HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 190; Del Mar Financial; Specific Plan (SP)RD#il 06 [j ^ h ti y Beceived
:5
• •5
REQUEST
• Zone Cliange
• Cc?ais3"al Plan Arne:-jdment
0 TeiitativG Tiract Ttop
BPlcinnsd'Unit Deveioprient
• Major C6nda:tdjiiu.ri Permit
ni'tinor Condorrani;.7iri Permit
DMnster Plan
Ot'lajor Ccndoaiinii:;-a Conversion
N0V011983
-•Precise Dsvelopnient Plan'f
-•ISei^JSiTM^ CABLSBAQ
• Conditional Use Penrit
• Variance
• Planning Conmissicn Determination
• Special Use Perrnit
D A3mini.st_rati\7e Vari£r.ce
~1
Co'n-'.plete Descripti.on of project (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Combination Q£ re Sidential, officfi, cnrmngrr.i al and Vir>1-P>i pyr,jo^4-
Location of Project
East of El Camino Real. North and South nf Cnl 1 ^g«=. ni^rr^
Tec;a). i:)escr.ipti.on (complete)
Portion of Lot B^ map 823 Pannbn agna Horlinr>Ha
Co. RR2
Co. M52
Proposed Zone
• Rl-(PD)
C2,o
General Plan
RH/o/c
ProEosed General.Plan
Same
Assessors Parcel lurrier
-See Attanhfici
E>'J.Eti-ng land Use
Vacant
O/Tner
Site Acreage
8S- acras
N^j-n,^ (Print or 'Iyi:.>G)
Del Mar Financial "
tteilirg-75JdL{i!iy — •
6351 YarrOw Dr
City and State Zip Telef^ino
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
I CERTIFY TOAT I Al^i THE LEGAL OWNER NIQ
THAT hU.. THE ;iD0VE^3^vFOr%I'lATiaNl IS TRUE
CCRT-ECl' IX) .UMJBEST OF MY Ki>10VILEDGE
SIGK/j
f>.::...- /il vl. io;) iV.<."c;J\i.vlj .^'.l :iti' /•.S'j.i-'.i?.; d
L
_Appjyxiint
Kame (Print or 'Jype)
.DevelOPiTtent ConsultantR
'In -i T i rrr Ar1r^rp.t;cr hiailing Address
P.O. Box 2143
City aiid State Zip TelepJ-ione
Carlsbad, Ca, 92008
I CERTIFY TIIAT I AM THE Q-.A^ER'S Rm^-5E!n\'I'J j
AKD Tr'AT ALL T5IE' AEOVE IKFOFJ'ATION IS TTCZ '
AbD OXxRECT TO ITIE BEST OP Mr' }CK7ATIiDGE
ICNAIUTNE
er
I. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change ' "
1. - Application Form i
2. Gen^tral Requirernent Items H-Q ' , ''
3. Reproducible 1:500 scale map of subject property |
showir.a, requested zoning and surrounding zoning and '
land uses.
4. Fee: General Plan Amendment S200-.00 + $5.00 per lot or!
acre. Zone Change: ?500.00 '
Master Plan/Specific Plan/Precise Development Plan
1. Application Form
2. General Requirement Items; , '
- eighteen (-18) cppies of items A-D '
- itonis E-Q '
3. Fee: Master Plan $1,000 + $2.00 per/acre
Specific Plan $1,000.00
Master Plan Amendment: Minor $50.00 + 2.00 acre
Major $500.00 + 2.00 acre
2.
3.
4.
Tentative Tract Hap ' •
1. Application Form
Eighteen (18) copies of "the Tentative Tract Map
General Requirement Items
- eighteen (18) copies of items A-C
- items E, G-K, M-R
Fee: $500.00 (1-25 lots or units)
$750.00 (2C-100 lot.s or units)
?1,000 (100 + lots or units)
Extension: 1/2 of original fe?
Revision; 1/4 of tentative map and regular fee on
additional lots or acres.
Planned Unit Development
TI Application Form
2. General Requirement Items: • '
eighteen (lb) copies of items A-D
item.'-> E-Q
3. • F^e: $200
Administrative Amendment $50.00
Major Amendment: $200.00
Major Condominium Permit (5 or more units)
'l. Appl ication Form
2. General Requirement Items:
- eighteen (18) copies of items A-D
- items E-Q •
3. Conversion to Condo.miniums - list of names and
addres.ses of all tenants of the project, .proof of
notification of the tenants 60 days prior to filing
tentative map.
4. Fee: $50.00 + $1.00 per unit
$5.00 per unit for notification of tenants
Minor Conc3c3iniuT, TPennit (4 or less units)
TI ^AiTplicaLion i'ovm
2. Geneial Requiremsnt Items:
, - throe (3) copies of items A-D
- itcs-a K, L, O, P, Q
3. 0Dnver.'5ion to Condominiums -'list of names and addresses of
ali tenaiii:s of the units to be converted to oondaniniums.
4. Fee: $50.00 + $1.00 per unit
Site Develoor.cn!: Pl?n
T. App'licatio,-i Form
2. General Koquire.iient It'--!»s
thirteen (13) copies of items A-D
itc.T.3 E-L, O, P, Q .
3. Fee: $350.00
Conditional Use Permit/Special Use Permit
TI Application For.a
2. - General Requirement Items:
thirteen (13) copies of ite.TS A-D * ' •
itents E-Q (items K,N & 0 not required for.Special Use
Ponrlt)
3. Fee: $400.00
Variance • • •
1.
2.
Application-Form
General F.equirement Items:
thirteen (13) copies of item A
it&rs E, G, H, J->3, I if applicable, and P
(see Title 19. Environment)
Variance Su;;plem3ntal Sheet • . . •
Fee: Single Family = $100.00
Otiier = $250.00
Planni ry:; Cc.mii 13'ic»n Determination
1. ApiJiicacion I'otm
2. One page statement precisely indicating the determination
request.
3. General Requirement Items:
thirteen (13) copies of itejns A and D
items H, K, and L
4. Fee: $25.00
Adrriinistrativo Variance
TI Application torn
2. General Requirement Items
- (3) copies of items A 6 D, if e^liceble
- items G, J-N, and P
3. Fee: $100.00
ir. C:'?;KR.tj, vsfyjipjy.^rrs
^' Site Pla-i: Shall includo the following information:
- ;C;J:;0 a.T.i a.iJrer.s of applicant, engineer arvd/or
eirci'.itpct, etc.
- /dl cc:2c:rcr.'.:s
- pir;.c;i.o)cnod locations of:
acciss, both padestriasi and vehicular, sho-.ving
K^rvico areas and paints of ingress an-1 ogress
. off-street parking end loading areas showing
locotion, niffiber arrd typical dimension of spaces,
E.-id ulieel stops.
- distancen betv;c-i_n buildings; and/or structures
- building s3tb2o?.s (front, rear and sides)
• - location, heioht, and materials of walls and fences
- Icciition of freestariJing signs
• - all drivc-^avs to scale on <.djacent and across the
str'--et pt.o'>:i:ties tor a di;;tance of 100 feet beyond
IlKvTiiTiits oi subject site.
- exictin-j curbs, gutters, sidewallcs and existing
pavi.-ig widths within 100 feet on adjacent and across
il.e street pcopc-rtie.s.
- typical street section ' '
- any o^:istin-j median islands within 100 feet of
suliject site.
- nearest cross streets on both sides with plus or
minus distances from subject site.
- locr,tion of all buildings v;ithin-100 feet of sub ject-
Fro;>;rties. : ~ : "
- a vicinity msp showing major qross streets
- a si:;T;T,ary table indicating the following
• information:
cite aci.ic;ge .
exi.-sting zor.e and land use • .
prcii-oscd land use .rr—r—r—
total buildin-n coverage '- ^
building rq. footage- .•
percent lan-iscaping ~r~rrrr-r
• naiJ.x-r of parking spaces • " ——-
sq. footage of open/recreational
space (if "ai^iilicable) ,
cubic footage, of storage space • •
(if applicable) I
Pcol Lninr.t; v Grad ing a-.d Dra inoge Pl an* {24"x3r>")
- exiotiiv/ uivJ"proposc<i contours on tbe site and within
100 feet of the' tx)undaries of the site,
elevations of the site
existing on-site trees; those to be renovod and those
to be saved.
C. Preliriin.-^rv I.^ndscane and Irritja'tion Plan* (24"x36'')
location of planting areas and tipical plant materials
(quantity and size)
- location of areas to be irrigated
D. P.jjld: r.-T r) o-.-at ior.-; ond Fl oor P3 gnr.* (24"x3G")
iiouf pii;i]'., wi -ui ujuai e loji-fi-).:?;! included
li.K:i:tioi. a.vJ sizc of storage areas
all I'uildiu-j.-:, .<;!ructuros, wjll.s an-a/or fence.^, r.igna
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
h.
M.
O.
P.
One (1) copy of colored site plan (24"x36")
Ono (1) copy Of colored elevations (2'5"x36")
One (1) copy each of 8 l/2"xll" site plan and elevations".
One (1) copy of 0 l/2"x.l1" location map (suggested sctle
1:'200" - vicinity iiops on the site plan are not acceptable)
Environmental Impact Assessment Forni ($100)
Public Facility .'agreement: 2 copies: Ons (1) notorized
original. One (1) reproduced copy.
Disclooare Stateiv.cnt • •
Photostatic copy of deed with com.plete legal description of
subject property or other form of description acceptable to
the Planning Director.
•Propert>;^ 0.>-nor.q' List and Addressed Etamned Envelopes "
Two't''nead'ed^^ Site Develop;irent Plan, .Special Use i^ormWF
and Minor Ccni.lo;ninium I'er.'iiit) 1) a typewritten list of the '
nowes and addresses of all property o^'ners and occupants
Vithin n 300 foot radius of subject property. Tl^.e list
shall includf- the S.m Diego County AsGe^sor' s parcel nu.mber
from the. latcct a.ssessment rolls. 2) Two seoarate sets of
addiosaed stamr>ed envelopes (four sets for condcninium con-
versions) of th.e property owners and occupants within a
3C0-foot radii-.s of subject .property. For any .address other
than f.incil(! r.fU.illy residence, aoartment or suite nur.ber rust
. bt included. nO NOT TYPE A.sr,i'S5:0R'S PARCEL ;>;;;i-iUER 0:i EKVii-
LOPES AND Li^AVE RST'JRN OK AODKE.SS BLAMX. 3) F.or Condoxiniu.-n
Conversions, tv;o seoarate sets of addressed, stamped enve-
• lopes of all existing tenants is required.
300 Foot Rr-dins "i;ap
'(Hot "needed tu'_- Site Devolopment Plan, Special use Permit
and Minor Condominium Permit). A r..-;p to scale not less than
1" = 2CC' sliov;inq each lot within 300 feet of the exterior
boundr.'i: ies of the subject property. Each of these lots
shall be consecutively numijered and correspond with the
perty bv;ncr's li.st. The scale of the. map may be reduce/
a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the requ^
scale is impractical. *
For reside'-itial project.': within Vista, San Marcos, Encinitr-.s
•or San Dicc;uj^to Sc^iOol Districts, the appiicant siiall indi-
cate wiiethcr he prefers to dedicate .larid for school facili-
ties, tA pay a foe in lieu thereof, or do a combination of
those. IC tho applicant prefers to dedicate land, he shall'
suggest the specific land. . •
For residential projects within the Carlsbad Unified School
Dirtrict, the npplicant shall submit v.Titten- conrirmation
that schoo?.. facilities v;iil be available and serve the
projoct at time o,^ need.
Preliminary Title 'Keport
•Proof of sever avc>ilability if located in the Leucadia
County Hatnr District.
Statement of agreement to v/aive tentative tract map time
limits. .
*NOTR: .ALL EXIIIIUT.O KU.OT OE FOLDED IM A SIZE NOT TO EXCEED
h (/P.-'xll",
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to assist the members of the Planning Commission, and
City Council to avoid possible conflicts of interest, all appli-
cants are required to complete this disclosure form at the time
of submitting their application. When this form has been com-
pleted and signed, the information will be relied upon by them in
determining if a conflict may exist, so please ensure that all of
the information is completed and accurate. If at anytime before
a final action on your application has been rendered, any of the
information required by this•disclosure changes, an amendment
reflecting this change must be filed. «
»
If the applicant is an individual, or a partnership (either gen-
eral or limited) or a joint venture, please state the full name,
address and phone number of each.person or individual (including
trusts) v/ho own any beneficial interest in the property which is
the subject of this application. Should one or more parties to
the application be a partnership or joint venture, then please
state the full legal name of the jpartnership or joint venture,
its legal address and the name and address of each individual
person v;ho is a general and/or limited partner or member of the
joint venture. " .
Should one or more of the parties be a privately held corporation
(10 shareholders or less) or a real estate syndication, then
please state the state of incorporation or syndication, corporate
number, date of incorporation or syndication, corporate or syn-
dicate address, and the full names and addresses of each
individual shareholder or syndicate member. Should the corpor-
ation be a publically held corporation,.• then state the full name
and address of the corporation, the place of its incorporation,
number of shareholders, and the name and address of the officers
of the corporation.
Should you feel that additional inforiuation needs to be provided
in order to provide a full disclosure, please include it.
lur!-har xnio; w, J
APPLICANT: Del Mar Financial (Mike O'Hara)
•Neune (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
6351 Yarrow Dr Carlsbad, ^a. -92008-
Business Address
AGEIJT:
Telephone Nuiiiber
Deve'lopment Consultants
Name
P.O. Box 2143 Carlsbad. Ca. 92008
Businc-js Address
(619) 434Tin5fi
Telephone Kunbsr
ME:-3ERS: Homer L^ ^n'ri Nina Ea^nn'
Name -(individual, pcirtner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
652 Neptune Ave Lftnfifldia,r:fl.92024
Home Ziddress
B-jsiness Address
Telephone Nuinber
Gerald Frankel
Maiaa
'Telephone NuirJjer
1365 Regal Row Dallas, Tx. 75247
. . Eome Address .
Business ?iddress
Telephone NusQser Telephone JiurrUaer
Jakob arid Maria Wershirig 30772 Vis La Cresta St. Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274
I' • (Attach more sheets if necessary)
1/V7e declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be'
relied upon as being true and correct until aniended.
Aprjlicant
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a
fifty (50) day time restriction on Planning Commission processing •
of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for City
Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the
mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting
applications for Tentative Maps concurrently v;ith applications
for other approvals which are prerequisit.es to the map; i.e.,
Erivironmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium
Plan, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time
limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded.
If you wish to have your application processed concurrently,
this agreement must-be signed by the applicant or his agent. If
you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept-
your application for the Tentative Majs until all prior necessary
entitlements have been processed and approved.
The undersigned understands that the processing time required by
the City may exceed the.time limits,.therefore the undersigned
agrees to extend the time limits for Planning Commission and
City Council action and fully .concurs with any extensions of
time up to one year from the date the application was accepted
as complete to properly review all of the applications.
Signature Date
Oel Mar Financial Inc.
Name (Print) Relationship to Application
.(Property Owner-Agent)
FORM: PLANNING 37, REVISED 3/80 "
A.P.N.
209-060-26
209-060-50
209-060-43
209-060-44
209-060-32
209-060-37
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
se ifo
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-1161
Citp of Carlifbab
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
June 13, 1988
Attorney Nicholas C. Banche
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
SYCAMORE CREEK, SP 190, CT 88-36
Dear Mr. Banche:
In regard to your request concerning the status of Growth
Management exemptions on the Sycamore Creek project, staff has
completed its review of the relevant material and has concluded the
following:
1. No further construction will be required prior to July 20,
1988 in order to retain your exemption status under Sections
21.09.030(c) and (e) . To ensure that work will proceed
pursuant with an active secured agreement, it will be
necessary to complete the extension of all improvement
agreements and posting of acceptable securities by July 20,
1988.
2. Concerning the status of the commercial parcel on the
northeast corner of College Boulevard and El Camino Real (CT
88-36, Lot 11), staff agrees that this parcel is included by
Sections 21.09.030 (c) and (e). Given that improvement
securities are adequately provided, staff would accept and
process a Specific Plan Amendment and development plan for
processing on Lot 11. The development plan for the commercial
site may be approved. However, no application for a building
permit will be processed on this site until the Local
Facilities Plan for Zone 15 is approved. The building permits
for this site will then be subject to all conditions and
provisions as outlined in the Zone 15 Plan.
In regard to the improvement security, the Engineering staff has
identified several areas of concern that need to be addressed
expeditiously in order to retain the exempt status:
1. The Subdivision Agreement for $1,575,000 covering Drawing Nos.
251-6 require Council action for extension. The City Engineer
has the authority to extend the balance of the agreements on
Attorney Nicholas C. Banche
June 13, 1988
Page Two
this project. He has expressed a willingness to extend these
agreements, however, that decision will be deferred until the
City Council takes action on extending 251-6.
2. The traffic signal at College Boulevard and El Camino Real has
been completed. Staff would like to discharge the agreement
through the final resolution of cost-sharing arrangements.
Please contact Walter Brown for further details.
3. The original conditions of approval required that adequate
provisions for offsite sewering be provided, and the "the
complete system shall be designed in conformance with a master
sewer basin concept to the satisfaction of the City Engineer."
Staff is still reviewing the issue of offsite sewer, but at
this point is appears that the sewer program contemplated by
the posted "Design-Construct" Agreement is inconsistent with
current City policy. Developments with the South Agua
Hedionda sewer basin (Cannon Road sewer) are currently
required to construct master plan facilities to serve this
area. This condition is generally being met through
participation in the proposed Cannon Road Assessment District.
I suggest you meet with the City Engineer to further explore
this important issue.
This letter is not meant to be exhaustive. The improvement plans
are still under review, and other minor issues may result from that
more detailed review. Hopefully this will clearly present the
status of exemptions and highlight key issues.
If you have further questions, please call.
Sincerely,
MARTIN ORENYAK
Community Development Director
bjn
c: Planning Director
City Engineer
Assistant City Engineer
To
WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY
NICHOLAS C. BANCHE
LAW OFFICES OF
DAUBNEY AND BANCHE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
eiO MISSION AVENUE, SUITE £OI
POST OFFICE BOX 390
• CEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 32054
AREA CODE ei9
TELEPHONE 722-1681
June 10, 1988
Charles Grimm
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, California 92009
Dear Charlie:
4
C/^RiSBAO ^1
You will recall that at our meeting of June 2, 1988,
discussing the question of exemption of the Sycamore Creek
Specific Plan, I asked you to delay making a final decision on the
extent of the exemption until I had the opportunity to discuss the
issue with you, in writing.
My understanding is that it is your position that certain
segments of the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan are in fact exempt
from the provisions of the Growth Management Plan, and are
therefore entitled to proceed absent the preparation and
acceptance of a zone plan while, conversely, others, and
specifically the commercial lot is not exempt.
It is my considered opinion that if the commercial lot is a
part of the specific plan, then one cannot pick and choose as to
which parts would be deemed exempt and which are not.
Specifically, Planning Commission Resolution 2269 adopted the
Sycamore Creek Specific Plan. Further, the environmental impact
report, and traffic study were accepted and certified.
The environmental impact report and traffic study referred to
"a large commercial shopping center". The resolution of
acceptance and approval also made references to requiring
"amendments to" the specific plan.
The purpose of this was to "allow for future review".
The commercial shopping center, phase 9, specified that
176,000 square feet of commercial/office space would be
constructed with parking requirements at 1,667 spaces. The
Charles Grimm
June 10, 1988
Page 2
specific plan provided that the development was to be phased, and
need not be sequential. Phases 8, 9 and 10 were required to file
"amendments to" the specific plan.
One final map was recorded as Tract 83-36. The "Wersching"
commercial lot was a part of that tract map as lot 11.
All security is in place covering all of the specific plan,
and the specific plan includes all phases and all lots, including
phase 9, lot 11.
I would also ask that you consider the great detail of the
specific plan text. Parking is called out, signage, architecture,
site coverage, height, open space, etc. All that was required of
the developer was to design to the specified, accepted criteria.
It was even provided that there could be an alteration of the
accepted ratios subject only to administrative approval.
In short, a detailed, precise specific plan was adopted, and
the commercial lot was a part of that specific plan.
Moving now to the Growth Management Plan, there is no
question but that the project encompassed by the Sycamore Creek
Specific Plan was included within the exemptions to the Growth
Management Plan, and that accordingly they are entitled to proceed
assuming they have "perfected" prior to July 20, 1988.
You will recall that it is the position of Staff that we have
in effect perfected, and therefore, we are simply discussing
whether or not the commercial aspects are part of the specific
plan.
If they are, then it seems to me that we are entitled to
proceed, as amendments to would certainly be envisioned as a type
of processing permitted an exempt project.
Finally, you had raised the question of an absence of traffic
data.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated January 14, 1983,
from Catherine Nicholas to Mike O'Hara. You are listed as a
recipient of a copy.
That letter talked about traffic.
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 436-5596
DEVELOPMENTAL''' M^v.v^na 1200 ELM AVENUE
SERVICES - M m CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA QSCOS
° ('iraissT'"'"' Citp of Carlflfbab
O Engineering Department '
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
3096 Harding St.
(714)436-5611
B^lannlng Department
(714) 438-65S1
January 14, 1983
Mike O'Hara
Del Mar Financial
6351 Yarrow Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: 2C-272 - O'Hara - Preannexational Zone Change
The following is a summary of preliminary traffic comments from
the Engineering Department to the traffic study and development
plan submitted for the above referenced project.
The following major traffic-related project issues, and how they
relate to the City's Design Criteria in the Circulation Element
of the General Plan, are to be addressed by the EIR;
1) The precise location and configuration of the College
Boulevard/"A" Street intersection.
2) The proposed right-turn entrance off College Bouleard.
3) The proposed right-turn in and out driveway off El Camino
Real.
4) The proposed public street right-turn in and out off El
Camino Real approximately equidistant between College
Boulevard and Palmer Way.
5) The connection of "A" Street to the proposed Barber
property access continuing to Impala Street. The EIR
will address the amount of development which can be
accommodated by "A" Street prior to the necessity of this
connection.
6) Project impacts of the El Camino Real/College Boulevard
intersection. The traffic study submitted utilized year
1990 figures as opposed to a year 2,000 build-out.
Additionally, all anticipated project vicinity traffic
was not incorporated in the study. (A detailed list of
projects can be provided.)
January 14, 1983
Page Two
Minor discrepancies were found between generation rates utilized
in the traffic study and those required by the City, as follows:
1) Office Use -
Required rate - 20 trips per 1,000 square feet
Utilized rate - 16 trips per 1,000 square feet
2) Commercial (Wersching) -
Required rate - 80 trips per 1,000 square feet
Utilized rate - 70 trips per 1,000 square feet
The Engineering Department has also requested a current breakdown
of restaurant, financial and office square footage, and 24-hour
volumes as well as peak hour volumes on all streets, to complete
their review.
I anticipate some additional comments may be forthcoming from the
Engineering Department. I will forward all comments as
received.
Sincerely,
CATHERINE NICHOLAS
Land Use Planning Office
CDN:kb
cc: Roy Kackley
Richard Allen
Kent Whitson
Charles Grimm
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERS
TRA\SPO"T-"i''A, TRAFFIC, PARKING. C'VIL ENG.\EER-\G
150 C PAULARINO, SUITE 120, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 !714) 641-1537
December 19, 1983
Mr. H.D. O'Hara
DEL MAR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
6351 Yarrow Drive, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: FOLLOW-UP TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEL MAR FINANCIAL SITE (SYCAMORE CREEK)
EL CAMINO REAL AT COLLEGE BOULEVARD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. O'Hara:
In conjunction with our role of providing traffic data beyond the
project EIR, we have prepared additional analyses on your behalf
relative to questions posed by the City of Carlsbad Planning and
Traffic Departments. Briefly, their questions center on the
following items:
o Revised critical volume analysis (service level
calculations) at the College/El Camino Real
intersection, assuming right turn in-right turn out at
the site on El Camino.
o Traffic volumes between driveways on "A" Street.
o Incremental (phased) traffic generation forecast for
the project.
With respect to the service level calculations, our analysis
indicates that the El Camino Real/College Boulevard intersection,
if it existed now, would operate at Service Level A during the
evening peak hour. The addition of total project traffic could,
without project-related mitigation, deteriorate that condition by
several service levels. However, proposed project mitigation in
the the form of added lanes on College, completion of the Master
Planned 6-lane cross section on El Camino Real along the project
frontage, and left turn capacity improvements, would ensure that
Service Level A is maintained.
Without project traffic, future conditions based on existing
volumes and those added by approved area development would result
in Service Level D at the El Camino Real/College intersection.
The addition of project traffic, and the implementation of
r99 EAST WALNUT STREET, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 9' lOe (21 3: 796-2322
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
project-proposed mitigation would produce conditions also
described by level D. Thus, in either case, the project-related
roadway improvements which will accompany its development will
ensure that intersection service levels after project completion
are the same as prior to project development.
Estimated future link volumes on "A" Street are consistent with
those typically within the capabilities of a two-lane roadway,
rather than the industrial street's 72 foot right-of-way (52 foot
curb-to-curb) width indicated on the current plan. A lesser
width, with widening to industrial street standards on "A" only
adjacent to its intersection with College is worthy of
consideration. A 40 foot wide local street (60 feet of
right-of-way) with single travel lane in each direction, no
parking, and two-way left turn lane is suggested.
Roughly half of the project's generation forecast, and thus
traffic and intersection impacts, will not be experienced until
the ninth and tenth phases of this ten phase project. Further,
over the first 7 phases, the typical annual increment is on the
order of 5 or 6 percent of the trip forecast. As such, the
project impacts will not be experienced all at once, but rather
will occur incrementally over time, with the largest traffic
increments at the final development stages. Full implementation
as of project-related mitigation is not envisioned as necessary
until those latter development phases.
Ctittgal .YQlures -SwmatilQn Analysis
Our evaluation of revised service levels at the College/El Camino
intersection involved several elements that were not covered in
the EIR, Perhaps the most significant element involves a
proposed right in-right turn out (RTI-RTO) project driveway
adjacent to El Camino Real which would service the site directly
from that roadway. Although referred to in the EIR, that
analysis did not presume the availability of such a connection
for project traffic, which has had some affect on the project
distribution estimates and thus the intersection service level
calculations of the EIR. This is believed to be the basis of the
City's request for additional information.
In responding to the City's request, it appears that an
additional element needs resolution, or at least consideration on
a contingency basis. This issue involves the ultimate status of
"C" Street as it was known on the site plan in the EIR, which has
been presumed to eventually extends through a parcel to the east
of the Del Mar site on El Camino Real, between El Camino Real and
"A" Street. The parcel, known as the Barber property, is not
part of the current Del Mar Financial holdings. As such, its
development will probably occur independently of Del Mar,
although it has been included as part of the "project" in the
EIR, with an estimate of its traffic impact included in the
project trip forecast and related assessment.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
For convenience we have referred to this off-site roadway between
"A" and El Camino Real as the Barber connection. The EIR assumed
its ultimate availability as a full service intersection
providing left and right turns to and from El Camino Real. We
have recommended such a configuration since our early studies for
this project and adjacent areas, and still advance this as
ultimately in the best interest of area-wide circulation, as
subsequent- calculations of this letter will demonstrate. In
addition, the EIR study assumed, as an alternate, no such
connection for the Barber property, together with no right turn
in-right turn out drive on El Camino to directly service the
project site. Unfortunately, the EIR did not consider the
apparent staff preference, which is a RTI-RTO connection to El
Camino at the Barber property as well as along the Del Mar
frontage.
To put all of this in perspective, we've evaluated the service
level at the El Caraino/College for several different volume
assumptions, and two different intersection improvement
configurations. As an overview, this evaluation included the
following steps and assumptions:
o Project traffic was redistributed assuming the RTI-RTO
driveway on El Camino to directly service the site.
This was done with and without the inclusion of
"unplanned office" (Barber Property) traffic, as it
was known in the EIR. In our opinion, it is
unreasonable to assume Barber traffic without the
Barber connection. It is also unreasonable to presume
the Barber connection without the development of the
Barber parcel, and Del Mar has no control over that
property. The ultimate developer of the Barber parcel
is presumed to have the responsibility for producing
this street also. The only issue, then, is the
ultimate configuration of the connection at El Camino
Real when Barber is developed, and two lanes have been
assumed,
o The list of approved projects as defined in the EIR and
impacting this intersection was redefined based on
discussions with Willdan Associates, preparers of the
EIR Traffic Study. Calvera Hills, Carlsbad Highlands
and High School traffic estimates were deleted from the
total of forecast approved project volumes at the
intersection because it is now believed (by Willdan and
us) that Cannon Road will be available to service them
instead.
o Two intersection improvement (lane configuration)
assumption sets were evaluated, referred to under
"without mitigation" and "with mitigation" headings.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
The differences between the two are basically the added
traffic lanes at the intersection which will be largely .
provided as a condition of the Del Mar Financial
project construction. These involve additional
dedication and street width to be provided by the
project which will widen El Camino, add two travel
lanes to College north of the intersection, and provide
dual left turn/lanes on the southbound and westbound
intersection approaches.
o The EM peak hour service levels were recalculated for
existing, existing plus approved only, existing plus
project only, and the total existing plus approved plus
project traffic volumes, using the two intersection
improvement configurations.
Review of Table A, which presents this summary, indicates that if
the interpertion existed now with existing traffic, it would
operate at Service Level A. Without mitigation, existing plus
approved traffic volumes would produce Service Level D during the
m peak hour at the key El Camino Real/College Boulevard
intersection. This service level forecast assumes no development
whatsoever on the site.
Existing plus project traffic only without project mitigation
could result in unacceptable Service Levels of E or F, but the
intersection improvements proposed by project mitigation would
improve these to Level A, its "existing" value. This indicates
the significance of project-related street improvements in
mitigating not only the impact of the project, but their
potential for improving conditions for area-wide traffic as well.
The total of existing plus approved plus project traffic, could
in the long term result in Level of Service F, indicated by a
summation of 1422, even with intersection mitigation. Given the
magnitude of other cumulative development, however, including the
Koll Industrial Park and Airport Business Center which total
almost 800 acres and could add over 475,000 daily trips to the
area street system, the estimated cumulative volumes on which the
service level calculation is based would not occur for several
years after the phased project completion. Further, "A" Street
could be available to the east and/ or the Barber connection
could be constructed as a full service intersection with El
Camino Real. In either case. Service Level D would describe the
intersection's PM peak hour operation for the total of existing,
approved and project traffic. Thus, we believe that Level D
describes future total traffic condition at the El Camino
Real/College Boulevard intersection.
In summary, existing volumes alone would result in Service Level
A the the intersection, and addition of project traffic to those
volumes, accompanied by project mitigation, would maintain Level
TABLE A
CRITICAL VOLUME SUMMATION AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
At El Camino Real/College Boulevard
Sycamore Creek
rRTTTCAr. VOriMK .qiWMATTQN ffVET. OF SEWTCE IWS)
TRAFFIC VOXME DESOUPriON
wTTHntrr PomrrT RFTATRD MrriCATTON
o El Camino Real as 4-lanes (existing) o
o Construct College to 4-lanes o
o Singel left turn on all approaches o
o ^k> El Camino KTI/KTO at site o
wrm PROTECr-RRrATCn MTTTnATION
widen El Camino Real to 6-lanes
Construct College to 6-lanes
Dual left turn lanes on all approaches
El Camino RTI/RTO at sice
Existirvg Traffic Only 387/A NA »
Existing Plus Approved Traffic ftily 1167/D NA '
Existing Plus Project Traffic Only
without unplanned office and without Barber Connection
with unplaiuied office and with RTI/RID Barber Connection
with unplanned office and with full service
Barber Connection
1382/E
1464/F
1059/B
796/A
834/A
618/A
Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Treiffic
with unplanned office and with KTI/RIO Barber Connection
with unplemned office and with full service
Barber Connection
2365/F
1949/F
1422/P
1206/D
o
0)
f
O
i
3 v»
•o
0) 3 3
n
5'
s
'Not applicable - intersection mitigation measures as indicated are highly
unlikely without construction of the Sycamore Creelc project in some form.
'"Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
A at full site development. Existing plus all other approved
traffic would result in Level D, and Level D also describes the
mitigated condition with project development. In either case,
the street improvements associate with the project and the area
street system's development (Cannon Road, the Barber connection,
and the east "A" Street extension) will mitigate the project and
cumulative impacts to those levels which would exist on the
street system prior to project development.
DAIW-TOqMB ANALYSIS
Daily volume estimates have been prepared for the various links
of "A" Street between the project driveways indicated on the site
plan. Because "A" Street will presumably initially exist as a
stubbed street, then be extended through to the east as well as
be linked to El Camino via the Barber connection, two volume
forecasts have been prepared.
Exhibit A reflects the estimated daily two-way volumes on "A"
Street for the short term that being before "A" is extended
easterly or tied to the Barber connection. "A" Street volumes
will be the greatest in this case, as all "A" Street traffic will
be directed through the "A"/College intersection. As shown,
daily volumes will be just over 11,000 vehicles daily adjacent to
College, and diminish rapidly with increasing distance from the
intersection.
Exhibit B reflects full site development with the easterly
extension of "A" Street to and through the Barber connection.
Volumes do not accumulate as significantly near College (7400
vehicles per day versus 11,110 vehicles daily) in the ultimate
condition, and are in fact commensurate with a two-lane cross
section, rather than the four lane striping pattern associated
with the "A" Street cross-section now shown on the plan. Even
with the interim volume condition and intersection widening at
College, there does appear to be sufficient basis for reducing
the master planned width of "A" to a City standard which provides
for single travel lane in each direction with left turn
channelization (two-way left turn lane or painted median/left
turn pocket) at the center of the roadway. In a conversation
with Kent Whitson prior to the preparation of the volume
forecasts, he in fact speculated that this would be the case.
INCWaifiWrAJI^ -mfglg-gBNfiRATIQH ,FQRBCAS3?
Table B illustrates the incremental project traffic generation
forecast on a per-phase basis. The Table also sums to identify
the cumulative total at the end of each phase. As shown,
percentage increases for the various phases range from 3% at
Phases 3 and 7, to 45% at Phase 9.
VOLUME ASSUMPTIONS
WITHOUT UNPLANNED OFFICE
WITHOUT BARBER CONNECTION
WITH PROJECT RTI-RTO
SCHEMATIC XXX
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
inscott. Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
KEY
= 24 HOUR DAILY VOLUME
= PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
ALONG "A" STREET
ESTIMATED INTERIM DAILY VOLUMES
"A" STREET STUB
SYCAMORE CREEK
VOLUME ASSUMPTIONS
WITH UNPLANNED OFFICE
WITH "A" STREET EXTENSION
WITH BARBER CONNECTION
SCHEMATIC
\J L/ NOT TO SCALE
NORTH
KEY
XXX = 24 HOUR DAILY VOLUME
= PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
ALONG "A" STREET
inscott. Law Si Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
ESTIMATED FUTURE DAILY VOLUMES
"A" STREET THROUGH
SYCAMORE CREEK
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
TABLE B
PHASED TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Sycamore Creek
GENERATED VEHIOB .ENDS
m .PEAK HQOR DAILY
lAND USE DESCRIPTION INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 2-WRY
Phase 1 (Bidg, Hotel, Tennis Courts): 10%
Office (72,000 SF) 35 144 179 1440
Restaurant (3000 SF) 12 6 18 300
Hotel (120 Rooms) 60 60 120 1200
Tennis Courts (9 courts) U5 2Zfl Ototal fbaae 1-10% 122 225 347 3210
Phase 2 (Bidg F) - 6%
Office (50,500 SF) 25 101 126 1010
Restaurant (8000 SF) -43 m Sub-Total - (Phase 2) 57 117 174 1810
Cunulative Totals Aases 1-2 : 16% 179 342 521 5020
Phase 3 (Bidg G) - 3%
Office (58,500 SF) 29 117 146 1170
Cumulative Totals Phases 1-3 : 13% 208 459 667 6190
Phase 4 (Bidg D) - 5%
Office (75,000 SF) 37 150 187 1500
Cumulative Totals Phases 1-4 i 24% 245 609 854 7690
Phase 5 (Bidg C) - 7%
. Office (115,000 SF) 58 230 288 2300
Cunulative Totals Phases 1-5 I 31% 303 839 1142 9990
Phase 6 (Residential) - 4%
Residential (164 DU) 98 31 129 1312
Cunulative Totals Phases 1-6 : 35% 401 870 1271 11,302
Phase 7 (Bidg B) - 3%
Restaurant (10,000 SF) 40 20 60 1000
Cunulative Totals Phase 1-7 : 38% 441 890 1331 12,302
Phase 8 (Bidg A) - 13%
Office (11,000 SP) 6 23 29 220
Financial (20,000 SF) Ofl -Sfl 4QQq
Sub-Total (Phase 8) 16 63 79 4220
Cunulative Totals Phases 1-6 : 51% 457 953 1410 16,522
Phase 9 (Conn/Office) - 45%
Shopping Center (180,000 SF) 720 720 1440 14,400
Cumulative Total Phases 1-9 : 96% 1177 1673 2850 30,922
Phase 10
Unknown
Unplanned Office - 4% 122 1224
TOTAL GENSUOSD TRAFFIC - 100% 1208 1795 3003 32,146
- Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engineers
The largest development component is Phase 9 which consists of an
assumed 180,000 square foot shopping center on the Wershing
property. As such, this plan alone accounts for 45 percent of
the total project impact as evaluated in the EIR. Conversely,
Phases 1 through 9 in total represent 51%, so that the
intersection service level impacts and project increments alluded
to in Table A are in fact many years into the development of the
project. Further, if the project substitutes offices for
commercial retail floor area in this phase, the traffic
generation potential of the Phase would never be fully realized.
The forecast future service levels at the El Camino Real/College
intersection would be improved accordingly, particularly with the
area mitigation measures associated with this project.
We welcome the opportunity to provide this additional data on the
project and stand ready to provide further analysis as may be
required. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, INC.
-feu W\0
Paul W. Wilkinson, P.]
Senior Vice President
PWW/nlw
0-443-1
10
San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOWRNMENTS
Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-5300 May 9, 1984
Michael Holzmiller
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
SANDAG staff has reviev?ed the tentative map for Del Mar Fincincial as it relates
to the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Palomax
Airport. The map has been reviewed by the SANDAG staff in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations for the Airport hand Use Commission (ALUC) adopted by
the SANDAG Board of Directors acting as the ALUC on Jime 24, 1983, and finds
the project to be consistent with the CLUP, and that no further review by the
ALUC is required.
The southeast corner of the subject property is within the C-1 hazard zone for
Palomar Airport. The CLUP for Palomar Airport on page 27 indicates that office
and service industry land uses Eire "restricted new developments" within the C-1
zone. After reviewing the tentative map, it is our opinion that the proposed
development meets the C-1 zone criteria because the office buildings are
surrounded by sufficient "open" areas (e.g., parking lots, street rights-of-way, and
landscaping areas). AdditionaUy, the restaurant proposed for building A-3 would
be better suited on the ground floor rather than the top floor of the office
building.
If SANDAG can be of further assistance, please call me at 236-5372. If you wish
this matter to be reviewed by the SANDAG Board of Directors, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
JACK KOERPER
Special Projects Director
JK/ce
cc: Vince Biondo, City Attomey
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside,
Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee and Vista ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: Calif. Dept. of Transportation/U.S. Dept. of Defense and Tijuana/Baja Calif. Norte
San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GO^TRNxMENTS
Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-5300
May 7, 1984
Michael Holzmiller
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
SANDAG staff has reviewed the tentative map for Del Mar Financial ais it relates
to the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar Airport. The
following comment has not been reviewed by the SANDAG Board of Directors
acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the San Diego Region.
The southeast comer of the subject property is within the C-1 hazard zone for
Palomar Airport. The CLUP for Palomar Airport on page 27 indicates that office
and service industry land uses are "restricted new developments" within the C-1
zone. After reviewing the tentative map it is our opinion that the proposed de-
velopment meets the C-1 zone criteria because the office buildings are surroimded
by sufficient "open" areas (e.g., parking lots, street rights-of-way, and landscaping
areas). Additionally, the restaurant proposed for building A-3 would be better
suited on the groimd floor rather than the top floor of the office building.
If SANDAG can be of further assistance, please call me at 236-5372. If you wish
this matter to be reviewed by the SANDAG Board of Directors, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
JACK KOERPER
Special Pi-ojects Director
JK/rw
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carisbact Chula Vitta, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside,
Powvay, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee and Vista ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: Calif. Dept. of Transportation/U.S. Dept. of Defense and Tijuana/Baja Calif. None
I] Development Expediters, Inc.
P.O. Box 84597 • San Dieso, CA 92138
Telephone (714) 276-6761
feasibility Research
Governmental Process ins
April 27, 1984
Mayor Mary Casler
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
Members of the City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: EIR 83-1/ZC-272/ZC-274/SP-190/CT 83-36/CP-273
Dear Mayor Casler and City Council Members,
Occasionally developers and adjacent property owners do not
see eye-to-eye when it comes to a specific development. In this
case Del Mar Financial and Mrs. Martha Pillsbury have not been
able to settle their differences. Therefore we look to you for
your help in solving a simple matter for Mrs. Pillsbury.
Our request is that the City Council provide for a public
street reservation from "A" Street to Mrs. Pillsbury's parcel of
land located just north of the street.
The differences between Mrs. Pillsbury and Del Mar Financial
started when Mr. O'Hara refused to provide the street opening
unless we gave him exclusive right to purchase the property owned
by Mrs. Pillsbury's family. I met with Mr. O'Hara in an effort
to resolve the differences back in January of this year. We came
to a tentative agreement which would give Mrs. Pillsbury the
street reservation she would need for future development of the
site. Mr. O'Hara and Martha Pillsbury would execute an agreement
which, among other things, would contain a provision for
reciprocating first right of refusal for the future purchase of
either parcel.
After review of the tentative agreement, Mrs Pillsbury
decided to approve the concept and I called Mr. O'Hara and asked
him to have the appropriate documents prepared. Mr. O'Hara
informed me that he did not want a "first right of refusal", but
that Mrs. Pillsbury would have to guarantee to sell only to him
or she would have to purchase his site adjacent to hers. We felt
that this was an unreasonable request and told Mr. O'Hara so.
The city planning staff apparently felt that the street
reservation was a reasonable request and included a condition for
it in the draft resolution of approval to the Planning
Commission. Mr. O'Hara apparently requested the City Attorney to
address the issue with the Planning Commission assuring them that
the street reservation was not necessary for the project and
could be accomplished in the future.
This condition may not be necessary for Del Mar Financial's
project but is necessary for the future development of Mrs.
Pillsbury's property. I was told by Mr. O'Hara that he would not
grant the street reservation unless he had the exclusive right to
purchase the property. To this end we are before you now.
Our request is simple. We are not asking that Del Mar.
Financial improve, grade, or spend any funds for the proposed
street reservation. We only ask that your Commission require
that the reservation be offered to the city at the approximate
location as shown on the attached exhibit in order to provide
future public access to the site.
Mr. O'Hara has assured me that "B" Street as shown on the
tentative map is only temporary. This would therefore not cause
traffic circulation conflicts in the future if the reservation
were developed and "B" Street (private) were closed.
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
City Council for taking the time to consider this request. I
assure you that it is not the intention of Mrs. Pillsbury to
delay or stop the development of the Del Mar Financial proposal,
but to request that her property not be landlocked from public
access by the development of the parcels around it.
Very truly yours.
Lawrence R. Doherty
President
Development Expediters, Inc,
cc. Mrs Martha Pillsbury
Mr. V. Frank Asaro
II
•
•
•
z^'
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND PROPOSED STREET RESERVATION,
^
i J 1"=100'
March 28, 1984
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Attorney
DEL MAR FINANCIAL
Our office has been asked to solve a problem regarding provision of
access to the area designated as "not a part" of the Del Mar Financial
Specific Plan. This problem arose because of condition 37 to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2270. That condition required the developer
to offer to dedicate a 60 foot wide strip of land for right-of-way
purposes across Area C-1 to connect with the parcel designated "not a
part." After studying this issue we have determined that it is not
necessary to solve the access problem at this time. Rather, the issue
can be better resolved when those areas are ready to develop and
everyone has a better idea of v^at circulation requirements are
necessary for those areas. Therefore, we propose the following
changes to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2270 and to the text of
Specific Plan 190. The changes suggested in this memorandum have been
reviewed with the Land Use Planning Manager and the Principal City
Engineer responsible for this project. In addition, they have been
reviewed with and approved by the applicant.
Condition 37 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2270 should
be revised to read:
"Area C-1 and D-1 shall not be developed without an
amendment to Specific Plan 190. The dedication and
improvement requirements for those areas including
provisions for access to the property adjacent to Area C-1
designated "not a part", shall be determined at the time of
the specific plan amendment."
The text of Specific Plan 190 should be modified as follows:
Page 4, the second full paragraph should be modified to
read as follows:
"All public facilities and other improvements for each phase
of development in the specific plan area shall be provided
by the developer. Further, all facilities and other
improvements specified in Table II shall be provided by the
developer. Public facilities include, but are not limited
to, streets, medians, sidewalks, landscaping, sewer and
drainage facilities, and electrical, gas, telephone and
cable television facilities. Specific improvement plans for
public facilities and other improvements shall be prepared
and submitted as a condition of development of each phase.
These specific improvement plans shall be consistent with
Planning Commission -2- March 28, 1984
the provisions of the specific plan. Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
7, and 9 may be developed independently provided that all
public facilities and other improvements required for those
phases are provided in a manner which is satisfactory to the
Land Use Planning Manager and the City Engineer and further
provided that the public facilities listed in Table II are
provided. The specific improvements required before any of
these phases may be developed independently are shown
graphically in Exhibits F-L and are listed in Table II.
Phases 8, 9 and 10 shall not be developed in any event
without an amendment to the specific plan."
Page 9, the paragraph under General Notes on Phasing should
be modified to read as follows:
"The parking and improvements for Phase 6 are dependent upon
development of Phase 4. Therefore, Phase 6 shall be
developed only in conjunction with or subsequent to Phase 4.
In addition, the access road from "A" Street through Phase
7 to Phase 6 shall be provided concurrently with development
of Phase 6."
"Phases 8, 9 and 10 are designated for future development.
Development plans for these areas have not yet been
prepared. Amendments to this specific plan are required
prior to development of Phases 8, 9 and 10. If feasible,
the specific plan amendment for phase 10 shall include and
shall specifically plan the area adjacent to Phase 10
designated "not a part." Public improvement requirements
and development standards for Phases 8, 9 and 10 including
access requirements to the area adjacent to Phase 10
designated "not a part", except as otherwise provided
herein, shall be determined at the time of the specific plan
amendments. The specific plan amendments shall be
consistent with and shall become a part of this specific
plan."
VINGENT >\ BIONDO, JR.
'6ity Attorney
/
/
by: / —^^-^
DANTEL S. HENTSCHKE
Assistant City Attorney
rmh
/y^^Ui^ Xif- J^^l^t'^^i.'U/X^^ ' ^"V/^S^^ ^.^XVXL/CI M^^'tJ^
tf<^«t-cr>«^,.^^^-^^:-</ ^ ,.^Cr>t* /^n.-t-f^-c^ J^e.-*^ Xc-^^ .^Mi-J<^li.-^Or»»-/J •
KTI^^O /&<x.rj^ <5*vc^<2^cC> »*V cjerCCiM^Jf^ A
A&J, ...4^ JLJ^ ;zty^
•zC^ ^/7.
TABLE A (Revised)
CRITICAL VOLUME SUMMATION AND
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
At El Camino Real/College Boulevard
Sycamore Creek
LEVEL QF SERVICE (IPS)
TRAFFIC VXUME DESCRIPTION
WITHQUT PROTECT RHATED MTrirATTON
o El Ceunino Real as 4-lanes (existing) o
o Construct College to 4-lanes o
o Single left turn on all approaches o
o No El Camino RTl/RTO at site o
wrm PRflTRrT-RKIATFT) MTTTrATTCW
widen El Camino Real to 6-lanes
Oonstruct College to 6-lanes
Dual left turn lanes on all approadies
El Camino RTI/RTO at site
Existing Tr^lffic Only 266/A m '
Existing Plus ;^roved Traffic Only 1167/D NA '
Existing Plus Project Treiffic Only
without unplanned office and without Barber Connection 1353/E 796/A
with unplanned offioe and with RTI/RTO Barber Connection 1464/F 834/A
with unplanned offioe and with full service
Barber Connection 1059/C 618/A
Existinq Plus Approved Plus Project Traffic
with unplanned office and with RTI/RTO Barber Connection 2365/F 1422/F - 1206/D '
with unplanned office and with full servioe
Barber Connection ' 1949/F 1206/D
'Not applicable - intersection mitigation measures as indicated are highly unlikely without
construction of the Sycamore Creek project in some form.
'1422/D presumes long range (20 years or more) cumulative full development without a continuous "A"
street to the southeast, which is considered an extremely unlikely event. With all of this
cunmlative development, a RTI/RTO Barber connection, and a continuous "A" street. Level D (1206)
will be achieved. In fact, the Willdan EIR study concluded that Level D describes ultimate
conditions at the intersection. For the intervening period the intersection Service Level is
expected to range from Level A (indicated by Existing Plus Project only values) in the short term to
D in the long term.
o o 3
HP
O
•o
01 3 3 O
m
3 Id
'With or without a continuous "A" street.
Linscott, Law i Greenspdn. Inc., ^luineers
TABLE B 9
PHASED TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Sycamore Creek
mNRRATRn VKHTCTf: TRIP ENDS
lAND USE DESC3amON
m PEAK HOUR
INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL
EAILY
Phase 1 (Bidg, Hotel, Tennis Courts): 10%
1
-i ••A
I
1
,1
Office (72,000 SF) 35 144 179 1440
Restaurant (3000 SF) 12 6 18 300
Hotel (120 Rooms) 60 60 120 1200
Tennis Courts (9 courts) -15
ntal Ihaae 1-10% 122 225 347 C 3210
Phase 2 (Bidg F) - 6%
Offioe (50,500 SF) 25 101 126 1010
Restaurant (8000 SF) -.22
Sub-Total - (Phase 2) 57 117 174
CXnulative TMals Itiases 1-2 : 16% 179 342 521
Phase 3 (Bidg G) - 3%
Office (58,500 SF) 29 U7 146 1170
Cunulative Totzds Phases 1-3 : 19% 208 459 667 6190
Phase 4 (Bidg D) - 5%
Office (75,000 SF) 37 150 187 1500
QBoulatlve Totals Ifaases 1-4 : 24% 245 609 854 7690
Phase 5 (Bidg C) - 7%
Office (115,000 SF) 58 230 288 2300
Cumulative Totals %ases 1-5 : 31% 303 839 1142 9990
I^ase 6 (Residential) - 4%
Residential (164 DU) 98 31 129 1312
emulative Totals Phases 1-6 X 35% 401 870 1271 11,302
Phase 7 (Bidg B) - 3%
11,302
Restaurant (10,000 SF) 40 20 60 1000
Qioulative Totals Fhase 1-7 : 38% 441 890 1331 12,302
Ihase 8 (Bidg A) - 13%
12,302
Office (11,000 SF) 6 23 29 220
Financial (20,000 SF) 4000
SuhHTotal (Phase 8) 16 63 79 4220
Cunulative Totals Phases 1-8 : 51% 457 953 1410 16,522
Phase 9 (Ccrnn/Office) - 45%
16,522
Shopping Center (180,000 SF) 720 720 1440 14,400
Qnulative Toted Fhaees 1-9 : 96% 1177 1673 2850 30,922
Phase 10
30,922
Unknown
Unplanned Offioe - 4% 122 153 1224
WOL GBBUOa) OlAFFIC - 100% 1208 1795 3003 32,146
FEBRUARY 3, 1984
TO: LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: Deputy City Engineer
SYCAMORE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
The majority of our comments on the proposed specific plan still revolve
around traffic issues. The latest traffic analysis presented by the developer
still indicates a below standard level of service will result at the College/
El Camino Real intersection." The primary cause of this service failure is
the intensified use of the adjoining project.
If we allow the project to proceed, we can do two things to reduce the overall
impact.
1. Require this development to install the Barber connection as a
condition of development. The timing for the connection should
be set upon the attainment of a traffic generation rate for the
project in excess of a predetermined amount. The amount will be
determined soon.
2. Restriction of the commercial uses to low traffic generators.
Positively no drive-through establishments and preferably no
supermarkets and convenience stores. Ideally, Area D should
develop as office only. Area D generates nearly half of the
total traffic.
With the exception of the lack of reference to the Barber connection, the
improvement phasing plan is fairly reasonable. We will require that College
be constructed in its entirely at the intersection with El Camino Real. This
will make it easier to install signals and will match what was required of
Koll.
When the Barber connection is installed, it should be done accompanied by the
full widening of El Camino Real along the full project frontage.
Street 'A' should be made 52' curb-to-curb within a 72' right-of-way from
College to street 'B'. From street 'B' to the Barber connection street 'A'
should be made 40' curb-to-curb with a 60' right-of-way. All improvements
shall be designed with appropriate transitions at the development boundaries
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Offsite sewer and water utilities will be necessary to serve the project.
Right-of-way acquisition and construction of these facilities shall be the
responsibility of the developer. A comprehensive siltation and erosion control
plan shall be required prior to obtaining a permit for the first grading
operation. This plan shall provide necessary desiltation basins to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Page -2-
SYCAMORE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN
February 3, 1984
The attached specific plan contains our detailed comments and should be
returned at the next review.
DAVID HAUSER
DAH:mmt
c: Catherine Nichols
FEBRUARY 3, 1984
TO: DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER
FROM: Kent Whitson
SYCAMORE CREEK (O'HARA) TRAFFIC REPORT DECEMBER 19. 1983,
The traffic data numbers on Page 5 still need to be verified,
(there was n£ Appendix to the report by Linscott, Law & Greenspan).
However, if the numbers are correct, then the following comments
and recommendations can be made:
1. The Barber connection is not only important for the above
development, but is critical for all of the development
just east of El Camino Real between College Boulevard and
Palmer Avenue (Faraday?).
2. On Page 3, the report says the Barber right-turn-in/right-
turn-out connection to El Camino Real is Staff preference.
This is not just Staff preference, but required by the City's
Street Design Criteria, as proper intersection spacing
cannot meet standards.
3. The projected traffic volumes for "A" Street indicate that the
width of that street could be reduced to 40' on 60' R/W,
(2 through lanes, 1 continuous turn lane, no parking).
However, because of higher traffic volumes and anticipated
congestion, I would recommend that the link of "A" Street
between College Boulevard and "B" Street remain at 52' on 72'
R/W. This will allow for an additional turn lane, and provide
more flexibility to properly align with the access to the
Wersching property west of College Boulevard.
4. On Page 5, the important number is the critical volume
summation of 1422, which represents existing traffic, plus traffic
from approved projects in the area, plus the Sycamore Creek
Project traffic. In order to meet 1evel-of-service "C" (both
City and Regional Air Quality goals), this critical volume
summation number would have to be reduced to at least 1200, and
preferably 1100 (see attached "Critical Movement Analysis
Planning" sheet).
Therefore, 222 to 322 critical vehicular movements through the
intersection have to be eliminated. This is best down by reducing
the land use intensity; or, more specifically by limiting uses
that are high traffic generators (i.e., drive-through facilities/
restaurants, service stations, high-rise office, discount or
convenience stores). Since the proposed shopping center on the
FEBRUARY 3, 1984
TO: DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER
FROM: Kent Whitson
SYCAMORE CREEK (O'HARA) TRAFFIC REPORT - DECEMBER 19, 1983
PAGE 2
Wersching property will generate 45% of the total traffic
on the Sycamore Creek site, it may be necessary to severely
limit certain uses on this property in order to meet an
acceptable level-of-service "C" at El Camino Real and College
Boulevard. This concern is reflected in the last paragraph
of the attached report.
Additional comments are noted within the report.
KAW:vi
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 3, 1984
TO: Michael J. Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Office
Charles Grimm, Land Use Planning Office
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
David Hauser, Acting City Engineer
Brian Watson, Fire Department
FROM: Catherine D. Nicholas, Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: SP-190 DEL MAR FINANCIAL
Attached please find a copy of the draft Specific Plan for the
Del Mar Financial project. The project is located on the east
side of El Camino Real, north and south of the proposed
extension of College Boulevard (please see attached location
map). Please review and comment. I would appreciate receiving
your comments by January 13, 1984.
CDN:bw
DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANTS
CONSORTIUM
February 2, 1984
Catherine Nicholas
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
RE: SYCAMORE CREEK 1/27/84 Meeting
On January 27 we met x^ith you and other members of City
staff to primarily discuss building height and Planning
Commission hearing dates for the Sycamore Creek Specific
Plan. Please review the following summary of that m.eet-
ing for consistency.
With the removal of one floor from building C and F
and a two to four foot grade change in the F build-
ing parking area, our request for a height variance
will be reduced to ten feet above the allowed 35'
maximum.
Staff indicated that our revised height request
would be considered with a decision being made after
review of the project model in the week of January
30, 1984.
Staff and the project consultants are going to
coordinate submittle of the revised Specific Plan
draft with the goal of review and presentation to
the Planning Commission at the first meeting in
March 1984.
The consultant will prepare and submitt a request
for:
a) R.O.W. variance on College Blvd
b) Height variance for Hotel Buildings adjacent
to the tennis courts
c) A non residential condo application for the
Hotel project
If you note any errors please call at vour earliest
:onvsnience.
P^^^nHy
Mike O'Hara
John Ballew
2956 Roosevelt No. 4 • P.O. Box 2743 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-3135
MEMORANDUM
DATE;
TO:
FROM:
February 1, 1984
Marty Orenyak
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
Mark Steyaert, Parks Planner
Land Use Planning Staff!
Catherine D. Nicholak/ L Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: SP-190 - SYCAMORE CREEK (DEL MAR FINANCIAL)
Attached please find a copy of the proposed Specific Plan for
the Sycamore Creek project by Del Mar Financial. The project is
located on the east side of El Camino Real, north and south of
the proposed extension of College Boulevard. I would appreciate
hearing your comments by February 17. Land Use Planning will
discuss the Specific Plan at the staff meeting of February 16.
Please be prepared to comment.
CDN:ad
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 11, 1984
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: ZC-272/ZC-274/SP-190/CT 83-36/CP-273 - DEL MAR FINANCIAL
Request for approval of preannexational zoning of C-2
(General Commercial), 0 (Office), R-1-20,000 and OS
(Open Space); a Specific Plan; Tentative Subdivision Map
and Non-Residential Condominium Permit on the northeast
side of El Camino Real, north and south of the proposed
extension of College Boulevard.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
Nos. 2267 and 2268, recommending APPROVAL of ZC-272 and ZC-274;
Resolution No. 2269, recommending APPROVAL of SP-190; and
Resolution Nos. 2270 and 2271, recommending APPROVAL of CT 83-
36/CP-273; based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
II. DISCUSSION
At their meeting of March 28, 1984, the Planning Commission
continued ZC-272, ZC-274, SP-190, CT 83-36 and CP-273, so that
staff could make changes to the height sections of the specific
plan. Also, the phasing section and Resolution 2270 needed to be
modified based on wording from the City Attorney's office which
addressed future access and development of the Pillsbury property
which was shown as "not a part" on the Specific Plan. These
changes have been made and are attached for the Commission's
review. New wording has been underlined. Also, included is a
Resolution of Intention to amend the C-2 zone to allow an
increase in height. This will be necessary before the applicant
can construct the hotel in Area B.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Page 4, SP text as amended
2) Page 9, SP text as amended
3) Page 11, SP text as amended
4) Page 14, SP text as amended
5) Change to Resolution No. 2270
6) Resolution of Intention
7) Phasing Plan
CG: bw
4/6/84
best information available at the time of adoption of this plan.
Market conditions could greatly effect the order of development
beyond Phase 1. As a result, the phasing of this project has
been tied to a specific public facility and improvement program
to also provide for orderly development in a non-sequential
fashion.
"All public facilities and other improvements for each phase
of development in the specific plan area shall be provided by
the developer. Further", all facilities and other improvements
specified in Table II shall be provided by the developer.
Public facilities include, but are not limited to, streets,
medians, sidewalks, landscaping, sewer and drainage facilities,
and electrical, gas, telephone and cable television facilities.
Specific improvement plans for public facilities and other
improvements shall be prepared and submitted as a condition of
development of each phase. These specific improvement plans
shall be consistent with the provisions of the specific plan.
Phases 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 7, and 9 may be developed independently
provided that all public facilities and other improvements
required for those phases are provided in a manner which is
satisfactory to the Land Use Planning Manager and the City
Engineer and further provided that the public facilities listed
in'Table II are provided. The specific improvements required
before any of these phases may be developed independently are "
shown graphically in Exhibits F - L and are listed in Table II.
Phases 8, 9 and 10 shall not be developed m any event without
an amendment to the specific plan.**"
TABLE II
The following public facilities and improvements are
required in addition to the improvements contained within each
particular phase.
A. Phase I (Exhibit F)
1. Streets/utilities/drainage
a) Lane improvements to El Camino Real, including half-
width
generation of more than 16,500 vehicles per day as
determined by Table B (Phased Traffic Generation
Forecast) of the Linscott, Law and Greenspan
Supplemental Traffic Report.
2. Landscaping
a) All landscaping within the streetside setback, as
illustrated in Exhibit 0, of the street segments
required for this Phase.
GENERAL NOTES ON PHASING
"The parking and improvements for Phase 6 are dependent upon
development of Phase 4. Therefore, Phase 6 shall be developed
only in conjunction with or subsequent to Phase 4. In addition,
the access road from "A" Street through Phase 7 to Phase 6 shall
be provided concurrently with development of Phase 6.""
"Phases 8, 9 and 10 are designated for future development.
Development plans for these areas have not yet been prepared.
Amendments to this specific plan are required prior to
development of Phases 8, 9 and 10. If feasible, the specific
plan amendment for Phase 10 shall include and shall specifically
plan the area adjacent to Phase 10 designated "not a part." ~
Public improvement requirements and development standards for
Phases 8, 9 and 10 including access requirements to the area
adjacent to Phase 10 designated "not a part", except as
otherwise provided herein, shall be determined at the time of
the specific ^lan amendments. The specific plan amendments
shall be consistent with and shall become a part of this
specific plan."*^
E. OPEN SPACE
There are approximately 14.7 ac. of riparian woodland
preserved for environmental protection. An open space easement
shall be granted to the City of Carlsbad covering the area
indicated as Area E on Exhibit B. The land shall remain in
private ownership in a natural and undisturbed state.
Maintenance of this area shall be the responsibility of the
landowner.
III. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The intent of this section is to provide the maximum
opportunity for creative site planning and building design while
ensuring that development proceeds in a high quality integrated
manner.
AREA A RESIDENTIAL/R-1-20,000 ZONE
The permitted density of the residential portion of this
Specific Plan is based on a maximum of 2 du/ac calculated on
44.1 acres. 14,8 acres however.
11
5) Other uses may be permitted which are consistent with
the above uses, subject to approval of the Land Use
Planning Manager.
B. Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit
The following uses and structures may be permitted by
conditional use permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter
21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad zoning code:
1) Bars, cocktail lounges and other licensed (on-sale)
liquor dispensing operations not meeting the definition
of a bonafide eating establishment.
2) Packaged liquor stores.
C. Setbacks
No structure may be located within 20 feet of "A" street or
10 feet of an adjacent property line, private or public street.
D. Height
The maximum building height for Area B shall be 35 feet
unless the City Council approves an amendment to the C-2 zone
which permits a greater height. If such an amendment is
approved, the maximum height of buildings in Area B shall be 45
feet and shall be constructed substantially as shown on the si"te
plan and Exhibits P-6 and P-8.
E. Site Coverage
Maximum building coverage excluding parking shall not exceed
50% of the lot area.
14
The setbacks along El Camino Real and College Boulevard may
be varied up to five feet if the average setback equals or
exceeds the stated requirement. The following improvements are
specifically permitted in the streetside setback:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Walks;
Paving and associated curbing for ingress and egress
except that on-grade, single-level vehicle parking
areas shall be permitted within 30 feet of the El
Camino Real streetside property line.
Landscaping;
Planters, architectural fences, or walls not exceed 42
inches in height.
In the case of through lots extending from street
to street, both street frontages shall be treated
as a streetside setback.
Architectural projections such as eaves, columns,
awnings, of 5 feet in setbacks over 30 feet and 3 feet
in setbacks less than 30 feet.
D. HEIGHT
The maximum height of structures within Area C shall not
exceed the height as shown on Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, and P-4.
These buildings shall be located and constructed substantially
as shown on the site plan and on Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, T-
5, P-6, P-7 and P-8.
Any buildings constructed in excess of 35 feet in height
shall pj^ovide an additional one (1) foot of setback for each one
(1) foot of building height in excess of 35 feet. To mitigate
the impact of the increase in height, all landscaping shall be~
installed as shown on the landscape plan prior to occupancy of
each building. Any change to development as shown on the site~
plan or on Exhibit P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-7 shall require
an amendment to this Specific Plan.
Change to Resolution No. 2270
Condition 37 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2270 should
be revised to read:
"Area C-1 and D-1 shall not be developed without an
amendment to Specific Plan 190. The dedication and
improvement requirements for those areas including
provisions for access to the property adjacent to Area C-1
designated "not a part", shall be determined at the time of
the specific plan amendment."
^XREEK
IDaMtopmantbyi
DELMARFMANC^
CARLSBAIX CAUPOfMA
. - A:
ULTLJ
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 28, 1984
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: EIR 83-1/ZC-272/ZC-274/SP-190/CT 83-36/CP-273 - DEL MAR
FINANCIAL - Certification on an Environmental Impact
Report and request for approval of preannexational
zoning of C-2 (General Commercial), 0 (Office), R-1-
20,000 and OS (Open Space); a Specific Plan; Tentative
Subdivision Map and Non-Residential Condominium Permit
on the northeast side of El Camino Real, north and
south of the proposed extension of College Boulevard.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
No, 2266, recommending CERTIFICATION of EIR 83-1. It is also
recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos.
2267 and 2268, recommending APPROVAL of ZC-272 and ZC-274;
Resolution No. 2269, recommending APPROVAL of SP-190; and
Resolution Nos. 2270 and 2271, recommending APPROVAL of CT 83-
36/CP-273; based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to develop a 99 acre project
comprised of a professional office complex, hotel and tennis
club, commercial shopping center and residential development,
located as described above. To provide for this development,
the applicant is requesting:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report
Approval of preannexational zoning of:
a) 0 - Office and Professional
b) C-2 - General Commercial
c) R-1-20,000
d) OS - Open Space
Approval of a Specific Plan
Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map
Approval of a Non-Residential Condominium Permit
The subject property is located in an unincorporated island on
the east side of El Camino Real, approximately 0,7 miles north
of Palomar Airport Road. The site is roughly L-shaped and
bisected by the Agua Hedionda Creek. The area northeast of the
creek, ultimately proposed for residential development, is
characterized by a steep-sided ridge covered with coastal sage
scrub and grassland. The area southwest of the creek is
depressed below El Camino Real. Vegetation in this portion of
the site is primarily grassland with riparian oak woodland
covering the steep north-facing slope adjacent to the creek. A
well-developed riparian habitat exists along the Agua Hedionda
Creek.
The project site surrounds a 3.43 acre parcel, the Pillsbury
property and residence, which is not a part of these
applications. Existing land uses include two residences and two
office trailers on the project site. Surrounding land uses
consist of Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Community and golf course
to the northwest, scattered residences and agricultural fields to
the northest and east; the Madonna Hills Guest Home to the
southeast and the Palomar Tech Centre beyond to the southeast.
The Carlsbad Research Center is undergoing development to the
southwest. The Mandana Carlsbad Ridge project was recently
approved, adjacent to the northeast corner of the project, was
recently approved for estate development.
For the purposes of this report, the project will be discussed
in its five component requests.
III. EIR 83-1
The major impacts of the project from eventual development and
possible mitigation measures, as identified in the Environmental
Impact Report, are summarized below:
A. Traffic
A total of 32,146 average daily trips will be generated
by development in accordance with the proposed
conceptual land use plan. The results of the EIR
traffic study indicates that there will be a signifcant
adverse impact at the El Camino Real/College Boulevard
and College Boulevard/A Street intersections, if the
roads are constructed in accordance with the City's
General Plan. In addition, the intersection spacing
proposed along College Boulevard is in conflict with the
City's intersection spacing policy. By completing the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, all of the
intersections in the vicinity of the project will be at
level of service D or better. The City of Carlsbad
generaly requires intersections to be designed for level
C or better. The El Camino Real/College Boulevard
intersection, however, will operate at level D even
without this project, as will several of the
intersections in the vicinity of the Palomar Airport.
•2-
B. Land Use
A portion of the proposed hotel development is located
within the Cl, Limited Crash Hazard, airport impact zone
for Palomar Airport. This land use is not in
conformance with the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP), which specifies that additional
transient lodging should not occur within the Cl airport
impact zone. The CLUP is , however, outdated and is
scheduled to be updated if funding can be obtained.
Portions of the proposed project could result in
potential land use conflicts with adjacent property.
This potential for land use conflicts is associated with
(1) the commercial-recreational shopping area proposed
in the northwestern portion of the site and future
residential uses allowed by the City's General Plan to
the north; and (2) the proposed residential development
at a density of approximately four dwelling units,
adjacent to the approved Carlsbad Ridge estate
development project and the R-A-2-acre zoning to the
east. Appropriate buffering of the proposed land use
from future land uses should mitigate potential
impacts.
C. Topography and Visual Aesthetics
Future development in accordance with the proposed
conceptual land use plan would result in significant
change in the character of the area from rural to urban.
Although detailed grading plans have not been prepared,
the conceptual land use plan indicates that the office-
professional and hotel complex will be terraced into the
hillsides to reduce the amount of grading and the height
of manufactures slopes. The proposed open space area
along the creek would preserve most of the trees
associated with the riparian woodland along the creek,
which are considered to be the most significant
topographic resource on the property. Enlarging the
proposed open space area to preserve the steep hillsides
south of the creek, as described in the EIR would reduce
impacts to an acceptable level.
D. Air Quality
Future development of the project site will result in
an incremental increase to basin-wide accumulation of
air pollutants. Development in accordance with the
•3-
proposed zoning and conceptual land use plan will
increase the use of energy and subsequent pollutant
emissions beyond those anicipated by the Regional Air
Quality Strategies (RAQS). In that this represents an
unanticipated increment, the impact to the RAQS must be
considered significant.
E. Archaeology
All five archaeological sites that were recorded within
the project area will be directly impacted by
development in accordance with the proposed conceptual
land use plan. A two-stage data recovery program is
recommended to mitigate impacts to all five sites within
the project area.
F. Biology
The project, as proposed in the conceptual land use
plan, would have significant adverse effects on
biological resources. The significance of these
effects is based on the loss of about 60 acres of
natural habitat supporting several populations of rare
and declining plant and animal species. Because the
riparian woodland is the most significant biological
resource on the project area, full protection of this
area would be considered adequate mitigation to reduce
project impacts to a level of insignificance.
Preservation of the riparian woodland would involve
enlarging the proposed open space area along Agua
Hedionda Creek.
G. Paleontology
Moderately to highly significant paieontological
resources would be directly impacted by development of
the project area. These impacts can be beneficial in
terms of fossil discovery and salvage provided that
paieontological monitoring occurs during grading.
Staff believes that EIR 83-1 was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has adequately
identified and discussed the environmental impacts. For these
reasons, staff is recommending certification of EIR 83-1.
IV. Zone Changes ZC-272/ZC-274
Requests for preannexational zoning for the subject property
were made under two separate applications, as referenced above.
-4-
As future development of the properties will be governed by the
same specific plan and potential impacts were evaluated together
in EIR 83-1, consideration of the zoning requests has been
combined. The proposed zoning by area and the respective
general plan designations are as follows:
TABLE 1
AREA GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED
(Existing) ZONING
A RLM R-1-20,000
B RH/C/O C-2
C RH/C/O 0
D C C-2
E RH/C/O OS
Please See Exhibit X
Planning Issue
1) Are the proposed zones consistent with the General
Plan, appropriate for the site and compatible with
surrounding land uses?
Discussion
Staff believes that the proposed zones are consistent with the
General Plan, appropriate for the site and compatible with
surrounding land uses. Area A is designated RLM, Residential
Low-Medium Density, 0-4 du's/ac. The applicant is proposing to
zone this area R-1-20,000. The specific plan would further
restrict density not to exceed 2 du's/ac. The proposed zone
would, therefore, be consistent with the General Plan.
Staff also believes that the zone is appropriate for the site.
The 29 acre subject property is adequate in size and shape to
accomodate R-1-20,000 development. The zone is consistent with
the density indicated in the proposed Sunny Creek Specific Plan
and compatible with the intended rural atmosphere. The future
residential area would be adequately buffered from the proposed
tennis club/hptel condominium by the riparian open space.
C-2 zoning is requested for Area B, the 8.8 acre proposed hotel
and tennis club site. The Sycamore Creek Specific Plan would
limit uses to recreational and health club facilities,
restaurant, hotel and accessory uses. Staff believes, that with
the development restrictions and guidelines of the specific plan,
the zone is appropriate for the site and would be compatible with
the proposed office development and sufficiently buffered to
avoid impacts on neighboring residential uses.
-5-
The proposed C-2 zone would be consistent with the C land use
designation of Community Commercial, indicated by the property's
combination district. Zoning, therefore would be consistent with
the General Plan.
The proposed office development. Area C would be implemented by
the City's new 0, Office, zone. The 0 zone would be consistent
with the 0, Office and Related Commercial land use designation of
the combination district. Staff believes that the 19.4 acre
site, adjacent to El Camino Real, is appropriate for the zone.
This new zone was developed for larger, high quality office
complexes. Use of this zone was particularly anticipated in the
Palomar Airport area.
The Office zone would be compatible with the adjoining C-2,
hotel/tennis club, use and buffered by open space from
residential uses. The site is bordered on two sides by El Camino
Real and College Boulevard, a prime and major arterial. A minor
incompatibility may be created between the proposed office
development and the existing Madonna Hill residential care
facility, adjacent to the southeast. Staff would, however,
anticipate the incompatibility to be minor and the Madonna Hill
use is transitional.
Area D is proposed for C-2 zoning. The General Commercial zone
would implement the, C, Community Commercial, land use
designation of the general plan. Anticipated development of the
site is a community shopping center with office uses. The C-2
zone would be appropriate for the 18 acre site bounded by El
Camino Real and College Boulevard. Setbacks and buffering
provisions of the specific plan should ensure compatibility with
adjoining uses to the north and west.
Finally, the riparian habitat, associated with Agua Hedionda
Creek is proposed to be zoned OS, Open Space. Pursuant to the
Sycamore Creek specific plan, 14.8 acres would be dedicated in
an open space easement. Staff believes that the open space zone
is the most appropriate zone for the sensitive biological
habitat comprising Area E.
Overall, staff believes that the requested zones, indicated in
Table 1, are consistent with the General Plan, appropriate for
the properties and compatible with surrounding land uses.
V. Specific Plan - SP-190
Planning Issues
1) Does the specific plan adequately ensure high quality
development?
2) Does the specific plan mitigate potential significant
environmental impacts?
-6-
Discussion
Staff believes that the proposed specific plan provides adequate
development guidelines to ensure a high quality, mixed use
development while mitigating environmental concerns. The
Specific Plan is a requirement for this development because it is
located in the Airport Influence Area and because the property
contains a Combination District. The specific plan would modify
the zoning, providing stricter standards for development. The
Sycamore Creek Specific Plan would be consistent with both the
proposed Sunny Creek Specific Plan and El Camino Real Scenic
Preservation Overlay Zone.
The proposed specific plan provides for development of the 99
acre site in ten phases. Comprehensive development standards are
included for Areas B and C to accomodate immediate development of
the hotel/tennis club facility and phased development of the
office complex. Staff believes that these guidelines, including
setbacks, landscaping, signage, architectural theme and a
detailed schedule of improvements will ensure quality development
of these areas.
General development guidelines are included for areas A and D,
the residential and commercial/office portions of the site, since
specific development plans are not known. Future development of
these areas will require amendments to the specific plan. These
subsequent amendments would enable the Planning Commission and
City Council to review future development plans, uses, site
design, landscaping and architecture to guarantee quality of
design and compatibility.
Staff believes that, through redesigns performed by the applicant
and safeguard provisions of the specific plan, all potential
significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be
mitigated. Subsequent to the release of the draft EIR, the
project has undergone a series of revisions in an attempt to
mitigate those environmental impacts identified in that
document.
Of primary concern to staff, were potential impacts upon traffic.
The EIR predicts a level of service D at the intersection of El
Camino Real and College Boulevard at full project buildout. The
City generally requires intersections to be designed for level C
or better. The traffic analysis contained in the EIR, however,
indicates that this intersection will operate at level D even
without this project, as will several of the intersections in the
vicinity of Palomar Airport. Staff believes the schedule of
improvements contained in the EIR, including lane improvements to
El Camino Real, auxiliary lanes on College Boulevard and
extension of "A" street south to connect with Palmer Way will
enable this intersection to operate at an acceptable level of
service.
-7-
The specific plan additionally includes a provision requiring a
traffic study prior to development of Area D, the
commercial/office site. Initially proposed for purely
commercial development, this area was projected to generate 45%
of the overall site traffic. The future traffic study will
allow evaluation of impacts based on specific uses when
development plans are known. The specific plan provides that no
uses or development shall be approved which reduces the levels
of service below acceptable levels.
The site plan has also been revised to mitigate potential land
use impacts. The proposed hotel site has been relocated out of
the crash hazard impact zone. Landscaped setback buffers,
required by the specific plan, for the commercial/office site
should mitigate impacts on future adjoining land uses.
Residential compatibility would be ensured by density
restrictions contained in the specific plan. The plan further
requires an amendment prior to residential development in Area A,
allowing future review to guarantee compatibility when more
specific development plans are available.
Site redesign has mitigated some identified impacts to
topography, biology and visual aesthetics. The proposed riparian
open space area was enlarged and is protected from development by
the specific plan, which will require dedication of an open space
easement. The proposed hotel was resited off the Oak-Woodland
covered slopes, which are now included in open space. Provisions
would be included in the specific plan requiring development to
be consistent with the El Camino Real Scenic Preservation Overlay
Zone. Requirements for heavy landscaping, including the use of
many mature specimen trees are also included in the specific
plan.
The transition from a rural to an urban environment is an
unavoidable impact of the project. Staff does believe, however,
that anticipated impacts would be lessened by special landscaping
treatment required by the specific plan.
Satisfactory mitigation of potential impacts upon archaeology are
provided for in the specific plan. Mitigation would involve a
two-step recovery program outlined in the specific plan.
As a function of the specific plan, the applicant is requesting
approval of height in excess of 35 feet for the proposed hotel
in Area B, (zoned C-2), and for five office buildings (Buildings
C, D, E, F, & G, as shown on Exhibit C), in Area C, (zoned 0).
As shown in Exhibits M2 and M3 of the specific plan, the
requested height for all of the buildings would be 45 feet. To
comply with the restrictions of the C-2 and 0 zones, staff has
modified the specific plan and added a condition of approval that
all of the buildings be redesigned not to exceed a maximum height
of 35 feet. The options available to the Planning Commission
are:
-8-
1) Leave the specific plan as it is presented, denying the
request for the increased height, and leaving intact the
provisions of the specific plan and conditions of
approval requiring redesign to 35 feet. The underlying
zone, would permit the developer to request the City
Council to approve additional height, as he develops the
site.
2) Recommend approval to the City Council of the requested
height. This would require a change to the Specific
Plan to reflect the applicant's request.
Overall, staff believes that the proposed specific plan provides
for high quality development, adequate opportunities for future
review and mitigates potential environmental impacts.
VI. CT 83-36
Planning Issues
1) Does the proposed subdivision comply with all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Map
Act?
2) Are the proposed lots suitable in size and shape to
accomodate development permitted in the zone and
specific plan?
Discussion
The proposed tentative map would subdivide the subject property
into twelve lots and a remainder parcel. Lots A-1 through A-7
would be created for office development of Area C. Lots B-1, B-2
and B-3 would accomodate the hotel, tennis club and associated
facilities contained in Area B. Lot C-1, isolated by "A" Street,
"B" Street and the Pillsbury property would be reserved for
future development. Lot D-1 would correspond with Area D, the
future commercial/office site. Finally, a 44 acre Remainder
Parcel would be created encompassing the open space and future
residential area.
The lot lines indicated on the tentative map would correspond
with the propbsed phases of the specific plan. A detailed
schedule of improvements was developed for each phase/lot to
stand on its own is contained in the Specific Plan. Staff
believes that all of the proposed lots would comply with the
minimum size, width, frontage and other requirements of the
underlying zones and Subdivision Map Act.
All of the proposed lots would be suitable in size and shape to
accomodate development permitted in the zone. The office lots,
A-1 through A-7, are designed to accomodate the proposed office
-9-
A-1 through A-7, are designed to accomodate the proposed office
development. Lot D-1 would be adequate to accommodate community
commercial/office development, as permitted in the zone and
specific plan. Hotel and tennis club development would be
adequately provided for in Lots B-1, B-2 and B-3.
CP-273
The applicant is requesting approval of a non-residential
condominium permit for the proposed hotel. The 122 rooms would
be subdivided into condominium units. As proposed by the
applicant, each unit would be sold to a single owner. The owner
would be entitled to use of the room for a limited number of days
per year. The rooms would be rented out as hotel rooms, by an
operating-management company, for the balance of the year. Staff
has recommended, as a condition of approval, that the developer
enter into agreement with the City for operation of the hotel.
Planning Issues
1) Will the granting of this permit be consistent with the
code, the general plan, applicable specific plans,
master plans, and all adopted plans of the City and
other governmental agencies?
2) Is the proposed use at the particular location necessary
and desirable to provide a service or facility which
will contribute to the general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community?
3) Will such use be detrimental to the health, safety
or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity?
4) Does the proposed non-residential planned development
meet all of minimum development standards of the
underlying zone, except for lot area?
The proposed condominium hotel would be consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and proposed specific plan, all of
which provide for commercial development of the site. Staff
believes that the project site, near Palomar Airport and the
City's industrial core, would provide a desirable service to this
growing area and visiting executives. The developer would,
further, be required to enter into agreement with the City to
ensure appropriate operation of the hotel and consistency with
the City's Transient Occupancy Taxation policies.
The proposed use would be compatible with the adjoining office
development. The riparian open space would provide a buffer
between the hotel and residential uses. Staff, therefore,
believes that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public
welfare or adjoining properties.
-10-
Lastly, the proposed non-residential planned development meets
all of the minimum development standards of the C-2 zone. The
proposed development, as outlined in the specific plan, would
exceed all required development standards.
Summary
Overall, staff believes that the proposed zones are consistent
with the General Plan, appropriate for the site and compatible
with surrounding land uses; that the proposed specific plan
adequately ensures high-quality development and mitigates
potential environmental impacts; that the proposed tentative map
complies with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Map Act and that all of the lots created are adequate
to accomodate development permitted in the zone and that the
proposed hotel project satisfies all required findings for
approval of a non-residential condominium permit.
Approval of the proposed project would require three variances to
the City street standards, two requested by the applicant and one
recommended by the City. A report by the City Engineer,
discussing these variances and the required findings, is
attached.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Report, City Engineer
2) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269,
2270 and 2271
3) Location Map
4) Background Data Sheet
5) Disclosure Form
CDN:bw
3/20/84
-11-
ENGINEERING DEPARTNENT
STANDARDS VARIANCE REPORT
MARCH 19, 1984
TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: City Engineer
CARLSBAD TRACT 83-36, SPECIFIC PLAN 190
Section 18 of the Street Design Criteria of the City of Carlsbad Standards
provides for Street Width and Improvements Standards' variances provided certain
findings can be made. No formalized procedure has been established for the
attainment of a Standard's variance. The Standards' variance procedure provides
only that the Planning Commission shall have the authority as an administrative
act to grant a variance to the Standards where the literal interpretation and
enforcement of the Standards would result in practical difficulties,
environmental degradation, or results inconsistent with the general purpose of .
the Standards. Before any variance may be granted, the following findings must
be found:
1. That there are extraordinary or unusual circumstances or conditions
applicable to the situation of surrounding property necessitating a
variance of the Standards.
2. That the granting of such variance will not cause substantial drainage
problems.
3. That the granting of such variance will not conflict with existing or
future traffic and parking demands, or pedestrian or bicycle use.
4. That the granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in
which the variance is granted.
5. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
The Applicant for the subject project requires three (3) individual variances to
the City Standards in order to accomplish the project. The first two variances
were requested by the Developer. The third is a recommendation of the City
Engineering staff. The variance requests are as follows:
1. Reduction of intersection spacing on College Blvd., between El Camino Real
and the proposed "A" Street, from the required 1200 feet minimum to
approximately 800 feet.
MARCH 19, 1984
CARLSBAD TRACT 83-36, SPECIFIC PLAN 190
Page 2
2. Addition of eight feet of pavement section and right-of-way on College
Blvd., between El Camino Real and the proposed "A" Street, to accommodate
one additional lane of traffic.
3. Addition of twelve feet of pavement section and right-of-way on the
proposed "A" Street, between College Blvd. and the proposed "B" Street, to
accommodate one additional lane of traffic.
The three variance requests are inter-related and will be treated as one request
in the report. The project site is located immediately adjacent to the Agua
Hedionda Creek and flood plain. In determining the location of the proposed "A"
Street, a strict interpretation of City Standards would have placed "A" Street
well within the flood plain. For Engineering and environmental reasons, a
request was made to reduce the required intersection spacing to approximatly 800
feet so as to locate the intersection at the edge of the flood plain area.
Since the proposed "A" Street/College Blvd. intersection is to be signalized,
this put an added burden on the ability of College Blvd. to handle the ultimate
traffic flow it is intended to handle. The traffic report contained within the
Environmental Impact Report indicates that the addition of a third lane of
traffic for north-bound traffic will relieve much of the pressure on College
Blvd. caused by the reduced intersection spacing.
The City's Traffic Engineering Consultant has further recommended an additional
lane of traffic on "A" Street at its intersection with College Blvd. to
accommodate left turns. It is felt this additional lane will improve efficiency
at the intersection, thereby reducing the overall effect of the reduced College
Blvd. intersection spacing.
Engineering staff feels each one of the proposed variance requests meet all five
of the required findings. Each is required by an extraordinary or unusual
circumstance or condition. No drainage problems will result. None of the
requests will cause a conflict with existing or future traffic, parking, or
pedestrian use. There will be no detrimental consequence resulting from any of
the variance requests and the granting of these variances will not adversely
affect the comprehensive General Plan.
RONALD A. BECKMAN
RAB:DH:hmj
BACKOXXJND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 83-1/ZC-272/ZC-274/SP-190/CT 83-36/CP-273
APPLICANT: Del Mar Financial
REQUEST AND lOCATION: Certification of an EIR; Preannexational Zone Change to
0, C-2, R-1-20,000 & OS, a Specific Plan, a "Pentative Subdivision Map & Non-
Residential Con(3ominium Permit on the east side of El Camino Real, north &
south of the proposed extension of College Boulevard.
LEGAL raiSCRIPTICXI: A portion of Lots B & E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according
to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder, County of
San Diego, State of California, May 1, 1915. APN: 209-060-26,32,43,50
Acres 99 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 12
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation C/O/RH/Rm
Density Allowed 20-30/0-4 du/ac Density Prc^Josed 2 du/ac
Existing Zone County Proposed Zone C-2/0/R-1-20,OOO/OS
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site County SFR's/Office
North County Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course/
Mcfcilehome Conmunity
South R-A-10,000/M-Q Madonna Hills Guest Home/
Palomar Tech Centre
East County SFR's/AG
West C-M/County Carlsb^ Research Center/
Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Octdjer 29, 1982, Novetiber 19, 1982,
February 25, 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
_X ^E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
rr
LOCATION MAP
WERSCHING
O'HARA
SITE
EIR 83-1
ZC-272/274
CP-273
O'HARA / WERSCHING SP-190
If aftier the inforraatlon you have submitted has baeii re^jL^^id, it ia dete;rmiae<2.
that further ii-.fomation ^^|^required, you will be so ad^j^^<i.
APPI.ICANT:
AGENT:
DEL MAR FINANCIAL
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporatioii, sy.ad.ication)
6351 Yarrow Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Businass Address
(714) 438-4313
Telephona Number
Mike O'Hara •
Name
Same as Above
Business Addreas
(714) 438-4313
Telephone Nuziier
Nans "(individual, partnar, joiiit
venture, corporation, .syndicacicn)
Home Xidtaresa
Business Address
Telephone Nuinbar T«lsprione ^iutnber
'Susintiss .^ddre.ss
Telepho.na Number
OWNERS:
Gjerald .Frankel
1365 Regal .Rgw___
Eonia Address.
Telephone >4aiaber
Dallas, TX 75247
Ross & Mabel Barber
5352 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Homer & Nina Eaton
J§!52 Neptune Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
l/We declare under pa.nalty of perjury that the infonration contained in thic; dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be*
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
Applicant
BY
Agent, C^vner, Partr.f'r
If after tha inforraation yo" have submitted has been rev^fed, it is detennined
• that further information ^required, you will be so ad^ ^d.
MPLICANT:
AGENT:
Jakob & Maria Wersching (Individuals)
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
30772 Via La Cresta St.,.Palos' Verdes, CA 92074
Business Address
(2-13) 377-8703
Telephone Nuinber
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
KE^]BESS:
Name -(individual, paurtner, joinn Home Address
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Nustber Telephone Nuinber
!iame Eome Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone ilunber
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
lA'e declare under penalty of perjury that the infonsation contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be"
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
Jakob & Maria Wersching
Applicant
y Agencv 0-.i.'ner, Parbher
PROPOSED ZONING
BY AREA
AREA A R-1-20,000
AREA B C-2
AREA C 0
AREA D C-2
AREA E OS
^
EXHIBIT X
MARCH 28,1984