facilities for water supply and sewerage disposal, including sewer and water trunk lines, fire station sites, storm drainage and flood control structures and any other public facility needed to properly service the proposed community shall be indicated. f. Phasing of development shall be indicated. Adequate public facilities, open space, recreation areas and street systems shall be provided for each phase. g. A map showing topographical contours at no less than twenty-five foot intervals. Existing trees and other natural features shall be indicated on such map. h. Proposed development shall be consistent with the topography to reduce the amount of grading. The graphic is to indicate where significant grading is anticipated and for what reasons it is necessary. i. Section 21.38.060 (2) lists the required information to be included in the master plan text. The land use and public facility economic impact report listed in this section will need to be prepared. It is advisable to delay preparing this report until all major master plan issues have been resolved and the proposed land uses are set. 11. The proposed zone change application is not necessary and should be withdrawn. Please submit a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn and that the fees paid for that application be refunded. 12. Density calculations are required based on constraints mapping using the existing General Plan Land Use Designations. This will allow a base number of units to be established. Density calculations are also required based on constraints mapping and the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations. The purpose of this analysis is to establish how the number of units requested compares to the total number that could be permitted without amending the General Plan. Required constraints mapping must comply with the City's application checklist requirements and contain the required stamp and signed statement of the engineer of work. 13. Affordable housing provisions must be identified for the entire Master Plan. The proposal on page 2-8 of the draft master plan is not acceptable as it does not identify a method of providing the required inclusionary housing. 14. Please provide exhibits and justification for the required findings in the Open Space Element of the General Plan to allow for the adjustment of existing General Plan Open Space. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning & Engineering: 1. The draft master plan and local facilities management plan texts are currently being reviewed. Any issues identified with the master plan and local facilities management plans will be forwarded to you in separate correspondence. October 13,1998 TO: SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Management Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment Department VILLAGES OF LA COSTA MASTER PLAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS I have reviewed the draft language for the affordable housing sections of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. The following are my suggested changes/modifications: 1. Master Plan Requirements - The second paragraph states that should the actual number of market rate units be less than that which was approved, then the number of inclusionary units would be reduced accordingly. Because the Housing and Redevelopment Department is not involved in the tentative map process, we would not aware of any reductions total units approved. This situation creates a monitoring problem for this department. In past mater plan projects (Rancho Carrillo & Poinsettia Properties), staff has required that the total number of inclusionary units be clearly stated in both the Master Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement. Should the developer construct fewer units, the Affordable Housing Agreement could be amended. Such an amendment could be done administratively. Please direct the applicant to revise this section accordingly. 2. Timing - The first paragraph, second sentence should state that the developer shall receive approval of a Site Development Plan and Affordable Housing Agreement prior to the recordation of the first final map or issuance of any development permit. Second, the bullet points listed in this section seek to establish specific timing for the approval and construction of the affordable units which is in conflict with previous actions and policies of the Housing Commission. The applicant should be aware that previously approved master plans have been able to construct between 25% - 35% of the market rate units prior to construction of their affordable project, and must complete the affordable project prior to constructing 50% -75% of the market rate project. The exact percentages depend on the construction phasing and financing mechanisms involved. However, the timing of the affordable units will be determined by the Housing Commission and City Council through the approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement. Please direct the applicant to delete the last three bullets items. 3. Approach - The developer proposes to meet their inclusionary housing obligation through the construction of on-site affordable housing units, second dwelling units and payments into the Carlsbad Homebuyer Assistance Program (CHAP). First, the Housing and Redevelopment Department does not support the payment of fees into the CHAP as a means of satisfying the project's affordable housing requirement. Staff has stated this to the applicant previously. Please direct the applicant to delete all references to this option. Second, it is the current policy of the Housing Commission to allow a developer to satisfy up to 20% of their inclusionary housing requirement through the provision of second dwelling units. The applicant should be aware that the City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan Housing Element. With the recent changes to the housing element regulations, second dwelling units will not count towards meeting the City's regional share of affordable housing. Therefore, it is highly possible that through the housing element update, second units may no longer be an option for meeting a project's inclusionary housing obligation. The draft language should be revised to state that should the project produce second dwelling units, there is no guarantee they will be counted towards meeting the developer's inclusionary housing obligation. Third, the Housing and Redevelopment Department supports the construction of on-site affordable housing units. 4. Greens/ La Costa Ridge/Oaks - The language in these sections should be revised relative to the comments above. As we discussed previously, we may want to discuss this project at our Wednesday morning housing team meetings. Also, you may want to direct the applicant to meet with the Housing and Redevelopment Director and/or myself to discuss the above comments. Please let me know how you want to proceed. CRAIG RUIZ CR:cr September 24, 1998 TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: Recreation & Park Planning Manager ALGA NORTE PARK On September 17, 1998, staff was requested by Jack Henthorn to attend a meeting with Fred Arbuckle from Morrow Development Inc. to discuss the future Alga Norte park site and the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst; Senior Planner, Don Neu; and myself were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to inquire as to: 1. The City's commitment to purchase the entire 32.9 acres for Alga Norte park site, 2. Whether or not the City had sufficient revenues in the Park-in-Lieu Southeast Quadrant to purchase the land and, 3. Letting the City know that RECM would pursue the option of a joint use of the 32.9 acre park site with the Carlsbad Unified School District. Staff again confirmed with Mr. Arbuckle that the City definitely wanted the entire 32.9 acre site for recreational facilities. We reminded him that as per the 1996 Parks Agreement, the City would be required to pay RECM $175,000 per acre for any additional land which would be dedicated over their required amount. With the concern that there would not be enough funds in the Park-in-Lieu to purchase the additional acres, staff assured Mr. Arbuckle that at the discretion of the City Council, the City had alternative funding options available to purchase the land, i.e., General Fund, etc. The other issue was that of joint use of the 32.9 acres with the C.U.S.D. In order to satisfy his requirement to dedicate a site for the School District (9-10 acres), it is Mr. Arbuckle's interpretation of the Parks Agreement that until the City is truly committed to purchase the entire 32.9 acres, RECM has the option to pursue a joint use of the park site with the School District. Staff emphasized again that the City is not interested in a joint use of the 32.9 acres park site and plans on using the entire site for active recreaticmactivities. KEN PRICE Senior Management Analyst, Keith Beverly Senior Planner, Don Neu Park Development Coordinator, Mark Steyaert HAIBRARY/WORD/KEN'S M&L 1998/ALGA NORTE PARK Memorandum TO: Senior Planner, Don Neu FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: May 21, 1998 MP 98 - 01 / GPA 98 - 01: Villages of La Costa - The Greens of La Costa COMPLETENESS and ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are considered complete with the following issues / items: Don: please add to your letter.... ltem# 1. Add "and Engineering" after requested Planning Change "revisions" to "comments and requested revisions". 3. after 1st sentence... The concept grading plans should also include major road and arterial grading to be done as an approved or excused quantity because of the arterial classification or general plan / regional impact. Before "The master plan..." add "If a mass grading plan or village grading / arterial grading plan is proposed it should be identified up front. Also add the following item in whatever sequence you wish. • A large scale map - one for each area - that shows the proposed development on a master plan scheme with existing contours, all necessary infrastructure, streets and arterials, boundaries, and adjacent development information, (see application requirements item #l. REQUIRED PLANS). Multiple maps could be provided to separate planning or other land use items from more important Engineering items. • Alignment plans for all arterials : Poinsettia Lane, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Questhaven Road, and Melrose Drive should be part of the package and part of the environmental review process £, fej^jbte ^llpsion^offsJte is^e||yfe3|f9r|i|Kh-alignrTierT(| . For Poinsettia Lane (west), one is already in process, to the east one is already approved and under construction. For Alicante, check the Carrillo Ranch or Lenar Master Plan application. We know that Melrose Dr. south to Encinitas is an issue but the proposed alignment should be feasible regardless of the political argument. • Complete all aspects of the corridor plans, including grading or adjacent design, sound walls or fences, special setbacks and trail access should be identified. • Grading plans or overall mass grading concept plan by village should be provided (if proposed). Areas separated by arterials should be either phased as part of the entire Roadway grading or balanced to stand alone. Once the roadways are graded, the separated villages should balance earthwork. • Drainage facilities and phasing of drainage improvements should be addressed. The City's Master Plan is left open in this area because of the design and development flexibility that was anticipated. This is the time to resolve and create the infrastructure plan and to study downstream mitigation. • The sewer and water facilities should also be considered as part of the master plan in a total / village / district plan. If any special conditions or responsibilities are proposed they should be identified. • Ideally each neighborhood section should be complete with a general description of what is required for each area and what is to be constructed as a village or master plan improvement. Exhibits should be provided that clarify.-aad- Flip flopping back and forth to understand what is applicable, or what is necessary from other documents is not effective. 1. Access (primary & secondary) as shown on exhibit 1. 2. Signals (Shown on exhibit 1, with installation to occur when volumes and warrants are satisfied, and as directed by the Traffic Engineer of Carlsbad.) 3. Sight Distance corridors to remain clear (ref. Section / page). Monument or entry signage must be located as shown on exhibit 1. 4. Sewer, water, storm drain, & reclaimed water requirements. Possibly this could be as simple as all services and facilities are provided as shown on exhibit 2. Facilities have been designed to accommodate the maximum allowed density for this village. No reimbursements or cost sharing required. Changes to approved design will require district or City Engineer approval. 5. Future grading permits will be required. No import or export of earthwork is specifically approved by this master plan. The site has been rough graded and only minor balanced grading is anticipated. All grading shall be designed and processed in accordance with CMC chapter 15.04.010 Exhibits should be clear and conclusive for purposes of a Master Plan. 1 or 2 exhibits may be necessa£y_to provide clarity and to separate Engineering requirements from Planninguu Submit Circulation^JpafficT Sewer, and Drainage studies to support the proposed design. Separate plans can be designed that show more detail and specific design requirements and not over clutter to the general master plan or neighborhood site plan. By having general overview plans and underlying detail plans, a complete description of the villages and neighborhoods can. presented. The phasing plan should be improved to show all services and phasing or proposed timing of construction. Sewer, Water, Storm Drains, Reclaimed Water Systems, Streets, Schools, Parks, and other facilities need to be addressed. I know these are redundant from the Zone plan, and we will defer to the zone plan for specific details, but a tie or connection should be made to connect development with public facilities. Additional Comments and recomendations: 1. ( )Melrose Ave. south of La Costa is a Major Arterial identified in the City's circulation element of the General Plan and should be preserved as a 102' right of way. The proposed amendment of the general plan to reduce this arterial is not supported and the direction from staff and the City Engineer has not changed. Dedicate full width right of way, construct full width intersection and the adjacent frontage areas. The road could transition or be constructed to a lesser width south of the first intersection. Again full width dedication is required. 2. ( )The proposed remainder parcels are technically not "legal lots". They have restrictions that prohibit development until further subdivision. We will require full dedication of all arterials and all elements of the General Plan to be provided up front, even if the remainder lot concept is used. We would rather see the master subdivision or village (large lot) subdivision developed similar to the Aviara Master Plan. Future subdivision of neighborhoods from master subdivided villages is easier than adding a remainder designation and more discretionary review later. 3. () Be more specific about the availability of public services. The master plan is supposed to outline and plan for the orderly development of these. The Public facilities section is vague and non descriptive. Be more specific about the proposed master plan systems and the lesser village or neighborhood systems. If the entire infrastructure is proposed to be constructed with the master subdivision it should be identified. 4. I have transferred my comments in the text along with yours for communication with the applicant. Thank You for your patience and cooperation. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. CLYDE WICKHAM Associate Engineer Land Development Division c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, Land Use Review Memorandum TO: Senior Planner, Don Neu FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: March 25, 1998 MP 98 - 01 / GPA 98 - 01: Villages of La Costa - The Greens of La Costa COMPLETENESS REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: During our review we have struggled to visualize the proposed master plan and constantly flip for exhibits or plans to show what is proposed. The planning items of completeness address this issue very well and we have nothing to add at this time. A large map - one for each area ( The Villages and The Greens would be helpful. During our previous review we spent a considerable time and effort reviewing the draft of what we expect to see as part of this application. Return of the checkprints with the revisions would also save time and speed up the process. Due to our heavy workload, issues and a more detailed review will follow within the next few weeks. If, during this time span, the applicant can provide the maps and plans to support this application we will review and incorporate these into process. Thank You for your patience and cooperation. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. Associate Engineer Land Development Division c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, Land Use Review