HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 93-01; General Plan EIR; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)TI^^ OTY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPUCATION FOR PAGE 1 OF 2
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES)
CFOR DEPT
USE ONLY) (FOR DEPT
USE ONLY)
• Master Plan • General Plan Amendment
• Specific Plan • Local Coastal Plan Amendment
• Precise Development Plan • Site Development Plan
• Tentative Tract Map • Zone Change
• Planned Development Permit • Conditional Use Permit
• Non-Residential Planned Development • Hillside Development Permit
• Condominium Permit I. • Environmental Impact Assessment
• Special Use Permit • Variance
• Redevelopment Permit • Planned Industrial Permit
• Tentative Parcel Map • Coastal Developmenl Permit
• Administrative Variance • Planning Commission Detennination
(S--P ^/R List any other applications not spedficed ^//^
2) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE
(NORTH. SOUTH EAST, WEST)
BETWEEN
SIDE OF
(NAME OF STREET)
(NAME OF STREET)
3) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AND
(NAME OF STREET)
4) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).
5) LOCAL FAQLrnES
MANAGEMENT ZONE
8) EXISTING ZONING
11) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
6) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
9) PROPOSED ZONING
12) PROPOSED NUMBER
OF LOTS
7) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
10) GROSS SITE
ACREAGE
13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
(RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRLU)
14) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNFFS
IS) PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGE
16) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVTEW APPUCATION FORM P,ALGE 2 OF 2
17) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EQUIVALENT DWELUNG UNITS
19) PROPOSED INCREASE IN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
20) PROJECT NAME:
21) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
22) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPUCATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CFTY STAFF,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS, OR CFIY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND
ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS
PURPOSE
SIGNATURE
23) OWNER 24) APPUCANT
NAME (PRINT OR TYPE) NAME (PRINT OR TYPE)
MAIUNG ADDRESS MAIUNG AD]
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CFFY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
1 CERTIFY THAT I AM "mE LEGAL OWNER
AND THAT AU THE ABOVE INFORMATION
IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE DATE
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER'i REPRESENTATIVE AND
THAT ALL THE ABOVE [NFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATURE DATE ,
FOR CFFY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTA'nON:
APPUCA-nON TYPB FEE REQUIRED
•FOTAL FEE REQUIRED
DATE FEE PAID
RECEIVED BY:
RECEIPT NO.
NOTE
ADDITIONAL FEES. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
City's and Counties throughout Califomia have recently been notified of new legislation
(AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) which became effective on January 1, 1991.
This law requires that the State of Califomia Department of Fish and Game levy a fee to
all project applicants (public and private) subject to the Califomia Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resouurces.
Projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA which have no adverse impact on fish
and wildlife or projects which are denied are not subject to the fee.
All other projects are subject to the following fees:
FEES Projects with Negative Declarations $1,275.00
Projects with EIR's $ 875.00
Due to State Law constraints the City of Carlsbad will collect the fee where applicable and
pass it to the County of San Diego.
After submission the City of Carlsbad Plaiuiing Department will make an Environmental
Assessment of your application. After this initial assessment the Planning Department will
notify you if the fee is required.
State Department of Fish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
(916) 445-3531
Fee.ltr
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FOEIMS
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS
In order to streamline the application process and reduce duplication in filling out
application forms the Ciry has adopted a comprehensive application form ro handle
multiple application submittals. The following instructions should assist you in preparing
the applicarion form for submittal to the City;
1. Applications appiied for: Check the appropriate boxes for the various application
types for which you are applying. Check with counter staff to determine required
application types needed to process your specific project.
2. Location of Proieci: Fill in the blanks with the appropriate direction and street
names. For projects located in undeveloped areas not adjacent to streets use the
nearest street from which the project will take access.
3. Brief Legal Description: Generally provide a brief legal description of the property
such as; Lot 6 of Map No. 8828 Carlsbad Tract 88-3; or, ponion of Lot [ of Rancho
Agua Hedionda Map 1717. Do not provide bearings and distances. A full legal
description will be contained vithin the title report submitted with the application.
4. Assessor Parcel No.fs): Include all assessors parcel numbers included within the
project boundary. The counter staff can assist you in determining the appropriate
assessors parcel number(s).
5. Local Facilities Management Zone: Write the number of the facilities management
zone vkrithin which your project is located. Ask for counter assistance in determining
which facility zone your project is located. It is imponant to know which facility
zone includes your project. Each faciUty zone must have an adopted local facilities
management plan before applications can be accepted by the City. Additionally, the
adopted facility plan for your zone may contain significant pubiic facility
requirements which must be met before your project may be accepted as complete
or before construction permits are issued.
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Write down the General Plan Designation(s) for
the property covered by your proposed project. Ask for counter assistance if you do
not know your general plan designation.
7. Proposed General Plan Designation: Required only if your project involves a request
for a general plan amendment. If so, write in the proposed general plan designation
for the property.
8. Existing Zoning: Write dovm the existing zone plan designation for your proposed
project property. Ask counter staff for assistance if you do not know your zone
designation.
FRM00016 8/90 Page 1 of
9. Proposed Zoning: Required only if your project involves a request for a zone
change. If so, write in the proposed zone designation(s).
10. Gross Site Acreage: Write down the total acreage of the property over which your
proposed project is situated. Not necessary for Zone Code Amendments or
Variances.
11. Proposed Number of Residential Units: Required for residential projects. Write
down the total number of proposed dwelling or apanment units to be included in
the project. Include existing units which are included within the project boundary.
12. Proposed Number of Lots: For tentative tract maps and minor subdivisions only.
Write down the number of lots which are proposed to be created. Include
remainder parcels, open space and private street lots.
13. Tvpe of Subdivision: For tentative tract and parcel maps only. Write down the type
or types of uses included within the subdivision. For example: residential or
commercial/industrial.
14. Number of Existing Residential Units: Write dovm the number of existing dwelling
or apanment units currently existing on the project site.
15. Proposed Industrial/Office Square Footage: For all projects which propose the
creation of new industrial buildings. Write in the proposed gross square footage to
be appUed for industrial/office use.
16. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: For all projects which propose the creation
of new commercial buildings. Write in the proposed gross square footage to be
applied to commerciai use.
17. Percentage of Proposed Proiect in Open Space: Write down the percentage of gross
project site acreage which qualifies as open space per the growth management
standards. Not required for Variance AppUcations.
18. Proposed Sewer Usage in Equivalent Dwelling Units: One equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU) is the average of sewer generated by one house or dwelling. One EDU is
equivalent to 220 gallons per day of sewer usage. Use the attached EDU chart to
detemdnie the sewer usage for your project. Ask for assistance at the counter if you
are unsure how to determine your usage.
For industrial projects use the foUowing assumptions:
a. Undeveloped industrial assiune 30 percent building
coverage.
b. Improved lot industrial assume 40 percent building coverage.
c. For sheU or unknown industrial building usage asstame 1 EDU for
each 1800 square feet.
FRM00016 8/90 Page 2 of 4
19. Proposed Increase in Average Dailv Traffic ("ADT): Write down the projected
increase in traffic generation which wiU result as a consequence of approval of your
proposed project. Use the traffic generation rates as determined by the latest San
Diego Association of Govemment Traffic Generation Rate Guide (attached).
20. Proiect Name: FiU in the box with the name of the project. Such as Rising Glen
or Aviara. [f no name is proposed write in the last name of the owner or applicant
plus a brief description such as Hauser Condo Conversion or Wickham Residential
Subdivision.
21. Brief Description of Proiect: Write down a brief description of the project. Be
specific but do not include square footages or architectural details. For example: a
neighborhood commercial center with rwo drive thru restaurants; or, a single family
detached residential project; or, an industrial/office complex with three
industrial/office buUdings.
22. Consent to Allow Entrance onto the Property: Signature granting members of Ciry
Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board Members or Ciry Council
members permission to inspect and enter the property.
23. Owner's. Name. Address. Telephone and Signature: To be fiUed in and signed by
the owner for aU applications. Use the owner's name as it appears on the title
repon.
24. Applicant's. Name. Address. Telephone and Signature: To be filled in and signed by
the appUcant. If owner and applicant are the same you may write same on the
space for the name. AU correspondence and contact regarding the application wiU
be directed to the appUcant.
AppUcation Submittal Requirements: Attached with the appUcation form are the various
submittal checklists for each appUcation type, Usted on the face of the appUcation. FoUow
any instructions contained within the submittal requirements and submit the information
and materials required for each of the applications for which you are applying.
[MPORTANT NOTE
CHECK ALL SUBMITTALS TO BE SURE ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND
MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPUCATION. INCOMPLETE
SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED OR SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW BY STAFF, THE
COMMISSION OR COUNCIL. YOU WILL BE NOTIHED IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
SUBMITTAL WHETHER OR NOT YOUR APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
FRM00016 8/90 Page 3 of 4
A PRDPOSm llOIECr HEQUmiNG THAT MULTIPUE APHICATIONS ^ FIUED MUST
BE SUBMrni!|l^ft£0ltTO 3:30 PAf- A PRCPOSED PROIECT REQUIRING THAT ONLY
ONE APPUCA'plf ffi FILED MUST BE SUBMnTED PRIORTO 4:00PAL
Applicant Disclosure Form - AU appUcations require submittal of an appUcant disclosure
form. FoUow the instructions provided on the form and the attached iiiformation sheet.
Circulafion Impact Analvsis - All appUcations which propose an increase in the traffic
generation rate of 500 vehicles or more over existing traffic generation for the site must
submit a Circulation Impact Analysis. This Analysis wiU be used to determine compUance
of your project with Growth Management FaciUty Standards. The analysis is not to be
considered in Ueu of project related traffic studies which may be required by staff to
analyze specific project related on and off site traffic issues.
Hillside Development Permit - A HiUside D opment Permit is required for aU projects
with a slope or fifteen percent or more anc elevation differential ^eater than fifteen
feet. Check with City staff if you are uncer i whether or not yotir proposed project site
requires a hiUside development permit. If required foUow the instructions provided on the
application form.
Enviromnental Impact Assessment Form - All appUcations for development require
submittal of an Environmental Impact Assessment Form. Larger projects or projects in
environmentaUy sensitive areas may require more detailed Environmental Impact Reports.
FoUow the instruction provided with the appUcation form.
Coastal Development Pennit - Projects within the coastal zone boundary may require a
Coastal Development Permit. For most projects, appUcation is made to the State Coastal
Commission. For projects within the Coastal Zone Boimdary and the City's Redevelopment
Area, appUcation for a Coastal Development Permit is made with the Gty. FoUow the
instructions on the appUcation form. AppUcants requiring Coastal Development Permits
may wish to obtain a Coastal Development Permit Handbook available at the Development
Processing Counter for nominal fee.
FRM00016 8/90 Page 4 of 4
Citv of Carlsbad
Planninq Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT CF ^ISCIOSUBE OF CERTAIN OWNEBSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL SEGUiHE
CiSCRETlONARY ACTION CN THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR CCMMfTTEE,
I'P/ease Pnnt)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of ali persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
If any person identiftod pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbacl, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
(Over)
Disclosure Statemerrt Page 2
5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Bcarcs
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)
Peraon i« dtflnad M: 'Any individual, firm, copartnarship, joint vantura, aaaociation, aocial club, fratarnal organization, corporation, astata. trust,
racaivar, syndicata, thia and any othar county, city and county, city municipality, distnct or othar political subdivision, or any othar group or
combination acting as a unit'
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
FRM00013 8/90
PRQJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT NAME:
Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope ara/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
Rav. 4/91 ProjOeae.frm
T.\flLE 13.10.020(c)
Type of Building, Structure or Use
f 1) Each space of a trailer court or mobiletiome park
(2) Each duplex
(3) Each separate apanment in an apanment house
(4) Each housing accommodanon designed for occu-
pancy by a singie person or one family, inespective of
the number actually occupying such accommodation
(5) Each rocm of a lodginghousc. boardinghouse. hotel,
motel or other muitipie dwelling designed for sleeping
accommodations for one or more individuais
Without cooking facilities
With cooking facilities
(6) Churches, theaters and auditoriums, per each unit of
seating capacity (a unit being one hundred fifty per-
sons or any fraction thereoO
(7) Restaurants:
No seating
Seating
Equivalent Dweiling Uaits
i.OO
2.00
l.OO
LOO
0.60
1.00
1.33
2.67
2.67 plus 1.00 per each 7 seats
or fraction thereof
Delicatessen or fast food, using only disposable uble-
ware:
No seating
Seating
2.67
2.67 plus 1.00 per each 21 seats
or fraction thereof
(8) Automobile service sutions:
Not more than four gasoUne pumps
More than four gasoUne pumps
(9) Self-service laundries, per each washer
2.00
3.00
.75
358-1 (Ctftitaad Ml)
TABLE 13.10.020(c)
Type of Building, Structure or Use Equivalent Dwelling Units
(10) Office space m industnal or commerciai establish-
ments not listed above Divide the gross tloor area ot"
the building in square t'eei by
1800
(11) Schools:
Elementary schools
For each sixty pupils or fraction thereof 1.00
Junior high schools
For each fifty pupils or fracuon thereof 1,00
High schools
For each thiny pupils or fraction thereof 1.00
(12) In the case of all commercial, industnal and business
establishments not included in subdivisions I through
10. inclusive, of this subsection the number of equiv-
alent dwelling units shall be determined in each case
by the city engineer and shall be based upon his esti-
mate of the volume and type of wastewater to bc
dischaifed into the sewer. The provisions of Chapter
13.16 shall apply to all cases under this subsection and
an industrial waste permit shall be required. Any such
permiL issued for any use hereunder, shall include a
specific volume of sewage authonzed for such use. If
said amount is exceeded, it shall be grounds for
revocauon of the permit.
(13) Warehouses: D^ide the gross floor area
of the building in square
feet by 5000
359
San Diego
ASSOCUTIOX OF
CrO\'ERNMEXTS
? . •« 900 ''ttx intaritin P'azi
J: • 3 3'-»af
This list only rapraaama a aui^a at tvara^a, or aattmaiad. trsffe a«wf too ratM for l«nd ua«a 'amettaaia sn acraaga sn4 SUHO ' -
s4ua/« footagal m (^« San 0«*9o r«gi«<i. Th«a« rnaa ara su0|«et te en«na« aa futura 4eeumant«>eo o«c«maa ivaiiaM or u «cai tour:**
ara uoastM. For m«r« sp«ei4te ir^ormaAen ragardinq traffe dad and tifp r«n. plaaaa r«(«r tQ »>« San 0<«ge Trifle Qanarasors •vtruu
AN«aya chaeiti«cai iuna4ictena fer <t>«ir pratarrad or appiteaWa rmm.
QUfOe OF VEHICUUfl
TRAFFIC QENERATTON RATES FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION
JANUARY '.gsO
ONO USE
ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHKXE
TRIP GENERA'nON RATE
AgneuKura (Op«n Spaca)
Airporti
C«mmareiai
Qanaral Ayiton
Haiipens
Automoblla
Car Waait
2aaolina
Saiaa i Daalar ft Aapair)
Auto Rapair Cantar
Banking
Sank (Walk.tn only)
Sank (w/Ortv^rewah)
Onv^tfirogqh en«tr
Savinga 4 Loan
Oriv^OirougA only
Camatariaa
Church (or Syni
Commoreial/npiail Camw*
Supor nogtonal Shopping C«fllpr
(Mora than ao aerM. mor* tttan
600.000 aq. H. w/UMMMy i-f
mafOrtierMl
tq. ft. w/uamHy i* maior mtmt
C^mtmintlf f"
(1 MO aeraa. i aO.ddMQO.000 «„
w/uauaMy i
raatauranO
i(»joaea%«N
WMHf
CaNMM MM
Umtaar
OardanNunaiy
Junior (2 yaani
m.. 1
mvi 9an^ai
MMdMJuniar Hi^
Ooy Car*
HIGHEST PEAK HOUR % IpUjt iN OOT -atici
Botwwn 7-9 AM. B«woon 4-6 P M
2/aera*
i2/aer«. lOOmigM. 70/1000 aq. fl**
4/acra. 2 flight, a^baaad aircnit*
lOC/aera'*
900/aita. aOO/aera**
790/auOon. 130/pwmp'*
40/1000 aq. ft. 300/aera. ao/aarrieo stail* •*
20/1000 aq. ft. 400/aera. 20/aamea «aii*
ISO/1000aq.ft. lOOO/acra***
200/1000 aq. a. iSOQ/aera*
300/(190 on»«ray)/Ian«*
ao/1000 tq. It. aOVaera**
100 (90 onaaroyl/lona**
a% (6:4)
4%
6«
1%
9%
4%
S%
3%
2%
4%
(95)
(9.5)
(6:4)
(7:31
IS/1000 aq. It. 4C^oaro*« (tr<P<o ro
for Sunqay. or doya e( aaaomWy)
40/1000 aq. <t, lOOImW
90/1000 aq.lt.900iraor»*
70/1000 aq.7WI/ocf»* *•
laOVIOOO «!. It. laOOi^oara* *
401/1000 aq. It, 40Q/aai«*
i9eyi00Oaq.lt.a0B»owo*'
SOO^OOOaq. It**
7<V10Q0 aq. a. rOQtaaM*
«ioaOoq.lt.lOCM««~
3V1000a%a.1l «noooi%iLr 4oncaot^<Li
4% »^
Z% (7:31
2» <7:3>
3% (6:4)
4» (•:<»
aSMutfont 1001
i.i/i>i<iHt.lQroaiq*
l.4/aMont,r
l.OMiiont'
1.4/iMantl
««NM.7Qf1000
aOM. aanOOe aq.«.. aOQ/aara*
a/baq**
M (•4
9%
'2%
10%
11%
5 51
i 5\
A 6\
8% :4«)
10% (3 5)
13%
9%
15%
(5S
8% ,5 5)
9% (5 5)
9% (5 5)
10% i5.5)
11% (5:5)
9% (5:5)
11% I9:n
l9.5»
10%
9%
9%
9%
10%
9%
9%
(9.5) III
(9:5)
(9.5)
(I-TI
14% (3:7)
7% (3:7)
5% (3:7)
16% (9 S)
11%
a%
(3:7)
MEMBER AGENCIES: Citiaaol Carisoaq. Chula Viata. Coronado. Ool Mtr. El Ctjon. Bncimtoa. Escondido. irrtoarnt Baicn ,a Ma$a,
uamon Qrovo. National City. Oeoansido. Poway, San Oio«e. San Mareoa. Santoo. Solana aoaeh. Vitti and County of San aijo
AOViSORY/uiAiSON MEMBERS: California Oooartfhont o< Tranaportotion. u S. Ooponmont of Oofonao and Ti|uana/8aia Cai.forr a sor-a
induatiai
induathal/tuilnaoi PlW
induavMi Paili (no
'oduotrai Planl (IWL .^^
Manulaetunn^Aaooioa^f
warahouain^
Storaga ^ -
Scianea Raaaareh & Dswaiopniam
-Braiy
"'lota'iw/convantwn faeilfta*raatauranO
Metal
Raaort Hotat
Military
Siandard Coinrttorcial Oineo
(laaa t^an 100.000 aq. ft)
Ltrga ihigh-naa) Cowmorctal omco
(mora man 100.000 aq. ft)
Corporata OUteo (ainfllo ua*)
Govammant (Ovic Oantai)
Peat Offleo
Opartmant of Motor Vahicloa
Madieai
Parka . Cify (davalopoo) Ragional lundawatopod)
Naighborfiood ^
Amuaamont (Thon»o)
San Oiogo Zoo
Saa Wend
Racraebon
Saaeh. Ocaan or Boy
Soach, Lako (ffoah watoi)
Bowling Cantar
Campground
Qo«Courao
Mannaa ^ _
p«equ«ibaH/Haa» Oub
Tannia Couiti
Sports FaeilMoo
Outdoor StodHjni
Indoor Arana
Raeatraek
Thaaiars (muMplaO
Raaidontla* _ , ,
Singia Pantity Dalochsil
(ivaraga4 0U/aefa)
Corfdominiuni
(or any muHMani^y laaa
20 0tUoero» .
16/1000 aq. ft. 20Q/aera*
a/1000 tq. ft. 9Q/aera*
lO/iOOOaq. ft. 120/aero*
4/1000 aq. ft, 60/acra'*
5/1000 aq. ft. 60/aera**
2/1000 aq. ft. 0.2Nault 30/•era*
8/1000 aq. ft. n/acra*
40/1000 aq. ft. 400/aefa'*
10/room. 300/aera**
9/roont. 200/acra*
a/room. 100/aera*
2.9 milltarv * eivltton parMnnal*
20/1000 aq.lt. 300/aera*
17/1000 aq. ft. 800/acra*
I000aq.lt. l«as«»*
I000aq.ft** lO/lC
30/10001, 190/1000 aq. ft** 180/1000 aq.«.J0tVac2'" 50/1000 aq. It. 900/acra*
90/aera*
9/acra*
S/aera*
80/aera. i30/ae»a (aummar only)*
119/acra*
80/acra*
800/1000 It
90/1000 It
30nana. 300/1
6Q/aer«*
a/ooro*
6/oar»60»o
iStoOoSV300/oa2.4aoogrt*
SOnoOO aq. It. 30rto««"
so/aero. 0 Jl/i
3»asro.0.l/so«
4«oera,0.««oqr
gO^OOO aq.lt. i
10/dwaWngun«*
lump
12% (Bd
11% ftl
14% 1:^1
aO% 1:1
1S» ff:3i
9% 0:91
16% (B:1)
2% (7-3»
8% (6:4)
8% (4 6)
9% (6:4)
9% (»:1)
14% (9:1)
13% (9:1)
8% (6:44
6% (6:9
4%
7% (7:3)
4%
6% (B4
3%
4% (1:4)
asft
*% 8:4
8% 9JI
B% 9M
12% ?:S)
12% -2 8)
19% :3 71
20% (1 9)
29% (4 8)
9% (5 5) 14% (1 9)
10% i55)
8%
9%
7%
6 4)
6 4)
,4.6)
10% :291
13% 2 8)
14% 2 S)
15% (1 9)
12% (3 71
8% IS 5)
11% (4 8)
10% (3 n
8%
11% (4 6)
10% (4 8)
8%
9% (3 71
9% 13 7)
9% i8 4)
11% (9.5)
8% (7:3)
tO% (73)
10% (7:3)
11% (7 3)
31 4;2-9«10
COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC
5960 EL CAMiNO REAL, P 3 30X 947, CARLSSAO. CALIFORNIA 92008
T>ie following information regartjing three (3) cubic yard refuse bin enclosures is offered as an aid :n
planning new projects or developments and to define our liability with respect to sen/icmg custorrer
owned encicsures.
These recommendations are based on our expenence m handling three (3) cutjic yard bms. The 'T-eas-
urements of a three (3) cubic yard bm are seven (7) feet wide, five (5) feet high, and four (4) feet deeo.
1) If the bin is to sit on a slab, the minimum inside dimensions of the slab should be ten (iQ) 'eet ,v ce
and seven (7) feet deep. It is extremely important that the slab be at the same level or grade
as the street or parking area to facilitate the rolling of bins for loading positioning,
2) If your bin is equipped with wheels, it is very important that the slab it sits on be level. Wheeled bms
can be moved by jarring or pushing and a sloped slab can cause them to roll, resulting m possible
damage to enclosure walls, doors, vehicles, or injury to people.
3) It is necessary to move bins in order to dump them, please keep in mind:
A) Empty bins weigh 550 Ibs.
B) Full bins weigh 800-1,400 ibs.
C) Bins can be rolled on flat areas or gradual inclines only. They cannot go over curbing, ledges,
raised sidewalks oi» dirt,
D) If bins must be moved more than ten (10) feet to be serviced, an additional charge will be rrade
based on the time and distance involved.
4) If the bins are to be kept in an enclosure, it Is recommended that: (See Page 3)
A) Enclosures be structurally strong,
8) Enclosure slab should be level or on the same grade as the approach to the bm,
C) One of the foliowing methods of protecting the inside of your enclosure from damage by a bm
should be used:
1) Install a 2" x 12" board, mounted directty behind and to the side of all surfaces that the bin
may come into contact with. Tbis board should be mounted so that its center is located
approximately 4' x 4Va" above floor level.
2) AddWooally. a 4" x 4" x 7' piece of angle iron bumper, bolted or othenvise securely fastened
dirtctiy to the floor.
Pleasa keep in mind that if a wooden bumper is used, we cannot be responsible for normal
wear, tear and deterioration of the wood.
All floor bumpers should be placed at least 8" from the base of all surfaces lying directly
t^ehind and to the sides of the bin.
D) If gates are used on the enclosures, they should be mounted so that they swing fully open
with no protrualon Into the path of tha bin. This is best done by mounting the gates on the
front edge of the side walls. (See page 3). The gates shouid have either chains and hooks
or pin stops at their full open point to hold them open to allow the bina to be moved
In and out without damaging the gatea or doors. Construction should be heavy duty.
Paga 1
F^^r?^ CO^ WASTE MANAGE\fl|[T, INC.
PMONfi 753-9412 " ° 80X 947. CAPLSSAO CALIPQBNIA 92008
or 4S2-9610
E) If woodan frame enckjsures are built, the door framing and hinges should be bolted togetre'
as nails and screws do not hold up under constant use. Keep in mind tenants will be going
in and out of the enclosures thousands of times.
F) These recommendations are based on one (1) bm per enclosure. If you are planning on more
bins per enclosure, we will be happy to assist you in working out the dimensions,
G) If an enclosure must be some other shape than that indicated in the enclosed diagram, piease
call us for additional recommendations.
5) For planning purposes in setting up refuse storage areas, these standards should be met:
A) Minimum overhead clearance for approach to the z should be sixteen iyg) (eet. This clearance
IS also required at roof lines such as overhanging car ports.
B) Minimum driveway width for straight through drive and pick-up is fourteen (14) feet. Eighteen (18)
feet IS required when a truck has to back out.
C) Concrete or asphalt drives should be of sufficient strength to accommodate 54,000 Ibs. distrib-
uted on ten (10) wheels.
D) A minimum radius of 36 feet should be provided in areas where a turnaround is required to exit.
6) Slab construction specifications will vary according to metfxxJs of constmction. Please provide this
information to your contractor to insure adequate slab strer^gth.
7) If the bin is to be in an unenclosed area, but against a structure, it is recommended that the curbing
or wall protection recommended to protect the inside enclosure walls be adapted to provide protec-
tion for the stnjcture.
8) The extra weight of the bin on tha front of the tmck when the bin is picked up can damage pavement
in front of the bin. Tha bast protection is an 8' x 4' concrata slab aWa to accommodate 20,000 lbs.
on 2 wheels in front of tha bin araa.
We hope that thaaa gukMinaa and recommendations will help you in your planning.
Please ba acMaad that Coast V^BSle Management. Inc., at al cannot ba responsible for damage caused
by inadaquaM oonatruction or protectton methods.
M you hava any fufthar questions regarding refuse ramoval. slaba, endosures. or if you would like us
to look over and/or assist you with your plans, pleasa call 753-9412 or 452-9810.
Pa9t2
RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR REFUSE TRUCKS IN OR AROUND
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CONDOMINIUMS
OR MOBILE HOME PARKS
Unfortunately, most builders or (jesigners (Jo not c^ve
a(iequate consideration to the design of ingress and
egress of conrrercial refuse trucks. Therefore, we hcoe
that the following information will be of help when
considering a commercial or residential building.
1. GPQSS WEIGHTS
A loaded trash truck has a gross weight of 50,000
to 52,000 pounds. (25 tons + or -)
2 . STREET SURFACES
Most driveways and access roads to commercial buildings,
apartment buildings and condominium buildings are not
designed to support such heavy loads as indicated in
Item #1. A driveway must have at least 6 inches of a
good grade of decomposed granite as a base with a topping
of not less than i inches of asphalt.
3. DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
A driveway must be not less than 20 feet wide with no
parking allowed. Typically, some cities allow 24 feet
wide streets with no parking; 30 feet wide streets with
parking on one side; 36 feet wide streets with parking
on both sides. Streets in a mobile home park are, by
State Code. 30 feet wide with no street parking allowed.
4. OVERHANG HEIGHTS
No overhang, such as wires, tree branches, building eaves,
may be lower than 13 feet, 6 inches. By the trash con-
tainer area, there must be no overhang whatsoever because
a tyoical front loader refuse truck needs in excess of
20 feet in height.
5. TURNING RADIUS
Refuse trucks are typically four types
1. Front Loader
2. Side Loader
3. Rear Loader
4. Roll Off
30 feet long
32 feet long
23 feet long
32 feet long
To provide adequate turning
area is'required (Not less
Since it is not always practical to
turning area, it is often necessary
radius,
than 80
obviously a large
feet in mos t cases',
provide such a •;3r:;e
to do excessive ::2c<
in and out. A straight run should always be orovided '.z
trash receptacle area.
TRASH BIN ENCLOSURES
Many problems are encountered because of i-3rooer size
and design of trash enclosures. For proper sizes, an
enclosure must be not less than the following dimensions
Interi or
Interi or
Hei ght
length
width
102 inches
65 inches
68 inches
Trash bins are, by nature, clumsy and bulky. To avoid
damage to the enclosure, it is strongly urged that an
high curbing be installed as a guide to
from bumping against the superstructure
interior 6 inch
prevent the bin
TOP VIEW BIN ENCLOSURE
-102;
.n
TOP VIEW
1,
GATE
NOTE: FLOOR OF ENCLOSURE MUST NOT BE
RAISED ABOVE DRIVEWAY OR STREET
GRADE.
^J« ¥ .0 !
SIDE
VIEW
Notice of Deteriimlation 940599
To: _X Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
From: City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
^ Carlsbad, CA 92009
SEP \ 2 W
(619) 438-1161 X. County Clerk
County of San Diego
Attn: Mita
PO Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
ProjectNo.: EIR 93-01/CPA 94-01
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
General Plan Update
Project Title
93091080 Citv of Carlsbad. Adrienne Landers (619) 438-1161. 4451
State Clearinghouse Number
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
I^ead Agency
Contact Person
Area Code/Telephone/Extension
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego - Citywide
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: Comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental
Impact Report analyzing the environmental impacts of implementing the General
Plan.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on September 6, 1994 and
has made the following determinations regarding the above described project.
1. The project will have a significant effed on the environment.
2. An Master Environmental Impact report was prcp.ired for this projecl pursuant i^he pr^vi^
CEQA. 12
3.
4.
5.
This is to
approvaL
provisbns .of
Mitigation measures were made a condition ol the approval ol the project. ^Jr
A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project.
Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. \i^l
y that the final Environment.al Impact Report with comments and responses and record of project
available to the General Public at THE Cm' OF CARLSBAD.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
HOLZMI
Date received for filing at OPR:
Date
WUMD IV THS OPTICS OF THB QO
lecp 1 % 1
fO«T«l!)SEPilJl|_REMOVSlfl(rLllJM
RlTUmWlDTOAQBHCTOir /^A'^/t/^.
h,^,^^ y 'Revi .evised Octo )er 1989
AL:vd
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES ,IVGENCY
BgPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
t^iVIR6NMENTAL FILING FEE RECEIPT A O O O O O
DFG 753.5a (6-91) ^ 7^
dX&Z, (Ux^rMjL^ Date: ^//c^/^/
_ cy Of i^Jy^i^ '^yfT' Document No.: ^</03 7 ?
DFG 753.5a (6-91)
Lead Agency:
County/State Agency of ^fling:*^ /'
Project Title
Project Applicant Name: ^_ Phone Number:
Project Applicant Address:
Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency Q School District Q Other Special District I I
State Agency Q Private Entity I I
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ^^-S^ « *^
( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $
( ) Application Fee Water Diversion fSfate Wafer Resources Contro/Soarcf On/y) $850.00 $
( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $
County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ ^S~. ^
( ) Project that is exempt from fees
^ TOTALRECEIVED $ R^S^, ^
Signaturearfd title of person receiving payment: /!;(.^<A'y64f'g^-^^*-*Vy
RST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB THIRD COPyCHAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FlUNG
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Teni treet, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916, 0613
Project Title: Comprehensive Update of Carlsbad Generat Ptan
Lead Agency: Citv of Carlsbad Contact Person: Adrienne Landers
Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
City: Carlsbad. CA
See NOTE Belou:
SCH «
Phone: (619)438-1161. ext. 4451
Zip: 92009 County:
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Dieqo City/Nearest Conmunity: N/A
Cross Streets: . H/A
Assessor's Parcel No. Interstate 5
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Palomar
Total Acres:
Section: Twp.
Waterways:
Airports: Railways:
Range: Base:
Schools:
DOCUMENT TYPE
CEQA: NOP
Early Cons
Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.) _
Other
NEPA: NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
OTIIER: Joint Document
Final Document
Other
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
_X General Plan Update
General Plan Amendment
General Plan Element
Community Plan
Specific Plan
. Master Plan
. Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
. Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational
Recreational
Units _
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Employees
Employees
Employees
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Minir>g:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Waste:
Other:
Type
Type
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
MGD
Watts
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
X Aesthetic/Visual X_ Flood Plain/Flooding X Schools/Universities X Water Quality
X Agricultural Land _X Forest Land/Fire Hazard X Septic Systems X Water Supply/
X Air Quality _X Geologic/Seismic X Sewer Capacity Ground Water
X Archaeological/Historical _X Minerals X Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading X Wetland/Riparian
X Coastal Zone _X Noise X Solid Waste X Wildlife
X Drainage/Absorption _X Population/Housing Balance X Toxic/Hazardous X Growth Inducing
X Economic/Jobs J( Public Services/Facilities X Traffic/Circulation X Landuse
X Fiscal X Recreat i on/Parks X Vegetation X Cumulative Effect
Other
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Project Description
Comprehensive of the City of Carlsbad General Plan, irKluding all elements existing background information, tables and map figures,
graphics, goals, objectives, and policy statements.
NOTE: Clearinghouse wilt assign identification numbers for all new projects,
from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in.
If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g.
Revised October 1989
f
in Dl ev.
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARIi^
Mail to: County Clerk, County of San Diego, PO Box 1750, San Diego, CA 92112-414f
Pubtic Hearing Date: August 9. 1994
Pubtic Hearing Place: 1200 Cartsbad Village Dr. Cartsbad. CA
Public Hearing Time: 6:00 p.m.
/Oj
|«V
Project Title: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - Generat Plan Update 1*"
^ .0 [L i IS)
Jje e«S*))y«filitl?yiec«d8r/County Clerk
'^A AUG 0 3 1994
Lead Agency: Citv of Cartsbad
Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
City: Carlsbad
JOI DEPUTY...
CohCact Pers '1 enne Lenders
^ PfRine: 1619) 43^7161. 4451
Zip: 92009_ County:^<^an Diego
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Cartsbad
Cross Streets: N/A Total Acres: 42.2 sg. mi tes
Assessor's Parcel No. N/A Section: N/A Twp. N/A Range: N/A Base: N/A
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Interstate 5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean/Batiquitos Lagoon/Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Airports: wcClet tan-Halomar kai iways: NCTD Schools: jj/A
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
NOP
Early Cons
Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.) 93091080
Other
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
X_ Generat Plan Update
General Plan Amendment
Generat Ptan Etement
Specific Ptan
Master Plan
Ptanned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Recreational
Units
Sq. Ft"
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
J< Aesthetic/Visuat
J< Agricultural Land
J< Air Quality
J< Archaeological/Historical
J< Coastal Zone
J< Drainage/Absorption
J< Economic/Jobs
X Fiscal
X Ftood Plain/Flooding _X_
X Forest Land/Fire Hazard
X Geologic/Seismic J<_
X Minerals JL
X Noise JL
X Population/Housing Batance JL
X Public Services/Facilities JL
X Recreation/Parks JL
Schools/Universities JL
Septic Systems JL
Sewer Capacity
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading JL
Solid Waste X
Toxic/Hazardous JL
Traffic/Circulation JL
Vegetation X
Water Quatity
Water Supply/
Ground Water
Wet I arxi/R i par i an
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Landuse
Cumulative Effect
Other
Present Larxi Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
N/A
Project Description
Comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
Where documents are located for Public Review:
City HaU, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Community Development Center, 2075 Las Palmas Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92009
Main Library, 1250 Cartsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Branch Library, 6949 Et Camino Real, Suite 200, Cartsbad, CA 92009
July 1994
WiiMD IH THS OSflCS OF THS OOtTHTT CHiStt
,4.DISQ000imTT0H iAM±im '
POOTlDlftllfi 0 3 igM REM0VE13.iSgP 0 ?• W
BlTOimiDTpAaSHCYOJtf ^/ffi/^f.
DBPtJTT
NOTICE OP^PURr-iC HEARING ^
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
Califomia, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 1994, to consider a request for
recommendation of cenification of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation
of approval of a General Plan Amendment to comprehensivelv update the Citv's General
Plan.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 10, 1994. If you
have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4451.
If you challenge the Master Environmental Impact Report and/or the General Plan
Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PUBLISH DATES:
CARLSBAD SUN: MARCH 3, 1994
BLADE-CITIZEN NORTH: MARCH 4, 1994
BLADE-CITIZEN SOUTH: MARCH 4, 1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Ai:vd
Thc City of Carlsbad is completing a (comprehensive update of the General Plan including
revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map. The Land Use Map is an integral part of the
General Plan and gnq)hically portrays the location of land uses and major roadways. State law
requires the map to be consistent with the text of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed
m^ reflects the changes put forward by the Updated General Plan. Generally, revisions to the
map have occurred in three major areas: commercial designations, open space designations and
"cleanup" changes. It should be noted that the proposed changes MAY require subsequent zone
changes in the near future to maintain consistency between the Land Use Map and the 21oning
Map.
The City is proposing to consolidate arid/or rename several existing commercial designations as
follows:
Intensive Regional Retail - to - Regional Commercial
Extensive Regional Retail - to - Regional Commercial
Regional Service Retail - to - Regional Commercial
Central Business District - to - Village
Recreation Commercial - to - Travel Recreation Commercial
Travel Service Commercial - to - Travel Recreation Commercial
These proposals constitute only a name change with very little difference, if any, to the
permitted land uses. Property boundaries are not at all affected by the proposed revisions.
The City is also considering a number of "cleanup" changes to the Land Use Map to correct
prior mapping errors or in2q}propriate designations. At times, revisions are proposed to
redesignate the subject property to reflect existing development/conditions or to achieve better
compatibility with surrounding development.
Your land will bc affected by one of these revisions. Please refer to the attached location map
to determine the change that is proposed with regard to your property. Due to the number of
proposed revisions, it is not possible to provide a rationale for every change; however, an
attachment has been provided which briefly outlines why the City is proposing to revise the land
use designation on your property. If you have more specific questions, please feel free to call
Adrienne Landers at thc City of Carlsbad Community Development Center (619) 438-1161,
extension 4451.
^SsTING: C FmOPbSED: N ^
®
COCNTY or SAN MECO ®
nniiiiiiiiiiimr
0UVEM4AM RO
CITY or KNCINrrAS
EXISTWG:TS,U PROPOSED: RLM
City of Carlsbad
CITY OF CARLSBAD GPA 94-01
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
Califomia, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 1994, to consider a request for
recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation
of approval of a General Plan Amendment to comprehensively update the Cit/s General
Plan.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 10, 1994. If you
have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (619) 438-
1161, ext. 4451.
If you challenge the Master Environmental Impact Report and/or the General Plan
Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PUBLISH DATES:
CARLSBAD SUN: MARCH 3, 1994
BLADE-CITIZEN NORTH: MARCH 4, 1994
BLADE-CITIZEN SOUTH: MARCH 4, 1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
AL:vd
The City of Carlsbad is completing a comprehensive update of the General Plan. Included
within the Land Use Element are two proposed new programs which may affect you as a
property owner of commercially-designated, vacant land. These include the following:
Establish procedures that require a conceptual site plan and statistical
analysis of the market service area to analyze and determine the feasibility
and appropriateness of the proposed development (anchor tenant(s), trade
area, location, etc.) as a neighborhood, community, or regional commercial
center.
Since the existence of a commercial land use designation impacts the ability
for other sites in the general vicinity to meet the locational requirements of
an adequate market, commercial land use designations (both existing and
future) that are not developed will be reviewed every two years to determine
whether the designation remains appropriate. If it is found that the
classification is no longer appropriate, the site shall be redesignated by the
City as Unplanned Area (UA). For the site to then be redesignated from UA
to another land use classification, a general plan amendment must be
approved. For the site to be redesignated to residential uses, a finding of
consistency with the City's Growth Management Program must be made.
Please refer to the attached pages which provide a staff analysis of the proposed changes.
This analysis is a section of the staff report on the General Plan which will be presented
to the Planning Commission on March 16, 1994. The City would like to invite you to
participate in this discussion. If you have specific questions, please fee free to call Adrienne
Landers at the City of Carlsbad Community Development Center (619) 438-1161, extension
4451.
Assignment of Commercial Designations. Two new programs have been added to the Land
Use Element which require commercially-designated land to be reviewed every two years
to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of the commercial designation. These
programs have been proposed to "fine-tune" policies which have existed in both the General
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for some time. More important, however, is the fact that
these programs implement the General Plan goal of "A City that achieves a healthy and
diverse economic base by creating a climate for economic growth and stability to attract
quality commercial development to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service
needs of Carlsbad residents".
As mentioned, the proposed programs simply fine-tune existing policies. The existing
General Plan Land Use Element states "Excessive undeveloped commercial zoning should
be regularly reviewed and evaluated for its ability to serve the community". This policy has
been incorporated in the updated General Plan as well (please refer to Commercial, C.l.f).
The Zoning Ordinance maintains consistency with this policy in Section 21.52.150 as follows:
21.52.150 Review of zone changes.
Zone changes, other than those initiated by the city, shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission one year after reclassification has been granted. In
those cases where the new zoning has not been utilized within the one-year
period, the Planning Commission shall consider whether the property should
revert back to its original zone, remain as currently zoned, or be changed to
a more appropriate zone. The Planning Commission may grant one extension
not to exceed one year. (Ord. 9337 § 5, 1973)
The intent of these policies is to ensure that commercial zone changes which may be
speculative, may be revoked. Commercial land which is not developed in a reasonable fime
period, may then be reviewed and redesignated at a future time. The proposed program
simply implements these policies and focuses attention on commercial development to notify
property owners that this is an item the City intends to address in the future, although it has
not done so in the past.
In keeping with the General Plan goal of attracting, promoting, and achieving a healthy
economic base for the community, the City has developed an economic strategy to
encourage the attracfion of revenue-producing businesses. The proposed programs support
this effort because they reduce the possibility of the City losing a promising revenue
generator if a potential commercial developer wants to locate in the community but is
refused due to the location of another nearby, undeveloped commercial site.
The proposed program is also more equitable for property owners by allowing all
appropriate sites to develop according to the same regulations on a first-come, first-served
basis. No property owners are penalized because another nearby, commercially-designated
property is not ready to develop and may not be ready to develop for many years. This also
allows the market analysis required for each site to evaluate each site on its own merits
rather than the speculative appraisal of a nearby, undeveloped commercial site.
Carlsbad N
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Califomia, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
- .... nrp.cedin.g: the date of publication of the
referred to; and that the
le armexed is a printed
iblished in each regular
said newspaper and not
t thereof on the follow-
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
ii
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission ofthe
City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00
Wednesday, March 16,1994, to consider a recjuest Wl^ifeliin
tion of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and recom-
mendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment to compre-
hensively update the City's General Plan.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report #ill
be available on and after March 10,1994. If you have any qiiestibhs,
please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Department at (619)
438-1161, ext. 445L
If you challenge the Master Environmental Impact Report and/or
the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to rais-
ing only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspohdence dlsli-
vered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
Case File: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
Case Name: City of Carlsbad - General Plan Update
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
a 7202: March 3, 1994
reh 03 19.
19.
19
19
19
94
ty of perjury that the
1 correct. Executed at
• San Diego, State of
e Srd
reh, 1994
1
Clerk of the Printer
%
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
County of San Diego
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)
)ss.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Notice of General Update Workshop
I have been duly swom as the
Legal Advertising Representative
of the Blade-Citizen, a newspaper
of general circulation, published
three times a week in the City of
Solana Beach and Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of
California, with circulation in Cardiff,
Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, La
Costa, Leucadia, Olivenhain,
Rancho Santa Fe & Solana Beach
and that the notice of which the
annexed is a true copy, was pub-
lished in said newspaper on the
following dates:
Feb. 23, 1994
NOnCEOF OENeRALPUN ^ UPDATfwOt»K8HO»»
The PlannWa CommUslon vrti how a wor* ihop on Thur««l*f, February 24, 1994 at 8:00
t>:m. atthe I ^ncU Chamber*, 1200 Carta bad Village Drive, Carlsbad, (A 920O8.Tha fur-pose (rf tM wortwiwp I* <o 90
over bad«gfound, naw fonnat, and to Idmtlfy Issue* In the updated General Plan and as-sociated Master Envlronrnen-tal Impac* Report which wM be
addressed more In-depth at the Planillng Commlsskin hearing on Wednesday, March 16,1W4. Tits publie 6 invKM
tb attendi. If you have any questtons iegaKUna the work-shop, Ptekse calf Adrienne Landers life the Planning De-
partment at (619) 438-1181, extension 4451. CASE Not
QPA94-0i/EiR 93.01 CASENAME: _ GENERM PLAN UPDATE CITYOFCARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Legal 447B February 23,1994
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated Feb. 23, 1994
Legal Advertising Representative
Blade-Citizen Newspaper
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
County of San Diego
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
Proof of Publication of
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for
the City of Oceanside and the North County Judicial
district with substantial circulation in Bonsall. Fallbrook,
Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Vista and Carisbad, County
of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged
a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego, State of California,
underthe date of June 30,1989, case number 171349;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correa.
Dated at Oceanside.Califomia, this
of
-day
22
^ NOTICE OP
I,. GENERAL PUN
UPDATE VlfORKwSop
(The hold...,
FabruBi Ip.m. ( 11200 ...a,
Cartebad, vn vaiue. Ttm HUK: /pose of tt» wmSrtSj
/CASENO:
•-gal 38779 February 22,
7 Signature
BLADE-CITIZEN
Legal Advertising
1722 South Hill Street
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside. CA 92054
(619)433-7333
Orange
County
CARLSBAD
SOURCE: MBA. 1991
MEX/CO
/
City of Ctiiibad
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP EIR 93-01
CITY OF CARLSBAD
/
City of Cirlstid
STUDY AREA MAP EIR 93-01
September 17, 1993
TO:
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS
Attached is a copy of the RE-FORMATTED PROPOSED General Plan, the Environmental
Impact Report on the updated General Plan and the Technical Appendices. A 45 day
review period begins Monday, September 20, 1993. Please make the documents available
to the public for review. Additional copies are available for review and/or purchase at the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive between the hours of 7:30 and 5:00 Monday
- Thursday and 8:00 and 5:00 on Fridays.
Thank you.
Attach.
1^ A n.oWcfi has tieenffta+ted to
ail property owners/occupants
listed herein.
Date ^rStS-q3
GPA
MAILING LIST
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1290 W. SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT
627 N VULCAN AVENUE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
ENCINITAS UNION
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST
189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS,
CA 92024
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
ROOM 452
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
CMWD
5950 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEUCADIA CTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AV
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
OLIVENHAIN MWD
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
SANDAG
FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA
401 "B" STREET #800
SAN DIEGO CA 9210
SAN DIEGUITO WATER DIST
59 EAST D STREET
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S. VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
320 N. HORNE STREET
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
VISTA, CA 92084
PLANNING DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ATTN: RICHARD NITSOS
330 GOLDEN SHORE, STE 50
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
CALIF COASTAL COMMISSION
ATTN: CHUCK DAMM
3111 CAM DEL RIO NORTH, # 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT
5950 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LEUCADIA SEWER DISTRICT
2695 MANCHESTER
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
VALLECITOS SEWER DISTRICT
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD.
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 IOTH STREET, RM 121
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
FINANCE
PARKS & REC ARTS DEPARTMENT UTILITIES & MAINTENANCE
WTIME ::;.DATE:;4
Prepare Iiutial Study 5 wks
Prepare RFP
a. Checklist '
b. Annotated bibliography
c. Scoping issues
1 wk
•
RFPs out —
RFPs received 3 wks
Staff Evaluates —
Select Top 3 Firms 2 wks
Interview Firms 1 wk
Select/Notify Firm —
Meet with Firm to Discuss Scope 1 wk
Prepare Scope 2 wks
Prepare Contracts/Sign 1 wk
Notice of Preparation Out —
Scoping Meeting 3/i/l9A
Agenda BUl Agreement 1 wk
Consultant approved by C.C. 2 wks
Consultant begins work —
Screen Check Due 8 wks
Staff Review 3 wks
Staff Comments Sent 2 wks
Draft EIR 3 wks
Staff Review 3 wks
Staff comments sent —
Draft returned 50 copies 1 wk
Notice of Completion Post — 9/U/<7^
Draft out for Review —
Draft to Library —
Draft to Developer —
End Review period 60 days
Comments sent to Consultants 1 wk
Response to Comments 4 wks
End Final Staff review 2 wks
Staff Report to PD 4 wks
Notice PC Hearing 3 wks
PC meeting 3 wks
Agenda BiU 1 wk 5-A / /fY
Council Meeting 1 wk
Notice of Determination 1 day
* -—3
AL:kni
RevGenPl
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice of Completion of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Proposed City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update Project; Lead Agency/Applicant: City of Carlsbad.
Project Description
The City of Carlsbad is located along the northwestem coast of San Diego County,
approximately 30 miles from downtown San Diego, The Carlsbad planning area
encompasses approximately 40 square miles of territory. The proposed project is the City
of Carlsbad General Plan Update which involves a detailed review and appropriate revision
of the document. The Draft General Plan update and companion Draft Program EIR have
been prepared in accordance with Califomia Planning, Zoning, and Development Law;
Califomia General Plan Guidelines; and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Pursuant to these state laws and guidelines, the Draft General Plan update and its Draft
Program EIR have been concurrently prepared and are now complete to circulate together
for a 45 day public review period beginning on September 20, 1993 and ending on
November 4, 1993. Written comments addressing the adequacy of the Draft General Plan
Update and the Draft Program EIR must be received no later than November 4, 1993;
earlier comments are appreciated. Please send written comments to Adrienne Landers,
Senior Planner, Planning Department, Community Development Department,at the address
below.
A limited number of these related documents are available for purchase at the Community
Development Department. The public is invited to review these documents during the
public review period at the follovdng locations in the City of Carlsbad:
Community Development Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive
City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Public Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive
La Costa Branch Library, 7750 El Camino Real, Suite M
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold public hearings later this year in
connection with the proposed General Plan update. Public Notices will be published at that
time announcing hearing dates, times, and location.
PUBLISH DATE:
CARLSBAD SUN
BLADE CITIZEN
SEPTEMBER 16, 1993
SEPTEMBER 17, 1993
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ®
MIG LABELS
DEE LANDERS
10/11/91
ALGA HILLS
C/O STACY FOSTER
7027 VIA CANDREJO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALTAMIRA I
827 CAMINITO DEL MAR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALTAMIRA II
MINNIE KNYCH PRESIDENT
902 CAMINITO MADRIGAL
CARLSBADCA 92009
ALTAMIRA V
VIRGINIA BOYES PRESIDENT
6717 CLOVER COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S
PO BOX 4330
CARLSBAD CA 92018-4330
BAKER, JULIE
3523 BROOKFIELD WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BATIQUITOS POINTE
EDWARD F. WHITTLER
530 "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO CA92101
BAUER-ROSS
2828 DIVISADERO ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123
BLADE CITIZEN
1722 SO HILL STREET
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
BOONE, LAURIE
3955 SKYLINE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOWER, MIGUON
2290 NOB HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRENTWOOD HEIGHTS
PO BOX 1186
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1186
BRISTOL COVE PROPERTY
OWNERS
4677 PARK DRIVE #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BUENA WOODS
KEITH KENNEDY
2052 AVENUE OF THE TREES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CADE, STEVEN
3450 JAMES DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CANNOVA, CHUCK
6827 EL FUERTE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAP, MARVIN
3580 TRIESTE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD ARTS ASSOCIATES
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD EDUCATION
FOUNDATION
PO BOX 205
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0205
CARLSBAD CONVENTION &
VISITORS BUREAU
PO BOX 1246
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1246
CARLSBAD JUNIOR WOMAN'S
CLUB
6856 VIA VERANO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD PALISADES
ELLIOTT MEHRBACH
4667 CORALWOOD CR.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CREST
MURRELL MILLER PRESIDENT
879 GINGER
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD ASSOC OF REALTORS
5120-A AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DIST
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD REPUBLICAN
WOMEN'S FED
PO BOX 566
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0566
CARLSBAD HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ATTN: PATTY CRATTY
KIWANIS CLUB OF CARLSBAD
PO 80X711
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0711
KNOLLS ASSOC MGMT, THE
>TANK KOBARG
1649CAPAUNA #1
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
KULCHIN, ANN
LA COSTA HOTEL & SPA
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA CRESTA
MARY MILLER
7958 CALLE COZUMEL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA CRESTA
C/O MARQUIS MGMT.
6440 LUSK BLVD.
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
LA COSTA DE MARBELLA
MAUREEN TRACY
2409-0 LA COSTA AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAGUNA DEL MAR
PO BOX 19530
IRVINE CA 92664
LAGUNA ASSOCIATES
2620 ACUNA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBADCA 92008
LAKESHORE GARDENS
ERLING LOKEN PRESIDENT
7236 SANTA BARBARA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANDBANK PROPERTIES INC
334 VIA VERA CRUZ SUITE 208
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LANIKAI
6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBADCA 92008
LAS PLAYAS
J CERKANOWICZ SECRETARY
6844 MAPLE LEAF
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEADERSHIP 2000
PO BOX 222
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
MIGNON BOWEN
2990 NOB HILL DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
NORTH COAST SD COUNTY
2001 AVENUE OF THE TREES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
MARGIE MONROY
3610 CARLSBADBOULEVARD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LERNER, MIRIAM
3355 CONCORD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LIONS CLUB OF CARLSBAD
PO BOX 164
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0164
LO PRISCILLA
3133 HATACA ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAGDALENA ECKE FAMILY YMCA
PO BOX 907
200 SAXONY ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MAILACH, DONA
2018 SALIENTE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MAYOR LEWIS
MONARCH
KIM WELSHONS
2121 PLACIDO COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MOREY, FRED J.
2618 ABEDULST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MOSS, JO
7571 NAVIGATOR CR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NAT'S ASSN OF RETIRED FED
EMPLOYEES
455 COUNTY CLUB LANE
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
NOBLE, BAILEY
5470 LOS ROBLES DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NORBY, PEDER
2630 VALEWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD SENIOR CENTER
3.096 HARDING
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD JOURNAL
STEVE DREYER
PO BOX 248
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0248
CARLSBAD ROTARY CLUB
PO BOX 741
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0741
CARLSBD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
5411 AVENIDA ENCINAS #100
P.O. BOX 1605
CARLSBADCA 92018-1605
COLINAS DE ORO
C/O MARQUIS MANAGEMENT
6440 LUSK BLVD.
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
COLONY, THE
BOB HAMMEL PRESIDENT
2692 GLASGOW
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COUZENS, FRED
3969 ADAMS ST D-216
CARSLBAD CA 92008
COVENTRY HOMEOWNERS
NEVILLE LAATSCH
3219 FOSCA STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CREST, THE
JACK URBAN PRESIDENT
3789 PORTLAND COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ECKE, LIZBETH
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS #100
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4452
EL CAMINO ESTATES
GEORGE HEARD
2279 LISA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ERWIN, TOM
7703 GARBOSO PLACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FINNILA, RAMONA FOUNTAINBLEAU TERRACE
6708 ABANTO STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRIENDS OF CARRILLO RANCH
2622 EL AGUILA LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
1250 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GANELIN, BILL
1650 JAMES CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GOLDMAN, IRVING
4012-C LAYANG CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HALL MATT
1045-A AIRPORTRD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
HANEC HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
JIM NIPPER
2877 ANDOVER AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HARBOR POINTE
LOUIS CAVARETTA VICE PRES
6825 WATERCOURSE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HASWC
JACK BAMBERGER
6731 OLEANDER WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
5421 AVENIDA ENCINIAS ST B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HICKEY, JUSTIN B
3604 KINGSTON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HILLMAN PROPERTIES WEST INC.
PAUL KLUKAS
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD #206
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
2386 FARADAY AVE. ST. 120
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOWARD-JONES, MARJORIE
4823 ARGOSY LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
INFORM
2359 PIO PICO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JACKSON, DONALD E.
260 NORMANDY LANE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEREZ VILLA CONDOMINIUMS
LEO J. DULACKI
7511-A JEREZ COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORTH COAST SD LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
3610CAftLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NW QUAD CITIZENS
1 BARRIO GROUP
1611 JAMES DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GROUP &-NYGAARD, JULIE
OPTIMIST CLUB OF CARLSBAD
PO BOX 669
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0669
PACIFIC PANORAMA OWNERS
GLORIA GIORELLA
P.O. BOX 1803
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1803
PONDEROSA COUNTRY
C/O MERfT PROP. MGMT
8950 VILLA LA JOLLA DR.
LA JOLLA CA 92037
PROJECT FUTURE
ANNE MAUCH
PO BOX 4650
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RANCHO CARLSBAD
RON SCHWAB
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RANCHO PONDEROSA
STEPHEN KISSICK
7812 LAS NUECES PLACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REAGAN MARY ELLEN
6550 PONTO DR #13
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICK ENGINEERING
5620 FRIARS RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-2513
SANTA FE RIDGE
KIT MARKHART
2904 CORTE CELESTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAVARY, PEGGY
6528 PERSA STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCHLEHUBER, CLARENCE
4085 SUNNYHILL DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHRAMM, SCHRAMM
2430 STROMBERG CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SDG&E
PAUL L O'NEAL
5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SEA BLUFF VILLAGE
SALLY KOSS
1835 PARLIAMENT ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SEA CLIFF
GEORGE EISNER PRESIDENT
7305 LINDENTERRACE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAGATE
B WRIGHT RENTAL MANAGER
6555 SEAGATE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAPORT AND SEAPORT VILLAS
HOMEOWNERS REPRESENTATIVE
800 GRAND AVENUE #A18
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SEELYE, HERMAN J
3606 KINGSTON
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SOLAMAR
JOAN LOOS PRESIDENT
6521 EASY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPINNAKER HILL
JOE REED PRESIDENT
1008 DAISY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPYGLASS POINT
C/O CJ. MGMT. SERVICES
2182 EL CAMINO REAL #209
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
STANTON, MARGARET TAMARACK POINTE
PACKARD & LOOMIS
5670 EL CAMINO REAL #F
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TAMARACK BEACH RESORT
RESORT MANAGER
3200 CARLSBAD BLVD.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TERRAMAR
BAILEY NOBLE
5470 LOS ROBLES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
THACKER, NEVILLE I.
3810 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TIBURON CARLSBAD
M.C. THOMPSON
3115 AVENIDA DE ANITA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TRAILS ASSOC MGMT, THE
TANK KOBARK
1649 CAf'ALINA #1
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
VILLAGE MERCHANTS
1519 GRAND AVENUE
PO BOX 2115
CARLSBAD CA 92018-2115
VILLAS, THE
JIM NIPPER
2877 ANDOVER AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VISTA PACIFICA
CAROL SVENDSEN REP
913 ROSEMARY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WELSHONS, KIM
2121 PLACIDO PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WELTY, WALDON & DELORES
2076 SHERIDAN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
WILSONIA
KIP MCBANE
2691 CREST DR.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WINDSONG COVE
J.M. HATCH
4011-BCANARlO STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WOLDER, MS. JERRI S.
5460 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WOMEN'S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
PO BOX 173
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0173
AFFIDAVrr OF PUBLICATION
County of San Diego )
STAIE OF CALIFORNIA
)ss, PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I have been duly swom as the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Blade-Citizen, a semi-weekly news-
paper of general circulation, printed
in the City of Oceanside, published
in the City of Solana Beach and
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of Califomia, and that the notice,
of which the annexed is a true copy,
was published in said newspaper on
the following dates: ,
^ In 1^3
I certify (or declare) under penalty
of perjury t±at the foregoing is true
and correct.
Dated this / 7 day of ^ /ff ^ .
review
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ W
Notice of Completion of a prit Program Environmental Inipact Report. Proposed City of Carlsbad Gerterfid Plan Update PfojectrLead Aoency/Af^llcant: Cliy of Carlsbad.
ThecL^fcSadis lo(J^ along the northwestem ooafet of San Diego Couniy, appwimately 30
mites^m downtS^ Carlsbad planning area encompasse«'«rOximateIy 40 square
m iS oH6r?rt^ T^^ proposS project is the Cl5 of General Plan Jpdate wh^ mvolves a
SSiSI'proS^EIR have beenprepare^ ^ a^dartil with Oaliforma P^h»ng. Zom
Sd^etoprSSSlifomia General P% and*e Califqmia Em^^rtmmerital Qi^Wy ,
Act(CB3A). • 1 ^„ icn
Pursuant to these Stati iaws and guidelines, the Draft General Plan update and itsMn P;^^^^ pIR
ha^ Sn wSrehtly p comfSeteto circulate together for a45 day pubjic
SSwSon Se^eXr^^^^ and ending on Novembers. 1993. Wrim<gmrnerite
SesKe aSauS^S^e Draft General Plan Update and the Draft Prograrh E»R ^f^J^^
fSednolS^h November 4.1993: earlier comments are appreciated. Please send writteA
Slnte toSnne Landers. Senior Planner. Planning Department, Community Davelopment
Department, at the address below. 1
A limited number of these related documents are available for purchase at the Community
Seve^menX^ent The public is invited td review these documents during the public review
iaeriod atthefollowing locations in the City of Garl^^^ -^^^ ,
• Community Development Departmem,^7f Laii PaTO^
• City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
. Carlsbatti Public Library , 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive
• La Costa Branch Library, 7750 El Camino Real. Suite M
The City Coundl of the City of Carlsbad will hold publte hearings later this year in connecton witti
PSOSJ General Plan uf^ate. Public Notices wHl be published at that ttme announcing heanng
times, and location.
Legal4298
.September 17,1993 . ^ _ ' •—•
the
tetes,
Legal Advertising kepresentative
Carlsbad SUN
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Califomia, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
aimexed is a printed
ished in each regular
lid newspaper and not
hereof on the follow-NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice of Completion ofa prart Program Environmenfal Impait Hepoif. I'ropo.scd t'i(\
of Carlsbad General Plan Update Project; Lead AKcncy Applicant; t'ity of Caiisbad.
Prpject Descriptiou
The City of CarLsbad i.s located along the northwestern coast-of San Divfio County,
approximately 30 miles from downtown San Dieno. The Carlsbad planninn area encom-
passes approximately 40 .square miles of territory. The proposed project is the City of
Cartsbad General Plan Update which involves a detailed review and appropi iate l evision
of the document. The braO General Plan update and companion Drall I'loKiam EIR have
been prepared in accordance with California Planning. Zoriinn. and Development Law;
California General Plan Guidelines: and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Pursuant to these state laws and suidelines. the Draft Genertfl Plan update and its Draft
Program EIR have been concurrently prepared and are now complete to circulate
together for a 45 day public review period beginning on September 20.1993 and ending on
November 4. 1993. Written comments addressing fhe adequacy of the4>rafl General Plan
Update and the Draft Program EIR must bc received no later than November 4. 1993;
e'aVlier comments are appreciated. Please send written comments ,to Adrienne Landei s.
Senior Planner. Planning Department. Community Development l)eportment. at 2075 Las
Palmas Drive. Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576. ' /
A limited number ofthese related documents are availablt? I<»r |)t|r6h^ at the Com-
munity Development Department. The public is invited to reyiew these documents during
thfe'>ublic review period atlhe following locations in fhe Cit^i' of CarlsHad.
• Community Development Department. ?075 Las Palmas Driyc,
• City Clerk s OfTice. 1200 Carlsbat} Village Drive *
• parlsbad Public Library. 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive i:.:..'''f'i'il,^
• Lll Costa Branch Library. 7750 El Camino Real. Suite M mi> r
Iftie City Council of the City ofjf arlsbad will hold pubii<
cii^ection, wjth the proposed G^#ral uB^t^^liflw'^"
'.I :in-} • I
WHWIK Ifter this vear in
l^^illlbe published at
mber 16 19 93
19
19
19
19
y of perjury that the
correct. Executed at
San Diego, State of
6th
imber, 1993
Clerk of the Printer
Carlsbad SUN
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of Califomia, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
-orec&ding the date of publication of the
ferred to; and that the
NOTICE OF "SCOPING If EETING" ON THE
CARtSitAD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
.— —..^^—_—,
OQ March 11,1993 the City of Carlsbad Planning Dei>arf ment will .be holding a "scoping
meeting" regarding the General Plan tJpdate Ent^ironmentai Impact Repiort (EIR). The
meeting will be held at the Ci^ Cottncil Chambers, 1200. CaVlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad
from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. : K
The purpose of this meeting is to identify potential edVironment^l impacts associated
with the Update so that they can be addressed in the EIR. It is h{>t the purpose ofthis
meeting to debate the pros and cons of the proposaL
Pnycct Descrtption
The City of Carlsba^ recently completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan,
including a detailed review and subsequent update of all the eltitnents, existing back-
ground information, tables and map figures, graphics,goals, objectives and policy state-
ments.
The proposed project is a comprehensive amendment qf the City of Carlsbad General
Plan focusing on the environmental impacts assodated with ttie additional or in-
cremental physical devel^mient allowed by the buildout of the Plan. Included are all
elements, existing Backgt^Und information, tables aiid map figures, grapbics, goals,
objectives and policy statements.
'. The General Plan Update does not represent a speciflc devel^jpment proposal with
defined project characteristics. Therefore, this EIR willlie prepared sis a Program EIR to
evaluate the impacts of implementing the General Plan Update^ aUowing^e City to
consider broad policy alternative and program-wide mitigation measures (Secitiioji 15168
bfthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines). The proposed I^ogram
EIR will focus on the potential impacts of new or modified policy recemtiendatibhs and
strategies, and secondary eflfects that may be expected tt r^nlllfl'otii the leng'-term
implementation of the Updated General Plan. The degree erspecillidl^ iised to analyze
the potential impacts will be related to the broad natiire tif the poU(|y« recommendations
and strategies contained in the Upidated General Pla^ , J
If youhave any questions regardihg the General Plai^l^j^date "scoping meetii^", please
contact Adrienne Landers ofthe Carlsbad Planning I^p^ai^nient at (i|$) 438?^U^
Sion4451. • ..• , : ':[;^.''.'> ^
C^SEi FILE: EIR 93^1 < Ci^l^ NAME: General Hah llpd^ ^ Eio^
Ci4(»4: •February'25.1993 j .^4-^-'*r';,|;'.; , .
t-1
annexed is a printed
ished in each regular
aid newspaper and not
hereof on the foUow-
jary 25 19 93
19
19
19
19
y of perjury that the
correct. Executed at
San Diego, State of
25th
uary, 1993
Clerk of the Printer
GP EIR 93-01
February 11, 1993
ARCHAELOGICAL FELLOWSHIP
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92115
CA DEPT OF TRASNPO DISTOICT 11
JERRY LOVE
2829 SAN JUAN STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
CALIF NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
ENVIRONMENTAL TECH COMM
PO BOX 1390
SAN DIEGO. CA 92112
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DIST
6780 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
COASTAL COMMISSION
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH #200
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
CTY SD-NOISE CONT HRNG BOARD
ATTN: RAYSACCO
1700 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC HEALTH
PACIFIC HEALTH OFFICER
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
DIVISION OF MINES & GEOLOGY
DEPT OF CONSERVATION
1416 9TH ST ROOM 1326-A
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
ENCINA JOINT POWERS
6200 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DIST
C/O GENE FREDRICKS
189 UNION STREET
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FARM ADVISOR
COUNTY OPERATIONS CENTER
5555 OVERLAND BLDG. 4
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
FISH & GAME
TERRI STEWART
7821 ORIEN AVE
LA MESA CA 91941
NOISE CONTROL HEARING BOARD
ATTN: RAYSACCO
1700 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
RICHARD ANDREWS
2800 MEADOWVIEW ROAD
SACRAMENTO CA 95832
OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
PALOMAR AIRPORT
MANAGER
2198 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
320 N. HORNE STREET
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
527 ENCINITAS BLVD # 100
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
VISTA, CA 92084
S.D. COUNTY SANITATION
ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDIN
555 OVERLAND
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
S.D. REGIONAL WATER QUAUTY
CONT. BOARD: ENVIR COORD
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BL, # B
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO
PO BOX 1831
SANDIEGO, CA 92112
SANDAG - LAND USE COMMISSION
ATTN: JACK KOERPER
1200 3RD AVE, SUITE 524
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SANDAG
ATTN: INTERGOV RELATIONS
401 "B" STREET, #800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SD CO AIR POLL-CONTROL DISTRICT
ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORD
9150 CHESAPEAKE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
GP EIR RFP
FEBRUARY 9,1993
BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, INC
JEFFREY L LINCER PHD
SORRENTO TOWERS
5355 MIRA SORRENTO PL # 100
SANDIEGO CA 92121
arm & ASSOCIATES*
GARY P. CINTI PRESIDENT
1133 COLUMBIA STREET STE. 201
SANDIEGO CA 92101
BROWN & CALDWELL
9040 FRIARS ROAD #220
SANDIEGO CA 92108
OVIC SOLUTIONS
THOMAS G. MERRELL, AlCP
31726 RANCHO VIEJO RD STE 223
SAN JUAN CAP CA 92675
CARNOT/MARK MCDANIEL
15991 RED HILL AVE SUITE 110
TUSTIN CA 92680
COLEMAN PLANNING GROUP
110 ESCONDIDO AVE SUITE 207
VISTA CA 92084
CORCORAN DREW PARTNERS*
JAMES A ROGERS, AlCP
2240 UNIVERSITY DRIVE STE 120
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOOATES
747 E.GREEN STREET #400
PASADENA CA 91101
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES
SHERRI KECHETEK
619 S VULCAN AVE SUITE 205
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG LORENZ & ASSOC.
7565 ACAMA STREET
SANDIEGO CA 92126
CURTIS SCOTT ENGLEHORN
PO BOX 458
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA CA 92007
CYP, INC
2955 RED HILL AVENUE
COSTA MESA CA 92626
D.G. KING
1254 BERRIAN STREET
CLAREMONT CA 91711
DAMES & MOORE
9665 CHESAPEAKE DR SUITE 360
SANDIEGO CA 92123
DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC
605 THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS CA 92024
EDAW MAURA KNOWLES
1920 MAIN SUITE 450
IRVINE CA 92714
ENTRANCO
HEIDI R. HOPP
600 SO. ANDREASEN DR. STE. A
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
ERC
JULIE MCCALL
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SANDIEGO CA 92121
FORMA^
8910 UNIVERSITY CTR LANE #250
SANDIEGO CA 92122
H.D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
PHIL HINSHAW
6136 MISSION GORGE RD #111
SANDIEGO CA 92120
HELIX ENV. PLANNING, INC
DAVID W. CLAYCOMB, AlCP
7777 ALVARADO RD. STE. 290
LA MESA CA 91941
INNIS-TENNEBAUM
DAVID TENNEBAUM
1400 FIFTH AVENUE #400
SANDIEGO CA 92101
J.R- AGOZINO ASSOCIATES
4069 CARVEACRE TRAIL
ALPINE CA 91901
KELLER ASSOCIATES INC.
EDWARD BEVERIDGE
1727 FIFTH AVENUE
SANDIEGO CA 92101
LETTIERI MONTYRE ASSOCIATES
DEBORAH L COLLINS
533 F STREET SUITE 209
SANDIEGO CA 92101
LEWIS & ZIMMERMAN
ASSOCIATES
TERRY HAYS, CVS
16981 VIA TAZON, SUITE X
SANDIEGO CA 92127
LG&E PCWER SYSTEMS
2030 MAIN STREET
IRVINE CA 92714-7240
UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN
JOHN P KEATING PE
8989 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE SUITE
135
SANDIEGO CA 92108
MOONEY.LEVINE & ASSOC
BILL GRAHAM
9903-B BUSINESS PARK
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
LOCKMAN & ASSOCIATES
h732 RANCHO VIEJO RD # D-l
SAN JUAN CAP CA 92675-2778
OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
THA WILEY ENV.
522 GRANADA AVENUE
SANDIEGO CA 92102
ORANGE COAST GROUP, INC.
BEN ORTEGA
3020 OLD RANCH PKW SUITE 440
SEAL BEACH CA 90740-2751
P&D TECHNOLOGIES
WARREN SPRAGUE, AlCP
401 W "A" STREET SUITE 2500
SANDIEGO CA 92101
PBR
18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE
IRVINE CA 92714
PLANNING & DESIGN SOLUTIONS
4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 240
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-1834
RAGSDALE AND ASSOCIATES
7734 HERSCHEL AVENUE SUITE N
LA JOLLA CA 92037
RBF/SHOLDERS & SANFORD
3569 FIFTH AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92103-5015
RBT BEIN, WM FROST & ASSOC
71 NORTH FOURTH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOC
550 C NEWPORT CENTER DR.
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SB&O^
3615 KEARNY VILLA ROAD #201
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SOUTH COUNTIES CONSULTANTS
25108 MARGUERITE PKWY #316
MISSIONVIEJO CA 92692
SOUTH COAST ENVIRN. CO.
1582-1 N BATAVIA
ORANGE CA 92667
STIVERS & ASSCX3ATES
GUY A STIVERS, ASLA
18301 IRVINE BLVD. SUITE IB
TUSTIN CA 92680-3438
SYCAMORE ASSOCIATES
1612 ROSE STREET
BERKELEY CA 94703
THE PLANNING CENTER
COLLETTE MORSE
1300 DOVE STREET #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
THE KEITH COMPANIES
ROBIN PAOLINO DELOTELL
2995 RED HILL AVENUE
COSTA MESA CA 92626
THE KTGY GROUP, INC*
ROBERT M. YAMAFU JI, PRESIDENT
2 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE STE 190
IRVINE CA 92714
TIERRA PLANNING & DESIGN
34191 CAMINO CAPISTRANO
CAPISTRANO BEACH CA 92624
TORSTAN
160 CHESTERFIELD SUITE 3
CARDIFF CA 92007
URBAN VISION
MATTHEW E. MOORE, M.A
SIXTY CORPORATE PARK STE 100
IRVINE CA 92714
WESTEC SERVICES, INC
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SANDIEGO CA 92121
ZUCKER SYSTEMS
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, INC.
JEFFREY L UNCER PHD
SORRENTO TOWERS
5355 MIRA SORRENTO PL # 100
SANDIEGO CA 92121
CINTI & ASSOCIATES*
GARY P. CINTI PRESIDENT
1133 COLUMBIA. STREET STE. 201
SANDIEGO CA 92101
GP EIR 93-01 - RFP
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
BROWN & CALDWELL
9040 FRIARS ROAD #220
SANDIEGO CA 92108
CIVIC SOLUTIONS
THOMAS G. MERRELL, AlCP
31726 RANCHO VIEJO RD STE 223
SAN JUAN CAP CA 92675
CARNOT/MARK MCDANIEL
15991 RED HILL AVE SUITE 110
TUSTIN CA 92680
COLEMAN PLANNING GROUP
110 ESCONDIDO AVE SUITE 207
VISTA CA 92084
CORCORAN DREW PARTNERS*
JAMES A ROGERS, AlCP
2240 UNIVERSITY DRIVE STE 120
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES
747 E.GREEN STREET #400
PASADENA CA 91101
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES
SHERRI KECHETER
619 S VULCAN AVE SUITE 205
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG LORENZ 8c ASSOC.
7565 ACAMA STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
CURTIS SCOTT ENGLEHORN
PO BOX 458
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA CA 92007
CYP, INC.
2955 RED HILL AVENUE
COSTA MESA CA 92626
D.G. KING
1254 BERRIAN STREET
CLAREMONT CA 91711
DAMES & MOORE
9665 CHESAPEAKE DR SUITE 360
SANDIEGO CA 92123
DUDEK 8t ASSOCIATES, INC.
605 THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS CA 92024
EDAW MAURA KNOWLES
1920 MAIN SUITE 450
IRVINE CA 92714
ENTRANCO
HEIDI R. HOPP
600 SO. ANDREASEN DR. STE. A
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
ERC
JULIE MCCALL
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
FORMA^
8910 UNIVERSITY CTR LANE #250
SANDIEGO CA 92122
H.D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
PHIL HINSHAW
6136 MISSION GORGE RD #111
SANDIEGO CA 92120
HELIX ENV. PLANNING, INC.
DAVID W. CLAYCOMB, AlCP
7777 ALVARADO RD. STE. 290
LA MESA CA 91941
INNIS-TENNEBAUM
DAVID TENNEBAUM
1400 FIFTH AVENUE #400
SANDIEGO CA 92101
J.R. AGOZINO ASSOCIATES
4069 CARVEACRE TRAIL
ALPINE CA 91901
KELLER ASSOCIATES INC.
EDWARD BEVERIDGE
1727 FIFTH AVENUE
SANDIEGO CA 92101
LETTIERI MCINTYRE ASSOCIATES
DEBORAH L COLLINS
533 F STREET SUITE 209
SANDIEGO CA 92101
LEWIS & ZIMMERMAN ASSOCIATES
TERRY HAYS, CVS
16981 VIA TAZON, SUITE X
SANDIEGO CA 92127
LG&E POWER SYSTEMS
2030 MAIN STREET
IRVINE CA 92714-7240
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN
JOHN P KEATING PE
8989 RIO SAN DIEGO DR #135
SANDIEGO CA 92108
MOONEY.LEVINE & ASSOC.
BILL GRAHAM
9903-B BUSINESS PARK
SANDIEGO CA 92131
'LOCKMAN & ASSOCIATES
31732 RANCHO VIEJO RD # D-l
SAN JUAN CAP CA 92675-2778
OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
'MARTHA WILEY ENV.
1522 GRANADA AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92102
ORANGE COAST GROUP, INC.
BEN ORTEGA
3020 OLD RANCH PKW SUITE 440
SEAL BEACH CA 90740-2751
P&D TECHNOLOGIES
WARREN SPRAGUE, AlCP
401 W "A" STREET SUITE 2500
SANDIEGO CA 92101
PBR
18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE
IRVINE CA 92714
PLANNING & DESIGN SOLUTIONS
4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 240
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-1834
RAGSDALE AND ASSOCIATES
7734 HERSCHEL AVENUE SUITE N
LA JOLLA CA 92037
RBF/SHOLDERS & SANFORD
3569 FIFTH AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92103-5015
RBT BEIN, WM FROST & ASSOC
71 NORTH FOURTH AVE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOC.
550 C NEWPORT CENTER DR.
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SB&O^
3615 KEARNY VILLA ROAD #201
SANDIEGO CA 92123
SOUTH COUNTIES CONSULTANTS
25108 MARGUERITE PKWY #316
MISSIONVIEJO CA 92692
SOUTH COAST ENVIRN. CO.
1582-1 N BATAVIA
ORANGE CA 92667
STIVERS & ASSOCIATES
GUY A STIVERS, ASLA
18301 IRVINE BLVD. SUITE IB
TUSTIN CA 92680-3438
SYCAMORE ASSOCIATES
1612 ROSE STREET
BERKELEY CA 94703
THE PLANNING CENTER
COLLETTE MORSE
1300 DOVE STREET #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
THE KEITH COMPANIES
ROBIN PAOLINO DELOTELL
2995 RED HILL AVENUE
COSTA MESA CA 92626
THE KTGY GROUP, INC.*
ROBERT M. YAMAFUJI, PRESIDENT
2 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE STE 190
IRVINE CA 92714
TIERRA PLANNING & DESIGN
34191 CAMINO CAPISTRANO
CAPISTRANO BEACH CA 92624
TORSTAN
160 CHESTERFIELD SUITE 3
CARDIFF CA 92007
URBAN VISION
MATTHEW E. MOORE, M.A
SIXTY CORPORATE PARK STE 100
IRVINE CA 92714
WESTEC SERVICES, INC.
5510 MOREHOUSE DRIVE
SANDIEGO CA 92121
ZUCKER SYSTEMS
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SANDIEGO CA 92108
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter. I am the principal cierk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for
the City of Oceanside and the North County Judicial
dlstrk^ with substantial circulation in Bonsall, Fallbrook.
Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff. Vista and Carisbad, County
of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged
a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego. State of Califomia.
under the date of June 30,1989. case number 171349;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
foltowing dates, to-w'it:
February 24, 1993
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is tme and correct.
Dated at Oceanside.Califomia. this 24 day
of Feb. 1993
Signature
This space is for the CJounty Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publicatfon of
Public Meeting Notice
BLADE-CITIZEN
Legal Advertising
1722 South Hili Street
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92054
(619)433-7333
NOTICE OF "SCOPINfl MRBTmr." QN THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PT.AN IIPTUTp
On March 11,1993 the City of Carlirfwd Planning Department will be holding a "scoping meetina"
Jhf ^n'nu^ ^l"" H^*^^"rl™»'"«n*''' inipact Report (EIR). The hieeting\vlll be held at the City Council Chambers, 1300 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad from 6:06p.m. to 8.-00 p.m.
The purpose of this meeting is to idenUfy potential environmental impacts assodated with the Update so that they can be addressed in the EIR. It is not the purpose of this meeting to debate the pros and cons of the proposaL ««;"avc
Proiect Description
The City of Carlsbad recently completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan, indudine a
T'^"^ subsequent update of all the dements, existing background information, tibles and map figures, graphics, goals, obiectives and policy statements. ^
The proposed project is a comprehensive amendment of the City of Carisbad General Plan focusinjr
XJj^^K ^n^"*' asssociated with the additional or incremental physical development
allowed by the buildout of the Plan. Induded are all elements, existing backgroufid InformaUon ' tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives and policy statements.
TTie General Plan Update does not represent a spedfic development proposal with deflned oroiect
charactenstics. Therefore, this EIR will be prepared as a Program EIR to evaluate the impacts of
Implementing the General Plan Update allowing the City to consider broad policy alternative and
F,^^??J!?!;^.^^.™*"?^l'P" (Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidehnes). The proposed Program EIR will focus on the potential Impacts of new or
modlfred policy recommendations and strategies, and secondaty effects that may be expected to
result from the long-term implementation of the Updated General Plart. The degree of spedfidtv
used to analyze the potential impacts will be rdated to the broad nature ofthe policy
recommendations and strategies contained in the Updated General Plan.
If you have aiiy quesitons regarding the General pfan Update "scoping meeting", please contact
Adrienne Landers of the Carlsbad Planning Department ati(619) 438-1161, extension 4451.
CASE FILE:
CASENAME: Leiil 36075
EIR 93-01
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) February 24, If 93 •
Carlsbad S JN T
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Scate of Califomia, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the
[ 83(88 uo sn 83tU
adiaii 8MS.. '^"11
AUOj) 8iCB8
; 8XBM{8 81 aqgu^
,/j9u!MBd ppo8 9
duadxagiiiaiblB
}uOI_08JOjaOWKI}f Jui8ti3i|n(3 Wipra t^'ure XjrBw L
-aaAoid
I puB uui pBqsjaBD
iCmsnpui X^ijB^id
UIBiSOIJ UOi:)BdTU)
-na sites „'ia^Bui3moq pas aaa^unioA X^iunuiuioo B 8BMI sraaX ^UBUI IO£„
^mejSoxi SIAUOQ
JO ijoddns »iia(^|nf tii^^
Sun^aBw Q| 8)tt9(iKt^pia639B 4«|
i«>i»oaAHO0 joiptarofti
qMsg UOI |f<ifta80 W -^nui puB saioiij^ io^ip 'ifoaona •^uajB^ laq
JOJ pajouoq uaaqsBq oqs MO^ jC^qB^id -8oq jaq JOJ UMOuif si sjoaflnQ IOJBO
^0 ;soH, Sl 5iD3ana
J9mD OlIMUjfO JBdopASp • (Uo^ OlpMjfO
OOO'Set 'V P9l9ldUI03 .<J13J on MlAJiS SJiffO
'ififoajq jof uado aq //IM J/ saSajsMq puv S39MU3 ppads
n S3AJI3S 3p3 3m pDO^ pjopai/mj/ Z9ZZ to l^^f s-tonbs
j(7 pjop3qi^H '3/0J sndtuvj Hq p3WJ3do puv p3UM0
pDqsjjDj 3qi ut Sl x3idmo3 pumpui pun iu3mdo]3A3p
Ul 3m pOqSfJlVyjIgmO SJMWUIOJ OJ^MJIJ UI U3SS31DJ
•3pJ pjojj3qin^ IV 3)3ldUiOJ 3JV UU3Ui3A0jdW! IUVU3±
•AKSHonc?:. ,g, s 'id
nnltig Department of the
irlsbid iMendt to pi«|ni¥*'^ inin«pMItInp«f!t.|le|>9ift
ilowfiis project:
eseriptloac. -t^tptSS!
Citii^Cwtibad Gttoml naAitidur''
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
February 18 19 93
19
19.
19.
19
I cenify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 18th
dav of February, 1993
Clerk of the Printer
W.C.C
ing all elements, existing backgrmmd
irtformation, tables and map figures,
graphics, goals, objectives and policy
statements.
The City of Carlsbad has recently
completed a comprehensive up-
date of its General Plan, including a
detailed review and subsequent
update of all the elements, existing
background information, tables
and map figures, graphics, goals,
objectives and policy statements.
The General Plan update does
not represent a speciflc develop-
ment proposal with deflned project
characteristics. Therefore, this En-
vironmental Impact Report (EIR)
will be prepared as a Program EIR
to evaluate the impaits of im-
plementing the General Plan up-
date, allowing the City to consider
broad policy altematives and prog-
ram-wide mitigation measures
(Section 13168 ofthe CEQA Guide-
lines). The proposed Program EIR
will focus on the potential impacts
of new or modifled policy recom-
mendations and strategies, and
secondary effects that may be ex-
pected to result fi-om the long-term
implementation of the Updated
General Plan. The degree of speci-^city used to analyze the potential
impacts will be related to the broad
nature of the policy recommenda-
tions and strategies contained in
the updated (ieneral Plan.
BACKGROUND
Tl^e City of Carlsbad incorpo-
rated in 1952 and adopted its flrst
(general Plan in 1965. In 1975, this
document was revised to reflect
State-mandated requirements and
to add several optional elements
desired by the City. Since its adop-
MgQj- tion, several General Plan ele-
ments have been revised and
amended. In 1985, the Circulation,
Housing and Land Use Elements
were updated and the Arts and His-
toric Preservation Elements were
added. Recent changes included
revisions to the Paries and Recrea-
tion, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. Recently,
the City elected to revise the entire
General Plan to ensure that it re-
flects changing conditions, cir-
cumstances, and policies within
the City of Carlsbad as well as on a
QTATT^ OC A T reB'on*'level. The update also en-
O E W~ sures that the most current technic-
,r-i^T TXT'T<'\/' r\T^ Cl a'data is contained in the General
L.UUJN 1 1 Ur O Plan and that the Plan is consistent
with all applicable State legisla-
tion.
. . The Drift (jeneral Plan update I am a CitlZ ("^ city of carisbad includes
, the mandatory elements required
I am over t state Uw (California Govern-
. ment code. Section 65300 et. seq.),
J ^TTl l^rinci *®'"e which have been com-
^ bined, and two optional elements
as described below:
Mandatory Elements
1. Land Use
2. Circulation
3. Open Space and Conservation
4. Noise
5. Safety
6. Housing
Carlsbad, Coun '^/'^J^e"™
2. Arts
The Carlsbad General Plan area
(project area) includes the City of
Carlsbad with a population of
approximately 65.000. The project
area is approximately 40 square
miles and is located along the
northwestern coast of San Dlego
County, approximately 30 miles
trota dowirtown San Diego. It is bor-
dered to the north by the City of
Oceanside, to the south by the City
of Encinitas. and to the east by the
County OfSan Diego and the Cities
of San Marcos and Vista. Carlsbad
has a combination of industrial, cofnmercial and residential de-
velopment, including a large re-
gional shopping center, an auto-
retail center, a large industrial
paric area, and a regional airport.
The City contains three lagoons, ex-
tensive agriculture areas and large
tracts of undeveloped land.
Project addreis/Iocation; City of Carl-
. sbad (Cilywide)
; Antidpated sign^ant impacts:
I The Environmental Impact
Assessment Forjn identifies the
potential "indirect or secondary"
i environmental effects of the prop-
osed Update<| General Plan. To en?
sure that all areas of potential en-
vironmental effects are adequately
addressed, a full Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared
that evaluates ai least the following
areas:
1. Earth
2. Soils
3. Air Quality
4. Water Quality
5. Biology
6. Noise
7. Light and Glare
8. Land Use
9. Natural Resources
. 10. Risk of Upset
11. Population
12. Housing
13. Circulation
14. Public Services
15. Law Enforcement
16. Education
n. Energy/Utilities
18. UtiliUes
Water
published weekly
is published for th
per at all times he
which newspaper
E Recreation
22. Cultural/Paleontological
23. Project Alternatives
24. Other Environmental Issues
25. Mandatory Findings of Sig-
nificance
The draft EIR prepared for the
City of Carlsbad Cieneral Plan Up-
date will focus on the discussion
and evaluation of "indirect or
secondary" effects resulting from
the implementation ofthe updated
Carlsbad General Plan. The EIR
will focus on a comparison between the environment that exists in the
City in 1993 and total buildout pur-
suant to the Updated General Plan.
The draft EIR will also focus on
mitigation measures designed to
reduce or avoid identifled adverse
indirect or secondary effects
associated with general plan im-
plementation, including a mitiga-
tion monitoring program as a
means of assuring continuing eva-
luation of the status of plan imple-
mentation.
Section 15148 of the State CEQA
Guidelines states that the,
"... degree of speciflcity required
in a EIR will correspond to the de-
gree of speciflcity involved in the
underlying activity which is de-
scribed in the EIR."
Section 15146 (b) ftirther states:
"An EIR on a project such as the
adoption or amendment qf a com-
prehensive zoning ordinance or a
local generai plan should focus on
the secondary effects that can be
expected to follow ft'om the adop-
tion or amendment, but the EIR
need not be as detailed as an EIR
on the speciflc construction pro-
jects that might follow."
Section lS358(aX2) describes in-
direct or secondary effects as fol-
lows:
"Indirect or secondary effects
which are caused by the project
and are later in time, or farther re-
moved in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or
secondary effects may include
growth-inducing effects and other
effects related to induced changes
in the pattern of land use, popula-
tion density, or growth rate, and re-
lated effects on air and water and
other natural systems, including
ecosystems."
In conclusion, the draft General
Plan update EIR will contain a
thorough analysis and evaluation
of indirect and secondaiy effects of
implementing the updated (ieneral
Plan. The indirect or secondary
effects resulting fk-om the imple-
mentation of the updated General
Plan would be associated with the
carrying-out of the new and up-
dated plan goals, objective and
policy statements and other identi-
fied implementation programs:
The subject draft EIR would not
attempt to discuss or evaluate "pro-ject-specific" level effects or
mitigation. See the attached En-
vironmental Impact Assessment
Form for a discussion of environ-
mental evaluation.
We need to know your ideas about
the effect this project might have on
the environment and your sugges-
tions for ways the project could be
revised to reduce or avoid any sig-
nificant environmental damage.
Vour ideas will lielp us decide what
issues to analyze in the environ-
mental review of this project
Your comments on the environ-
mental impact of the proposed pro-
ject may be submitted in writing to
the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia
92009, no later than Inarch 22,1983.
Dated: Februaty 18,1993 V
Case No: EIR 93-01 Applicant: City of Carlsbad
GARY S. WAYNE
for MICHAEL J.
HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
CJ 4070: February 18,1993
SJN J
r Court of San Diego County
lic notice advertising to
>ad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
ication
county aforesaid;
>r interested in the above entitled matter,
a newspaper of general circulation,
10, State of Califomia, and which newspaper
ce of a general character, and which newspa-
; subscription list of paying subscribers, and
led at regular intervals in the said City of
for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
February 18 19 93
19
19.
19.
19.
I cenify under penalty of peijury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 18th
dav of February, 1993
inmg Department of the
iriibad intends to prep«i¥*'^ Clerk of the Printer
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF "SCOPING MEETING" ON THE CARLSBAD GENERAL FLAN UPDATE
On March 11, 1993 the City of Carlsbad Planning Department will be holding a "scoping meeting"
regarding the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting will be held
at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The purpose of this meeting is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the Update
so that they can be addressed in the EIR. It is not the purpose of this meeting to debate the pros
and cons of the proposal.
Project Description
The City of Carlsbad recently completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan, including a
detailed review and subsequent update of all the elements, existing background information, tables
and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives and policy statements.
The proposed project is a comprehensive amendment of the City of Carlsbad General Plan focusing
on the environmental impacts associated with the additional or incremental physical development
allowed by the buildout of the Plan. Included are all elements, existing background information,
tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives and policy statements.
The General Plan Update does not represent a specific development proposal with defined project
characteristics. Therefore, this EIR will be prepared as a Program EIR to evaluate the impacts of
implementing the General Plan Update allowing the City to consider broad policy altemative and
program-wide mitigation measures (Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines). The proposed Program EIR will focus on the potential impacts of new or
modifie<i policy recommendations and strategies, and secondary effects that may be expected to result
from the long-term implementation of the Updated General Plan. The degree of specificity used to
analyze the potential impacts will be related to the broad nature of the policy recommendations and
strategies contained in the Updated General Plan.
If you have any questions regarding the General Plan Update "scoping meeting", please contact
Adrienne Landers of the Carlsbad Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4451.
CASE HLE: EIR 93-01
CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTT REPORT (EIR)
PUBLISH:
CARLSBAD JOURNAL - FEBRUARY 25, 1993
BLADE CITIZEN - FEBRUARY 24, 1993
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ^
AFFIDAVIT OF FUBLICATTON
County of San Diego )
STAIE OF CALIFORNIA
)ss. PROOF OF PUBLICAnON
Public Notice of Preparation
I have been duly swom as tb& Le
Advertising Representative of t
Blade-Citizen, a semi-weekly nev
paper of general circulation, pt
in the City of Oceanside, publis
in the City of Solana Beach and
Carlsbad. County of San Diego, S
of Califomia, and that the noti
of which the annexed is a true o
was published in said newspaper (
the following dates:
February 17, 1993
I certify (or declare) under pens
of perjtjry that the foregoing is
and correct.
Dated this I7th day of Feb. 199:
Leg^ Advertising Repre, .tive
PUBLIC NOTICp OF f>REPARATtON
PLEASE TAKE NOflC^E: ^ ' The Planning Department of ths City of C^arlstttd Intends to pmt
pare an Enviranmental Impact Report for the foHowing pn^ecti' Project Description; Comprehensive amandmant of tha City of CHHalMd Ganan^ Plan, Includliia all atamanti, existing MekgtiOund infomut' tion, tables aiKl.flv|»1lauras, graphles, golils, objactlvaa
and policy atatemanW. ; i The City of Cadabajd l^.racentlvt completed a comprehensive update of Its (SMW^rahi InoludiM a detailed review and sub^ sequent update <4 tft tha elamenS, existing background Irtfor-
mation, tables and map fltW?*l*. graphics, goals, objectives and polioy statements; , " ' , The General Plan tt6<iMe46e$ not represent a specific devel-opment proposal with UeRM prefect characteristics, t^^
this Environmental MpactlMport (EIR) will be prepared as a Program EIR to evakisM M inHalgds of Implementtng the Gen-eral Plan update, allowtng-thf City to consider board policy alternatives and prograffl'-wide niltlgstion measures (Section
15168 of the CECW Guidelines^. The proposed Pnjgram EIR will focus on the potential impacts of naw or modified polii^ recom-mendations and strategies, and secondary effects that may be expected to result from the tong-tenn Implementatton of the Up-
dated Generai Plan. The degree of specificity used to dnalyze the potential impacts wiii be related to the broad nature of the policy recommendattons and strategies contained in the updat-ed General Pian.
BACKGROUND The City of Cartsbad incorporated In 1952 and adopted its first Generai Plan in t966. In:l975, this document was revised to re-fiect State-mandated reiquirements and to add several optional elements desc(il3M by the City. Since its adoption, several Gen-
erai Plan elemelife have been revised and amended. In 1985, the Circulation, Mousing and Land Use Elements were updated and the Arts atKj Historic Preservation Elements were added. Recent changes included revisions to the Partes and Recreation,
Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Eifements. Recent-ly, the City elected to revise the entire General Plan Jo ensure that It reflects changing conditions, circumstances, and policies ] within the City of Carisbad as well as on a regional level. The
update also ensures that the most current technical data is con-' tained in the General Pian is consistent with all applicable State legislation. The Draft Generai Plan update for the City of Cartsbad includes
the mandatory elements required by State law (Califbrnia Gov-ernment code, Sectidn 65300 et. seq ), some of which have been combined, and two optionai elements as described below: Mandatory Elements Optional Elements
1. Land Use 1 • Parks & Recreation 2. Circulation 2. Arts
3. Open Space and Consen/ation 4. Noise 5. Safety
6. Housing The Carisoad General Plan area (project area) includes the City of Carlsbad with a population of approximately 65,000. The project area is approximately 40 square miles and is located
along the northwestern coast of San Dlego County, approxi-. mately 30 miles from downtown San Diego. It is bordered to the north by the City of Oceanside, to the south by the City of En-cinitas, and to the east by the County of San Diego and the Cities
of San Marcos and Vista. Carisbad has a combination of Indus-trial, commercial and residential development. Including a large regionial shopping center, an auto-retail center, a large industnal park area, and a regionai airport. The City contains three la.
goons, extensive agriculture areas and large tracts of undevel-oped land. Project address/location: City of Carisbad (Citywide) Anticipated significant Impacts:
The Environmental impact Assessment Form identifies the po-tential "indirect or secondary" environmental effects of the proposed Updated General Plan. To ensure that all areas of po-tential environmental effects are adequately addressed, a full
Environmental Impact Report will be prepared that evaluates at least the following areas:
focus on the secondary effects that can be exped fWrn »» ado|*on or amewhtwnt but the EIR nea detailed as ah EIR on the tM>*<M: consUuctton r
mightfoliow."
ScKtton 153S8(a)(2) desCrtbesi indrect or secondai
follows:
indirect or secondary-effects vvhidi are caused b; and are later in time, or farther removed in distanoe (essonaBly foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effi elude growth-including effects and other effect
Induced changes in the pattem df land use, popula or growth rate, and related effects on air and wat natural systems, including ecosystems." In conclusion, the draft General Plan updated EIR \
thorough analysis and evaluation of indirect and s fects of Implementing the updated General Plan. Tl secondary effects resuKlrig from the inmlementatli dated General Plan would be associated with the ci
the new and updated plan goals, objeottve and potto and other identified imptementsWon programs. The EIR would ndt att^pt to discuw or evetoate pro level effects or mitljaation. See the attached Envin
pact Assessment Form fdr a discussion of en evaluation. We need to know your ideas about the effect this have on the environment, and ydur suggestions
prefect could be revised te reduce or avoid any sig ronmental damage. Your ideas wlH help us decide * analyze in the environmental review of this projert. Ydur comments on the environmental impact of i
proiact may be submitted In writing to the Pianning 2075 Las Paimas Drive, Carisbad, California 92 than March 22,1993. DATED: FEBRUARY 18,1993 /s/6ary E. Wayne fdr Michael J. Holzmiller, Plannii
C/SE NO: EIR 93-01 APPLICANT; CITY OF CARLSBAD
Legal 4040 Febmary 17,1993
1. Earth
2. Soils 3. Air Quality 4. Water Quality 5. Biology
6. Noise 7. Light and Glare 8. Land Use
9. Natural Resources 10. Risk of Upset 11. Population 12. Housing
13. Circulation
14. Public Services
15. Law Enforcernent 16. Education 17. Energy/Utilities 18. Utilities
Water Supply Sewer Soiid Waste 19. Human Health
20. Aesthetics 21. Recreationai Faciiities 22. Cultural/Paleontoiogical
23. Project Alternatives 24. Other Environmental Issues
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance The draft EIR prepared for the City of Carisbad General Plan
Update will focus on the discussion and evaluation of "indirect or secondary" effects resulting from the implementation of the up-dated Carisbad Generai Plan. The ElR will focus on a compari-son between the environment that exists in the City in 1993 and
total buildout pursuant to the Updated General Plan. The draft EIR will also focus on mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid Identified adverse Indirect or secondary effects associated with general plan impiementation. Including a mitigation moni-toring program as a means of assuring continuing evaluation of
the status of plan Implementation. Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the, "...degree of specificty requried In a EIR will correspond to the
degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described In the EIR." Section 15146(b) further states: "An EiR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a
comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should I
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report for the following project:
Project Description:
Comprehensive amendment of the City of Cailshad General Plan, including all elements,
existing backgromid infonnation, tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives and
policy statements.
The City bf Carlsbad has recently completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan,
including a detailed review and subsequent update of all the elements, existing backgrotmd
information, tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives and policy statements.
The General Plan update does not represent a specific development proposal with defined
project characteristics. Therefore, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared
as a Program EIR to evaluate the impacts of implementing the General Plan update,
allowing the City to consider broad policy altematives and program-wide mitigation
measures (Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines). The proposed Program EIR will focus
on the potential impacts of new or modified policy recommendations and strategies, and
secondary effects that may be expected to result from the long-term implementation of the
Updated General Plan. The degree of specificity used to analyze the potential impacts will
be related to the broad nature of the policy recommendations and strategies contained in
the updated General Plan.
BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad incorporated in 1952 and adopted its first General Plan in 1965. In
1975, this document was revised to reflect State-mandated requirements and to add several
optional elements desired by the City. Since its adoption, several General Plan elements
have been revised and amended. In 1985, the Circulation, Housing and Land Use Elements
were updated and the Arts and Historic Preservation Elements were added. Recent changes
included revisions to the Parks and Recreation, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation
Elements. Recentiy, the Qty elected to revise the entire General Plan to ensure that it
reflects changing conditions, circtmistances, and policies within the City of Carlsbad as well
as on a regional level. The update also ensures that the most current technical data is
contained in the General Plan and that the Plan is consistent with all applicable State
legislation.
The Draft General Plan update for the City of Carlsbad includes the mandatory elements
reqtiired by State law (Califomia Govemment code. Section 65300 et. seq.), some ofwhich
have been combined, and two optional elements as described below:
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, Caiifornia 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ®
Qptioniftl Mandatory Elemems Optiona^lements
1. Land Use 1. Parks & Recreation
2. Circulation 2. Arts
3. Open Space and Conservation
4. Noise
5. Safety
6. Housing
The Carlsbad General Plan area (project area) includes the City of Carlsbad with a
population of approximately 65,000 (see Study Area Map attached). The project area is
approximately 40 square miles and is located along the northwestem coast of San Diego
County, approximately 30 miles firom downtown San Diego (see Regional Location Map
Attached). It is bordered to the north by the Gity of Oceanside, to the south by the City
of Encinitas, and to the east by the Coimty of San Diego and the Cities of San Marcos and
Vista. Carlsbad has a combination of industrial, commercial and residential development,
including a large regional shopping center, an auto-retail center, a large industrial park
area, and a regional airport. The City contains three lagoons, extensive agrictdture areas
and large tracts of undeveloped land.
Project address/location: City of Carlsbad (Citywide)
Anticipated significant impacts:
The attached Environmental Impact Assessment Form identifies the potential "indirect or
secondary" environmental effects of the proposed Updated General Plah. To enstore that
all areas of potential environmental effects are adequately addressed, a full Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared that evaluates at least the following areas:
1. Earth 15. Law Enforcement
2. Soils 16. Education
3. Air Quality 17. Energy/Utilities
4, Water Quality 18. Utihties
5. Biology Water Supply
6. Noise Sewer
7. Light and Glare Solid Waste
8. Land Use 19. Human Health
9. Nattiral Resources 20. Aesthetics
10. Risk of Upset 21. Recreational Facilities
11. Population 22. Cultural/Paleontological
12. Housing 23. Project Altematives
13. Circulation 24. Other Envirormiental Issues
14. Public Services 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance
The draft EIR prepared for the Qty of Carlsbad General Plan Update will focus on the
discussion and evaluation of "indirect or secondaiy" effects resulting fi'om the
implementation of the updated Carlsbad General Plan. The EIR will focus on a comparison
between the environment that exists in the Qty in 1993 and total buildout pursuant to the
Updated General Plan. The draft EIR will also focus on mitigation measures designed to
reduce or avoid identified adverse indirect or secondary effects associated with general plan
implementation, including a mitigation monitoring program as a means of assiiring
continuing evaluation of the status of plan implementation.
Section 15146 of die S^K CEQA Gvddelines states that tiflP'...degree of specificity
required in a EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the tmderlying
activity which is described in the EIR."
Section 15146 (b) further states:
"An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive
zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary
effects that can be expected to follow firom the adoption or amendment, but
the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction
projects that might follow."
Section 15358(a)(2) describes indirect or secondary effects as follows:
"Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later
in time, or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other
effects related to induced changes in the pattem of land use, population
density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other
natural systems, including ecosj^tems."
In conclusion, the draft General Plan update EIR will contain a thorough analysis and
evaluation of indirect and secondaiy effects of implementing the updated General Plan. The
indirect or secondary effects resulting firom the implementation of the updated General Plan
would be associated with the carrying-out of the new and updated plan goals, objective
and policy statements and other identified implementation programs. The subject draft EIR
wotild not attempt to discxiss or evaluate "project-specific" level effects or mitigation. See
the attached Environmental Impact Assessment Form for a discussion of environmental
evaluation.
We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have on the environment
and your suggestions for ways the project could be revised to reduce or avoid any
significant environmental damage. Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze
in the environmental review of this project.
Your comments on the environmental impact of the proposed project may be submitted in
writing to the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009,
no later than March 22, 1993.
DATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1993
p. mCUfSL J. HOLZMILLER
CASENO: EIR 93-01 Planning Director
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE:
CARLSBAD SUN: FEBRUARY 18, 1993
BLADE CITIZEN: FEBRUARY 17, 1993
ARCHAELOGICAL FELLOWSHIP
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92115
GP EIR 93-01
February 11, 1993
CA DEPT OF TRASNPO DISTWCT 11
JERRY LOVE
2829 SAN JUAN STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
CALIF NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
ENVIRONMENTAL TECH COMM
PO BOX 1390
SAN DIEGO, CA 92112
CARLSBAD Mtn«CIPAL WATER DIST
6780 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
COASTAL COMMISSION
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH #200
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
CTY SD-NOISE CONT HEARING BOARD
ATTN: RAYSACCO
1700 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC HEALTH
PACIFIC HEALTH OFFICER
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
DIVISION OF MINES & GEOLOGY
DEPT OF CONSERVATION
1416 9TH ST ROOM 1326-A
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
ENCINA JOINT POWERS
6200 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DIST
C/O GENE FREDRICKS
189 UNION STREET
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FARM ADVISOR
COUNTY OPERATIONS CENTER
5555 OVERLAND BLDG. 4
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
FISH & GAME
TERRI STEWART
7821 ORIEN AVE
LA MESA CA 91941
NOISE CONTROL HEARING BOARD
ATTN: RAYSACCO
1700 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
RICHARD ANDREWS
2800 MEADOWVIEW ROAD
SACRAMENTO CA 95832
OUVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
1966 OUVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
PALOMAR AIRPORT
MANAGER
2198 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
320 N. HORNE STREET
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
527 ENCINITAS BLVD # 100
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
VISTA, CA 92084
S.D. COUNTY SANITATION
ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDIN
555 OVERLAND
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
S.D. REGIONAL WATER QUAUTY
CONT. BOARD: ENVIR COORD
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BL. SUITE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO, CA 92112
SANDAG - LAND USE COMMISSION
ATTN: JACK KOERPER
1200 3RD AVE, SUITE 524
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SANDAG
ATTN: INTERGOV RELATIONS
401 "B" STREET, #800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
SD CO AIR POLL-CONTROL DISTRICT
ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORD
9150 CHESAPEAKE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SDGE
ATTfJ: MIKE DANNA, LAND DEPT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92107
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 IOTH STREET ROOM 121
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGRS
RICHARD HARLACHER
300 N LOS ANGELES ST
LOSANGELES CA 90012-2325
U S FISH & WILDUFE
JACK FANCHER
24000 AVILA RD
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92656
US FISH & WILDUFE
JEFFREY OPDYCKE
2730 LOKER AV
CARLSBAD CA 92009
US FISH & WILDUFE
CARRIE PHIUPS
2730 LOKER AV
CARLSBAD CA 92009
t t
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIR 93-01
DATE: JANUARY 7. 1993
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CITY OP CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD. CA 92009
(6191 438-1161
4. DATE EL\ FORM PART I SUBMITTED: JANUARY 7. 1993
5. PROJECTT DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Amendment of the Citv of Carlsbad General Plan
including all elements, goals, objectives, poiicv statements, tables, maps, graphics, and existing
background information.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 reqviires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checldist. This checldist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the envirormient. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the Qty determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist tmder the headings 'YES-sig" and 'YES-insig"
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determired significant.
i t
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND SECTION
Proiect Description
The General Plan update project involves a thorough review of the entire General Plan, including all
the elements, existing backgroimd information, tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives, and
policy statements. The City of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952 and adopted its first General Plan
in 1965. In 1975, the General Plan was revised to reflect State-mandated requirements and to add
several optional elements desired by the City. Since its adoption, several General Plan elements have
been revised and amended. In 1985, the Circulation, Housing and Land Use elements were updated
and, the Arts and Historic Preservation Elements were added. Recent changes included revisions to
the Parks and Recreation, Housing, and Open space and Conservation Elements. Recentiy, the Qty
elected to revise the entire General Plan to ensure that it reflects changing conditions, circumstances,
and policies within the City of Carlsbad as well as on a regional level. The update also ensures that
the most current technical data is contained in the General Plan and that the Plan is consistent with
all applicable State legislation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached environmental initial study checklist identifies the potential "indirect or secondaiy"
environmental effects of the proposed General Plan update project. To ensure that all areas of
potential environmental effects are adequately addressed, a full Environmental Impact Report should
be prepared that evaluates at least the following areas:
1. Earth
2. Soils
3. Air Quality
4. Water Quality
5. Biology
6. Noise
7. Light and Glare
8. Land Use
9. Natural Resources
10. Risk of Upset
11. Population
12. Housing
13. Circulation
14. PubUc Services
15. Law Enforcement
16. Education
17. Energy/Utilities
18. UtiHties
Water Supply
Sewer
Solid Waste
-2-
• t
19. Human Health
20. Aesthetics
21. Recreational Facilities
22. Cultural/Paleontological
23. Project Altematives
24. Other Environmental Issues
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance
The draft EIR prepared for the Qty of Carlsbad General Plan Update should focus on the discussion
and evaluation of "indirect or secondary" effects resulting from the implementation of the updated
Carlsbad General Plan. The draft EIR should also focus on mitigation measures designed to reduce or
avoid identified adverse indirect or secondary effects associated with general plan implementation,
including a mitigation monitoring program as a means of assuring continuing evaluation of the status
of plan implementation.
Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the, "...degree of specificity required in a EIR
will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the tmderlying activity which is described in the
EIR."
Section 15146 (b) further states:
"An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a
local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the
adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific constmction
projects that might follow."
Section 15358(a)(2) describes indirect or secondary effects as follows:
"Indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time, or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-
inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattem of land use, population
density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including
ecosystems."
In conclusion, the draft General Plan update EIR should contain a thorough analysis and evaluation
of indirect and secondary effects as identified in the attached initial study checklist. The indirect or
secondary effects resulting from the implementation of the updated General Plan would be associated
with the carrying-out of the updated plan goals, objective and policy statements and other identified
implementation programs. The subject draft EIR would not attempt to discuss or evaluate "project-
specific" level effects or mitigation.
-3-
t t
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES or YES NO
MAYBE
(sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality? X
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or pubhc water supply? X
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? X
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
stmcture or object? X
-4-
t t
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES or
MAYBE
(sig)
YES
(insig)
NO
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shmbs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES or
MAYBE
(sig)
YES
(insig)
NO
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect pubUc utiUties,
schools, poHce, fire, emergency or other
pubUc services?
-5-
t
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTTLY:
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, soUd waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new Ught or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. SubstantiaUy alter the density of the
htiman population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking faciUties, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present pattems of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicycUsts or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstmct any scenic vista or create an
aestheticaUy offensive pubUc view?
32. Affect the quaUty or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
YES or
MAYBE
(sig)
X
X
X
YES
(insig)
NO
t
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES or
MAYBE
(sig)
YES
(insig)
NO
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quaUty
of the environment, substantiaUy
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of CaUfomia history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
enviromnent is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts wiU
endure well into the ftiture.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividuaUy limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which wiU cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
-7-
t
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EARTH AND SOILS
The General Plan update project may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary
impacts in the specific issue areas identified in items 1-4 above. The Qty of Carlsbad may be subject
to unstable ground conditions due to the presence of geologic hazards. The implementation of the
proposed project may result in grading activities which could have the potential to alter existing and
natural geologic relationships. Topographic changes may occur which could modify the geologic and
soil stmcture and existing physical features. The modification of existing physical features could result
in wind and water erosion and the effects thereof. Changes in ground surface intervals may expose
people or property to adverse geologic hazards. The City of Carlsbad recentiy prepared a Geologic
Hazard and Nalysis Study (Leighton & Associates, Inc., November, 1992) that has identified these
geologic hazards and recommends appropriate future analysis that should be tmdertaken at the time
of specific site development.
Property development requires excavation and filling to create landform gradients and provide for
positive drainage, thus creating topographic changes. As urbanization occurs in previously undisturbed
areas, landform alteration wiU occur. The potential for soU erosion by wind and water action occurs
with the removal of natural vegetative cover. A reduction in vegetative cover may increase in the soU
deposition, sUtation, and erosion in or near the drainage courses. As the City nears buUdout, fewer
easily developed sites wiU remain. Constrained lands may experience increased development associated
with new constmction. The City has recently adopted a Master Drainage Study to address many of
these concems.
AIR
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the specific issue areas identified in items 5-6 above. An increase in urban development, under the
General Plan, may cause additional stationaiy and non-stationaiy sources of air emissions impacting
air quaUty. As air quaUty standards for several poUutants are exceeded numerous times each year
throughout the San Diego County air basin, any increase in these poUutants as a result of additional
auto traffic generated by commercial/industriaVoffice uses may be considered significant. Additional
industrial and commercial development, permitted under the General Plan update may result in the
creation of objectionable odors. With an increase in non-vegetative surfaces such as roads and
btdldings, an increase in locaUzed temperatures may result.
WATER
This project may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondaiy impacts in the specific
issue areas identified in items 7-8 above. The City is traversed by several local and sub-regional major
natural drainages. Depending on the amount of average annual rainfaU and the associated runoff,
these natural drainages have the potential to flow year round. Small tributary streams that flow into
the major drainage courses are ephemeral in nature. The major streams or creeks are named in the
USGS quadrangle maps for the City. The implementation of the subject project may effect the currents
or the courses direction of existing creek channels and tributaiy streams. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattems, and surface runoff may occur as additional impervious surface materials and
-8-
t
iirigation systems, associated with urban and rural development, are introduced. Changes in the
amount of surface water within several floodplain areas may also occur. As development occurs with
the buUdout of the City, groundwater characteristics may be altered. Continued development could
also effect pubUc suppUes. Surface and groundwater quaUty may be effected by the addition of
common urban poUutants such as petroleum products, pesticides and fertiUzers. PoUcies and programs
addressing many of these issues have recently been approved as part of the City's Master Drainage
Study.
Redistribution of existing runoff pattems, associated with increased urban development, may result,
in alterations in the direction and rate of flow of groundwaters. Groimd water quantity may be
increased as additional non-drought tolerant plant materials associated with development are
introduced in the planning area. The City has instituted a set of landscape guidelines that wiU reduce
the amount of non-drought tolerant plant materials used in the City. Additional urban development
within the area wiU result in an increase in demand for imported water. In the long-term, reclaimed
water wiU be introduced within the planning area via new reclaimed water systems. These systems
may effect the demand for imported water. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards
such as flooding may occur as development occurs near areas subject to flooding.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondaiy impacts in
the issue areas notes in items 9-10 above. Implementation of the General Plan update wiU result in
a substantial use of fuel and energy when compared to the existing uses within the City. The increased
use of fuel and energy wiU place a demand on existing energy resources. As further development
occurs in the City, non-renewable natural resources wiU be used at an increased rate, an adequate
amount of these natural resources wiU remain to support the future development and growth of the
City. It is not anticipated, therefore that the implementation of the General Plan update would cause
a substantial depletion of any non-renewable or scarce natural resources. The City of Carlsbad receives
imported Water from the MetropoUtan Water District. The City of Carlsbad has a drought response
plan which addresses how the City should respond in times of drought.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the area of cultural resources as identified in item 11 above. Further urban development may result
in the destmction of, or adverse impact to archeological, paleontological or historic sites, as such sites
are exposed to increased human contact or encroaching development. Physical changes associated with
development have the potential to affect archeological, paleontological and historic sites containing
unique ethnic cultural values and/or reUgious use.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the areas identified in items 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 above.
Additional development within the City wiU reduce the amount of native vegetation whUe increasing
the non-native varieties. Rare and endangered species of plants wiU probably be reduced in number
-9-
as urban and rural development occurs and native vegetation is replaced by non-native vegetation and
man-made surfaces/stmctures. As additional lands develop, resulting in a separation of larger
contiguous undisturbed lands, a barrier to the migration or movement of animals may occur. Because
agriculture land represents a source of developable land, the use of these lands for urban development
wiU result in the decline of agricultural crops and Uvestock production. As fiirther urban development
occurs within the City, a reduction in animal habitat wiU occur and the diversity of habitat-sensitive
species can be expected to decline in number as additional development of lands including their
habitats occur. Man-made improvements may impede the normal movement of wildlife as a result of
further urban development. Some deterioration of wildlife and fish habitats wiU probably occur as the
City develops due to an increase in use of habitat areas for human recreation and the increased runoff
into streams, creeks, lakes and lagoons. The City is currently involved in multi-species habitat
management planning efforts. These planning efforts are aimed at reducing impacts to sensitive species
that may be a result of ftiture development of the City.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the City as noted in items 17 and 32 above. The General Plan describes ftiture land use designations
for the City. Future land uses wiU continue to develop as the City moves toward buUdout. Additional
growth associated with General Plan implementation wiU impact existing recreational faciUties and
opportunities as the population of Carlsbad and the region increases. The Open Space and
Conservation, Parks and Recreation, and Land Use Elements of the General Plan update address the
recreational needs of the community. The General Plan update may result in an increase in housing
units over that which is currentiy projected under the General Plan for buUdout conditions. The
General Plan update proposed the redesignation of some land uses and the changing of other land uses.
If the amendments are approved, they may trigger the necessity for zone changes for consistency
purposes. Potential amendments/zone changes could also effect the property values of those parcels
and areas surrounding them.
The implementation of the General Plan could result in changes to local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including development/redevelopment economic diversity, sales and property taxes, and
property values (assessed valuation). Further development would occur on both pubUcly and privately
owned lands within the City. The cost of development would be bome by property owners, project
users, and tax payers alike.
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondaiy impacts in
the specific issue areas noted in items 18 and 19 above. To provide for growth as identified in the
General Plan, additional pubUc services wiU be needed to be provided. Perfoimance standards have
been estabUshed under Growth Management for utiUties and pubUc services. The performance
standards required are generaUy tied to population and non-residential use thresholds. General Plan
growth wiU result in a substantial amount of fuel and energy use. Growth of the City as described in
the General Plan wiU result in substantial increase in use of aU utiUties (natural gas, telephone, water,
sewer, storm drains, and soUd waste disposal) as population increases. The proposed project may
create the demand for municipal services in the Qty (fire protection, law enforcement, paramedic, etc.).
SoUd waste coUection and disposal is accompUshed in the City by private service providers under
-10-
contract to the City of Carlsbad. As growth occurs and the City approaches buUdout, an increased
demand wiU be placed on current and future service providers. The City is within the jurisdiction of
the Carlsbad Unified School District, San Dieguito Union High School District, San Marcos Unified
School District, and Encinitas Union Elementary School District. The planning, financing, and
constmction of new school faciUties wiU be coordinated between the Districts and the City of Carlsbad
in accordance with Growth Management.
Additional growth associated with the General Plan wiU impact existing recreational opportunities as
more people utiUze avaUable faciUties. The maintenance responsibiUties of the Qty of Carlsbad and
other agencies (e.g. Caltrans) for existing and planned roads wiU increase with growth associated with
General Plan buUdout. Flood control faciUties wiU increase according to the needs presented by growth
in accordance with Growth Management. Other govemmental services such as City planning,
environmental quaUty monitoring, engineering, buUding inspection, code enforcement, administration,
and management wiU be affected by future growth within the City.
HEALTH. SAFETY AND NUISANCE FACTORS
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the City as noted in items 20-22 and 30 above. The general plan provides for various transportation
modes to move goods and services within and through the City, as weU as land uses which may involve
the use of hazardous substances. The potential for accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances may therefore, increase as the City nears buUdout and experiences additional vehicular
movement and land uses associated with such substances. Persons in the City may be exposed to
hazardous materials or the influence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) which may result from land uses
aUowed under the General Plan or are transported to or from locations within the Qty. Although
persons may be exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF), scientific evidence has not determined
whether or not exposure to these fields is hazardous. The General Plan update supports poUcies
pertaining to the City's response to emergency conditions. Further development of the City can be
expected to cause increases in existing noise levels as more traffic and other noise sources are
introduced. Some exposure of persons to severe noise levels may occur as development progresses,
particularly in areas adjacent to major roadways, the railroad or airport. New sources of Ught and
glare wiU be introduced as the City develops further. Sources include stmctures/buUdings, vehicles,
and Ughting for City streets.
POPULATION
The General Pan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the specific issue areas noted in items 23 and 24 above. Continued development of the Carlsbad
General Plan in the short-term and the long-tem wiU alter the location, distribution, density, diversity,
and growth rate of the human population of the City. The eventual buUdout of the City wiU create
the demand for additional housing to accommodate new residents and business employees. These
potential effects would be experienced both locaUy and within the region. The General Plan update
of Land Use and Housing Elements describes the distribution, density, and growth rate for the Qty's
population; therefore, the General Plan wiU alter these components related to population.
-11-
TRANSPORTATION
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondary impacts in
the specific issue areas noted in items 25-29 above.
Substantial additional vehicular movement wiU occur as the City nears buUdout. As residents and non-
residents increase trip ends within the City, additional parking faciUties wiU be needed. The additional
vehicular movement resulting from growth under the general plan wiU require substantial improvements
to the existing transportation system. The growth management perfoimance standard for transportation
wiU ensure that City streets operate effectively. Pattems of circulation may be altered as certain
components of the transportation system reach capacity and new components are added. Alterations in
raU, pubUc transit, and air traffic may occur as additional growth in the City results in a increased need
for altemative modes of transport. As competition for limited transportation faciUties increases among
system users, an increase in potential traffic hazards for motor vehicles, bicycUsts, and pedestrians may
occur.
AESTHETICS
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause significant indirect or secondaiy impacts in
the specific issue area identified in item 31 above.
Some scenic view obstmction may occur and a reduction in some of the natural aesthetic quaUty of
the City may result from further development. AestheticaUy offensive sites may be created through
landfoim alteration, removal of natural vegetation cover including mature tree species, or the
constmction of btdldings and other stmctures that may be arehitecturaUy incompatible with
sturounding existing land uses and the locaUzed community. Scenic roadway corridors are identified
in the General Plan, and specific poUcies and associated development regulations would serve to protect
the aesthetic quaUty of these corridors.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The potential indirect or secondaiy environmental impacts associated with implementation of the
General Plan update have the potential to degrade the quaUty of the environment in terms of biota and
cultural resources as described in items 11-16 above. The General Plan update wiU provide poUcy
guidance for about 10-20 years, a relatively long period of time. This period of time is relatively short
however if compared to the continued development of the Qty which could extend for hundreds of
years. Therefore, plan implementation may have the potential to achieve short-term goal, to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The General Plan update may result in indirect or
secondary cumulative impacts when viewed in connection with the effects of existing development
within the City, the region, and ftiture planned development and growth in and surrounding the City.
The General Plan update may have the potential to cause adverse indirect effects on human beings.
Based upon the conclusions noted in the Initial Study checkUst and the evaluation and discussion
above, the City of Carlsbad has determined that the General Plan update may have a significant indirect
or secondary effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is therefore
required.
-12-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) altemate site designs,
c) altemate scale of development,
d) altemate uses for the site,
e) development at some ftiture time rather than now,
0 altemate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project altemative.
The General Plan update project is a poUcy document only, analj^is of phased development of the
project, altemate site designs, altemate scale of development, altemate uses for tiie site, and
development at some ftiture time rather than now is not appropriate.
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan wiU evaluate the no project altemative
and wiU evaluate at least two other altematives as required by CEQA.
-13-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION wUl be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjimction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wiU
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration wiU be proposed.
X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE^
NOT APPLICABLE
ATTACH MITIGATION MONTTORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^
NOT APPLICABLE
-14-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
TW:Ih
-15-
Orange
County
CARLSBAD
SOURCE: MBA, 1991
City of Cirislad
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP EIR 93-01
Orange
County
CARLSBAD
Riverside County
SOURCE: MBA, 1991
/
City of Cirbtid
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP EIR 93-01
w
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BUCNA
VISTA
LAQOO
/
Citjf of CirIsM
STUDY AREA MAP EIR 93-01
Number of EIRs
20 Planning staff
30 Reviewing agencies
-4 Libraries
^1 City Clerk
-1 City Manager
—2 City Attomey
^2 Front Counter
• 7 PC
' 5 CC
- 3 Engineering
10 Other departments
125 Initial Order
1
a.
I
I 0
Cover
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Cover Stock
10.0
Introduction
Executive Summary
Project Description
Environmental Setting
Environmental Impact Analysis
Altematives
Analysis of Long-Term Effects
References
Response to Comments on the EIR
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Checklist, and Notice of Preparation, Environmental
Responses to Notice of Preparation
Mitigation Monitoring Program
City of Carlsbad Local Notice of Completion and State
Clearinghouse Notice of Completion
Biological Resources and Habitat Analysis in Support of the
City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
Biological Impact Analysis for the Carlsbad Trails Plan
City of Carlsbad, Growth Management Plan, Traffic
Monitoring Program, Annual Report
Circulation Implementation Program and Traffic Impact
Fee Study
City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Survey
City of Carlsbad Noise Measurement Data
City of Carlsbad CNEL Noise Contour Data
GPA
MAILING LIST
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1290 W. SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT
627 N VULCAN AVENUE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
ENCINITAS UNION
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST
189 UNION STREET ENCINITAS,
CA 92024
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
ROOM 452
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
CMWD
5950 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEUCADIA CTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AV
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
OLIVENHAIN MWD
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
SANDAG
FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA
401 "B" STREET #800
SAN DIEGO CA 9210
SAN DIEGUITO WATER DIST
59 EASTD
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S. VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
320 N. HORNE STREET
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
VISTA, CA 92084
PLANNING DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
CAUF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ATTN: RICHARD NITSOS
330 GOLDEN SHORE, STE 50
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
CAUF COASTAL COMMISSION
ATTN: CHUCK DAMM
3111 CAM DEL RIO NORTH, # 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1725
CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LEUCADIA SEWER DISTRICT
2695 MANCHESTER
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
VALLECITOS SEWER DISTRICT
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD.
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 IOTH STREET, RM 121
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
FINANCE
PARKS & REC ARTS DEPARTMENT UTILITIES 8c MAINTENANCE
September 17, 1993
TO:
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS
Attached is a copy of the RE-FORMATTED PROPOSED General Plan, the Environmental
Impact Report on the updated General Plan and the Technical Appendices. A 45 day
review period begins Monday, September 20,1993. Please make the documents available
to the public for review. Additional copies are available for review and/or purchase at the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive between the hours of 7:30 and 5:00 Monday
- Thursday and 8:00 and 5:00 on Fridays.
Thank you.
Attach.
STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCEg AGENCY ^PA Arnold Schwarzenegger Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region
4848 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 82123
(858) 4e7-4201
FAX (858) 467-4235
June 23, 2005
Frank E. Igo
Community Operations Manager
D.R. Horton-Continental Series
5927 Priestly Drive, #200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Rancho Carrillo Remedial Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Streambed Alteration Agreement #5-145-96
Dear Mr. Igo:
The Califomia Department of Fish and Game has reviewed and concurs with the
Rancho Camllo Remedial Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, dated May 27, 2004.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Tamara Spear at
(858)467-4223.
Sincerely,
Environmental Sci
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAN DIEGO FIELD OFFICE
16885 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUITE SOOA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
February 3, 2005
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
Glenn Lukes Associates
Attention: Ms. Sally Davis
29 Orchard
Lake Forest, Califomia 92630-8300
Dear Ms. Davis:
The Corps of Engineers has reviewed the Remedial Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for
Impacts to Areas Within the Jurisdiction ofthe United States Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to
Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act and the California Department of Pish and Game Pursuant to
Chapter 6, Section 1602 ofthe California Department of Fish and Game Code Rancho Carrillo,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, prepared for Continental Residential, Inc., by Glenn
Lukos Associates, dated May 27,2004. Tliis remedial plan was prepared as directed in August
2000 by Mr. Mark Tucker, then of the Corps of Engineers, due to the failure of the original
mitigation installation. Mr. Tucker advised that due to the lack of adequate hydrology, grading
elevations should be changed to support more halophytic hydrophytic vegetation as fotmd in
alkali marsh/meadow environs. Based on our review of the plan, we are satisfied that the
remedial work will satisfy the requirements of our Nationwide Pennit verification (942085300-
TCD), which was issued on October 30,1996, as well as the direction of Mr. Tucker. Therefore,
we hereby accept the above-cited remedial mitigation plan.
Although the Nationwide Pennit verification has expired, the authorized project work
has been completed. Thus no new authorization for the project wiU be required. We recognize
that the permittee, through your efforts as enviroiunental consultant and agent, has attempted
to remain in compliance with the pennit conditions, which required compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable impacts of the project. When mitigation efforts on this site failed, you
attempted to conect the situation with revised grading and mitigation plans as directed by Mr.
Tucker. We also tmderstand that the tmsuccessful nutigation site is a component of the overaU
mitigation for the project's impacts, rather than the entire mitigation effort. Based on these
realizations, we concur that additional mitigation to offset temporal loss is not necessary.
Furthermore, no enforcement action will be necessary at this point since you have remained in
compliance with the permit conditions.
-2-
In your letter of May 28, 2004, you stated that upon agency approval of the remedial plan,
grading wiU begin as soon as possible after the end of the nesting season and planting wUl take
place between October 2004 and April 2005. However, since the Corps approval is being
granted as of the date of this letter, and we understand that you have not yet received other
requisite agency approvals, we realize that it may not be possible to plant prior to April 2005. If
that is the case, we will anticipate that work wiU begin after the 2005 nesting season, and that
planting wiU occur between October 2005 and April 2006.
AU other terms and conditions of the original Nationwide Permit verification remain in
full force and effect. Furthermore, the following special conditions shall be added to our
acceptance of the remedial plan:
1. The permittee shall contact the Corps for verification of proper grading of the mitigation
site a mirumum of 15 days prior to the planned date of initiating planting; AU planting
shaU be installed in such a manner fhat mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random
distribution rather than uniform rows);
2. The permittee shall provide written notification to the Corps of anticipated starting and
completion dates of activities authorized by this NWP prior to or within one week of
initiating construction;
3. The permittee shall allow Corps representatives to inspect the authorized activities at any
time deemed necessary to ensure compliance with permit terms and conditions;
4. The permittee shall ensure that all construction materials, staging, storage, dispensing,
furling, and maintenance activities are located in upland areas outside Corps
jurisdiction, and that adequate measures are taken to prevent any potential runoff from
entering waters of the United States (WUS);
5. The permittee shall not use mechanized equipment below the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM), except when necessary in the immediate vicinity of the current authorized
activity, in pending or on-going projects to prevent impacts to WUS beyond the
authorized project footprint. Mechanized equipment shall be operated, whenever
practicable, from the bank above the OHWM, and shall use existing road crossings to
tiaverse WUS when access is necessary;
6. No debris, sand, silt, trash, concrete or washings thereof, oil or other petroleum products
or washings thereof, or other foreign materials shall be allowed to enter or be placed
where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff waters into WUS. Upon project
completion, any and all excess construction materials, debris, and/or other excess
project materials shall be removed to an appropriate upland disposal site (not WUS,
including jurisdictional wetlands);
7. The permittee shaU clearly mark aU areas of Corps jurisdiction, including any associated
riparian vegetation, that are not to be removed or otherwise adversely impacted during
project implementation. Markers and/or barricades shall be clearly located to restrict
-3-
access and ensure all movement of equipment and personnel to within the authorized
construction/impact areas in Corps jurisdiction;
8. The permittee shall install silt fences to trap eroded sediments on-site and to divert
runoff around disturbed soils. Silt fences shall also be placed along the tops and toes of
slopes of access roads to prevent silt from discharging into WUS;
9. The permittee shall regularly apply water to construction areas to control dust in order to
minimize impacts to WUS adjacent to construction areas;
10. The permittee shall ensure that equipment necessary to extinguish small brush fires
(from sparking vehicles, etc.) is present on-site during all phases of project activities,
along with trained personnel for use of such equipment;
11. All conespondence and subrruttals shaU reference the Corps project name {Rancho Carrillo)
and File Number (942085300-TCD), conspicuously on any conespondence or other
transmittal letter and/or the first page/paragraph of the text, and on any graphics or
photographs. AU plans and photographs shaU be labeled and dated. Failure to provide
this infonnation may cause the Corps to determine that the submittals are incomplete, not
submitted by the due date, or non-existent, and therefore, not compliant with permit
conditions.
If you have any questions, please caU Mr. Terry Dean of my staff at (858) 674-5386. Please
refer to this letter and 942085300-TCD in your reply.
Sincerely,
Mark Durham
Chief, South Coast Section
Regulatory Branch
Cc: CDFG, San Diego - Tamara Spear
USFWS, Carlsbad
RWC3CB, San Diego
USEPA
Mr. David Lother
Continental Residential, Inc.
5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ki" b72 073 ^^2
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
ffjSFsV^a (See Reverse)
Sent to
Margie Monroy
street & No
PO Box 727
RO., Stale & ZIP Code
Cardiff CA 92007
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Margie Monroy
League of Women Voters
North Coast - San Diego County
PO Box 727
Cardiff, CA 92007
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161
League of Women Voters
North Coast Sa n Diego Cou nty
Response 8A:
No further coniiiiciit was receiveci from iJie League of Woiiicti Voters.
Post Office Box 727
Cardiff, CA 92007
October 30, 1993
Ms. Adrienne Landers, SR. Planner
Planning Department, City of Carlsbad
Community Development Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-157<^
Dear Ms. Landers:
8A r~ '^^^ League of Women Voters raay wish to submit comments on
the Draft Program EIR and General Plan Update.
The League requests that after League Board of Directors'
approval November 11, 1993, its comments be included in the
comment record on the Environmental Impact Report and the
General Plan Update.
Your consideration of our request will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Margie Monroy, Carlsbad^Chair
Carol Masters, Co-President
League of Women Voters
North Coast San Diego County
P f=7E 073 441
Certified Mall Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
^J^^^ Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to
TOM ERWIN
street & No
7703 GARBOSO PL
PO., state & ZIP Code
Carlsbad CA 92009
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Speciai Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
lo Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TDTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
76 SENDER:
_• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
{na3 • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
al return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space r.• does not permit.
.2 • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number.
•••• • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
C delivered.
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. CI Addressee's Address
2. El Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
3.
10
a.
0 -0
15
a.
cn
LU
cc
3. Article Addressed to:
Tom Erwin
7703 Garboso P1
Carlsbad, CA 92009
4a. Art' cle Number
P 672 073 441
cc
4- a) CC
8
,x
15
4b. Service Type
CI Registered CI Insured
Certified El COD
CI Express Mail El Return Receipt for
Merchandise
/5 7. Date of el ery
) cc
LU
5. Signa ure (Addresse 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
CC hi
6. Signature (Agent)
0 PSForm3811, December 1991 U.S.G.P.O. :1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Tom Erwin
7703 Garboso Place
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
iKniwnn)ciiYM«''*C£R
November 3, 1993
Tom Erwin
7703 Garboso Place
Carlsbad CA 92009-8325
Ms Adrienne Landers
Senior planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad CA 92009
V
%
Response 9A;
This cominent focuses on the noise policy of the updated General Plan and does nol
addresses the content of tJie EIR.
City staff recognizes the importance of mitigating noise impacts from prime arterials.
freeways, and the railroad. The primary concern slaff has had witli mitigating noise to
60 dBA along these major transportation systems is tliat tlie necessary mitigation may
be over-height walls. In some ca.ses, noise barriers will have to be in excess of 12 feet
in height. Mitigating the visual impacls of a 12-foot high barrier can be problematic.
Excessively high walls are difficult to screen with landscaping and therefore can greatly
impact thc visual attractiveness of an area. In residenlial neighborhoods, excessively
high walls can produce an isolating, wallcd-in effect.
Dear Ms Landers:
RE: Noise Element - Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Update.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR
for the General Plan. I wish to respond to thc followinq items.
nf^ J— We have an "Administrative Noise Policy" that has been
in effect since 1990. Why isn't the General Plan being brought
into conformance with this policy, instead of an outdated policy
from the 1970's7 Specifically the maximum exterior noise level
is 60 dBA CNEL for residential in the Administrative Noise
Policy. However the draft EIR and the draft General Plan show
65 dBA CNEL for areas impacted from prime arterials, freeways,
state highways and rail. The very sources both the Planning
Commission and the City Council were addressing when they reduced
the noise impact from 65 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL in 1990 with
their approval of Administrative Policy #17.
Carlsbad is not unique in having a 60 CNEL standard. Hofman
Planning Associates, as a representative of the development
community, made a telephone survey of 21 cities and the county
of San Diego on October 23, 1989 to find out how many were using
60 dBA CNEL. 36% of their survey were using 60 dBA CNEL
including the county of San Diego. The development community
would like us to believe that Carlsbad is unique in demanding
the superior standard of 60 dBA CNEL. The Hofman survey shows
this is not true.
One additional benefit of 60 dBA CNEL is that it is possible
in most cases to reach an interior of 45 dBA CNEL without having
to resort to mechanical air systems. In other words we won't
have to seal people up in their homes. They can open their
.windows and enjoy Carlsbad.
However, based on public input and re-analysis of the noise standards, city staff has
decided to reconsider its position and support the 60 dBA CNEL standard consistent
with Administrative Policy 17 in tlie updated General Plan Noise Element for all
circulation element roadways. To address the potential aesthetic impacts of over-height
walls, staff will also recommend tliat additional policies be added to the Noise Element
to ensure that visual impacts of walls are minimized. However, this issue will need to
be discussed in detail at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Modifying the noise standard will not affect the conclusion in the EIR tliat Ihe noise
impact is significant but can be mitigated to less than signincant.
I would also like to comment on the following:
9B
90
1. "Typical Sound levels in dBA" Table 5.9-1 page 5.9-2
This table does not accurately represent the negative impact
of sound on humans. I would suggest instead that you incorporate
the enclosed chart and comments entitled "Common Sounds - Basic
Theory: Common Sounds in Decibels". It more accurately rep-
resents the impact on people. Anyone who believes 70 dBA is
quiet needs their hearing checked.
The enclosed chart shows Very Faint from 0 dBA to 22 dBA;
Faint from 22 dBA to 42 dBA; Moderate from 42 dBA to 62 dBA;
Loud from 62 dBA to 82 dBA; Very Loud from 82 dBA to 105 dBA
.and Deafening from 105 dBA to 140 dBA.
~2. "Land use compatibility for community noise environments
Table 5.9-2 page 5.9-6.
All residential and schools should be shown as
-Unacceptable" above 60 CNEL.
"Normally
Respoii.se 98:
Table 5.9-1 in tlie EIR is ba.sed on a table in tlie City of Carlsbad Draft Noi.sc
Guidelines Manual, which was prepared with the assistance of professional noise
coii.sultants. Table 5.9-1 adequately depicts noise levels and replacing Table 5.0-1 wilh
die recommended lable is unnecessary.
Response 9C:
See Response 9A.
Res|X)nse 9D:
Comment noted. Both the EIR for the Carlsbad General Plan and the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for thc McClellan-Palomar Airport address potential impacts
from airport noise. Bolh documents provide implementation programs to reduce
potential noi.se impacts to less tlian significant.
Respon.se 9E:
See Response 9A.
90 3. We are totally lacking in developing a method to address
the actual noise impacts from the airport. The real noise Impact
gets lost in the CNEL because the "peaks" are averaged out.
The primary sound impact from an airport is "peak" or "single"
event noise. An example would be a loud aircraft taking off.
We need to develop a method and scale to measure the impact
of these "peak" events on the public and do our planning on
-the actual impact versus the averaqe Impact.
9E Finally there is nothing in this draft EIR that justifies
compromising our noise standards. Administrative Policy #17
was Implemented only after much study and review. To weaken
our standards is a giant step backwards in our effort to create
_a healthy and pleasant place for our citizens to live.
Sincerely,
Enc: 1
Chapter 1
Basic Overview o( the
Environmental Noise Problem
'ntroduction
BKliground
Detinition ind Scop* ol llw Nois*
PTObl«m
Ihe air around us Is constantly filled
•ith sounds, yel mosl of us would
piobably nol say we are sunounded
b) noise. What then Is lha difference
tetween ordinary sound and wtiat wa
ciH noise? Tha liadlttoml dellnltlon
ot noise Is that It Is "unwanted
lound." Sound becomea unwanted
often it eilher Interferes with our
nonnal activities such as sleeping,
conversation or recreation, wtwn it
causes actual physical harm such as
learino loss or tias adverse elf ects on
menial health. As we hava t>ecome a
nore urbanized countiy and as
technology has advancwl, the level of
sound in our environment has reached
he point when It sometimes does
mse interf erence and does causa
-hysical and psychologlcat harm, and
^nus we have developed a noise
ToMem. (See Figure 1 lor a llsling of
'^fommon sounds j
Tha dimensions ol lha nolsa
iroblem hava grown larger and larger
mr Itie pasl lew decades. In Its 1979
Innual Report, The Council on
:nvlronmentat Ouallly staled lhat
Hearty hall the US population Is
egulwly exposed lo levels ol noise
Dal Interfere with -normal aeHvHles"
nd atxiut "1 In 10-ara exposed to
elses ol duration and Inletislty
•illiclent lo causa a pennanent
educllcxi In their alilllly to hear."
Figura 1
Cominon Sound*
Balk ThMxy: Cominon Sound* In 0«dbalt (dBI
Soma common, oaslhl recognized sounds af • listed below In order of (ncreasing sound (ntensily levele (n decibels. The sound levels shown lor occupied rooms ere typical generel adivity levels only end do nof represent criterie lor design.
Exemplef
Near Jet engine
Threshoid ol pain
Decibeis (dBI. Sublecllve Evaluations
Accelereling motorcycle et a lew Ieel eway (Note; SO It from motorcycle equals ndse et about 2000 It Irom e 44ngine |et alrcrall^
Loud euto hom et 10 It ewey
Noley urban streel
Noisy fsctory
School cafeferle wAmlreeted surfeces
StenograpMc room
Neer freewey aulo traffic
Average office
Soft radio mueic In epeilnienl
Range of speech •
Average raaldenoa withoul stereo playInQ
MisMo of leeiMe In vrfnd
Humen kreelMng
140,^
^ Oeafening
• Very loud
30 > Faint
• Very lelnl
scde ete fnm Concflpfs M A#cANvc(mf Oarid McOraw Hei. y»n>
P t,72 073 M40
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
pSIJf&^^JB (See Reverse)
Sent lo
ALEX BENQUIAT
street 8, t^o
2947 Lexington Cr
PO., state & ZIP Code
Carlsbad CA 92008
Postage
$
Certitied Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Deiivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
Fold at line over top of envelope to the
right of the return address.
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
does not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. El Addressee's Address
2. CI Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
Alex Benquiat
2947 Lexington Cr
Carlsbad CA 92008
5. Signature (Addressee)
P 672 073 440
4b. Service Type El Register-03 .1 :-p Insured
,COD
Ei4a} ss il8 fl Return Receipt for
;Merchandise
of Ddliery
1,7 >••
8. Ad essly fkeldr9ss (Only if requested
and fe co .c
ate
6. Signature (Agent)
ps Form 3811, December 1991 U.S.G.P.O. :1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Mex Benquiat
2947 Lexington Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Plarmer
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbatd, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad,
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ref: Noise Element of plan for City of Carlsbad
IOA
It is significant that the City is aware of the
injurious effects of excessive noise, and is planning
to take action against it.
Tho draft plan on noise element is comprehensive,
but it omits a souree of nolsa that I ara particularly
interested in. I submit the following for your consideration:
Tho City of Carlsbad has a large population of dogs.
The City, County and State have ordinances which
state clearly that excessive barking of dogs is a misdemeanor
crime. The majority of dog owners are responsible
and control their dogs so they will not bark in a manner
that is disturbing to their neighbors. There is a stub-
born minority that is indifferent to their obligation,
and allow their dogs to bark for hours. This kind of
barking is very distressful to neighbors, and seems to
occur in many parts of the City.
This source of noise can be controlled if
unreasonable dog owners are made aware of the fact that, as
a misdemeanor crime, they aro subject to fines and penalties.
In the case of particularly unconcerned dog owners,
the imposition of penalties Is usually sufficient to cause
them to effectively terminate this nuisance.
Unfortunately, this is not considered a major issue,
considering all the other criminal burdens placed
on policing agencies. The Animal Control agency is more
focussed upon animal rights than human rights, and protects
tho "rights" of dog owners to keep dogs in spite of tho
distressing effects barking has upon the tranquillity and
peace of the neighborhood. Thoy have a process which requires
victims to become embroiled in what is known as a "citizen's
arrest" despite the^fact that like other crimes, it is an issue
that requires only police action.
In a local barking dog situation we circulated a petition
and obtained over 30 signatures. All expressed indignation at
the disturbance, but only two called to complain. The others
didn't want to "rock the boat" with tho offending neighbor. None
would want to become embroiled In a "citizen's arrest. So the
crime of excessive barking continues while our citizens suffer in
silence.
There is an alternative, simple process which would be
effective. We have submitted to tho City a process followed
by many cities in San Dlego County, wherein the County Noise
Control department is contracted to furnish its services. They
will accept a complaint, warn tho offender, and after a brief
time for correction of the problem, will issue a citation. This
has an effect upon the most recalcitrant offender.
1
Re.s|X)nse IOA:
The issue of harkiiii: dops is a vety specinc noise source and is lypically referred to as
a nuisance noise. Seclion 7 (W.OlO of the Cily C.xle aildresses offensive noise from
animals. Accordiiii: lo ilie Ctxlc. il is unlawful for any [icrson to keep, maintain or
cause or allow to he kept or niainlained within Ute limits of tlie City any animal that
causes noise which is offensive lo ilie senses of any (icrson when the offended person
is situated off of the lot or lois on which the animal is kept or maintained.
Although the Cily does not address individual nuisance noise issues through the General
Plan, the General Plan Noise Elemeiil establishes the framework for addressing the
issue. More specitically. the Ciciieial Plan establishes the following Implementing
Policy and Action Program: •Control harmful or undesirable wounds through the
planning and regulatory prtxess widi emphasis on noise/land use compatibility
planning.' This policy is required as a mitigation measure in the EIR.
The City is aware of lhe concerns expressed in this comment letter and will look into
a more effective way lo addrcss llie issue of excessive dog barking.
The objection that this is an added expense to the City
is not acceptable to those of us who do not commit such crimes.
We are entitled to effective action against those who commit
crimes. We request that tho City of Carlsbad join the many
other cities in this County who pay for such a service for
the benefit of their citizens.
This proposal could be added to the Noise Element of the
Planning Department's plan for the City, and request that it
. be included.
Sincerely,
2947 Lexington Circle
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
/r V .
Albert Bengulat
^ 073 ^^3
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
«l?^l_(See Reverse)
Sent to
Project Future -Ann Mau cll
street & No
3425 Ridgeecrest Dr
RO.. State & ZIP Code
Carlsbad CA 92008
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipl Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
does not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
:C$
2
3. Article Addressed to:
au Project Future
O Attn: Ann Mauch 0 m 3425 Ridgecrest Dr
CaA_sbad, CA 92008
,
0: 5. Signa e (Addr ee)
CC 6. Sig—nature (Agent
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. E Addressee's Address
2. 0 Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
P 672 073 443
4b. Service Type
O Registered
• Certified
D. Express Mail
7. Date of Delivery
8 Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
.c
O Insured
0 COD
O Return Receipt for
Merchandise
gn • PS Form 3811, December 1991 U.S.G.P.O. : 1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
February 2, 1994
Project Future
Attn: Ann Mauch
3425 Ridgecrest Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
7A
PROJECT FUTURE
November 4, 199 3
7B
By Fed
Attn. Adrienne Landers
city of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Citv of Carlsbad General Plan Update
Dear Ms. Landers:
The following conunents concerning the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the proposed City of
Carlsbad General Plan Update ("Project") are submitted by Dolores
Welty and Project Future. General comments are followed by more
specific comments related to the adequacy of the DEIR.
I• INTRODUCTION
It is no less than amazing that only two significant
unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of the substantial
growth permitted under the General Plan Update ~ cumulative air
quality and cumulative traffic. According to the DEIR, all other iwpacts can t>e mitigated to a level of in..;ionifiranr-.»! DEIR at
page 2.0-2. This conclusion is not supported by the DEIR's
listing of mitigation neasures in the form of General Plan
policies. For exanple, nunerous policies are worded "preserve
Where POgsihle," "whenever possible," "should" and "minimize the
encroachment of developnent " This language does not prevent
environmental inpacts to sensitive resources from occurring
There will still be significant unavoidable impacts as a result
of the potentially najor conpronises between development and
resource protection allowed by the permissive policy language. See
for example open space policies C.7, c.9, C.24, c 11 and c 1
Developinent and adoption of standards and ordinance modifications
which might provide additional mitigation are postponed until a
later date, making it impossible for the public to know how
effective these policies would be in protecting resources. See
I—for example c.2 in both Land Use and Open Space elements.
r „ environmental implications of the General Plan
Update are potentially grave as a result of the permissive
language of resource protection policies. As such, we believe
Response 7A:
The EIR for thc Carlsbad (iciior:il I'lan has been prepared as a Program EIR and a
Master EIR ptir.suaiil lo CEQA The impact analyses, mitigation mea.sures, and
significance conclusions adot)tialoIv liiinil llic provisions ofa Program EIR and Master
EIR under CEQA. Specific tlevclojiiiicnl proposals will be a.ssessed for project-level
environmental impacts and projecl-lcvcl niitigation nieasures will be required to reduce
significant impacts to less lliaii sicnilicaiil To fully explain tlie use of Uie EIR for the
Carlsbad General Plan, the iinplic.ttioiis of Program and Master EIRs are discussed
below.
In accordance with CEQA Guideline provisions, this EIR was prepared as a Program
EIR to evaluate Ihe adverse environmental impacts of implementing the City's updated
comprehensive General Plan, anti lo allow die City to consider broad policy alternatives
and program-wide niiligalioii nieastircs (Section 15168 of CEQA Guidelines). This
Program EIR focuses on the potential adverse environmental impacts of policy
recommendations ami .secondary effects tliat may result from die long-range
implementation of the u|xlalcd Carlsbad General Plan. The degree of specificity used
to analyze the potential .idverse environmental impacts is related to the broad nature of
the policy reconimcndatioiis contained in the updated Carlsbad General Plan (Section
15146 of CEQA Guidelines)
The EIR for the Carlsbad General Plan was also prepared as a Master EIR in
anticipation of pending legislation that was introduced to the Stale Legislature in 1993.
Assembly Bill 1888, and its companion Senate Bill 919, were written for the purpose
of streamlining the CEQA process. The bills were signed by the govemor in October
1993 and the EIR for the Carlsbad General Plan will serve as a Master EIR. As a
primary streamlining approach. AB 1888 authorizes the use of a Master EIR to: I)
allow complex and controversial environmental impacts to be analyzed and addressed
early in the CEQA process: and 2) reduce or eliminate subsequent, redundant analysis
of environmental impacts. According to AB 1888, General Plans are appropriate
subjects for Master EIRs.
A Master EIR must contain the same contents presently required for all EIRs plus a
description of anticipated subsequent projects that would be within the scope of the
Master EIR. Once a proposed subsequent project of any type is filed with thc City of
Carlsbad, the City will determine whether or not the subsequent project is identified in
die Master EIR. If a project is identified in the Master EIR as a "subsequent project,'
an Initial Study will be prepared, and die City will then determine whether or not the
significant environmental impacls of the subsequent project are addressed by the Master
EIR. Where tlie Cily decides lhal the Master EIR also addresses the significant
environmental impacts of the subsequent project, written findings to that effect will be
made based on information contained in the Initial Study, and a notice of determination
will also be filed. Should the agency decide that the subsequent project may cause
significant environmental impacts not addressed in the Master EIR, either a niitigatal
Negative Declaration, an EIR, or a focused EIR (a streamlined form of EIR also
described in AB 1888) will be prepared.
If the proposed subsequent project is not identified in the Master EIR. an initial study
will be prepared and tlie City will determine whether significant environmental impacts
may result from the subsequent project. Where the City decides dial significant
environmental impacts may be caused by die project, a mitigated negative declaration,
subsequent EIR, or supplemental EIR will be prepared. EIR Section I.O, Introduction,
has been revised to incorporate the most recent CEQA legislation about Master EIRs
and environmental review for subsequent projects.
Response 7B:
The EIR addresses impacts related to agricultural lands, visual character, water supply,
natural habitat, and sensitive species. The EIR concludes that impacts to tiiese areas are
significant but can be reduced lo less Uian significant wiUi mitigation measures. The
City of Carlsbad addresses these areas in the General Plan and establishes programmatic
policies to reduce Ihe effects of development. These policies are identified as mitigation
measures in Uie EIR to reduce potential impacls from implementation of Uie General
Plan. Pursuant to the Seclion 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, (which was added
by Assembly Bill 3180 in 1989), Uie City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Through the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the City will en.sure that the
General Plan policies identified as mitigation measures are implemented. In addition,
all applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR will be incorporated into
Mitigation Monitoring Plans for future development projects. Pursuant to the 1992
addiUons to Section 2I08I.6, the City will adopt the mitigation measures established in
Uie General Plan EIR as conditions of project approval.
The impacts to agricultural lands, visual character, water supply, natural habitat, and
sensitive species will be reduced to less than significant by the implementation of the
idendfied mitigation measures. A number of the mitigation measures will be
implemented through future development projecis. The City will adhere to Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure that the measures are appropriately
implemented to reduce significant impacts.
70
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
th.Tt the list of significant unavoidable impacts must be expanded
to include the following:
* Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses;
* Substantial alteration of the City's visual character;
* Cumulative water demand in excess of the state's limited
water resources:
Impacts to wetlands, riparian
sensitive habitat areas;
corridors, and other
Impacts to species of significance.
policies and land uses
which impact coastal sage scrub is needed. Moreover, the DEIR's
cumulative analysis of impacts to coastal sage scrub and the
species it supports cannot be adequate until the related planning
efforts are completed in the region. As the approach to Preserve
Planning and Design acknowledges:
"It is important to consider the conservation effort of
the City in the context of other planning efforts in San
Diego County and the Southern California region (e.g.
the MSCP, the North County MHCP, and hte NCCP for
coastal sage scrub)." Appendix D, page 36.
It would only be possible to adeguately analyze the
adeguacy of the City's various programs to protect this resource
once these related planning efforts are completed — and
consideration of the impact of the fires is analyzed. Until these
steps are taken, no additional coastal sage scrub habitat should
be harmed.
that th
Califor
L_ Guideli
r
Project Future's overall position regarding the DEIR is
the document fails to comply with the reguirements of the
fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
nes in at least the following major respects:
Many of the DEIR's conclusions that impacts are
insignificant are unsupported and contrary to the
evidence. For example, the DEIR declares that all
impacts to significant resources by the project are
insignificant notwithstanding the fact that policies do
not prohibit development of these areas.
The DEIR contains virtually nfi analysis of cumulative
impacts. Moreover, as described above, the cumulative
Response 7C:
Coastal sage scrub habitat in Carlsbad was not impacted by wildfires during 1993 and
California gnatcatchers in Carlsbad were consequently nol affected by wildfires. As a
result, the City's Habilal Management Plan and the General Plan |«)licies related to
habitat protection are adequale. Because the California gnatcatcher has been listed by
the U.S. Secretary of die Interior as "Threatened" under the Endangered Species Act,
the bird is under the jurisdiction of tlte U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The Secretary of the Interior and lhe USFWS ate presently working wiUi
regional interests to develop a regulatory structure to proiect die California gnatcatcher.
Development under tlte Cari.sbad General Plan will be regulated by existing and future
regulations established by the .Secretary ofthe Inlerior and die USFWS.
Response 7D:
Neither the California Environmental Quality Act or the Endangered Species Act
contain provisions that prohibit the adoption and impleineiitation of a General Plan until
regional Habitat Management Plans for endangered species are completed and
implemented. Local and regional conservation plans are considered in IxiUi the analysis
of program-level impacts to biological resources and ciiniulalive impacts to biological
resources. Although die regional Habitat Managenient Plans are not completed or
implemented to dale, potential program-level impacts to biological resources,
particularly coastal sage scrub habitat and die California gnatcatcher, can be adequately
assessed. To ensure Uiat Carlsbad will continue to participate in regional Habitat
Management Plans, Uie EIR requires a mitigation program to ensure long-term
participation in the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning efforts
and the North Counly Habitat Conservation Plan.
The City has an adopted Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan
(OSCRMP) which defines priorities for open space planning on a city-wide basis and
for Uie City's 25 Local Facilities Management Zones. The OSCRMP identifies open
space for the preservation of plants, animals, and habitat as a top priority. This policy
expresses Uie City's general intent to optimize natural resource values Uiroughout Uie
open space system and to maximize the protection and enhancement of wildlife and
habitat wiUiin various preserves. In addition, the City of Carlsbad is committed to
continuing its Habitat Management Plan efforts. Additional General Plan implementing
policies related to die City's Habitat Managenient Plan efforts have been included in Uie
Final EIR as mitigation measures. The OSCRMP and die Habitat Management Plan,
along wiUi federal regulation and CEQA compliance, will ensure Uiat coastal sage scrub
habitat and the California gnatcatcher are successfully protected.
Response 7E:
See Responses 7C and 7D.
Response 7F:
The EIR for die Carlsbad General Plan Itilfills die requirements of CEQA and die
CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guideline provisions, this EIR was
prepared as a Master and Program EIR lo evaluate the adverse environmental impacts
of implementing the City's u|xlaled comprehensive General Plan, and to allow the City
to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures (Section
15168 of CEQA Guidelines). This Master EIR focuses on the potential adverse
environmental impacts of [xilicy recommendations and secondary effects that may result
from die long-range implementation of die ujxlatcd Carlsbad General Plan. The degree
of specificity used to analyze die potential adverse environmental impacts is related lo
the broad nature of the policy recommendations contained in the updated Cartsbad
General Plan (SecUon 15146 of CEQA Guidelines). This Master EIR assumes the
highest yield of development perniitted under the updated Carlsbad General Plan to
allow assessment of the "worst case" impacts. See Responses 7G, 7H, 71, 7J, 7K, and
7L below for responses to specific commenls about the adequacy of the EIR.
Response 7G:
The EIR contains Uiorough inipact assessments for the issue areas that were idendfied
in Uie Initial Study. The degree of specificity used to assess impacts is direcUy related
to the programmatic nature of die project and the EIR. The EIR presents sufficient
evidence lo support the conclusions about the significance of the programmadc impacts.
The example presented in this comment is very general and is not related lo the
significance conclusion for a .specific environmental issue area.
Specific significance thresholds are used to determine the significance of impacts
idendfied for each environmental issue area. The significance thresholds used in the
EIR are based on Supplementary Document G ("Significant Effects") and Supplementary
Docunient J ("Archaeological Impacts") of Uie CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Carlsbad Growth Management Plan.
Where an identified impact meets or exceeds the significance threshold, the EIR
concludes Uiat the General Plan will result in a significant impact. In specific, where
the EIR identifies an impact lo a significant resource, the EIR concludes that the impact
will be significant. Midgadon measures are required to reduce the significant impact
lo a less than significant level. Mitigation to less than significant can be achieved
Uirough methtxis odier than prohibiting development of the site with the significant
resources.
Response 7H:
Section 7.5 ofthe EIR contains a very thorough analysis of potendal cumuladve impacts
resulting from implementation of Uic Carlsbad General Plan and other planned
development in Uie region. Section 7.5 contains a comprehensive descripdon of the
City's approach to assessing cunuilative impacls. As discussed in Section 7.5, die San
Diego As.six?iatioii of Govermnents (SANDAG) divides the County of San Diego into
subregions, or Major Statistical Areas (MSAs). Carlsbad is lcx;ated in the North County
West MSA. Pursuant to die Section 15130 of die CEQA Guidelines, die City based die
cumuladve inipact analysis on SANDAG Series 7 growth projecfions for die North
County West MSA. The SANDAG growlh projections were augmented for die
cumulative impact analysis lo rellect lotal buildout of the Carlsbad General Plan.
Potendal cumulative impacts were as.scssed for each environmental issue area based on
die augmented SANDAG Series 7 growth projecdons for the North County West MSA.
The degree of specificity used to assess potendal cumuladve impacts is direcdy related
to the programmadc nature of Uie EIR. The cumuladve impact analysis acknowledges
potential impacts lo sensitive biological resources, including coastal sage scrub habitat.
The potential cumulative impacts to biological resources can be reduced to less than
significant throtigh oiipoiiip local and regional conservation efforts, federal regulafion,
and CEQA compliance.
71
7J
7K
7L
7M
7N
[
C am
of
impacts of this project in connection with other
projects on the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat are
among the most significant adverse impacts of this
project.
The DEIR omits feasible mitigation measures which could
further reduce or eliminate significant and significant
unavoidable project-related and cumulative impacts.
Measures to reduce or eliminate cumulative impacts are
largely omitted.
The description of the project is incomplete and
misleading. It is impossiljle to determine many of the
project's environmental impacts because the DEIR fails
to contain either a complete or consistent project
description.
Reasonable, feasible alternatives to the project are
omitted; namely a project that reduces non-residential
development, among other alternatives.
These are just a few of notable examples of the errors
nd omissions that pervade the DEIR. Our comments detailing all
the inadequacies of the DEIR are set out in full below.
70
II. THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE
The DEIR for the proposed General Plan Update is
deficient in at least the following additional respects:
A. Stated Proiect Obiectives Are Inadequate
A clear statement of project objectives is a
prerequisite to the completion of an adequate EIR. CEQA
Guidelines section 15124. This is because the ultimate decision
on a project may rest on which proposed alternative achieves the
objectives of the project with the least amount of harm to the
environment. If the stated project objectives are not clear or
valid, a critical standard for the selection and analysis of
adequate alternatives is missing. In the absence of adequate
project objectives, decision-makers cannot properly weigh the
choices between the "no project" alternative and other
alternatives set forth in the DEIR. In addition, since the
project objectives are among the nain criteria for selection of
project alternatives, the range of alternatives is likely to be
inadequate or contrived.
Appropriate project objectives for a general plan can
be found in the OPR Guidelines:
1. First that the general plan is in the public
interest.
Response 71:
The EIR contains programmatic mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental
impacls from implementation of the General Plan. The EIR also identifies programs
Uiat will mitigate significant cunuilative impacts. See Responses 7G and 7H.
Respon.se 7J:
Secdon 3.0 of the EIR contains a coniplete and consistent descripdon of die project
analyzed in the EIR. The impact assessment in die EIR is based on buildout of die land
use designafions established by die General Plan. Table 3.5-1 provides a quantified
comparison of existing and buildout development conditions.
The impact assessment in die EIR as.sumes dial maximum buildout will occur in 2010.
The environmental inipact analysis is based on change between development conditions
exisdng in 1990 and buildout conditions in 2010. Many of the technical reports
employed in the EIR rely on 1990 environmental conditions and this base year is
consequently used throughout the EIR to provide a consistent analysis. Impacts are al.so
consistently assessed for General Plan buildout al 2010 Uiroughout the EIR. Potential
impacts of General Plan implementation are adequately determined in die EIR based on
the project description as described above.
Response 7K:
Four alternatives to die proposed General Plan are identified in lhe EIR: No Project,
Exisdng General Plan, Decreased Residential Development, and Densiiy Transfer. The
altematives were developed lo reduce die significant impacls of the proposed General
Plan. The environmental impacts of each alternative are compared to Uie impacls of die
proposed General Plan to determine if any of the alternadves are environmentally
superior to the proposed General Plan. None of the alternadves involve reduced non-
residendal development (i.e., specifically commercial and industrial uses), because the
City of Carlsbad feels a reduced non-residential development scenario is infeasible and
unrealisdc.
A reduced non-residendal development scenario is infeasible and unrealisdc because
large portions of the City contain development constraints Uiat restrict development lo
non-residendal uses. McClellan-Palomar Airport is centrally located in die City, and
consequendy large areas of land near die airpori can only be used for non-residential
uses. Because the airport generates potential public safety hazards, residential uses
cannot be developed in large areas near the airport. Development of other areas in die
City is restricted to non-residendal development because die areas are already developed
with non-residendal development. Furthermore, additional areas are entitled for non-
residential development due to prior project approvals.
Response 7L:
As discus.sed in Res|xinses 7E through 7L, the comments regarding "errors" and
"onii.ssions" are unfounded and iiwccurale. The EIR for die Carlsbad Geneial Plan is
adequate and fulfills die requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Response 7M:
The EIR for die Carlsbad General Plan is adequate and fulfills die requirements of
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance widi CEQA Guideline provisions, this
EIR was prepared as a Master EIR to evaluate die adverse environmental impacts of
implemendng the City's updated comprehensive General Plan, and to allow the City to
consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigadon measures (Section 15168
of CEQA Guidelines). This Master EIR ftKuses on the potendal adverse environmental
impacts of policy recommendations and secondary effects that may result from the long-
range implementation ofthe updated Carlsbad General Plan. The degree of specificity
used to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts is related to the broad
nature of the policy recommendations contained in the updated Carlsbad General Plan
(Secdon 15146 of CEQA Guidelines). This Master EIR assumes die highest yield of
development permitted under Uie updated Carlsbad General Plan to allow assessment
of die "worst case" impacls. See Responses 7N dirough 7DD below for responses to
specific commenls aboul the adequacy of die EIR.
Response 7N:
Secdon 3.0 of the EIR identifies the objectives of the General Plan. The objectives set
forth in Section 3.0 provide a standard for decision makers to properly weigh the
choices between the proposed General Plan and die altematives.
Response 70:
According to Secdon 3.0 of die EIR, "The objective of the General Plan is to establish
definitive guidelines and policies which allow for orderly, efficient, and sustained
growth in the City of Carlsbad. Through implementation of these goals and policies,
the City will work toward providing a pleasant living and working environment for City
residents and workers, while conserving and maintaining the natural physical
environmenl to the greatest degree possible."
As stated, the objectives fiilfill Ihe OPR objectives of public inlerest and balance of local
resources. The General Plan contains the required components and public input was
solicited in formulating the policies of the General Plan lo ensure that it is consistent
with public attitudes.
2 . Second, that the general plan is consistent with
public attitudes.
7P
7Q
3. Third, that the plan has the reguired components.
4. Fourth, that the plan takes into consideration an
appropriate balancing of local resources.
The General Plan Update's emphasis on "sustained growtii"
with resource protection as a secondary consideration is
inappropriate. All elements of a General Plan are required to be
of equal status. This objectives statement suggests that "growth"
(including provision of affordable housing) supercedes all other
reguired general planning considerations. The result is that the
DEIR's evaluation of the alternatives in the end focuses on
whether they meet the objective of accommodating growth and
affordable housing to the exclusion of equal goals including
resource protection. This approach forecloses proper planning and
adequate environmental review.
I— B. The DEIR Contains An Inadequate Proiect Description
An EIR must contain an accurate description of the
project. County of Invo v. City of Los Anaeles. 71 Cal. App. 3d
185, 193 (1977) tInyo II). Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines
defines "project" as "the whole of the action, which has the
potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,
directly or ultimately..." I Emphasis added.) In addition, the
project description must contain a general description of the
project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics.
CEQA Guidelines section 15124.
An accurate and complete project description is a
critical part of an EIR. "An accurate, stable and finite project
description is the sine aua non of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR." Santiaao Countv water District. (1981) 118
Cal.App.3d 818, 830 (quoting Inyo II. 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-93).
The court in Inyo II explained why a thorough project description
is necessary:
A curtailed or distorted project description
may stultify the objectives of the reporting
process. Only through an accurate view of the
project may affected outsiders and public
decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environnental cost, consider
mitigation measures, assess the advantage of
terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no
project' alternative) and weigh other
alternatives in the balance.
71 Cal.App.3d at 192-93.
Response 7P:
The Carlsbad General Plan proposes to strike a balance between sustained growth and
resource protection. Resource protection is given equal consideration radier than
secondary consideration. In the alternatives seclion, each altemative is analyzed for
environmental impacts, including impacts to natural resources. The impact analysis for
each alternative is u.se<l to determine whether the alternative is environmentally superior
lo the projMised General Plan. Affordable housing is a consideration in determining die
feasibility of the alternatives because the City must fulfill specific state affordable
housing goals. The City is also responsible for accommodating ils share of regional
growth and providing adequate housing to meet the growth.
Response 7Q:
Section 3.0 of the EIR contains a complele and consislent descripdon of the projecl
analyzed in die EIR. The impact as.scssment in die EIR is based on buildout of the land
use designations established by die General Plan. Table 3.5-1 provides a quantified
comparison of existing and buildout development conditions.
The inipact assessment in die EIR assumes dial maximum buildout will occur in 2010.
The environmental impact analysis is based on change between development conditions
existing in 1990 and buildout condilions in 2010. Many of the technical reports
employed in the EIR rely on 1990 environmental conditions and this base year is
consequently used throughout the EIR to provide a consislent analysis. Impacls are also
consistently assessed for General Plan buildout at 2010 throughout the EIR. Potential
impacts of General Plan implementation are adequately determined in the EIR based on
the project description as described above.
The EIR assesses die effect of General Plan buildout on infrastructure and public
services in Section 5.12, Utilities and Public Services. The degree of specificity used
to analyze impacts to utilities and public services corresponds to the programmatic
nature of the General Plan. Programmatic mitigation measures are required to reduce
potentially significant impacts to utilities and public services. Specific infrastructure and
public service requirements to accommodate future growth are more appropriately
addressed in infrastructure and public service master ptans that are based on General
Plan buildout.
Potentiat impacls lo specific resource areas are analyzed in the EIR rather than being
part of the EIR projecl description. EIR Section 5.0 contains analyses of potential
impacts lo specific resource areas pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Becau.sc the EIR project description is complete, there is no need to revise die projecl
description or lo revise Uie environmental impact analysis in the EIR.
7R r-
79
71
7u r
The DEIR's description of the project omits information
that is key to an adequate evaluation of project-related and
cumulative impacts. Specific information missing from the DEIR
includes but is not limited to the following:
Specific infrastructure reguirements including
necessary roadway improvements and all other
essential public services and facilities to support
the permitted growth under the General Plan Update.
Identification of the specific resource areas that
could be impacted by the development permitted by
the land use plan and policies.
Each of these critical components of the project has the
potential to create significant adverse environmental impacts not
adequately analyzed in the DEIR. A revised project description
containing the above-listed details must be developed and a
revised EIR completed which considers the complete project
description in its analysis of impacts.
c. The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Proiect Impacts
In judging the legal sufficiency of an EIR, the focus
is on adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full
disclosure. The document should provide a sufficient degree of
analysis to allow decision-makers to make intelligent judgments.
CEQA Guidelines section 15151. A numtjer of decisions have
developed criteria for determining what constitutes a "reasonable"
effort to analyze projects' potential impacts. Kings Countv Farm
Bureau et al. v. citv of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 629 is
particularly instructive on this point. That opinion emphasizes
that an EIR must support with rigorous analysis an substantial
evidence the conclusion that environmental impacts will be
insignificant. The DEIR lacks such support for its conclusions.
The DEIR concludes that all impacts except cumulative
air quality and traffic will be less than significant. Yet, in
almost every case, the DEIR lacks substantial evidence or even
analysis to support these conclusions. Indeed, in some cases,
the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion.
A number of likely significant impacts do not appear on
any summary tables or in the sumnary text. It is therefore
unclear whether these impacts are insignificant, significant but
mitigatable or significant and unavoidable. Such impacts include
but are not limited to: growth inducing inpacts and numerous
cumulative impacts.
As noted above. Kings Countv Farm Bureau et al. v. Citv
of Hanford suggests that reviewing courts will require agencies
Res|xiii.sc 7R:
Thc EIR contains dtorough inipact a.ssessments for die issue areas Uial were identified
in die Initial Sludy. The degree of specificity usexl to assess impacts is directly related
to die programmatic nature of die project and Uie EIR. The EIR presents sufficient
evidence to support the conclusions about die significance of the programmatic impacts.
S|)ecific significance diresholds are used to determine the significance of impacts
identified for each environmental is.sue area. The significance diresholds used in die
EIR are ba.sed on Supplementary Document G ("Signilicant Effects) and Supplementary
Document J ("Archaeological Impacts) of die CEQA Guidelines, and die Cily of
Carlsbad Growdi Management Plan.
Where an identified impact meets or exceeds die significance tiireshold, the EIR
concludes dial die General Plan will result in a significant impact. In specific, where
die EIR identifies an impact to a significant resource, die EIR concludes dial die impact
will be significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce die significant impact
to a less Uian significant level. Mitigation to less Uian significant can be achieved
Uirough meUiods odier Uian prohibiting development of die site widi the significant
resources.
Response 7S:
See Response 7R.
Response 7T:
The Final EIR has been revised to incorporate diis comment. Discussion has been
added to Seclion 2.0, Executive Summary, to summarize potential growUi inducing
impacts. Discussion summarizing potential cumulative impacts is already preseni in the
EIR Executive Summary. In addition, Uie summary lable in Section 2.0 has been
reformatted lo clearly show unavoidable significant impacts and significant impacts Uiat
can be mitigated to less than significant.
Response 7U:
The EIR contains Uiorough impact assessments for Uie issue areas Uiat were identified
in die Initial Study. The degree of specificity used to assess impacts is direcUy related
to the programmatic nature of Uie projecl and die EIR. The EIR presents sufficient
evidence to support Uie conclusions aboul the significance of the programmatic impacts.
Specific significance diresholds are used to determine die significance of impacts
identified for each environmental issue area. The significance Uire.sholds used in the
EIR are based on Supplementary Document G ("Significant Effects) and Supplementary
Document J ("Archaeological Impacts) of die CEQA Guidelines, and Uie City of
Carlsbad Growlh Management Plan.
Where an identified impact meets or exceeds die significance tiireshold, Uie EIR
concludes dial the General Plan will result in a significant inipact. In sjiecific, where
the EIR identifies an inipact lo a significant resource, the EIR concludes that die impact
will be significant. Milicalioii measures are reqtiired to reduce die significant impact
to a less dian significan! level. Mitigation to le.ss than significant can be achieved
throtigh meditxls odier ili;ui pioliibiiiiig development of die site widi the significant
resources.
7V
7W
to produce rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence
before upholding EIR determinations that project impacts are
insignificant, at least where the impacts in question clearly are
not minor or trivial. Further, in determining whether particular
impacts are significant, the lead agency must look to CEQA
Guidelines section 15065 (specifying impacts that must be
considered significant) and Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines
(specifying impacts normally considered significant).
This, quite simply, was not done in the DEIR.
D. The DEIR Fails to Adequatelv Analyze Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts "analysis" is not an analysis at
all. Rather it consists of brief and vague conclusory statements
concerning possible cumulative impacts. This does not meet CEQA
requirements.
E. The DEIR Fails to Identify Feasible Mitiqation Measures
7X
7Y r
The DEIR must address mitigation measures both for
significant project-related and cumulative impacts. Mitigation
measures included in the DEIR are inadequate for the following
reasons:
1 . Many policy/mitigation measures call for additional
studies or plans, or the development of
implementation programs, which may not prove
successful in reducing or ellninating project-
related impacts. Many of these unproven measures
-including plan policies - are relied upon to
support conclusions that impacts will be
insignificant. These unproven measures nust be
subject to successful demonstration Etifir to
reliance on them to reduce significant inpacts.
Examples of such mitigation measures include but
are not limited to open space and land use elenents
policy C.2.
2. A major defect in the proposed General Plan Update
is its lack of adequate implementation neasures.
State law requires that such measures be Included
in general plans. If adequate inplenentatlon
neasures had been included in the Update, there
would be less necessity for the DEIR to Include
detailed mitigation neasures. In light of the
Update's failure to include such neasures, it is
critical to the adequacy of the DEIR to do so.
F. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Alternatives
The
alternatives.
DEIR nust analyze a
This requirement is the
reasonable range of
•heart" of the DEIR. In
Response 7V:
Secdon 7.5 ofthe EIR contains a very thorough analysis of potential cumuladve impacts
resulting from implementation of the Carlsbad General Plan and other planned
developmenl in the region. Section 7.5 contains a comprehensive description of the
City's approach to assessing cumulative impacts. The San Diego Association of
Govemments (SANDAG) divides die County of San Diego into subregions, or Major
Statistical Areas (MSAs). Carlsbad is located in die North County West MSA.
Pursuant to die Section 15130 of die CEQA Guidelines, die City based die analysis on
SANDAG Series 7 growdi projections for die North County West MSA. The
SANDAG growth projections were augmented for die cumuladve impact analysis lo
refiect lotal buildout of die Carlsbad General Plan.
Potential cumulative impacts were assessed for each environmental issue area based on
die augmented SANDAG Series 7 growdi projections for Uie North County Wesl MSA.
The degree of specificity used to assess potential cumulative impacts is direcUy related
to die programmatic nature of Uic EIR. The cumulative impact analysis acknowledges
potential impacls lo sensitive biological resources, which encompasses coastal sage
scrab habitat. The potential cumulative impacts lo biological resources can be reduced
lo less Uian significant Uirough ongoing local and regional conservation efforts, federal
regulation, and CEQA compliance.
Response 7W:
Neither CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines contain a provision that requires the Lead
Agency to prove the success of the mitigation measures prior to requiring the measures
to reduce significant impacts. As discus.sed in Response 7M, Uie EIR is a Program and
Master EIR. As a Program and Master EIR, the document focuses on die potential
adverse environmental impacts of policy recommendadons and secondary effects that
may result from die long-range implementation of the updated Carlsbad General Plan.
The degree of specificity used to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts
is related to the broad nature of the policy recommendations contained in the updated
Carlsbad General Plan. Furthermore, the mitigation measures are appropriately
programmatic in nature.
Response 7X:
The General Plan contains Implementing Policies and Programs to ensure attainment of
the General Plan objectives and goals. The Implementing Policies and Programs range
in specificity from generalized guidelines and principles to procedures and specific
acdon programs. The Implementing Policies and Programs in the Carlsbad General
Plan fulfill the state law requirements for implementation measures.
Many ofthe General Plan Implementing Policies and Programs are identified in the EIR
as mitigation measures. The utilization of die Implementing Policies and Programs as
EIR niitigation measures will ensure dial the Implementing Policies and Programs are
implemented to effectively reduce die eiivironmenUil impacts of planned developmenl.
Res|X)iise 7Y:
Four altematives to die proposed General Plan are identified in the EIR: No Project,
Existing General Plan, Decreased Residential Development, and Density Transfer. The
alternatives were developed to reduce die significant impacts of the proposed General
Plan. The EIR specifically states that die alternatives, "were developed to reduce the
significant air qualily and circulation impacts and to further reduce the other project
impacts." Both the Decreased Residential Development and Density Transfer
altematives are considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan.
Affordable housing was an important consideration during Uie preparation of the updated
General Plan. In reviewing die alternatives lo the General Plan, the City must carefiilly
consider the effecis of Uie alternatives on future affordable housing opportunities to
ensure the Cily meets state-mandated and regional housing goals.
purporting to "analyze" a "reasonable range of alternatives," the
DEIR has not adequately focused on options which could
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental
effects associated with the project as proposed. See Pub.
Resources Code section 21002; CEQA Guidelines section 15126(d)(3).
Instead, the various alternatives, viewed from an environmental
perspetrtive, appear to have been developed as "straw man"
_ alternatives, easily justified as infeasible.
7Z f-
7AA r~
7BB
The fact that the alternatives analysis falls short in
serving its intended function also reflects the fact that the City
has defined "project objectives" in a manner that virtually
precludes serious consideration of other planning solutions. By
linking the proposed project to the "objective" of accommodating
growth including affordable housing, the DEIR artificially narrows
the range of alternatives that could be considered "feasible".
The DEIR's range of feasible alternatives is
insufficient in at least the following respects:
1. None of the alternatives are the result of
systematically addressing significant impacts of
the project. In other words, the alternatives
considered are not focused on eliminating
identified impacts. The DEIR should include an
alternative (or alternatives) which is focused
specifically on reducing or eliminating significant
impacts. Such an alternative would likely include
a combination of the following: (a) reduced
overall growth of jobs and housing which in turn
would reduce air quality and traffic impacts; (b)
retention of protective land use designations on
agricultural lands, viewshed lands, and lands of
high habitat value; (c) specific mechanisms for
open space/agricultural land protection including
regulatory and acquisition techniques; and other
components and new or revised policies targeted at
avoiding the significant impacts of the project.
2. The DEIR fails to discuss an off-site alternative
which would acconunodate additional growth, if
necessary, in the remainder of the County or
region. The description and analysis of such an
alternative is particularly critical since the DEIR
proposes rejection ot environnentally superior
alternatives on the basis that they do not
accommodate growth. The DEIR should have evaluated
environmentally suitable locations for projected
growth other than those targeted by General Plan
Update.
Response 7Z:
See Response 7Y.
Response 7AA:
See Response 7Y.
Response 7BB:
The analysis of an off-site alternative to die Carlsbad General Plan would be
inappropriate and unreasonable. The policies and programs of the proposed project are
specific lo die geographic context of die Cily of Carlsbad. Thc Cily of Carisbad does
not have control over tfie distribution of fiitiire population growth in San Diego County.
In addition, the City does not have the power to enforce land use plans within other
jurisdictions. The City has a responsibility to addre.ss projected growth within ils
jurisdiction and to establish an appropriale plan for dial growlh. The proposed General
Plan is a rational effort to accommodate projecl growlh in Carlsbad while
simultaneously protecting environmental qualily.
7CC
7DD
3 . DEIR should include an analysis of a reduc
residential alternative. Such an alternati
d reduce impacts to habitat, air quality a
The
non
could reduce
traffic.
reduced
ve
nd
7EE [
Finally, most of the alternatives considered are not
adequately evaluated. In short, the City DEIR has contrived
"straw man" alternatives, complete with sufficient flaws to make
the proposed General Plan Update appear to be a reasonable
accommodation of competing interests. This tactic is transparent
and must be corrected by the inclusion of fair alternatives and
reasonable objectives in a revised DEIR.
III. CONCLUSIOW
For all of the foregoing reasons, we urge the City to
refrain from drafting the Final EIR and instead correct the above-
described deficiencies and recirculate a revised DEIR for public
comment.
Response 7CC:
None ofthe alternatives involve reduced non-residential development (i.e., S|x;cifically
commercial and industrial u.ses), because the City of Carlsbad feels a reduced non-
residential development scenario is infeasible and iiiirealislic. A reduced non-residential
development scenario is infeasible and unrealistic tiecause large portions of the Cily
contain development constraints that restrict development to non-residential uses.
McClettan-Patomar Airport is centrally located in die City, and consequently large areas
of tand near the airport can only be used for non-residential uses. Because die airport
generates potential public safety hazards, residential uses cannot be developed in large
areas near the airpon. Development of odier areas in die City is restricted to non-
residential development becau.sc die areas are already developed with non-residential
devetopment. Furdiemiore, additional areas are entitled for non-residential development
due to prior project approvals.
Response 7DD:
See Response 7Y.
PROJECT FtmJRK Response 7EE:
Based on the reasons stated in Respon-ses 7A through 7DD. the EIR is considered
adequale and fulfills die requirements of CEQA and die CEQA Guidelines. Minor
revisions will be made to die EIR pursuant to die commenls received during the public
review period where appropriate. None of die revisions will change die impact
conclusions of the EIR and there is no need to recirculate the EIR for pubtic review
prior to certification as a Final EIR.
p b7S D73 ^^4
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
POSTAL S£RVK:E V-*^^ in^iv^ioc;
Sent to
John Blair - Carlsbad Unif
street a tMo School DlSt
801 Pine Ave
ed
RO , State & ZIP Code
Carlsbad CA 92008
Postage
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
$
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom.
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
% SENDER:
32 • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
mcl) • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
ti return this card to you.
2 • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number.
4-, • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
2 does not permit.
> • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
C delivered.
-0 3. Article Addressed to:
6.1
John Blair
4b. Service Type
CI Registered 0 Carlsbad Unified School Dist
[2; Certified 801 Pine Ave
0 Express Mail Carlsbad, CA 92008
7. Date of Deliver
/
8. Addressee's Address (Onl if requested
cc and fee is paid)
_he
DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. El Addressee's Address
2. CI Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
P 672 073 444
0 0
cc 5. Signature (Addressee)
cc.. 6. Signature (Age t)
_ ps Form 3811,es uecember 1991 U.S.G. a 1992-307-530
El Insured
CI COD
El Return Receipt for
Merchandise
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
John Blair
Carlsbad Unified School District
801 Pine Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
Carlsbad Unified School District
C.rl«l.«d. C«hlorni« 9200I1-2439 (619) 729 9291 FAX« (6191 729 9685 Wipre .-Ml Sliuleiitx l^arn E-Wellfinlly
MEMO
November 2, 1993 - ,i'
To: Ms. Adrienne Landers, Cily Of Carlsbad Planning Department
From: John Blair, Business Services, Cartsbad Unified School Distr(ct\
RE: Review of City of Carlsbad Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Reporl
Response 6A:
The City of Carlsbad docs inform Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) of new
developmenl proposals early in the review process. When subject developmenl
applications have been deemed complete, die City sends a copy of Ihe plans lo CUSD.
In response to die comment about die Land Use Map, a General Plan Land Use Map
is included in the EIR, (.see Map 3.5-2 in Section 3.0, Introduction). The map shows
school sites pursuant to GPA/LU 89-3. The comment atxiut the Partes and Recreation
Element is unrelated to the content of the EIR. The City may choose to incorporate diis
commeni into the General Plan as appropriate during Ihe General Plan public hearing
process for the General Plan. The public hearings will be held prior to adoption of the
Final Generat Plan.
6A
Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) has reviewed and has the following
comments on the City of Carlsbad's draft Generat Plan and Environmental Impact
Report.
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
— 1. Land Use Element - see attachment for text insert area (page 21).
The city should inform the school district regarding new development
requests, as early in the review process as possible. There are many key
planning and development decisions that are made prior to subdivision
review. Local Facilities Management Plans, General Plan Amendments,
Environmental Impact Reports, Master Plans and Site Development Plans are
pre-subdivision considerationt in the land use review process which could
provide valuable information to the district. Reviewing information at this
stage in the planning process allows the district to initiate various state
requirements in site selection analysis.
Land Use Map
The draft tand use map is not compteted at this time, therefore, there was no
review of the proposed or existing school facilities. Thc district assumes fhe
planning staff will show on the tand use map schools as approved by
GPA/LU 89-3.
Parks And Recreation Element - see attachment for Table 5 additions, (page
21, 22):
Oneral Ran 4 EIR Comments
November 3, 1993
6B [
6C f-
Several schools have been cl.issified uniJer "Sperifll Use Area " as providing
specific recreation.ll facilities. The district has reviewed Table 5 confirming
the uses agreed to by joint use agreements. There are a few uses that we
believe should have some type of footnote descripiion, see attachment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5.12 Utilities And Public Services
5.12.7 Education
1. 5.12.7.1 Environmenlai Setting
Map 5.12.7-2 should be changed to show the appropriate
school lype based on Ihe 1989 School Location Plan.
2. 5.12.7.3 Environmental Impacts - Paragraph Two - First Sentence
"... Potential impacts to the school districts serving
Carlsbad will ultimately be determined by the lolal
number of residential development lhat occurs".
In 1989, CUSD adopted a build out School Location Plan
thaf was based on demographics of the Carlsbad Growth
Management Program. The results were that school
facilifies would be planned based on fhe city-quadrant
building cap (worst case scenario). At that fime fhe
inclusionary requirement for affordable housing was not
adopted. This additional housing requirement must be
under the quadrant building cap for lhe district's 1989
buildout projecfions fo accommodate students. If these
inclusionary units yield a higher number of students per
household, there witl bc additional school impacts nof
currently analyzed - see nexl commeni.
6D 1— 3. 5.12.7.3 Environmental Impacts -Paragraph Two -Second Sentence
"... , higher density affordable housing will generate larger
number's of school aged children'.
The student yield applied fo the 1989 buildout ptan did
not take into account fhe number of affordable housing
units recentiy added by cify ordinance. Currentty, CUSD is
Response 6B:
Map 5.12.7-2 has been revised in die Final EIR to .show die sciiool types identified in
die 1989 School Localion Plan.
Response 6C:
The totiil number ofdwelling units al buildout of die General Plan, with the inclusionary
requirement for affordable housing, will not exceed die quadrant caps established by the
Carlsbad Growdi Managenient Program. This issue is discu.s.sed in EIR Section 5.6,
Land Use. As stated in die EIR.
The proposed Land Use Poticy C.3. allows density increases above die maximum
residential densities permitted by die General Ptan to enable the development of
affordable housing. This poticy is necessary to ensure that the Land Use
Etement is consistent widi Program 3.7.a. (Density Bonus) and 3.7.i.
(Mechanism for Granting Densiiy Increases) of the City's updated Housing
Element (October 22, 1991)...The potential for Land Use Policy C.3. to increase
the totat number of residential units projected widiin die City Uirough buildout
is not anticipated. This conclusion is based upon die finding dial a numtier of
residential projects have tx:en approved at a tower density than permitted by the
General Ptan. All of the unused units avaitabte from this source have been
deposited in what is referred to as die City's excess unil bank. Atl units within
the excess unit bank are prioritized for die devetopment of affordable housing.
There appears to be an adequate number of dwelling units within the excess unil
bank for the Cily lo meel ils affordable housing obligations without exceeding the
General Ptan residential buildout projections, no tand use impaci witl occur.
The EIR specifically addresses die effect of the affordable housing policy on the Growth
Management Plan caps:
The affordable housing density increases, which would be allowed dirough Land
Use Policy C.3., will not resutt in an increase in die total number of dwelling
units permitted Uirough Uie City's Growtfi Management Ptan. Therefore, Uie
policy is consistent with thc Growth Management Ptan.
Fuhire growth under Uie Carisbad General Plan will be consistent widi die Growdi
Management Plan, which was used by CUSD to prepare die 1989 School Location Ptan.
As a resutt, the facilities identified in the CUSD School Location Plan will be adequale
to accommodate future students.
Response 6D:
During UIC public review period for die Draft EIR, die Cily of Cartsbad housing planner
submitted a comment tetter atxiut Uie EIR statement lhat, "higher density affordable
Cenrral Plan <c EIR Commenls
November 3, 1993
housing witl generate larger numlicrs of .school aged children." This letter is included
in this section of die Final EIR as Comment 11. The letler indicates that the referenced
EIR statement about student generation from tiiglier density affordable housing is not
a factual statement. Siilistantial evidence in die letter indicates th.n die numtier of
children per unit of affordable housing is not greater than simitar types of liousing the
general population. The evidence presented in die letter has been incorporated in the
Final EIR, and the schools section of the Final EIR has been revised to stale that
affordable housing does not generate larger numbers of school aged children than
similar types of housing for the general population.
Based on the facts lhat affordable housing does not generate larger numbers of school
aged children Uian similar lypes of housing for Uic general population, and lhal the
affordable housing provision in die General Plan will not cause the total city-wide
dwelling unil count to exceed die caps estabtistied by die Growth Management Plan (as
discussed in Response 7C), die facilities identified in the CUSD Sciiool Localion Plan
wilt accommodate die anticipated student population. The schools impact from General
Plan implementation will be significant but die mitigation mea.sures identified in die EIR
will reduce the impact to less lhan significant.
trying lo establish a student yield or student generation
rate for an affordable housing unit fype based on the new
city ordinance. This varies on unit size and number of
bedrooms, however, it is possible fhat thc student yield
from a affordable housing unit could generate double the
current yield. Therefore, CUSD is not able to agree,
without further analysis, to the final sentence in
paragraph Iwo that states "The ptanned schools arc
projected to fully nccommotlale the number of utiuieiits nt
buildout."
Respon.se 6E:
The EIR finding ofa significant, bul mitigable lo tess dian significant, schools inipact
is appropriate. The supporting evidence for this conclusion is provided in Responses
6C and 6D. tn summary, fuiure growdi under Ihe Carlsbad General Plan will be
consislent with die Growdi Management Plan, and die facilities identified in die CUSD
School Location Plan will be adequate to accommodate future students.
6E r-5.12.7.4 Level Of Significance
"Based on thc above analysis, impacls lo schools from
implementation of the proposed General Plan will be
significniti, but can bc mitif;ated to n level of less tlinii
significant".
CUSD's school location plan and projected facilities were
not based on the analysis referenced to in the prior
section. The city has adopted a new ordinance which
could have significant impacts on affordable housing
ordinance projections.
General Plan t* EIR Comments
Novrmher .1. 1903
/..l,V/U.V/:/://.\//-VV
i. Carlsbad Unified School Distnct
li. Encinitas Union Elonentaiy School District
iii. San Dieguito Union High School District
iv. San Marcos Unified School District.
b. Existing school sites are designated on the
Zoning Map as open space. In accordance with Ihe Public
Education Code, Article 3, local agencies have the first
right to purchase tuiphn school sites to keep them avail-
able for playgrDund. playing fields, other outdoor recre-
ational and opcn-space purposes, and low and modeiate
inconie housing. The open space designation allows the
City the option of ulilizing future surplus school sites for
parks or open space purposes.
c. School sites are also included in the Parks and
Recreation Etement as park sites because the City has
joint use agreements with the school districts to utilize
some of their school playgrounds as recreation facilities.
d. Because schools are included as park sites and
parks are a subset ofopen space, schools are therefore,
inventoried as a type ofopen space in Die Open Space and
Consetvation Element. Although school sites have not
been mapped on the City's Oflicial Open Space and
Conservation Map, they are indicated on the Land Use
Map.
School kxations are determined by the appropri-
ate school district and arc based on "service areas" for
each school site within a district. Service areas are
dcsignaled for each of the school localions based on
generation factors, school sizes, and maximum travel
distance. A substantial change in one school localion
would necessitate revision of locations throughout lhat
sciiool district.
^^f^ At tlie time of subdivision review for an area in
nliich a "floating" school site is shown, the following
procedures are necessary to dctenniiie the ultimate loca-
tion ofthe school:
I. The City must inform Ihe appropriate school
district that a development application has been filed
within the district.
2. ThcdistrictmustnolilStheCitywhcthcrornot
it wants to initiate action to prtxccd uith acquisition ofa
school site in the proposed subdivision.
3. ThedistrictmustnoiifytheCilywhclhcrornol
it will be able to provide schools cither Ihrough existing or
proposed facilities {commonlv called a "will-serve" let-
ter).
If the school district detemiines tlie "Iloating
school site" is not necessary, thc school sile designation
shall revert lo the adjacent land use designation.
Note: If a school district determines lhat a
specific sclwol site is no longer needed and declares it lo
be a surplus site and if all eligible public entities decline
to sell or lease Ihe property, the City upon request from the
school district shall rczoiK the property consistent wilh
applicable general and specific plam lo be compatible
wilh the uses of property surrounding Ihe school sile
(Government Code, 65152.9).
2. THE VILLAGE
The Village, locaied in the "downtown" section
of Carlsbad, has ticcn established as a redevelopment
project area. A Redevelopment Master Plan with Imple-
menting Strategics is currently being prepared to revise
and update the present Village Design Guidelines Manual
This ikxumeni will provide an overall development strat-
egy to create a strong identity for thc Village, revitalize the
area, enhance the economic potential of Ihe Village and
establish specific sile developmenl standards The intern
of Ihe master plan is to preserve Ihe village ctiaracter of thc
area by creating a pedestrian scale environment of spe-
cialty shops, services, and restaurants complemented by
residential and mixed-use development The Redevelop-
ment Master Plan should bc referred lo for more detailed
information. Additional redevelopment project areas
may lie established in other areas of thc City in the fiiture
3. COASTAL ZONE PROGRAMS
In 1972, California voters approved Proposition
LBEOA TAILZS
USS IN UCXtATION
AMAS
tACi) or a
(Xtss uss
s c 0 0 t P r s T u S T c • • N r r H H S s
I * L w r A 1 L w U u Y e t % N r 0 0 1 1 0 H A
t A H t s C A 1 a L M N S o
•
t N w s X R U N
t S e N s N Y H f T N N T u S . -c H 1 S f 0
s a / 1 1 M A 1 r 1 s r a 1 M e r
1 s I V C A 1 s S II T 1 a N C s L V
r H c t r N I 0 u t T w i S H t > 1 I 0 A r 6 t u c 0 t t c 0 0 i
c r L A II t M 0 II I r x A E 0 c
A » t A r p u s T A r T A 0
T r t A T 0 X 1 X A • 1 C R u
1 R A U 0 s T N t x 0 N 0 D R
• 0 I s L s K s 0 1 ( A G u S T
M S
I
1
v
t
II
0
0
M
N
S
1
N
c
T
1
M
S
R
T
S
S
c
SD
ST '
P
L .
•t
. DEISTIM6 . au lODMnNUIOI
••ca BuruMonvuiTsaioaLPAM • .t-tsa -aiA "SO 1-nJ •
tMOOM Bai8(TA«r SOOai PARI .SUA. ( ••-
EDiCa UAXTCM MOWN tUA. ^ ' •
EBca MI . . ,i:.e..
• >•• saia ran UMBfrAKT SCHOOL PARI JUA. :.J0' ( 5" I-
SBca RNmoORQKm WSJl : + • •
Qica no PVS rsu*: •r-x:-' ••
nca ROfACr mM -WA. uaa •••
caiai swnscowiB '.'SIA / - «
oma vAunrAncH •M. • • / • +
TOTAI. OOSr SUA: 34.71 MZXXS 77
^z^r^co If/
TAJUS
uas n RsazATCN
f*c£: OF I
AILY. \vn
CLASsnCAToa OAS uss
ODM • - 11 s c 0 0 p p P s T M c T R S 0 a M P t H H S s
SUA • SpnllkiMi 1. I w p A 1 L w u U T t E R N r 0 0 I 1 0 H A
9U -T| 1 n ll tmnmrm AM z A N ( s c A 1 R 1. U M S 0 r H w s ( R U N
• -tmmt rtrittPf^m E s E H s N Y u P T N N T u S t H 1 S P 0
Kmn im s a / 1 1 u 1 A 1 p 1 s f a 1 N e r
1 s t V c A 1 M s S R T 1 0 K C s L V
OWWDISHIF r H c E P N U P 1 0 u t T w
•
C H I 1
c • OqrOMii 1 1 0 A P C 1. U u c 0 E E t 0 0 a 2D • c p I A R R T a u 0 14 E P R A E 0 c
ST -Saa A R E A P 1 p u S T A P T A 0
P Hi 0—< T p E A T 0 0 R 1 R A 1 1 C R u
I • 1 R A U 0 u s T N K > 0 H 0 D R
0 E s L s t S C 1 X A C u S T
r«quTTiwnT N s E N 1 T R i
• Cm^naitPadkr E c R C N 1 T
•I • l%R«ii R T 0 C N S
- •,
i.' V s 0 C
E M
• BBS IMS.BtOALUa
I NW aUDU VBTA aaONTARY SC3S Mt -SUA ."SO. : •
1 NW CAMNCM . SUA,. '«t. • • M
S NW CUOOtlMTIT ..SUA'.
4 NW CA«UM MCH SQiaQL TDim icDum . WlJ* SUA •1 *
S NW OUSflBS SUA' : • / « NW 01X2 ns> AUA imK. / >. *
r NW NARBOM snifcr aatoAmfTT OKia •au*. •ie.. I +
• NW iJimiSCH BBOMTAar SQKX LPARK • SUA • SD • I *
•Acoon PARB AHD aaotZATioNOOuMBaQNMnQNOM JULY 1^ ino /»«/4.-»**i^*
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SCHOOL SITE LOCATION/STATUS
LEGEND
ExIilIng Proposad
• o ELEMENTARY
• • JUNIOR HIGH
A A HIGH SCHOOL
MAPS.
5.12.7-3
P LVE! 073 MMS
Cfertified Mail Receipt
^^^Mr^ No Insurance Coverage Provided
^JU^j; Do not use for International Mail
pSfsTJJS (See Reverse)
Sent 10
Patrick Murphy
street 8. No 505 S Vulcaii Ave
City of Encinitas
RO . Slale S ZIP Code
Encinitas CA 92024
Postage $
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restrided Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
Return Receipt Service. °I 3• 1
°I I-
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
does not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Artcle Number
P 672 073 445
Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encintas
505 S Vulcan Ave
Encinitas CA 92024
7. Date of Delivery
5. Signature (Addressee)
6. Signatur —(Agent)
PS Form 3811, Decembe 1991 * U.S.G.P.O. :1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
4b. Service Type
CI Registered CI Insured
Certified CI COD
R CI Express Mail Eieturn Receipt for Merchandise
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
I. El Addressee's Address
2. CI Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
o 0 >
8. Addres e's Address (Only if requested .%
and fee is paid) c a .c I—
City of Carlsbad
PIsnning Department
February 2, 1994
Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encinatas
505 S Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Envirormiental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbatd, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161
City of
Encinitas
Response 5A:
The traffic forecasts used in the EIR were generated by SANDAG. The trip generation
figures used to calculate the forecasts are based on tlie 1990 SANDAG Brief Guide of
Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region.
5A
November 3, 1993
Mike Holzniiller, Planning Director
CHy of Cartsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carisbad, Ca. 92009-1576
Dear Mr. Holzmiller,
The City of Encinitas appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Carlsbad's
draft General Plan Update and corresponding draft Environmental Impact Report (dEIR).
Staff has reviewed the two documents in relationship to impacts to Encinitas.
We would like to provide the following comments on the dEIR and General Plan:
1.
5B r 2. [
50 r 3
The City Is concemed about the trip generation figures used to caltxilate 2010
traffic vohimes on Olhrenhain Road atid Rancho Santa Fe Road, north of Olivenhain
Road. The City of Endnitas' traffic model indicates traffic volumes on these
roadways to be well in excess of the ADTs noted in Cartsbad's dEIR. What trip
generation factors were used in calculating 2010 volumes on these roadways, and
are they consistent with or different from SANDAG, fTE, and other commonly used
factors?
Based on Ctty of Cartsbad's projected volunnes on C^hrantiain Road arxj Rancho
Santa Fe Road, it appears that the tand use assumptions for existing and future
development in ttie surrounding areas is underestimated. For example, were the
Home Depot! development and the development of Encinitas Ranch included?
The dEIR 'indicates that circulation element roadways have adequate capacity to
handle build-out traffic volumes. The City of Encinitas has identified both
Olivenhain Road and Rancfio Santa Fe Road as having capacity problems at build-
out.
Response 5B:
The land use assumptions used in the Carlsbad Traffic Model are based upon
information provided to SANDAG by all cities, including the City of Encinitas,
regarding their anticipated land uses. Each city is responsibte for providing SANDAG
with updated tand use assumptions for property wilhin its jurisdiction. The City of
Carlsbad does not have the authority to change any land use assumptions oulside of its
jurisdiction. If the City of Encinitas provided SANDAG with land use infonnation that
that anticipated Ihe Home Depot and Encinitas Ranch projects, then those developments
were included in die "surrounding area" traffic assumptions for the Carlsbad Traffic
Model.
Response 5C:
The traffic analysis in the EIR is based on a comprehensive traffic modeling and
phasing study prepared by SANDAG. The SANDAG study is based on Iniildout of the
Generat Ptan land uses. The traffic analysis indicates that implementation of the
Circulation Element of the Generat Plan wilt provide adequate roadway capaciiy for
anticipated traffic volumes. Both the traffic analysis and the Circulation Element
indicate that improvements to Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road will ht
required to maintain acceptable levels of service. Once the improvements are
constnicted, both roadways will have adequate capacity to accommodate buildout traffic.
Response 5D:
The City agrees lhat it has jurisdiction over development and related trafTic lhat could
impact the operation of intersections. Through the City's Growth Management Plan,
all proposed projects will be assessed for potential impacts to traffic, including
intersection operation. Mitigation measures will be required for projects that
significantly impact intersection operation.
5D r~ 4. In the dEIR, It is noted that 20 intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through traffic over wfiich the City of Carisbad has no jurisdictional control.
Carisbad may not have jurisdictional control over through traffic; fiowever, the City
does have confrol over development within the City limits, which contribirtes fo
projected intersection impacts/problems.
5E [ 5. The intersection at ta Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road was not identified
as having severe impacts at build-out. Based on projected traffic volumes,
Encinitas has projected this intersection will be at LOS D+ at build-out.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, feel free to contact me at 633-2680.
Sincerely,
lent Director
Response 5E:
According to tlie Carlsbad traffic analysis, the intersection of U Costa Avenue and
Rancho SanU Fe Road will not experience impacts if the improvements identified in the
Circulation Etemeiil are constructed.
Ft. b75, 073 4MLi
Certified IVIail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage ProvidecJ
Do not use for International Mail
o o
00 m
Bill Dillon, Dept of Transp
Slreel & No
PO Box 85406
RO , Slale & ZIP Code
San Diego CA 92186-5406
Postage
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
$
$
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
Return Receipt Service. (7) 3
7. Date of Deily
8. Address e's Ad ress ( y if requested _v
and fee is paid)
.c
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
does not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number.
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
P 672 073 446
Bill Dillon
Planning Studies Branch
Dept of Transportation Dist 11
PO Bon 89406
San D'_fge CA0092186-5406
5. Sig ature lAiddress c).1 (5) rt IN
6. Sigrth,y4Age
8
0 0
UJ
1,0
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. El Addressee's Address
2. C7 Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4b. Service Type
LI Registered
El Certified
El Express Mail
0 Insured
El COD
El Return Receipt for
erchandise
PS Form 3811, December 1991 U .S .G .P .0 : 1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Bill Dillon
Planning Studies Branch
Department of Transportation
District 11
PO Box 85406
San Diego, CA 92186-5406
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
Sr«TE OF CALIFORNIA • BUSINESS. TRANSPOniATION ANO MOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, GovSTOl
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O OOX «M06. SAN DIEGO. 92186-5406
(619) 6M-M24 TOO Nun*«f (619(689-6002
November 4, 1993
11-SD-005, 078
VAR-Carisbad
Ms. Adrienne Landers
City of Carisbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carisbad, CA 92009-1576
Dear Ms. Landers:
Screencheck DEIR for the General Update - SCH 93091080
Caltrans District 11 comments are enclosed (2 pages). Our contact person for
Interstate 5 is Roger Cartin, Project Engineer, Project Development Branch N-3, (619)
688-6963. For infonnation on State Route 78, contact Cynthia Feaver, Project Engineer,
Projecf Development Branch N-2, (619) 688-3208.
Sincerel
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
Enclosures
BD/MO:vc
Response 4A:
The Final EIR has hccn revised to address impacts to the interchange ramp termini
intersections and l-.S and SR 78 freeway segments within the limits of die City. The
new discussion incorporaied in tlte Circulation section of tlte Final EIR is summarized
lielow:
F.om DCPAHTMENT OF TtANSPOIITATION
Project Development North
Sub)«l: REVIEW OF SCREENCHECK EIR - CITY OF CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
V<e have reviewed the Screenckeck Draft EIR for the City oE
Carlsbad General Plan Update. We have concentrated our review to
the traffic circulation and noise impacts of the proposed general
plan updates on Interstate 5. We have following comments:
TRAFFIC:
4A
4B
[
40
4D
Page 5.7-3/4 and 11: The existing and proposed
conditions should include lane configurations and
traffic volumes for 1-5 and SR 78.
Page 5.7-5 and Appendix F - Page 1-2: Intersections
analyzed in the Growth Management Plan should include
all interchange ramp termini intersections and 1-5
freeway segments within the limits of the General Plan.
Impacts to 1-5 and SR 78 interchanges and mainlane
segments, as a result of the proposed General Plan
updates, should be addressed with an equal level of
detail to other General Plan segments. The City may be
retjuired to mitigate for traffic impacts to facilities
outside of their jurisdiction. It is applicable to
assume that existing improvements include those which
are funded, programmed in an approved RTIP, and are
currently being developed.
Page 5.7-12: Peak period volumes and level-of-service
calculations should be included for all intersections
which are impacted as part of the proposed General Plan
update. This may include interchanges along 1-5 which
are outside of the City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction.
A phasing plan should be developed to insure that
proposed interchange and local street improvements are
completed prior to development generated traffic
creating or intensifying capacity problems on 1-5 or at
the existing interchanges. This phasing plan should
include coordination with the planned locally funded
interchange projects along 1-5.
1. liifornialion lias been added about existing ramp intersection and freeway
segment volumes. Existing congestion problems on interchanges and
freeway segments froni regional traffic are discussed.
2. The impact analysis has been expanded to address how planned
devetopment in Cartsbad witt generate additional freeway trips that could
significaiilly inipact ttie operations of interchanges and freeway segments
witliin the City of Carlsbad. The discu.ssion is concluded witli a statement
tliat die significant inipact can bc mitigated to less than significant by
continued participation in regional transportation programs and
coordination witli Caltrans.
3. An additional mitigation measures has been added to the Circulation
section of the Final EIR. The measure indicates that the City witl
coordinate witli Caltrans as development proceeds and Caltrans fiinds
tiecome availabte to ensure tlial tlie capacity of the interchanges and
freeway segments are adequate. City staff wilt recommend that a
corresponding policy be added to the Final General Plan.
Response 4B:
See Response 4A.
Response 4C:
The traffic study includes alt major intersections within die City of Caristiad. A total
of 60 intersections are included in the traffic study. Intersection analyses were
conducted for die preparation of the Circulation Implementation Program and Traffic
Impact Fee Study. These documents are included in Appendix G of the EIR. The
supporting data, including intersection volume and level-of-service calculations, are
availabte to review at Ihe City of Cartsbad Engineering Department. The Circulation
section of the Final EIR has been revised to indicate the availability of the trafiic data.
See Response 4A for a response to the comment about freeway interchanges.
Response 4D:
The City of Carlsbad has programs in place to ensure proper phasing of circulation
improvements for roadways within the City's Jurisdiction. According to the Draft
Generat Ptan. the guiding theme for the construction of the circulation element
infrastructure is the provision of facilities prior or concurrent witli die need for such
facilities. To this end, the City lias established llie Growlh Inanagement Program, the
Capital Improvement Program, and a development exaction program consisting of public
facility impact fees and direcl construction of public road and utility improvements by
developers.
The Growth Management Program establishes minimum standards for the provision of
basic pubtic infrastmcture including circulation element roads. In addition. Ihe Growth
Management program requires the preparation of Local Facilities Managenient Plans to
ensure that the public facility standards are met dirough buildout for each of Uie 25 local
facility zones.
For the most part, roads will lie constructed as a condition of development activity in
accordance widi the dictates of the Growdi Management Program. Where a particular
facility exceeds the financial capability of any one developer or the need for the facility
cannot be attributed to a single development, the City has established facility impact fees
to generate the revenues needed to finance construction of those facilities. These impact
fees combined with direct developer construction activities witt assure completion of the
majority of the circulation element network. The remaining portion of the networic for
which Ihe need is not attributable to future devetopment must be financed through other
tocal, regional, and federat funding sources.
Timing for the construction of the missing circulation element tinlcs is. for the most
part, a fiinction of devetopment activity. For those facilities financed through facility
impact fees or other funding sources, the City prepares a Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) on a yearly basis. The CIP establishes the construction program for the next year
and also outlines the five year and buildout improvements needed for the City. The CIP
must balance the availability of revenues with the various competing needs for public
facility constniction. Taken as a whole, the Capital Improvement Program, Growth
Management Program, and development exaction program will assure timely completion
of the circulation element facilities as needed by the residents of Cartsbad and
surrounding communities.
Response 4E:
Comment noted.
4E
4F
NOISE:
4G
X6963.
Caltrans supports the concept of "fair share
contributions" on part of the developers toward present
and future mitigation within the 1-5 corridor.
The noise studies and mitigation
proposed zone changes and future
to 1-5 should meet federal requi
based on 20 year traffic project
freeway configurations on 1-5 (a
1990 Route Concept Report). Fut
be based on federal requirements
developments based on federal st
require additional noise mitigat
improvements are constructed.
s associated with the
development adjacent
rements and should be
ions and the ultimate
s outlined in the July
ure 1-5 projects will
and proposed
andards should not
ion when the freeway
• Page 3.0-9: We would recommend that the requirement
for federal level noise studies be amended into the
City's noise element.
If you have any questions, please contact Roger Carlin at
T. E. Allison
Project Manager
Project Development North
Response 4F
The noise projections for buildout consider ftilure traffic volumes on regional
transportation corridors. The City's noise standard for exierior highway noise is 60
dBA CNEL for residential u.ses which is comparable to die federal standard, (see
Response 9A). The interior noise level standard is 4,'i dBA CNEL. The noise impact
assessment and mitigation program is based on Uie.se standards. Projects proposed near
transportation corridors must be designed to ensure dial interior noise levels wilt meet
the City's noise standards in fuiure years when traffic and asstKiated noise levels
increase. Additional noise mitigation should not tie required when freeway
improvements are constructed, but Uie specific design of the freeway improvements wilt
tie used to determine wtiether additional noise niitigation is necessary.
Response 4G:
The City's noise standards are stricter than the federal standards. As a resutt, there is
no need to add a requirement for federal level noise studies lo Uie General Ptan Noise
Etement. The City will request Caltrans to perform a noise study for 1-5
widening/improvements when Uiey are designed.
RJC:rjc
cc:JHaven\TEAllison\RJCarlin'
CSavage\CFeaver
p t,75 073 ^^7
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
^ Do not use for International Mail
.SSPI^Sg (See Reverse)
Sent to
Deborah L. Herrman
street & No
1416 9th St Rm 131
RO , Slate & ZIP Code
Sacramento CA 95814
Postage
$
Certitied Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Wtiom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. El Addressee's Address
2. CI Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
a;
.0
4b. Service Type
Ci Registered Ci Insured
CC
EN Certified El COD
El Express Mail El Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7 Dater 11)3elivery. 194
F 3811, December 1991 * U.S.G.P.O. : 1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
ce 5. Signature (Addressee)
LLJ CC
0
a) • PS
8 Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
.c
I^
71; SENDER: :2• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
0 • Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
(T, • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
a) > Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
return this card to you.
does not permit.
• Write ''Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number.
•-• • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
C delivered. 0 -0 3. Article Addressed
a)
Deborah L. H=man 0.
Environmental Program Coordinate
The Resources Agency of CA
1416 9th St Em 131
Sacramento CA 95014
to: 4a Article Number
P 672 07' 447
City of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
February 2, 1994
Deborah L. Herrman
Environmental Program Coordinator
The Resources Agency of Calfiornia
1416 9th Street, Room 131
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
state of California
MEMORANDUM
THE ItESOORCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
Date: November 5, 199 3
3A
3B
To: Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler
Secretary for Resources
Ms. Adrienne Landers
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
From: Dapartmant of Consarvatioa
Offlca of Govarnmantal and Environmental Relations
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Comprehensive update of Carlsbad General Plan.
SCH 193091080
The Department of Conservation has reviewed the City of
Carlsbad's DEIR for the project referenced above. The Department
is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide
basis and also administers the California Land Conservation
(Williamson) Act. Since future development of the General Plan
area could have environmental impacts on prime agricultural and
Williamson Act contracted lands, the Department offers the
following comments.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should provide
information on the number of prime acres of agricultural land to
be developed, and data on the gross value of agricultural
commodities produced on agricultural land within the City, and on
adjacent land planned for conversion to urban uses upon
"buildout" by the year 2010. Specifically, we recommend that the
FEIR contain the following information to ensure the adequate
assessment of impacts in these areas.
~ o The agricultural character of the planning area, including;
A map which Identifies the location of agricultural
preserves, and Williamson Act contracts and the number
of acres and type of land in each preserve (i.e.,
prime/non-prime).
Types and relative yields of crops grown.
Agricultural potential of the area's soils, as defined
by the Department ot Conservation's Important Farmland
series map designations.
o The impacts on Williamson Act contracted land in the General
Plan area should be assessed, and the following information
included:
A general overview of the Williamson Act program,
including a discussion of the specific findings and
Response 3A:
Agricultural lands are addressed in EIR Section 5.13, Natural Resources. The
description of existing agricultural lands has been expanded in die Final EIR to address
agricultural preserves, Williamson Act coniracts. and crop lypes in each preserve. To
adequately address existing important farmland. Farmland of Statewide lni|Minance is
discussed in addition to Prime Farmland.
Response 3B:
The Williamson Act program is discussed in Uie Final EIR. Conditions for die
cancellation of contracts are included and potential impacts to contract preserves are
assessed.
Mr. Wheeler and Ms.
November 4, 1993
Paqe Two
Landers
3C
3D
subfindings (Government Code Section 51282) that must
be made by the Board ot Supervisors in order for
Williamson Act contracts to be canceled. As a general
rule, land can be withdrawn from Williamson Act
contract only through the nine-year nonrenewal process.
Cancellation is reserved for "extraordinary" situations
(See Sierra Club v.Citv of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d
840, 852-855). Cancellation must be based on specific
findings that are supported by substantial evidence.
A discussion of the effects that termination of
Williamson Act contracts would have on nearby
properties also under contract.
It should also be noted that Government Code Section 51284
states that no contract may be canceled until after the City has
given notice of, and has held, a public hearing on the matter.
Notice of the hearing, and a copy of the landowner's petition for
cancellation, must be mailed to the Director of the Department of
Conservation prior to the hearing on tentative cancellation.
While a number of mitigation measures have been identified
in the DEIR to lessen farmland conversion impacts, some
additional possibilities are:
- Directing urban growth to lower quality soils in order
to protect prime agricultural land.
Increasing densities or clustering residential units to
allow a greater portion of proposed development sites
to remain in agricultural production.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DEIR. We hope that the additional agricultural and Williamson
Act information suggested will be incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City's General Plan Update.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at
(916) 455-8733.
Deborah L. Herrmann
Environmental Program Coordinator
cc: Kenneth E. Trott
Office of Land Conservation
Palomar-Ramona-Julian Resource Conservation District
Response 3C:
This information about the cancellalion of Williamson Acl contracts has been
incorporated into the Final EIR.
Response 3D:
The following General Plan implenienling policy has been added to Final EIR to funher
miligate impacts to agricultural lands:
Encourage clustering when it is done in a way Uial is compatible wiUi existing,
adjacent development. (Land U.se Element. Overall Land U.se Patlern, C 4 )
In the Final EIR, the mitigation measure has liecn clarified as follows:
Encourage clustering of development to retluce environmental impacts when it
is done in a way Uiat is compatible with existing, adjacent development.
City staff will recommend revising corresponding policy in the General Plan to reflect
the change in Uie niitigation measure.
p ,i^7E p73 ^^B
-Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use lor International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to
States Lands Commission
street S No
1807 13 St
PO , state & ZIP Code
Sacramento CA 95814-7187
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Speciai Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Dale, & Address of Detivery
TOTAL Postage
Sl Fees $
Postmark or Date
02/02/94
% SENDER: :a • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
fn • Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
(I) • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
4-) return this card to you.
> • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space f.." does not permit.
• • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number .0 • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
C delivered. 0
States Lands Commission
Executive Office
1807 13th ST
Sacramento CA 95814-7187
7. Date of Delivery
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. El Addressee's Address
2. CI Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Art.cle Number
P 672 073 448
4b. Service Type
CI Registered LI Insured
M Certified D COD
LI Express Mail CI Return Receipt for
Merchandise
5. Signature (Addressee) FEB 0 4 19941
8. Addressee's Address (Only i requested
and fee is paid)
.c
cC 6. Si,c7
-,ture (AgenV
a
--/)
ca • PS Form 3811, December 1991 * U.S.G.P.O. : 1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
PIsnning Depsrtment
February 2, 1994
State Lands Commission
Executive Office
1807 13th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-7187
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
StAIt OF CAltFOBNIA PETE WILSON. GowfKK
STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXCCUTIVE OFFICE
1S07- 13thSli«M
SacramMto. CA 9B814-7187 i"'."'"""^ '.';''''*"'"'''""™' sL°.Lln'.tcnB.i4-7,«7 2A Response: GRAY DAVIS. Controller
THOMAS W HAYES. Dirttctor o* finance CHARLES WARREN
ExAcutiv* Offlcvr
2A
Comment noted.
EK«cutiv« Offlcvr
October 20, 1993
File Ref.: SCH 93091080
William G. Shafroth
Assistant Secretary
Land and Coastal Resources • ' ^ ••.
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Attention: Nadel Gayou
Adrienne Landers
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad CA 92009
Dear Mr. Shafroth and Ms. Landers:
SUBJECrr: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Carisbad
General Plan Update, SCH 93091080
Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the subject document
Under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the Uad Agency
and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and att projects which
could directly or indirectty affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust
resources or uses, and Uie navigational easement.
The SLC has jurisdiction and authority over att ungranied tidelands, submerged
lands, and Ihe beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. All tide and submerged lands
granted or ungranied, as wetl as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc., are impressed with the
Common Law Public Trust.
The Pubtic Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its
delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these
lands to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation or other
I—recognized Public Trust purposes.
2B
20
William G. Shafroth
Adrienne Landers
October 20, 1993
Page Two
The general plan area includes, but is not limited lo, Ihe following walerways all
or poriions of which are under the jurisdiction of the SLC: the Pacific Ocean; Buena
Vista, Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos lagoons. The SLC has a legal responsibility for,
and a strong interest in, protecting the ecological and Public Trust values associated with
the State's sovereign lands, including the use of these lands for habitat preservation,
open space, public access, and recreation.
Due to budget constraints and resultant staff losses, we are not submitting
substantive comments in respon.sc to the subject document at this time. The SLC
reserves the right to require a lease or permit for the use of any lands in the plan area
— under its jurisdiction.
These comments are not intended, nor shall they be construed, as a waiver or
. limitation of any right, title, or interest of the State in any lands under its jurisdiction.
If you have any questions, please contact Curtis L. Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel,
Southern California Region, at (916) 445-7738.
Sincerely,
2B Response:
Section 5.6, L.and U.se, of Uie Final EIR has tiecn revised to acknowledge the State
Land Commission's jurisdiction for die Pacific Ocean and Uie Buena Vista, Agua
Hediohda and Batiquitos Lagoons. The Final EIR indicales dial the SLC reserves the
right to require a lease or perniit for Uie use of any lands in die plan area under its
jurisdiction.
Response 2C:
Comment noted.
MARYIGRIGGS'
Environmental Services Section
Division of Environmental
Planning and Management
Dwight E. Sanders
Curtis L Fossum
OPR
City of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
February 2, 1994
Deborah L. Herrman
Environmental Program Coordinator
The Resources Agency of Calfiornia
1416 9th Street, Room 131
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comm.' is.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161
3A
state of California
MEM'ORANDOM
THE RBBO0RCE8 AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
Date: November 5, 1993
3B
To: Mr. Douglas P. Wlieeler
Secretary for Resources
Ms. Adrienne Landers
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
From: Dapartmant of Consarvatioa
Offiea of aovamaantal and Environmental Relations
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for ttie
Comprehensive update of Carlsbad General Plan.
BCR 193091080
The Departurent of Conservation has reviewed the City of
Carlsbad's DEIR for the project referenced above. The Department
is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide
basis and also administers the California Land Conservation
(Williamson) Act. Since future development of the General Plan
area could have environmental impacts on prime agricultural and
Williamson Act contracted lands, the Department offers the
following comments.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should provide
information on the number of prime acres of agricultural land to
be developed, and data on the gross value of agricultural
commodities produced on agricultural land within the City, and on
adjacent land planned for conversion to urban uses upon
"buildout" by the year 2010. Specifically, we recommend that the
FEIR contain the following Infbrmation to ensure the adequate
assessment of Impacts In these areas.
o The agricultural character of the planning area. Including:
A mapi which Identifies the location of agricultural
presetrves, and HllliaBson Act contracts and the number
of acres and type of land in each preserve (i.e.,
prlme/non-prlne).
Types and relative yields of crops grown.
Agricultural potential of the area's soils, as defined
by the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland
series map designations.
o The Impacts on Hllllamson Act contracted land in the General
Plan area should be assessed, and the following information
included:
A general overview of the Williamson Act program,
including a discussion of the specific findings and
Response 3A:
Agricultural lands are addressed in EIR Section 5.13, Natural Resources The
description of exisUng agricultural lands has been expanded in die Final EIR to address
agricullural preserves. Williamson Act contracts, and crop types in each preserve. To
adequately address existing important farmland. Farmland of Slatewide Importance is
discussed in addition to Prime Farmland.
Response 3B:
The Williamson Act program is discussed in Uie Final EIR. Conditions for die
canceltation of contracts are included and potential impacts to contract preserves are
assessed.
Mr. Wheeler and Ms.
November 4, 1993
Page Two
Landers
30
3D
subfindings (Government Code Section 51282) that must
be made by the Board of Supervisors in order for
Williamson Act contracts to be canceled. As a general
rule, land can be withdrawn from Williamson Act
contract only through the nine-year nonrenewal process.
Cancellation is reserved for "extraordinary" situations
(See Sierra Club v.Citv of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d
840, 852-855). Cancellation must be based on specific
findings that are supported by substantial evidence.
A discussion of the effects that termination of
Williamson Act contracts would have on nearby
properties also under contract.
It should also be noted that Government Code Section 51284
states that ho contract may be canceled until after the City has
given notice of, and has held, a public hearing on the matter.
Notice of the hearing, and a copy of the landowner's petition for
cancellation, must be mailed to the Director of the Department of
Conservation prior to the hearing on tentative cancellation.
While a number of mitigation measures have been identified
in the DEIR to lessen farmland conversion impacts, some
additional possibilities are:
Directing urban growth to lower quality soils in order
to protect prime agricultural land.
Increasing densities or clustering residential units to
allow a greater portion of proposed development sites
to remain in agricultural production.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DEIR. We hope that the additional agricultural and Williamson
Act information suggested will be incorporated Into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City's General Plan Update.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at
(916) 455-8733.
I}eborah L. Herrmann
Environmental Program Coordinator
Response 3C:
This information about Uie canceltation of Williani.son Act contracls has been
incorporated into the Final EIR.
Response 3D:
The following General Plan implementing policy has tiecn added to Final EIR to further
mitigate impacts to agricultural lands:
Encourage clustering when il is done in a way Uiat is compatible wiUi existing,
adjacent development. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Patlern. C.4 )
In the Final EIR, the mitigation measure has been clarified as follows:
Encourage clustering of devetopment to reduce environmenlai impacts when it
is done in a way Uial is compatible with existing, adjacent development.
City staff wilt recommend revising corresponding policy in Uie General Plan lo reflect
the change in Uie mitigation measure.
cc; Kenneth E. Trott
Office of Land Conservation
Palomar-Ramona-Julian Resource Conservation District
o o
00
CO
' L75 073 ^^^
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to
Governor's Off of Pin & RBS
street & No
1400 Tenth St
RO . State 8. ZIP Code
Sacramento CA 95814
Postage
Cerlified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
$
$
Postmark or Dale
02/02/94
% SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
fn • Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can
61 return this card to you.
> • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
9...) does not permit.
ft) • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the articl -0 • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and
0 delivered. 0
Planning Et
Research
1400 Tenth St
Sacramento CA 95814
ec 5. Signature (Addressee)
LU
im 6.. 6,iffnatur (Agent)
0
co PS Form 3811, December 1991 r U.S.G.P.0
e number.
the date
3. Article Addressed to: a)
M Governor s Office
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. 0 Addressee's Address
2. 0 Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
P 672 073 449
4b. Service Type
E Registered
{1 Certified
D Express Mail
LI Insured
El COD
13 Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7. Date of Delivery
FEB 4 1994
8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
_c
1992-307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Govemor's Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public review period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Envirormiental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161 ^
SlAtt or rAtiroRNiA PETE WILSON. Gov0rnor
GOVERNOR S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STBEET
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
Adrienne Lfln<1*»rs
Citv of Carlsbfld
2n7S I.ns pnlmHS Drive
Carlsbad, CBlifornia 921)09
November 5, 1993
lA Response:
The OfFice of Planning and Research is lhe slatewide depository for recording
environmental documenls. The Final EIR lias been distrilmted to Uie public for review,
as required tiy CEQA, ami all coniments litive been received and addressed.
subjacti Comprehensive Update of Carlsbad Cenernl plan, SCHI 9.1091080
Ms. l-anders:
Dmtr
IA Th* Stat* clMrtn^houM haa •ubalttsd th« abor* n.wil propo««d Nv^ativa
0«cL«r«tlon to ••l*ct*d stat* aganclaa for ravlM. Th* r*vl*tf p*rlod ia now
clo««d and th* comn*ntB frov th* raspondlng ag*ncy<l*a) l*(ar*) *ncloa*d. On
th* «ncloa*d Motlca of Complatlon form you wlll not* that th* Cl*arInghoua* haa
chackad th* aganclaa that hav* ccxDMnt*d. Pl*aa* r*vl*w th* Notic* of
Complation to anaur* that your comnant packag* 1* coaiplata. If th* convnant
packag* ia not In ordar, plaaaa notify th* Stat* Cl*aringhoua* Immvdlately.
R*Ri*fnb*r to refar to th* pro)*ct'a eight-digit Stata Clearlnghouae number no
that w* nay raapond promptly.
Plaaaa not* that Saction 21104 of tha California Public Reaourcaa Cod* required
thati
"a raaponaibl* agancy or othar public agancy ahall only
mak* -aubatantlv* coMoMnta r*gardlng thoa* actlvltiaa
involvad In a pro^*ct which ar* within an ar*a of *xp*rtla*
of th* agency or which ara r*quir*d to b* carried out or
approT*d by th* agency."
Commantlrtg aganciaa ar* alao raqulrad by thia aaction to aupport thair comntanta
with Bpeclflc docuowntatlon.
Th**« coMMnt* ar* forwarded for your ua* In preparln9 your final IIR. should
you n*«d aor* inforaation or clariflcation« wa racoanwnd that you contact th*
coaaaanting agency at your •arli*«t conv*ni*nc*.
This l«tt«r acknowl*dg«a that you hav* co«pli*d with th* Stat* Claarlnghoua*
r*vi*w requlreoMin^* for draft •HTlronMntal docua*nt*, pureuant to th*
California InvlrohaMntal Quality Act. Plaaa* contact Sara Straaipl* at (916)
.445-0613 if you hav* any quaatlona regarding the envlronaMntal review proceaa.
Slnc*r*ly 5? /
chrlatln* Kinn*
Ovputy Director, Paralt Aaalstanc*
Kncloauraa
CCI Raaourcaa Kqancy
Railroad Tracks
74
llll
•o
CO
CD
O
State Street
Roosevelt Street
55 llll
VILLAGE AREA PUBLIC PARKING
1992
RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-22-93 2:40PM ; 619 688 2511^ 6194380894;tt 1
^§,1/23^93 14:40 CRLTRflNS PLANNING DEPT. -* 6194380894 NO. 425 001
FROM: CALTRANS, DISTRICT 11, PLANNING & PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
FAX Number: (619) 688-2511 or ATSS 688-2511
TO;
FROM:
(Name)
_i
(Add
(FAX Number)
dres^epjfrtmena ^
CALTRANS OFFICE
Headquarters DMT ,—_ District
(Name) ^ p
(Address/Department) ^
i^t- {tiro
{'famhiumbQr)
TOTAL PAGES TO FOLLOW:
REMARKS: .
(Weinstock Bidg.) (^)
.,s TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-22-93 2:40PM ; 619 688 2511-»
>.<i/93 14:41 CflLTRfiNS PLANNING DEPT. -> 6194380894
6194380894;tt 2
NO.425 D02
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOU8IN(3 AGgNCY PETE WILSON, QovsiTW
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTI-ICT 11, P O. BOX 8S40«. SAN DIEQO, 921S6-S406
(619) 688-6002
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
March 19, 1993
11-50-005,078
VAR-Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the
Comprehensive Amendment oi the City of Garlsbad Ganaral Plan
Caltrans District 11 will appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIR, Our review
will focus on projected impacts and mitigations at Interstate Route 5 and State Route 78.
Your analyses for cumulative traffic impacts and mitigations will be of particular interest to our
agency. Our contact person is Mark Parra, Project Manager, Project Development, Branch
"B", (619) 688-6952.
Sincerely,
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
BY-
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
A
\
Wil*^Hiam D. Daugherty
2600 La Golondrina Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
March 22, 1993
Adrienne landers, Senior Planner
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Ref: Carlsbad Draft General Plan
Dear Ms. Landers,
I would like to submit the following recommendations for integration
into the Circulation Element.
It appears to me that the City has been derelict in not defining its
requirements for public transportation in this plan. Further, the
plan should define the goals and objectives which will be followed to
achieve these transit service requirements.
I recommend that the enclosure be considered by the Circulation Com-
mittee for incorporation in the Circulation Element on page 5, after
"Streets and Traffic Control" and before "Alternative Modes of Trans-
portation". The latter should be modified to eliminate any redundan-
cies with this new section.
I am sure that the committee and staff can improve upon my initial
concept.
Sincerely,
William Daugherty^
cc; Councilmember Ramona Finnila
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
4
PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS
(The City recognizes that the San Diego Asso. of
Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for long range
transit planning and the North County Transit Dis-
trict responsible for the local planning, building
and/or operating of public transit services. How-
ever, public transit services cannot be cost or
performance effective if they do not meet the needs
of the community they serve. Therefore, Carlsbad
has developed the following goals, objectives and
policies to define these community requirements.)
A. Goals
u^.l A City which promotes, encourages and accommodates a
variety of public transit systems as alternatives to the auto-
mob i 1 e.
B. Objectives
B.l To reduce traffic congestion by achieving a^^^%3
utilization rate of public transit systems for all trips within
and through the City.
B.2 To minimize the need to build additional prime and
major arterials in the City; thereby reducing construction costs.
8.3 To reduce parking space required to support our
industrial and commercial development and make more efficient use
of these properties.
B.4 To reduce water and air pollution produced by motor
vehicles.
B. 4 To provide employees of local corporations and resi-
dents with an efficient mix of transit services which will mini-
mize their need for a personal automobile to meet daily commuting
needs.
C. Implementing Policy and Action Program
C.l Coordinate with the San Diego Association of Govern-
ments (SANDAG) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) on
the installation of elevated and ground level transit systems.
C.2 To plan, identify and coordinate Park and Ride fa-
cilities required to support present and future public transit
system station locations with SANDAG, CALTRANS and NCTD.
C.S To coordinate with SANDAG and NCTD in developing a
non-airpol1uting Local Passenger Distribution System to conven-
iently transport transit system passengers along a local route
between transit stations, parking facilities and/or their final
destination.
TABLE 2: TRANSIT ROUTE CLASSIFICATIONS
Base Routes
* provide regional and intra-city mass rapid transit service
* carry very heavy commuter traffic volumes
* provide connections with prime routes and major routes.
* isolated from other vehicular or pedestrian traffic
* provide local and express service
* can provide commercial goods transport/distribution service
Prime Routes
* provide intra-city and inter-city mass rapid transit service
* orovide connections with base routes, prime routes, major
routes and/or local passenger distribution service
* serves major industrial corridors and/or commercial centers
* provide local and express service
* isolated from other vehicular or pedestrian traffic
* can provide commercial goods transport/distribution service
Ma.ior Routes
* provide inter-city and intra-city mass transit service
* provide connections with base routes, prime routes, major
routes, feeder routes and/or local passenger distribution
servi ce
* uses existing roadways or median strip for right-of-way
* can provide local and express service
Feeder Routes
* serve local residential, commercial or industrial neighbor-
hoods with transit service
* provide connections to major routes
Local Distribution Service
* connects commercial or industrial center passengers to base
route and prime route stations, parking facilities, major
routes and/or locally important recreational facilities
r PUBLIC TRFinSIT SYSTEmS PLfln
CfTY OF CARLSBAD
CIRCULATKDN PLAN
RAILROAD
FREEWAY
PRIME ARTERIAL
MAJOR ARTERIAL A PARK AND RIDE
BASE ROUTE SECONDARY ARTERIAL wmm, PRIME ROUTE 1 •• FEEDER - Demand
COLLECTOR STREET MAJOR ROUTE '^AMA
••=^ LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICE p^^^
.-••::-'X iEL::.COPIER 7310 ; 3-22-93 3:53PM ;
;2-l993 04:42PM FROM S.D. Co. Public LJorks TO
6194380894;tt
9-4380894 P.02
DIRSCTOR
($19) 684-2212
FAX (619) 2«8-OM1
LOCATION CODE SSO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ssss OVERLAND AVE, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-129S5
COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTV AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORTATION OPERA-TIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
March 22, 1993
Mr. Michael J, Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Dear Mr. Holzmiller;
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an EIR, City of Carlsbad
Comprehensive Amendment to the General Plan, Dated
February 18, 1993
We have reviewed the Notice of preparation and have the following
comments:
Trails
If the City of Carlsbad desires to add a Trails Component to the
General Plan Recreation Element, the EIR should address provisions
for connection to existing and planned trail networks within other
agency jurisdictions.
Flood Control
The City's Master Drainage Study has been approved as indicated on
Page 9 of the Notice of Preparation. Please evaluate the approved
Drainage Study for agreement with the new proposed General Plan.
New flow rates needing revised facilities may result from the new
density or land uses.
It is important that new facilities and land use goals continue to
maintain drainage facility design water surface elevations at
existing levels at City and county boundaries such as along El
camino Real and San Marcos Creek.
^KOX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-22-93 3:53PM ; 619 694 2373-^ 6194380894;tt 3
E2-1993 04:43Pri FROM S. D. Co. Pub 1 ic Works TO 9-4380894 P. 03
Mr. Holzmiller
Page 2
March 22, 1993
Traffic/Circulation
The EIR needs to include a traffic study that incorporates the
following:
1. Address and incorporate the County Circulation Element Roads,
including bike lanes.
2. Provide tables and map exhibits displaying existing traffic,
project traffic, existing plus project traffic, buildout
traffic, and percent traffic splits to all existing and future
County Circulation Element Roads within four miles of the
project. Buildout year is approximately 2013.
3. Incorporate the county Level of Service standards.
4. Identify traffic impacts on County Circulation Element Roads
and other roads in tho unincorporated areas, and provide
appropriate traffic mitigation measures associated with 1.,
2., and 3. above.
Solid Waste
We recommend referencing your SRRE (Source Reduction and Recycling
Element) to establish goals, policies, and procedures to implement
programs to recycle all identifiable recyclables, including but not
limited to State mandated recyclables and green waste. One of the
goals could include establishing space allocation development
standards for collection of recyclables.
If you have any cjuestions, call Dirk Smi1;h at (619) 495-5679.
Very truly yours,
SHARON JASEK REID, Deputy Director
Department of Public Works
SJR:DDS:dds
cc: Robert Hoglen (0336)
Bob Fuller (0383)
Qxtu dj San COarcos
105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE • SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069-1699
619/744-4020 FAX 619/744-7543
March 18, 1993
Michael J. Holzmiller
Director of Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Re: Comprehensive amendments to the City of Carlsbad Draft General
Plan update; E.I.R. 93-01
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject
Draft E.I.R. referenced above. Currently, the City of San Marcos
has only a few initial comments regarding the inclusion of
additional environmental elements/impacts that should be included
within the proposed project such as:
[ 1. ' What traffic impacts will occur in the region per the
V Congestion Management Plan routes, if land use were to
increase per the Carlsbad General Plan update?
2. What consideration has been given to potential impacts or
preservation of the wildlife/habitat corridor, if land
use were to increase per the Carlsbad General Plan
update?
When available, the City of San Marcos would appreciate a copy of
your General Plan text with all amendments highlighted for further
review and comment. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please call me at 591-7777 x 323^6.
Sincerely,
Mike Poland
Principal Planner
cc: R.W. Gittings
Charlie Schaffer
Jerry Backoff
Ken Gerdes
CITY COUNCIL
Lee B. Thibadeau, Mayor Mike Preston, Vice Mayor Mark Loscher Pia Harris F. H. Smith
MEMORANDUM
March 23, 1993
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNER BLACKBURN
FROM: Engineering Technician Gale
CITYWIDE BIKE LANE INVENTORY
Staff has recently completed investigation of all bike lanes within the City.
For your information, the following listing shows which roadways have painted bike lanes as
well as on which side.
Alga Road Poinsettia Lane to Melrose Drive Both Sides
Avenida Encinas Windrose Circle to San Lucas East Side
Avenida Encinas Windrose Circle to Poinsettia Lane West Side
Batiquitos Drive
(easterly leg)
Poinsettia Lane to Westerly Terminus Both Sides
Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe Road to Calle San Felipe Both Sides
Camino de Los Coches Rancho Santa Fe Road to La Costa Avenue Both Sides
Cannon Road El Arbol Drive to Paseo Del Norte North Side
Cannon Road EI Arbol Drive to Car Country Drive South Side
Carlsbad Village Drive Highland Drive to Pontiac Drive Both Sides
Carlsbad Village Drive Chatham Road to Tamarack Avenue Both Sides
Carlsbad Village Drive Harding Street to Pio Pico Drive Both Sides
Carlsbad Boulevard N. City Limits to S. City Limits Both Sides
Chestnut Avenue Pio Pico Drive to Monroe Street Both Sides
College Boulevard El Camino Real to Palomar Airport Road Both Sides
Dove Lane El Camino Real to Plaza Paseo Real Entrance Both Sides
El Camino Real N. City Limits to S. City Limits Both Sides
Faraday Avenue Orion Street to Westerly Terminus Both Sides
Grand Avenue Harding Street to Jefferson Street Both Sides
Harding Street Grand Avenue to Magnolia Avenue Both Sides
Jefferson Street N. City Limits to Marron Road Both Sides
Jefferson Street Las Flores Drive to Carlsbad Village Drive Both Sides
Kelly Drive El Camino Real to Park Drive Both Sides
La Costa Avenue Interstate 5 to El Camino Real Both Sides
La Costa Avenue »400' e/o El Camino Real to => 1,500' e/o EI Camino Real North Side
Elaine Blackburn
Citywide Bike Lane Inventory
March 23, 1993 Page: 2
La Costa Avenue
Marron Road
Melrose Drive
Monroe Street
Orion Way
(Note: Orion Way is a one-
way street with bike lane on
outside)
Orion Street
Palomar Airport Road
Palomar Airport Road
Palomar Airport Road
Paseo Del Norte
Poinsettia Lane
Pontiac Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Tamarack Avenue
Windrose Circle
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Jefferson Street
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Marron Road
Orion Street
Faraday Avenue
Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte
El Camino Real
Poinsettia Lane
Paseo Del Norte
Tamarack Avenue
Olivenhain Road
Olivenhain Road
Wilshire Street
Avenida Encinas
to Romeria Street Both Sides
to El Camino Real Both Sides
to Alga Road Both Sides
to Carlsbad Village Drive Both Sides
to Orion Street One Side
to Impala Drive Both Sides
to El Camino Real South Side
to «300' w/o Yarrow Drive North Side
to Loker Avenue (W) North Side
to Car Country Drive Both Sides
to Alga Road Both Sides
to Victoria Avenue Both Sides
to Camino De Los Coches East Side
to La Costa Avenue West Side
to Adams Street Both Sides
to Westerly Terminus Both Sides
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4425. For your convenience, attached
is a map with the respective streets highlighted in yellow.
TAMES W. GALE
Engineering Technician II
Traffic Operations Section
JWG:rz
Attachment
c: City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
DETAIL ^$AN QIEGO CO
Ol 10
•+-
-+-
•+
-+--+--+-
SEE MAP Z—- »*^*naiPm^ Aa 2661 O'iHOIUAdOO
ff> <i> <l> <l> ^ ^ IP|5 f j>
SEE MAP
,1 -.J,..- »
o
o o
<
H
LLI
Q
SEE MAP
SEE-MAP
MAP
'BIKE LANES
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1992
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER WOODS
FROM: Assistant Engineer Shirey
NOISE MODEL - LANE CONFIGURATION INFORMATiON
Pursuant to your request, attached is a list of all Circulation Element streets
indicating the existing lane configurations.
If you have any questions, please contact me in person or call me at
extension 4388.
Attachment
c: City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
CIRCULATION ELEMENT STREETS
LANE CONFIGURATIONS
LOCATION NUMBER OF LANES
PRIME ARTERIALS
El Camino Real
Highway 78 to Chestnut Ave. 6
Chestnut Ave. to Cougar Dr. 4
Cougar Dr. to 0.5 mi. s/o Camino Vida Roble 5
0.5 mi. s/o Camino Vida Roble to 0.25 mi. n/o Dove Ln. 4
0.25 mi. n/o Dove Ln. to Alga Rd. 6
Alga Rd. to Levante St. 5
Levante St. to Olivenhain Rd. 4
Melrose Drive
Alga Rd. to Corintia St. 6
Corintia St. to Rancho Santa Fe Rd. 3
Olivenhain Road
El Camino Real to 0.25 mi. w/o Amargosa Dr. 2
0.25 mi. w/o Amargosa Dr. to Los Pinos Cir. 4
Los Pinos Cir. to 0.25 mi. w/o Rancho Santa Fe Rd. 3
0.25 mi. w/o Rancho Santa Fe Rd. to Rancho Santa Fe Rd. 4
Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad Blvd. to Interstate 5 NB Ramps 2
Interstate 5 NB Ramps to Paseo Del Norte 4
Paseo Del Norte to 0.25 mi. e/o Paseo Del Norte 5
0.25 mi. e/o Paseo Del Norte to Yarrow Dr. 6
Yarrow Dr. to El Camino Real 4
El Camino Real to 0.25 mi. e/o El Fuerte St. 3
0.25 mi. e/o El Fuerte St. to East City Limits 2
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Melrose Dr. to 0.25 mi. n/o Cadencia St. 3
0.25 mi. n/o Cadencia St. to La Costa Ave. 2
0.2 mi. n/o La Costa Ave. to La Costa Ave. (NB Trucks only) 1
La Costa Ave. to 0.5 mi. n/o Camino De Los Coches 5
0.5 mi. n/o Camino De Los Coches to Olivenhain Rd. 6
Olivenhain Rd. to South City Limits 2
LOCATION NUMBER OF LANES
MAJOR ARTERIALS
Alga Road
Poinsettia Ln.
Mimosa Dr.
El Camino Real
Cannon Road
Carlsbad Blvd.
El Arbol Dr.
Paseo Del Norte
Carlsbad Boulevard
North City Limits
State St.
Mountain View Dr.
Beech Ave.
Tierra Del Oro
Palomar Airport Rd.
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd.
La Costa Avenue
West City Umits
Poinsettia Lane
Carlsbad Blvd.
Paseo Del Norte
SECONDARY ARTERIALS
Avenida Encinas
Cannon Rd.
Palomar Airport Rd.
Poinsettia Ln.
Poinsettia Ln.
Alicante Road
Alga Rd.
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Mimosa Dr.
El Camino Real
Melrose Dr.
El Arbol Dr.
Paseo Del Norte
Car Country Dr.
State St.
Mountain View Dr.
Beech Ave.
Tierra Del Oro
Palomar Airport Rd.
La Costa Ave.
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Paseo Del Norte
Alga Road
Palomar Airport Rd.
0.5 mi. south
0.5 mi. north
Windrose Cir.
El Fuerte St.
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
2
3
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
LOCATION NUMBER OF LANES
SECONDARY ARTERIALS (cont.)
Camino De Los Coches
La Costa Ave.
Camino Vida Roble
Palomar Airport Rd.
Carlsbad Village Dr.
Ocean St.
Carlsbad Blvd.
Pontiac Dr.
Chatham Rd.
Tamarack Ave.
El Fuerte Street
Alicante Rd.
Faradav Avenue
College Blvd.
Kelly Drive
Park Dr.
La Costa Avenue
El Camino Real
Romeria St.
Rancho Santa Fe Rd.
Marron Road
Jefferson St.
0.25 mi. e/o El Camino Real
Monroe Street
Carlsbad Village Dr.
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Rancho Santa Fe Rd.
El Camino Real
Carlsbad Blvd.
Pontiac Dr.
Chatham Rd.
Tamarack Ave.
Glasgow Dr.
0.25 mi. n/o Alga Rd.
Orion St.
El Camino Real
Romeria St.
Rancho Santa Fe Rd.
Camino De Los Coches
0.25 mi. e/o El Camino Real
Avenida De Anita
Marron Rd.
2
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
2
LOCATION NUMBER OF LANES
SECONDARY ARTERIALS (cont.)
Paseo Del Norte
Cannon Rd.
Camino Del Parque
Tamarack Avenue
Skyline Rd.
to
to
to
Camino Del Parque
Poinsettia Ln.
Carlsbad Village Dr.
4
2
COLLECTOR STREETS
Faradav Avenue
College Blvd.
Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad Blvd.
Jefferson St.
Interstate 5 SB Ramps
Adams St.
to
to
to
to
to
0.25 mi. West
Jefferson St.
Interstate 5 SB Ramps
Adams St.
Skyline Rd.
2
3
4
2
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 15. 1993
John Bridges
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
6310 Greenwich Drive, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92122
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION, GENERAL PLAN EIR
Please consider this letter authorization to proceed with work on the environmental impact
report for the Carlsbad General Plan as outlined in your scope of services, dated March
11, 1993. Work should not exceed $5,000.00.
The contract will be fonwarded for your signature by the end of the week. Please contact
me at 438-1161, extension 4451, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
ALkm
QPEIRAut
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161
March 11, 1994
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: General Plan Update (EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
Dear Commissioners:
My mother, Dorothy Ebright, is the owner of 5855 Sunny Creek Road
(APN 209-040-15), where she has resided for the last 30 years. On
March 4, 1994, my mother received notice of the upcoming Planning
Commission meeting on the above item, which indicated her 9+ acres
might be affected by the proposed open space amendments. The
notice further explained that, "due to the small size of the
individual changes contemplated, it is not possible to provide
affected owners with maps at a scale which accurately reflect the
proposed changes."
As suggested in the notice, and at my mother's request, I reviewed
the map illustrating the proposed amendments which is on file at
the Community Development Department, to determine their impact, if
any, on her property. I was very surprised to learn that the map
appears to recommend expansion of the existing limits of the
(Constrained Lands) Open Space Designation in the Sunny Creek
corridor to include most, if not all, of her parcel. This proposal
appears to be based on overly broad and, I believe, erroneous
assumptions concerning the extent of flood plain and/or habitat
constraints affecting the site.
To find out why, I met with Terri Woods of the Planning Department
on March 8. Ms. Woods confirmed that the proposed open space
limits through our propert:y appear to be based on the 100 year
flood plain—this seemed to make sense, as the riparian corridor
through our property is limited to the immediate confines of the
creek and could not possibly account for the breadth of open space
supposed to exist on-site. Likewise, the only slope of consequence
on the property falls well to the southwest of the creek, and I am
unaware of any other constraints affecting our land.
What is confusing is that the supposed extent of the floodplain
through our property appears to be based upon the Conceptual Open
Space & Conservation Map (Figure 7) of the City's Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan. Yet that map is at odds
with the Zone 15 LFMP Constraints Map which, we believe, more
accurately shows the floodplain affecting far less of the site (the
Zone 15 map also agrees with all other constraint maps I've seen of
seen of our property to date).
We do not dispute that portions of the property are, indeed,
affected by floodplain and habitat constraints which might well
limit the development potential of the site. We also understand
that the general plan process is necessarily broad brush in its
approach and do not wish to unnecessarily impede the City's master
planning process. However, we are concerned that the road to a
complete taking of my mother's property could begin with one
••generalized" boundary on a map, imprecisely or incorrectly drawn,
as appears to be the case here.
Section 3a(i) on Page 10 of the March 16 staff report for this item
states that proposed map revisions pertaining to constrained lands
"do not depict precise boundaries." It further states that
boundaries "will be modified slightly in the future, as more
detailed infonnation becomes available" i.e., through the tentative
map process.
The primary purpose of this letter is to state, for the record,
that more than a slight modification to the open space map before
you this evening may be required to accurately reflect conditions
on my mother's property.
Secondly, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with staff to
revise the limits of the open space designation affecting our
property to reflect actual conditions prior to City Council
adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment. If that is not
possible, I would request confirmation that site-specific studies
will, indeed, be required before the actual boundaries of the
City's Open Space Zone are established in the area. I believe that
would give us a fair opportunity to confirm, to everyone's
satisfaction, what I have indicated here.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Should you
have any questions regarding the above, I would be happy to respond
to them at the meeting.
cc: Terri Woods, Planning Department
fax cover
DATE:
ATTENTION:
FAX:
03/15/94
MICHAEL HOLZMILL
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
619 438-0894
FROM:
PAGES:
Steve Erenyi
Union Pacific Realty Co.
2 (Including cover)
If you do not receive all pages please call.
(714) 455-0866.
Thank you.
T0d 9S:9T Ph. ST yUU
0T0i a3Id003~131 X0y3X:Ag
., UNION RAMRC - <1P REAITYCOMRANY M
Liri!On Faci'C Corpor.-jion
1 , F". Olson
Senior Vice Presuiflnt
via fax: (619) 438-0894
March 15,1994
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Attn: Ms. Peggy Savary
RE: Notice of Public Hearing
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
City of Carlsbad - General Flan Update
On behaif of Carlsbad Research CenterAJpland Industries, we wish to object to the
proposed General Plan Designation changes at the Carlsbad Research Center, from
PI, RS, C, TS, U, to PI. The development is a master planned development strictly
regulated by a specific plan, which allows these land uses. This change is not
necessary, it would be confusing to future users and it also seems to be designed
to allow the P.I.P. requirement to be imposed without good reason or due process.
We request your reconsideration on this matteir.
Sincerely,
Stephen I. Erenyi ll
Director, Real Estate Operations
cc: Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
via fax: (619) 438-0894
SIE/skw
skwlSsei,
tt:t7680SEl76T9
24422 Avt'ni'Jit tjc rfl Carlota
LaQL-na Hills, CA 92G.53
ri4 456 06'56
F-ax 7H 155 0620
NdiS:£ l76-ST-£
i2:9T t76< ST dbW
BYixER'JX TELECOPIER 7010 : 3-16-9<2 9:33PM ; 714 351 2314-* 61943808'
. MfiR 16 '94 09:30 BflKD ^^^851-2014 P. 2/6
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ALEXANDER BOWIE*
4920 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNLA 92660 ^j^g ^ ,^
JOANCARNESON TELEPHONE 8SI-130O
WILUAM j. KADI FAX (714) 851-2014
\»TODY H. WILES
PATRICIA B. GIANNONE sw. gw HU
ROBERT E.ANSLOW
ERJCR-DCSRJNG •Zfii'y
KENNETHS. LEVY •'"^'^
ARTOj.NuimNEN March 16 1994
JANETL-MUEOER ^^^^'^ ^^^^
KIMBERLY A. McMURSAV
• A MOnSSIONAi.COMOftA'nON
VTA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Planning Coimnission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
Honorable Members of the Commission:
This firm represents the Carlsbad Unified School District ("District"). We are
subminmg this letter in response to the proposed comprehensive General Plan Amendment
[GPA 94-01] (the "General Plan") for the City of Carlsbad ("City") and the related
Environmental Impact Repori [EIR 93-01] (the "EIR"), in that the significant adverse impacts
on the school facilities of the District will not be mitigated. The General Plan states that one
of ils Goals is "A City which ensures the timely provision of adequale public facilities and
services lo preserve the quality of life of residents" (p. 38, Growth Managemem and PulfUc
Faciiiiies, A. Goals A.l), Absent the designation of specific mitigation measures to fimd the
significant number of new school facilities which will be required by future development in
the City, that goal cannot be met, and residents of the City will face a future of overcrowded
school facilities. In this regard the Dislrict would respectfully request that the Local
Facilities Management Plan ("LFMP") amendment approved by the City Council on
December 14, 1993 relative to Zone 20, which the Coinmission and the City Council has
approved as a condition of new development within the City, be mcorporated as part of the
General Plan.
A. Tmp^^.^ of Fiinire Development on the District.
Implementation of the General Plan, specifically with regard to the General Plan's
provision allowing for development of affordable housing units at densities higher than that
which would otherwise be allowed by an underlying land use designation, will poientially
generate a more new smdents than the District is presently able to house. The General Plan's
mm/mm/im
RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7013 ; 3-16-94 9:33PM ; 714 351 2014^ 6194380894;
. MfiR 16 '94 09:30 BflKD |j|851-2014 P. 3/6
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Commission
March 16, 1994
Page 2
section on Residential Implementing Policies and Action Programs (p. 42), ("Residential
Policy C.S") contemplates approving housing projects for affordable housing within the City
through the processing of sile developmenl plans to increase densities "above the maximum
residential densities permitted by the General Plan...either above the Growth Management
Conlrol Point or upper end of the residential density range(s)", which the General Plan
currenlly places at 19,0 dwelling units per acre. The Districi has analyzed the student
generation rate for an affordable housing project to generate approximately twice the number
of students lhan would be generated from a "standard" housing project (i.e. between 0.6 to
0.9 smdents per affordable housing dwelling unit, by comparison to 0.46 smdents per
conventional residential dwelling unit. Source: Rechl. Hausrath and Associates). Therefore,
absent appropriate mitigation conditions addressing the potential for increased school facilities
demands from the implementation of the General Plan, the District's school facilities needs
wili be unmitigated.
B. .Schnnl Facilities Impact Mitigation Provided in RIR.
The EIR assumes that density increases above the maximum Growth Management
Control Points will not result in unmitigated land use impacts. However, there is no
evidence that affordable housing dwelling units will be limiied oniy to those which are on
deposit with the City's "excess unit bank" (i.e. the number of units representing development
approvals within the City at densities lower than that which is permitted by the General Plan).
IThe designation of affordable housing dwelling units in the excess unit bank has been put
forth as a justification ihat no land use impacls will occur from the General Plan, since the
number of dwelling units wilhin the excess unil bank for the City is purportedly sufficient to
allow the City to meet iis affordable housing obligalions without exceeding the General Plan
residential buildout projections (see Responses to Carlsbad Unified School District Review of
Cily of Carlsbad Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report). However,
Residential Policy C.S, which the General Plan suggests as being the criteria for determining
approvals of affordable housing in excess of Growth Management Control Points, contains no
requirement that such units first be prioritized from the City's excess unit bank. Moreover,
the EIR goes on to suggest that the faciiities identified in the District's 1989 School Location
Plan will be adequate to accommodate new studenis. However, the 1989 School Location
Plan, as pointed out by the District to the City during lhe public review period of the draft
EIR, did not take into accouni the City's currenl inclusionary requirement for affordable
housing (letter dated November 2, 1993 from John Blair to Adrienne Landers). Moreover,
the EIR's conclusions regarding land use impacts from affordable housing incorrectly
RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-16-94 9:34PM ; 714 851 2014-* 61943S0894;tt 4
, MflR 16 '94 09:31 BPKD lfife851-2014 P.4./6
Bowm, ABNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Commission
March 16, 1994
Page 3
presumes that alfordable housing is characterized by lower, rather than greater, student
generation rates than that characteristic of similar types of housing for the general population.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the conclusion that the impact on the school facilities of fhe
District will be mitigated to a level of insignificance is wholly unsupported by the proposed
mitigation measures for the following reasons:
1. In;lClequacy of General Plan Policies Relating 10 School Facilities.
The 'Mitigation Monitoring Checklist" acknowledges that the school districts serving
che City must acquire ftinding to obtain additional personnel and construct the planned
facilities to accommodate growth in the City's smdent population (Table 1, Mitigation
Monitoring Checklist, page 62, "Education"), and discusses mitigation of incremental
population growth as follows;
"Require compliance with the following public facility performance standards,
adopted September 23, 1986, to ensure that adequate public facilities are
provided prior to or concurrent with development:
Schools
"School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the zone as
determined by the appropriale school district must be provided prior to
projected occupancy." (Land Use Element, Growth Management and
Public Facilities, C.2.) "
This policy, however, does not provide for funding of schools facilities to meet the
needs of new development.
2. Inadequacy of Statiitorv School Fees to Fund New School Facilities.
The District is currently authorized to levy school facilities fees ("Fees"), pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 53080, in the amount of $1.72 per square foot. Based on an
average 1800 square foot DU, the District will collect $3,096 per DU, which is merely 47%
of the District's currently estimated school facilities cosl per DU of $6,616. It can be clearly
seen that the Fees will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately house
the students generated by population growth within the City.
SAKKifi/JiBiMlJ/lOfiTi
R:CU BY: XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-16-94 9:35PM ; 714 851 2014-* 6194380894; tt
. ,MfiR 16 '94 09:32 BfiKD •3^851-2014 P. 5/6
BOWIE, ABNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Commission
March 16, 1994
Page 4
S. State Funding Can Not Re Assured for New School Facilities
In the past, the State has provided supplemental funding to Fees. However, the state-
wide need for school facilities far exceeds the ability of the State to fund such needs. It is
currently estimated that there is a backlog of four billion dollars in unfunded school facilities
needs state-wide. Accordingly, the State is not a reliable source of altemate funding for the
school facilities needs of the District. With respect to general obligation bond measures,
Proposition 170, which was on the ballot in November of 199S, would have lowered the vote
required to pass a school district general obligalion bond measure from two-thirds to a simple
majority. However, Proposition 170 failed, and a two-thirds majority is still required in
order to pass a general obligalion bond measure within the District. Therefore, the Dislrict
cannot rely on the passage of a general obligation bond measure to make-up the shortfall in
school facilities needs resulting from this Project and other projecis within the District.
The EIR fails to address the issue that there is no identifiable source to make up the
enormous shortfall in school facilities ftmding caused by new development. Therefore, the
EIR fails to satisfy the requirement under the Califomia Environmental Qualily Act that
sigmficant impacts from a project be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Public Resources
Code Sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21081; Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section
15092). Accordingly, the City cannot approve its General Plan and certify the EIR absent
the provision of additional school mitigation measures which specifically provide for funding
to make up the identified shortfall.
C. Amendments General Plan Propo.sed bv District.
An LFMP amendment was approved by the City Council on December 14, 1993
relative to Zones 9 and 20, which has been applied by the City Council relative to new
developmenl within the City. The Districi would request that the following language from
the LFMP amendment be included in addition to the mitigation language set forth in the
General Plan:
"Prior to the approval of any final map or the issuance of any permits, the
applicant for the final map or permit shall submit evidence to the City that
impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City's
Growth Management Plan to the extent pennitted by appiicable state law for
legislative acts. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-
lUKHig/AfiAJN/10555
BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-16-94 9:36PM ; 714 851 2014^ 6194380894;tt 6
.MAR 16 '94 09:33 BPKD 11^1651-2014 ^> P. 6/6
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Commission
March 16, 1994
Page 5
Roos Community Fadlities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growth
Management Plan including City Council Policy No, 38, the developer shall
submit disclosure documents for approval by the City Manager and the City
Attorney which shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum
extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing
agency responsible for the Hnancing district."
D. Ci2ncltf$ion.
Based on the current language in the General Plan and EIR relating to schools, the
City's stated goal of adequate school facilities and funding cannot be achieved, and studenis
residing within the City will be forced to attend overcrowded schools. Accordingly, we
request that the City adopt the changes to the Policies and mitigation measures recommended
by the District in order that all smdents in the City can be assured of a quality education
starting with adequate schools.
We would be pleased to provide the City wilh any additional infonnation it may
require.
Very truly yotu-s,
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADL
WILES & GIANNONE
cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Mr. Ray Patchett
Mr. Ron Ball
Dr. George Mannon
Mr. John Blair
Mr. Alexander Bowie
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 2, 1994
Dennis Tumer
Plaiming Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carisbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 94-01)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 93-01)
Thank you for the comments you offered to the City during the public reviev\^ period of the
Environmental Impact Report on the update of the General Plan. Attached to this letter, you will
find a copy of the letter you submitted to our department and corresponding responses to your
comments.
Your letter and. accompanying responses will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Report which will be further discussed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. You are invited to further participate in the Update process by attending these meetings.
The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 1994; the City Council
meeting has not yet been scheduled. I would like to suggest that you contact me at (619) 438-
1161, extension 4451 later in February to confirm the Planning Commission date.
Thank you again for participating in the Update of the General Plan. Public input is very
important to the City and your comments are considered very valuable.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Senior Planner
Attachment
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619)438-1161
November 2, 1993
TO: SENIOR PLANNER (LANDERS)
FROM: Principal Planner (Tumer)
GENERAL PLAN E.I.R. - IMPACTS TO SCHOOLS
I'I A I ' h^ve reviewed the Draft E.I.R. for the General Plan and I believe that an error has been
made in the doctiment's discussion about the impact of the revised General Plan on the
school districts which serve the City.
In Section S.12.7.3 (Environmental Impact) the draft states:
"Potential impacts to the school districts...will ultimately be deiermined by the type and total
number of residential development that occurs. While condominiums and town houses tend
to generate fewer school-aged children, higher densitv affordable housing will generate larger
numbers of school-aged children. The planned schools arc projected to fully accommodate
the number of students at buildout." (Emphasis added.)
I believe that the underlined portion of Section 5.12.7.3 is not a factual statement for the
following reasons. I have been reviewing household size data ftom the 1990 U.S. Census
of Population and Housing for some work unrelated to the General Plan update. This work
caused me to review household sizes for the public at-large in comparison to household
sizes for "lower-income" households, as defined in the City's inclusionary hotising program
(i.e.: lower-income households - households whose gross household income docs not
exceed 80 percent of the county median income, as detemiined annuaUy by HUD).
The results of this investigation are shown in the attached Table 1: 1990 Household Sizes
(By Unit-Type, by IiKome)". From this table, several observations can be made:
1. The over-all household size (for all types of hotising) is greater for the population
at-large than the over-all household size of lower-income households. This is true
both for the Cailsbad/Encinitas area (the smallest area for which income
information of individual households can be reviewed) and the San Diego
metropolitan area.
2. When looking at five types of housing (mobile homes, single-family detached, single-
family attached, multifamily 2-4 units/building, and multi-family S-or-more-
units/building), the average household size is greater for the population at-large
than for lower-income households for each type of housing, both locally and
regionally, with one exception. That is for MF 2-4 in the Carlsbad/Encinitas area,
where the household sizes are 2.2S and 2.3S persons/household for at-large and
lower-income households, respectively.
Response HA:
The discussion of impact to schools in the Final EIR has been revised according lo this
comment. The inforniation regarding student generation from affordable housing and
from similar housing types for the general population has been incorporated into the
Final EIR.
The difference between 2.25 and 2.35 persons per household is absolutely small, and
relatively insignificant. Further, most of the affordable housing which will be produced in
Carlsbad will be in multi-family units of 5 or more per building. Therefore, it should be
concluded that a) in aggregate, lower-income affordable housing docs not generate greater
family sizes, per unit, than the population at-large, and b) for the range of live different
housing-types, lower-income households are not greater, per unit, in four types of housing
and not significantly greater, per unit, in one type of housing than for similar types of
housing for the population at-large.
In addition. Section 5.12.7.3 suggests that higher densitv affordable housing will generate
more children than other types of housing. Notvirithstanding the density or number of units
within a single development, the City's growth management program requires that the total
number of dwelling units in each of the City's four quadrants and, therefore, for the City-
as-a-whole carmot exceed certain numerical caps, which caps are part of both the existing
General Plan and proposed General Plan. These caps have been known to the school
districts since the cap's adoption in 1986, and have been the basis for school plaiming
during the intervening years.
Since some developments, approved since the caps were established, have not utilized the
maximum number of units which were authorized under the General Plan, these "excess"
units can and have been set aside for later use in the City's formalized "Excess Dwelling
Unit Batik". They can later be added to other sites (within the quadrant where they were
generated) as density bonuses for lower-income housing without exceeding the caps.
Since it is shown that the number of children per unit of lower-income housing is not
greater than for the population at-large, and, since the total number of units of housing
("affordable" or otherwise) cannot exceed the caps established under the City's growth
management plan, there is no rational basis for a statement which implies that lower-
income households in any way vrill generate more children for the school districts to serve
than households at-large.
I would recommend that the draft EIR be revised to reflect the above facts and a coticlusion
. based upon them.
DENNIS A. TURNER
Attachment: Table 1: 1990 Household Sizes
HSHLDSI2.XLS
Table 2:1990 Household Sizes (By Unit-Type, By Income, By No. of Beilrooms)
Caographic Typa ot Total Household Siia (Parsons/Household
ArM Unil Occ. D.U.I At Larga Lowar.Incoma*
(x tOOOl (ANGroupst AH Lowar 1 Bad 2 Bad 3 Bad 4 . Bed
MoMa 2.4 iTsa "iT38 1 00 1.38 1 81 1 35
Carlsbad/ SF Oatachad 30.4 2 89 2.31 202 1.94 2 09 2 48
Encinilai Sf Attachad 118 2 25 1 71 118 1 62 2 01 2 01
PUMA MF 2-4 3.9 2 25 2.35 2 44 2 45 2 03 2 10
MFSt 10.8 2 16 1 99 1,69 2.18 3 92 1 68
AN Unitl -|;53 _ 2 01_
Mobila 42 191 1 68 1 63 1 60 2 53 1 73
Emir* SF Oatachad 4S3 3.03 2 47 2 59 2 20 2 45 2 99
S O. MSA SF Attachad 80 2.63 2 56 2 42 2 29 2 78 3 69
MF 2-4 65 2 66 2 60 2 25 2 69 3 47 2 65
MFS» 237 2 24 2.15 1 76 2 59 374 1 71
AH Units -2 69 '2"30
Mmmm: U.S. CMWIM •! PO^UMMHI •nri Hnumnq. IttO (Ac ^oMdad by the S«n 0i*9a Attoeimuoti ol Covwnmaniii.
* 'L*«rM-lfMom* HMIMIMW ' M 4«tim4 thm •«fn« M in lh« Cily'e Inetuvionarv Houamg Ot^nmne: ThOM houeahutdi whoae gmmt
hauMhaM wmmmrn 4m—nt mmcmm4 WO pmicmni ml thm San Oi««o Couniy mtMrnn locom* Tha ISSO canwa labulaied ISSS tncomee.
ISSS, lha SOih paraanula af aaunty wadiaw wwama waa l2S,aS0 (foi a houaahoM of tour paiaonai.
STAFF PLANNER: ADRIENNE LANDERS
STAFF REPORT ^
DATE: MARCH 16, 1994 (J)
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - A request for
recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment to comprehensively
update the General Plan.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3630
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of the Environmental Impact Report 93-01 and
ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3631 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA
94-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
n. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad incorporated in 1952 and adopted its first General Plan in 1965. In 1975,
the General Plan was revised pursuant to new State requirements and several optional elements
were added to address other City issues. Since its adoption, several General Plan elements have
been revised and amended. In 1985, the Circulation, Housing, and Land Use Elements were
updated and the Arts and Historic Preservation Elements were added. Recent changes include
revisions to the Parks and Recreation, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements.
These elements were adopted by the City Council in 1991 and became part of the Draft General
Plan which was presented to the public for review and input as part of the comprehensive
General Plan Update process. The City elected to update the entire General Plan to address the
changing conditions, circumstances, and policies within the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego
region. The updated General Plan contains the most current technical information and is
consistent with all applicable State legislation.
In accordance with Govemment Code Section 65351, the City provided an extensive series of
opportunities for public participation in the General Plan Update. The firm of Moore, lacofano,
Goltsman, Inc. was retained to coordinate and facilitate the nine month program which included
a mix of techniques to reach all segments of the community. Activities consisted of interviews
with decision makers and chairmen of City commissions, a video, a 500 random phone call
survey, newsletters, two citywide mailers, two townhall meetings, four workshops, four forums,
youth activities, publicity campaign, and two summary reports. Approximately 1200 members
of the community participated in these activities. Numerous changes were made to the General
Plan as a result of public input received during the program. It is staffs opinion that the
®
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 2
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
consensus of those participants was general agreement with the policies and programs the City
has initiated. A calendar of public participation events is provided in Attachment 9.
m. GUIDE TO GENERAL PLAN STAFF REPORT
The General Plan is a complex and lengthy document to review, particularly with regard to the
revisions that have been made. Due to the extensive revisions, a redline/strike out version of
the text could not be produced. As mentioned above, some of the elements-Housing, Parks and
Recreation, and Open Space and Conservation-were revised and adopted recently and therefore,
have only minor changes. Other elements-PubUc Safety and Circulation-were completely
rewritten. The Land Use Element has extensive revisions and additions and a redline/strikeout
version is incorporated into the staff report as Attachment 6. Minor revisions to other elements
of the General Plan can be found in the Errata as Attachment 5. All elements of the General
Plan share some of the same common changes; other changes are specific just to a particular
element. Roughly, there are four major categories of change to the General Plan as follows:
1) New format/organization
2) Text changes
3) Revised maps
4) New policies/programs
Common to all elements,
Specific to each element
Specific to each element
Specific to each element-
Except
Housing
The matrix below provides a very brief overview of the changes that occurred in each element
of the General Plan. Some elements have only minor modifications while others have more
extensive revisions. The "X" indicates an area of revision; however, it does not represent the
extent of change.
ELEMENT New
Topics
Deleted
Topics
New
Map
and
Graphics
New
Programs
Major
Policy
Land Use X X X X X
Circulation X — X X —
Noise X — X X X
Housing — — — — —
Open Space and
Conservation
X — X X X
Parks (fe Recreation X — X X —
Public Safety X — X X —
Arts — — — X —
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 3
To facilitate review of the document, the revisions common to all elements will be discussed first
and then changes specific to each element will be reviewed, element by element. Also included
are topics which are pertinent to the General Plan as a whole such as intemal consistency among
elements, consistency with Califomia State Govemment Code and environmental analysis of the
General Plan. The above discussions can be found on the following pages of the staff report:
TOPIC PAGE
New Format/Organization 3
Land Use 5
Circulation 14
Noise 15
Housing 20
Open Space & Conservation 20
Parks & Recreation 25
Public Safety 25
Arts 26
Local Coastal Plan 27
Implementing Policies and Programs 27
Environmental Analysis 27
Note: Discussion of the General Plan at the Planning Commission hearing will follow
the order of the elements as listed above.
IV. NEW FORMAT/ORGANIZATION COMMON TO ALL ELEMENTS
A. Format - Over the years the General Plan was amended at various times without benefit
of a standard format. When the City decided to do a comprehensive update of the
General Plan, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission was estabUshed to reformat
the existing Plan with a standard outline as follows: 1) Text, 2) Goals, 3) Objectives, and
4) Implementing Policies and Action Programs. Another important task requested of the
subcommittee was to produce a document that was easy for the ordinary citizen to
understand. When completed, this document was then used as the draft General Plan
which was circulated for public review and subsequently used as the basis for the current
document-the Draft Updated General Plan.
The Updated General Plan is now a "user-friendly" document with a consistent format
followed throughout all elements except the Housing Element. This particular element
is required to comply with special State guidelines and is, therefore, somewhat different.
All other elements adhere to the same basic outline mentioned earlier, followed by a new
glossary section at the end of each element to define the more technical terms that were
necessary in the text.
B. Vision and Introduction - This is a new section added at the beginning of the General
Plan. The Vision is a series of ten statements which serve as a foundation for
development of the General Plan and are goals for decision makers, staff, residents, and
businessmen to keep in mind when developing policy programs. The General Plan is
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 4
founded upon this vision. The Introduction is a guide to using the General Plan
explaining its organization, goals, objectives, and implementing programs. A new matrix
has been included to assist the reader in locating all of the information about a given
subject when that subject is addressed in more than one place.
C. Reduction in Number of Elements - Another important change to the overall format of
the General Plan was the reduction in the number of elements. State law requires the
General Plan to address issues influencing land use decisions, circulation, housing,
conservation of natural resources, preservation of open space, the noise environment, and
the protection of public safety. These issues are addressed in the seven mandatory
General Plan elements required by State law (Califomia Govemment Code, Section
65300 et. seq.). Carlsbad has always combined two of these elements as one element,
Open Space anci Conservation. Optional elements were prepared to address other
important issues.
Mandatory Elements Optional Elements
Land Use Parks and Recreation
Circulation Historic Preservation
Open Space and Conservation Scenic Roadways
Noise Arts
Safety Public Facilities
Housing
In an effort to reduce the number and complexity of elements within the General Plan,
the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of some elements have been retained, but
have been incorporated into other elements of the Updated General Plan as follows:
Historic Preservation > Open Space & Conservation
Scenic Roadways > Circulation
Public Facilities > Land Use
D. Introduction to Each Element - The Introduction of each element has been revised to
expand and clarify the intent of the element as well as to better reflect State law
requirements.
E. Editorial Changes - In many cases, the wording of a number of the existing goals,
objectives, and action programs were changed sUghtly or consolidated. Staff does not
believe that any of these minor wording changes have an impact on the overall intent of
any of the proposed elements.
V. TOPICS SPECIFIC TO EACH ELEMENT
A discussion of the specific changes to each element of the General Plan is presented below.
Each discussion follows the same basic outline with some modifications due to the particular
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 5
nature of each element. Following an introductory paragraph, subjects are generally presented
in the following manner:
A. Primary Changes to Element
1. New Topics
2. Deleted Topics
3. New Maps/Graphics
4. Specific Additions - New Goals, Objectives, Programs
5. MisceUaneous Changes
B. Major Policy Emphasis
C. Consistency with State Law
D. Other
The section called Specific Additions is basically a reference to an attachment to the staff report
which Usts separately all the new goals, objectives, and implementing policies and action
programs which have been proposed for each element. The section entitled Major Policy
Emphasis is provided to present to the reader the most important policy changes which have
been proposed in the revised element.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The last revisions to the Land Use Element occurred in 1985 when the element was updated to
incorporate the Growth Management Plan and to reflect recommendations of an appointed
Citizens' Committee. The present element has been extensively revised to address numerous
new topics as discussed below; however, the major changes <x:cur with regard to commercial
and residential land uses. Commercial designations have been redefined and in some cases
consolidated. New policies have been added addressing compatibility between commercial and
residential land uses, the provision of commercial uses in master planned and industiial areas,
and the provision of programs to create a stronger economic focus in the City. Policies have
been added regarding the need to have a full range of residential densities and the necessity of
achieving minimum permitted densities. One of the major changes to this element is the
consolidation and integration of the Public Facilities Element into the Land Use Element.
A. Primary Changes to the Land Use Element
1. New Topics
a. Development Code. Several new sections were added to briefly address
sections of the Municipal Code which directiy relate to implementation of
the General Plan. These include: the Zoning Ordinance (Titie 21); tiie
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Titie 19); the Subdivision Ordinance
(Titie 20); and tiie Uniform Building Code (Title 18).
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 6
City Form and Function. The section was updated to emphasize the fact
that the City is developing as a balanced community witii four separate
quadrants based arounci a central industrial corridor.
Growth Management Plan. This section was added as a means of
integrating the Public Facilities Element into the Land Use Element,
thereby eliminating a one page element. The policies and programs of the
Growth Management Program are briefly explained to estabUsh a link
between land use planning and the actual provision of public facilities
concurrent with need. New goals, objectives, and implementing policies
and action programs were also added to address public facilities.
Residential Densities. Discussion was added regarding the need to have
a flill range of residential densities as well as the need to achieve the
minimum density within a range to accomplish the goal of providing a
variety of housing types, styles and price levels. A discussion of this
change can be found on page 11, Major Policy Emphasis.
Commercial. This section was completely rewritten to more accurately
reflect and describe the commercial land uses which have developed in the
City as well as to provide guidelines for the location and development of
future commercial land uses in the City. The definitions of commercial
designations have been extensively revised and a number of commercial
designations have been consolidated. These proposed revisions are based
on data developed by the Urban Land Institute and are intended to address
the evolution that has occurred over recent years with regard to
commercial development. The definitions have been revised to be less
restrictive and more flexible to allow for a broader range of commercial
activity to occur on a site. New types of anchor tenants (big box users,
factory outiet centers, warehouse clubs and specialty centers) are also
addressed.
Some existing General Plan designations for commercial land uses
function well; others are confusing and do not address commercial
development as it has occurred in tiie City. For example, Intensive
Regional Commercial is a designation set aside for planned shopping
centers which works well. Extensive Regional and Regional Service
designations do not function as well. Extensive Regional is set aside for
fumiture, boats, farm machinery, and automobiles; Regional Service is set
aside for service contractors, appliance repair, or dry cleaning plants.
Commercial development in the City, with regard to Extensive Regional
and Regional Service, has not occurred in these specific land use nodes
but instead has integrated in with other commercial uses. To address this
fact, the updated Land Use Element proposes a reduced number of
designations. This proposal consoUdates all the regional categories with
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 7
similar large trade areas, such as Intensive Regional (RRI), Extensive
Regional (RRE) and Regional Service (RS), into just one designation of
Regional Commercial. Travel Service Commercial and Recreation
Commercial were combined into Travel/Recreation Commercial because
both designations basically address the travel or recreation needs of
tourists, tiavelers, or residents. The section previously caUed Central
Business District Commercial was renamed ViUage to reflect the term
more commonly used by residents. It also recognizes the fact that the
VUlage is no longer the only business district but one of several
throughout the City.
All commercial sites in the city have been reviewed and staff has
determined that neither the new definitions nor the consolidations wiU
negatively impact adjacent properties. Property boundaries will not be
affected by the change in General Plan designations. Land uses allowed
under the zoning ordinance for these properties will not be significantiy
altered.
Staff has proposed two new programs which address commercial land use
designations. A discussion of this issue can be found on page 12, Major
Policy Emphasis.
f. Neighborhood Commercial. New programs and policies have been added
to increase the compatibility between neighborhood commercial
development and residential development. Master plans and specific plans
will now be required to include a neighborhood commercial site or
demonstrate that a nearby commercial site is adequate to meet the daily
needs of residents.
g. Industrial Commercial. Policies were also added to require industrial sites
to provide sites to meet the commercial needs of employees of the
business parks. A new program was added to allow, by conditional use
permit, ancillary commercial uses when clearly oriented to support
industrial developments and their populations. The intent of these policies
is to meet the daily commercial needs of the large number of employees
that populate the business parks and also to provide opportunities for
economic enhancement of the industrial areas. The conditional use permit
process wiU allow the City to review the proposed project and require any
conditions necessary to ensure compatibUity.
h. Unplanned Areas (UA). This section was previously called Non-
Residential Reserve (NRR) and renamed Unplanned Areas. The new
designation has been expanded to include unplanned residential areas.
This is a clearer, more understandable term which simply states that areas
with this classification do not have formalized plans for development and
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 8
as such are not yet ready to receive a general plan designation.
Agriculture and other interim land uses are encouraged in these areas until
their ultimate land use designations can be definitely established. Master
plan properties under the Planned Community zone may also utilize the
designation of UA to reserve land for future planning, however, such
areas will require amendment to the master plan as well as all other
actions necessary to redesignate the land.
i. Coastal Zone Programs. This section explains the Local Coastal
Programs and their connection with the General Plan.
h. McClellan-Palomar Airport. This topic was previously discussed in
several elements and difficult to locate. The airport is now formally
addressed in Land Use, along with Goals, Objectives, and Implementing
Policies and Programs.
j. Agriculture. Although the previous General Plan addressed tiiis topic the
proposed Land Use Element has briefly expanded this section to discuss
the City's policy of supporting agricultural activities while planning for
possible future transition of the land to more urban uses consistent with
the policies of the General Plan and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
k. Regional Issues. This section recognizes the fact that, as separate entities,
cities within San Diego County cannot solve region-wide issues; however,
together they can develop a strategy to provide an improved quality of
life. Carlsbad's role as a participant in this effort is acknowledged.
1. Areas Needing Additional Planning. This section addresses areas that
have unresolved land use considerations which should be addressed prior
to the (xjcurrence of a significant amount of further development. The
City has planned for these areas on a General Plan level but due to their
unique characteristics, they will require a more specific level of planning
review to ensure that such characteristics are addressed comprehensively.
Three areas of the City are identified at the present time while others may
be added in the future. The three areas include the Barrio, the Buena
Vista Creek Watershed, and the South Coast Commuter Corridor.
m. Social/Service Needs. A new program has been added to require new
master planned areas and residential specific plans to provide usable acres
to be designated for community facilities such as daycare, worship, youth
and senior citizen activities. It is important for large residential
developments to provide locations to meet the daily needs of their
residents. The new program creates an opportunity early in the planning
process to integrate these sites into the overall project design and achieve
neighborhood compatibility at the same time.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 9
Barrio. Policies were added to preserve and support the ethnic heritage
of the Barrio to set the foundation for future policies and programs which
may be proposed as a foUowup to the ongoing Community Design and
Land Use Plan for the Barrio. When this document is complete, goals,
objectives, and programs which are relevant at the General Plan level wiU
be integrated into the General Plan through the amendment process.
Economic Development. Existing goals, objectives, and programs were
strengthened to create a stronger focus on economic development.
Deleted Topics
The Plan. This section included a narrative addressing the 16 Year
Horizon—1990, Saturation Plan, City Form, and Growth Monitoring.
These topics are now discussed in the Introduction to the General Plan, as
well as in the beginning of the Land Use Element. They contain updated
information reflecting current city policies and programs related to growth
and population.
Urban Land Reserve Program. This section addressed a concept which
allowed property owners the opportunity to "land bank" their holdings
with the support of the city. Property owners would propose a Master
Plan and apply the Williamson Act which would theoretically enable the
property owner to request a property tax reduction by assessing land at its
project value with respect to time. "This concept may have been applicable
when most of the city was still undeveloped and there was concem over
"leapfrog" development and the subsequent lack of adequate public
facilities. Presentiy, however, the City's Growth Management Program
ensures that development can occur only after, or concurrentiy with, the
provision of public facilities. The designation of Unplanned Areas is stiU
available for those areas which are not yet ready to be designated; the
Williamson Act is stiU available to property owners wishing to pursue
possible tax reductions on their property.
Community Parks, Special Resource Areas, Special Use Facilities. These
discussions are now addressed more completely in the Parks and
Recreation Element and are deleted here to eliminate redundancy.
Non-Residential Reserve and Urban Reserve. These were two sections
that again addressed managing growth and preventing urban sprawl,
similar to the Urban Land Reserve Program (b. above). These issues are
now addressed in the Growth Management section as weU as in the new
designation of Unplanned Areas which identifies those lands tiiat are not
yet ready to be formally planned through a more specific land use
designation.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 10
e. Special Treatment Areas. This section identified areas that, because of
existing conditions warranted special treatment when considering future
land uses. This special treatment includes the use of specific plans or site
development plans to ensure that comprehensive planning and appropriate
safeguards were included in development. These areas included the
downtown area, the Airport Influence area, the Carlsbad Raceway area,
the three Regional Park sites considered by the County, South Coast
Asphalt, the La Costa community core area, and the Agua Hedionda Land
Use area. However, the subject areas are already addressed by some type
of land use plan (master/specific plan, etc.) or provisions are existing to
ensure that additional discretionary review is provided. Therefore, this
section was deleted to eliminate redundancy.
3. New Maps/Graphics
Charts, maps, etc. have been revised throughout the Land Use Element to provide
more accurate and up-to-date information. New exhibits address issues related
to maximum future dwelling units by quadrant, guidelines for commercial centers,
school district boundaries, and Local Coastal Program boundaries. Additionally,
the Land Use Map has been revised as foUows:
a. Land Use Map. The Land Use Map is an integral part of the General
Plan and graphically portrays the legation of land uses and major
roadways. State law requires the map to be consistent with the text of the
General Plan. Therefore, the proposed map reflects the changes put
forward by the Updated General Plan. Generally, revisions to the map
have occurred in three major areas: commercial designations, open space
designations and "cleanup" changes. Changes to commercial designations
simply reflect the name changes discussed earlier; no changes have
occuned to boundaries. Attachment 11 has been provided which indicates
the location of all changes as well as the rationale for each change.
Revisions to the mapping of open space are more complex and fall into
three major categories:
i) Constrained lands have been mapped as open space and include
beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, slopes greater
than 40 percent, wetiands, riparian areas, and major powerUne
easements. Although these areas are presentiy mapped, they do
not depict precise boundaries. It is anticipated that boundaries will
be modified slightiy in the future as more updated information
becomes available through more detailed planning efforts, i.e.,
tentative maps.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - G^ERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 11
ii) Open space lands have been added that were previously/recentiy
approved as open space as part of a master plan, specific plan, or
dedicated on a final subdivision map.
iii) Minor adjustments to open space have been made to correct prior
mapping errors only and are merely a more precise depiction, at
10(X)-foot scale resolution, of approved open space. Staff has been
able to more precisely map the boundaries of open space lands on
the General Plan due to improved technology from the Geographic
Information System (GIS).
b. There have been numerous minor changes to the Land Use map which
have been proposed to correct mapping errors, inappropriate designations,
and more consistent assignment of some commercial designations. For
example, a developed site which has a current designation of community
commercial but which is too small to accommodate such development may
have been redesignated as neighborhood commercial. The proposeci
revisions are discussed on Attachment 10 and will be reviewed at the
public hearing. It should be noted, as shown on this attachment, that
some of the proposed redesignations wiU require further implementation
in the way of zone changes to establish consistency between the General
Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. A program has been included
in the Land Use Element to ensure that this occurs. Staff is prepared to
begin this effort as soon as the General Plan is adopted.
4. Specific Additions
Please refer to Attachment 4, page 1, for a listing of new Goals, Objectives, and
Implementing Policies and Programs which have been added to the Land Use
Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
As is reflected in the additions to the Updated Land Use Element, the major emphasis
in terms of new policy direction is as follows:
1. Minimum Density for Residential Development. New text and programs were
added to encourage proposed multi-family development to provide prcxiuct types
and sizes that will ensure that the minimum density within a range is provided.
In the past, the City has received development proposals, with a particular
product style and size, that could only be built at a density below the minimum
within a range (e.g., a proposed density of 7 du/ac in the RMH density range of
8.0-15 du/ac).
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 12
Staff is proposing this program to achieve consistency with the General Plan, to
protect multi-family housing legations, and to provide a variety of housing types.
Density in the City is regulated by the Land Use Element of tiie General Plan as
weU as by the Growth Management Plan. Both of these documents estabUsh
density based on ranges as follows:
ALLOWED DWELLING UNFFS PER ACRE
GENERAL PLAN
DENSITY RANGES
GROWTH MGMT
CONTROL POINT
RL 0 - 1.5 1.0
RLM 0 - 4.0 3.2
RM 4 - 8.0 6.0
RMH 8 - 15.0 11.5
RH 15 - 23.0 19.0
Per the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan, the density proposed for
a development project may not exceed the growtii contiol point. It is staffs
opinion, that just as the General Plan regulates the maximum density it also
regulates the minimum density within a range. To make a finding of consistency
with the General Plan, therefore, a proposed project must fall WITHIN the
applicable density range. This supports two important General Plan Visions of
"A City which offers ... residential areas with a wide range of housing types,
styles, and price levels in a variety of locations" as well as "A City which
provides a balanced variety of land uses for living ... opportunities". In staffs
opinion, if it is determined that development can occur below the minimum
density in a range, then a statement to that effect should be entered in the General
Plan text or a finding must be established to utilize on future projects when
determining consistency with the General Plan.
The General Plan also designates higher density land uses along transportation
corridors, and near employment centers and commercial areas with corresponding
implementing policies and programs to ensure this occurrence. This is a weU
recognized planning theory to reduce impacts (such as increased through-traffic)
on lower density residential neighborhoods. The proposed minimum density
program is also in keeping with this concept by protecting and reserving these
strategically designated sites for more appropriate multi-family housing. A by-
product of this concept is that when a variety of multi-family housing is provided
at these locations, that often the housing provided is more affordable. This is
also in keeping with the above-mentioned General Plan Vision to provide housing
in a wide range of price levels.
Commercial Designations. Two new programs have been added to the Land Use
Element which require commercially-designated land to be reviewed every two
years to determine the feasibUity and appropriateness of the commercial
designation. These programs have been proposed to "fine-tune" policies which
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 13
have existed in both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for some time.
More important, however, is the fact that these programs implement the General
Plan goal of "A City that achieves a healthy and diverse economic base by
creating a climate for economic growth and stability to attract quality commercial
development to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs
of Carlsbad residents".
As mentioned, the proposed programs simply fine-tune existing policies. The
existing General Plan Land Use Element states "Excessive undeveloped
commercial zoning should be regularly reviewed and evaluated for its ability to
serve the community". This policy has been incorporated in the updated General
Plan as weU (please refer to Commercial, C.l.f). The Zxmmg Ordinance
maintains consistency with this policy in Section 21.52.150 as follows:
21.52.150 Review of zone changes.
Zone changes, other than those initiated by the city, shall
be reviewed by the Planning Commission one year after
reclassification has been granted. In those cases where the
new zoning has not been utilized within the one-year
period, the Planning Commission shall consider whether
the property should revert back to its original zone, remain
as currentiy zoned, or be changed to a more appropriate
zone. The Planning Commission may grant one extension
not to exceed one year. (Ord. 9337 § 5, 1973)
The intent of these policies is to ensure that commercial zone changes which may
be speculative, may be revoked. Commercial land which is not developed in a
reasonable time period, may then be reviewed and redesignated at a future time.
The proposed program simply implements these policies and focuses attention on
commercial development to notify property owners that this is an item the City
intends to address in the future, although it has not done so in the past.
In keeping with the General Plan goal of attracting, promoting, and achieving a
healthy economic base for the community, the City has developed an economic
strategy to encourage the attraction of revenue-producing businesses. The
proposed programs support this effort because they reduce the possibUity of the
City losing a promising revenue generator if a potential commercial developer
wants to locate in the community but is refused due to the location of another
nearby, undeveloped commercial site.
The proposed program is also more equitable for property owners by allowing all
appropriate sites to develop according to the same regulations on a first-come,
first-served basis. Property owners are not penalized because another nearby,
commercially-designated property is not ready to develop and may not be ready
to develop for many years. This also allows the market analysis required for
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 14
each site to evaluate each site on its own merits rather than the speculative
appraisal of a nearby, undeveloped commercial site.
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent, and Specific Requirements of Section 65302(a) of
the Califomia State Govemment Code.
Consistent with Section 65302(a) of the State Govemment Code, the intent of tiiis
element is to designate the proposed general distribution and general legation and extent
of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture,
natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public
buildings, and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facUities, and other categories of
public and private uses of land. The Land Use Element must include a statement of the
standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various
districts and other territory covered by the plan. The Land Use Element must also
identify areas which are subject to flooding and, if appropriate, those areas that are
available for timberland production.
The text, charts, and graphs found in the Land Use Element identify residential densities
and building intensities permitted throughout the City. Also designated are the general
distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land. The text reflects both
the anticipated level of land development and the road system necessary to serve that
level of development. The Land Use Map identifies constrained areas which are not
appropriate for development.
The draft updated Land Use Element contains clear goals, objectives, and policies.
Consistent with Govemment Code Section 65300.5, the Land Use Element provides
implementation measures that have been tailored to operate effectively in the City.
Specific implementing policies have been formulated to correlate and integrate with the
policies and programs found in other elements of the General Plan.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Circulation Element has been extensively revised to reflect new ltx;al policies as well as
state and federal regulations. At a City level, a link was created with the Growth Management
Program and the Capital Improvement Program by adding new language, policies, and programs
to ensure timely completion of Circulation Element facilities. Also added to the element, were
new and revised policies and programs to reference goals of Congestion Management and Traffic
Demand Management planning efforts aimed at improving air quality and reducing traffic
congestion at both a local and regional level. To be consistent with State law regarding
circulation elements, a new section has been added to the revised Circulation Element to provide
a comprehensive plan for the circulation of water, sewage, storm waters, etc. as weU as
automobiles. Lastly, in the prior version of the General Plan, the City maintained a separate
Scenic Roadways Element to accomplish the task of preserving and enhancing the scenic quality
of the City along major roadways. This element has now been integrated into the Circulation
Element.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 15
A. Primary Changes to the Circulation Element
1. New Circulation Topics - New topics include sections for Scenic Roadways and
Regional Circulation Considerations. The Scenic Roadways section was
previously a separate element. The Regional Circulation Considerations section
addresses regional goals such as Congestion Management and Traffic Demand
Management.
2. Maps/Graphics - Existing graphics have been replaced with updated graphics for
the City's Circulation Plan Map and Bicycle Routes Map. New graphics have
been added to show High Pressure Gas and Petroleum Mains.
3. Specific Additions - Please refer to Attachment 4, page 10, for a listing of new
goals, objectives, and implementing policies and programs which have been added
to the Circulation Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
No major policy changes have been proposed in the Circulation Element.
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent, and Specific Requirements of Section 65302 of the
Califomia State Govemment Code
Consistent with Section 65302 of the State Govemment Code, the intent of this Element
is to provide an infrastmcture plan which concems itself with the circulation of people,
gocxls, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. The revised
Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses each of these issues as well as
concems of a regional nature.
NOISE ELEMENT
The Noise Element was last updated in 1975; however, since March 1990, City staff has been
implementing Administrative Policy 17 which established noise standards for residential
development and required the preparation of noise studies for projects. The format and content
of the Noise Element has been revised to reflect current conditions and to update technical
information. The updated Element includes revised noise contour maps; requirements for the
preparation of noise studies; new noise mitigation policies; noise standards; and, policies
addressing implementation of a Noise Guidelines Manual.
A. Primary Changes to the Noise Element
1. New Topics
A Sources of Noise section has been added to the element. This section discusses
the primary sources of noise (roads, airport, rail, land uses and miscellaneous
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 16
mobile sources) impacting Carlsbad citizens and includes a description of the
components that make up these noise sources.
2. Deleted Topics
This Element has been completely reformatted, consequentiy, old topics have
been consolidated into all new topics.
3. New Maps/Graphics
Existing graphics have been replaced with updated graphics which include noise
contour maps for the years 1990 and 2010. Specifics regarding the noise
mapping are discussed in this section.
4. Specific Additions
A number of additions were made to the Noise Element to address
recommendations of the special Planning Commission Subcommittee (discussed
below) as well as input from the City's noise consultant. Please refer to
Attachment 4, page 17, for a listing of new goals, objectives, and implementing
policies and programs which have been added to the Noise Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
1. Residential Noise Standard
The updated Noise Element that was circulated for public review included a
policy that maximum noise levels of no greater than 60 dBA CNEL must be
maintained in all residential areas except those impacted by noise from
transportation corridors such as freeway, prime arterials, and the railroad. In
those impacted areas, a noise level of no greater than 65 dBA CNEL was
proposed. The importance of mitigating noise along these corridors is recognized
by staff. There is also concem, however, regarding the Ukely mitigation measure
which may often be necessary. This includes over-height sound walls, often in
excess of 12 feet in height which could create adverse visual impacts.
In response to pubUc input received during the MEIR review, staff has
reconsidered its position and now supports the noise level of 60 dBA CNEL for
^ residential areas. To address the potential adverse visual impacts of very high
walls, staff is recommending that the following policies be added to the Noise
Element.
Strongly discourage the exclusive use of noise walls as mitigation for
noise along circulation element roadways.
• Utilize natural barriers such as site topography or constructed earthen
berms to mitigate noise on a project. When noise walls are determined
to be the only feasible solution to noise mitigation, then the walls shall be
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 17
designed to limit aesthetic impacts. When over-height walls are necessary
to mitigate noise, a berm/wall combination with heavy landscaping, a
heavily landscaped, terraced wall, or other similar innovative wall design
techniques shall be used to minimize visual impacts.
2. Sensitive Site Design on Development Proposals
The updated element includes several new policies which emphasize the
importance of sensitive site design to attenuate noise impacts. The intent of these
policies is to reduce the effects of noise mitigation on residents, visitors, and
employees of the project site as well as neighboring areas. To reduce the
potential impacts of noise mitigation, new policies stiess the use of natural
barriers, such as site topography, earthen berms, or building orientation rather
than the exclusive use of noise walls.
3. City Funded Noise Mitigation
Many older subdivisions in the City were built to standards that were less
stringent than the current standard. As such, some residential projects may
ultimately be impacted by noise levels above the City's current standard. As
these projects were built to the standard in effect at tiie time of development, staff
has recommended through a new policy that the City not participate in the
financing of noise mitigation for existing projects or for projects with entitiements
but which have not been built. The City will however, continue to require noise
mitigation on new projects. Noise mitigation measures must continue to comply
with City standards regarding height, setbacks, sight distance, view blockage, etc.
The City will assist residents with the prcxiessing of necessary permits for
mitigating noise on private property. These permits may include right-of-way
encroachment permits, retaining wall permits, and variance permits for over-
height walls. The City will also assist property owners in the establishment of
assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with
established City policies and procedures.
4. Comprehensive Noise Ordinance
The existing Noise Element directed staff to prepare a comprehensive noise
ordinance; however, that program has been deleted from the Noise Element as
presented. Staff has reviewed the issues related to implementing an ordinance
and determined that the costs of implementing a noise ordinance outweigh the
benefits (see summary table of pros and cons below). This determination was
based on the following rationales:
The City receives few noise complaints - an average of 5 - 10 a year, the
majority of which are complaints about parties and barking dogs. These
complaints are most often resolved through existing ordinances including:
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 18
Construction Noise CMC 8.48
Loud Parties CMC 3.36040,
CA Penal Code Section 415
Animals CMC 7.04.010
Motor Vehicles CMC 8.28.030
It is staffs position that nuisance noise in the City can be adequately addressed
by utilizing existing ordinances, ensuring thorough development review; and,
implementing the policies and programs presented in the updated General Plan.
PROS AND CONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE NOISE ORDINANCE
PROS CONS
• Potential immediate solution to
minor current noise problems.
• Only minor complaints now.
• Immediate methods to address
future problems.
• Expensive.
• Consistent resolution of problems. • Labor intensive.
• Comprehensive approach rather than
case-by-case.
• City must have staff trained to use
noise monitoring equipment.
• Fines, etc. discourage repeat
offenders.
• May encourage complaints when
problems are very minor.
Avigation Easements
The updated Noise Element includes provisions that require avigation easements
to be obtained for residential projects approved within the 65 CNEL noise contour
of McClellan-Palomar Airport. Avigation easements are air rights easements
which protect air traffic lanes around the airport and generally indemnify airport
operators of liability from noise. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
the airport finds that residential land uses are incompatible with noise impacts
above 65 CNEL. The policies of the General Plan support this standard;
however, in the City there are existing, residentially-designated properties within
the 65 CNEL. Project site design may be able to preclude some, but not aU,
residential units from locating within these areas. Therefore, should the City
decide to approve a residential project within the 65 CNEL noise contour of the
airport, avigation easements will be required to indemnify both the City and the
County of San Diego. This policy is consistent with the direction City CouncU
gave to staff during hearings on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
the airport.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 19
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent and Specific Requirements of Section 65302 of the
Califomia State Govemment Code
Consistent with Section 65302 of the State Govemment Code, the intent of this element
is to: (1) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels for highways, freeways,
prime arterials, major local streets, railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems,
airport, and major noise sources contributing to the community noise environment; (2)
utiUze the noise contours as a guide for establishing a pattem of land use that minimizes
the exposure of residents to excessive noise; (3) provide for policies consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport; and (4)
recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control in the State
Department of Health Services.
The Noise Element of the General Plan guides decisions related to noise impacts on land
use. Policies of this element ensure that noise is effectively considered in the land use
plamung process. Consistent witii Section 65300.5 of the State Govemment Ccxle, this
element is internally consistent as well as integrated with the other elements of the
general plan, such as the Land Use and Circulation Elements.
D. Other
1. Noise Guidelines Manual
A Draft Noise Guidelines Manual was prepared as part of the technical study to
update the Noise Element. This manual, developed for the layman witii
appropriate sections for noise consultants and city staff, is intended to provide the
user with guidelines and procedures to implement the policies of the Noise
Element. The Manual established non-residential exterior noise guidelines, non-
residential interior noise guidelines, standard submittal requurements for noise
studies, minimum qualifications for noise consultants, defines noise, outiines
noise measurement methcxlology, and includes a land use/noise compatibility
matrix. Staff anticipates bringing this document to the Planning Commission for
review and approval following adoption of the Noise Element.
2. Planning Commission Subcommittee Recommendations
In 1988, a special Planning Commission subcommittee was appointed to reformat
tiie existing Noise Element and propose recommendations witii regard to noise
policy for the Updated General Plan. They were also directed to develop a noise
policy to address ti^ansportation corridor noise. In addition to the overall
reformatting, the subcommittee's work has been incorporated into the proposed
Noise Element as follows:
• Recommendations are reflected in revisions to the element as well as in
the Draft Noise Guidelines Manual.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 20
• Requirements of Administrative Policy 17 (approved by Planning
Commission as an interim noise measure) have been integrated into the
element.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The Revised Housing Element was adopted on October 22, 1991 and certified by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development on May 26, 1993. There have been no
revisions to the dcxjument since its adoption. One of the primary conclusions of the needs
analysis of the Housing Element is that within the City there exists a large need for, but a lack
of, housing affordable to households in the lower-income groups. The Housing Element includes
an ambitious array of 42 housing action programs, the implementation of which will enable the
provision of housing opportunities to all economic groups within the City.
During the past 2 1/2 years the City has implemented the majority of the Housing Elements
action programs. The major programs implemented to date include: Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, Inclusionary Housing In-lieu and Impact Fees, Density Bonus Ordinance, Density
Increase PoUcy, Development Standards Mcxiification Ordinance, and Priority Prcx^ssing
Program. Other major housing programs which will be considered for implementation within
1994 include: Second DwelUng Units, Non-Residential Development Housing Impact Fee,
Rental Stcx;k Monitoring, Senior Housing Amendments and Managed Living Units.
OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION ELEMENT
The Open Space and Conservation Element (OS&C) was last updated in September 1991. The
updated Element includes the recommendations from the Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management Plan (OSCRMP), accepted by City Council in September 1992. Policies have also
been added consistent with the City's habitat planning efforts on both the local and regional
levels. Should the City adopt a habitat management plan, the OS&C Element will, in all
likelihocxi, require an amendment to address new habitat planning policies and programs.
Revisions to the Open Space and Conservation Element reflect the efforts of the Citizens'
Committee to Stiidy Open Space, the Open Space Advisory Committee, and comments received
at more than 30 public meetings, workshops, and hearings. The element has been revised to
include five new sections including: Promoting Agriculture; Fire Risk Management of Open
Space; Air Quality Preservation; Water Quality Protection; and Historic and Cultural
Preservation. The section on Historic and Cultural Preservation addresses the text, goals,
objectives, policies, and programs that were previously a part of the Historic Preservation
Element. Incorporating these into the Open Space & Conservation Element allowed staff to
stieamline the General Plan slightiy by eliminating one small element.
A. Primary Changes to the Open Space and Conservation Element
1. New Topics and Major Changes
a. For organizational clarity and in an effort to consolidate elements, tiie
following topics have been added to this element: 1) Promoting
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 21
Agriculture; 2) Fire Risk Management; 3) Air Quality Preservation; 4)
Water Quality Protection; and 5) Historic and Cultural Preservation.
Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. Since
adoption of the Element in 1991, numerous additions were made to
directiy reflect the recommendations of the OSCRMP as well as the City's
habitat planning efforts. New sections specifically addressing agriculture,
fire risk management, air quality, and water quality have been added. In
addition, the Historic Preservation Element has been consolidated with this
Element. Further, a few goals and objectives were moved to policies,
and a few policies were moved to objectives. Some objectives and
policies were deleted as they referred to the development of an Open
Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, which has been
completed.
Framework for Open Space and Conservation Planning. A new
information section has been added to the element called, "Framework for
Open Space and Conservation Planning". This section contains the
definition of open space and includes the five categories of open space
used in the OSCRMP. In an effort to integrate the OSCRMP into tiie
Element, tiie following topics have been covered in this section: Open
Space Definition and Classification System; Protection of Open Space
Lands; Constrained Lands; Precluding Development on Open Space
Lands; Existing and Approved Open Space; Citywide Open Space Plan;
and. Maps of the Open Space and Conservation Element.
Air Quality Preservation and Water Quality Protection. The new goals,
objectives and policies of these sections support the protection and
preservation of air and water quality consistent with state, regional and
local efforts.
Fire Risk Management. The new goals, objectives and policies of this
section are intended to ensure that fire risk management issues, associated
with undeveloped open space, are adequately identified during the
planning and acquisition of open space lands.
Deleted Topics
The Open Space and Conservation Elements have been fully integrated
with these revisions. As such, the separate Conservation section has been
deleted from the element. The Goals, Objectives and PoUcies of tiie
Conservation Section have been moved to the appropriate sections of tiiis
dcxjument.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 22
b. As the OSCRMP has been completed, the framework for preparation of
an Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan section has
been deleted.
c. The open space definitions of the OSCRMP will be included in the
glossary at the end of the element.
3. New Maps/Graphics
Existing graphics have been replaced with updated graphics which include: 1)
Official Open Space and Conservation Map; and 2) Conceptual Open Space and
Conservation Map.
4. Specific Additions
Please refer to Attachment 4, page 21, for a listing of new goals, objectives, and
implementing policies and programs which have been added to the Open Space
and Conservation Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
As reflected in the above additions to the element, the major emphasis in terms of new
policy direction is as follows:
1. Implementation of the OSCRMP - The updated element implements the
recommendations of the OSCRMP, accepted by City Council in September, 1992.
These policies include recommendations for future open space action priorities as
well as finance and implementation strategies for obtaining future open space.
2. Habitat Planning Efforts - New policies have been added to this element
supporting the City's habitat planning efforts and encouraging continued regional
coordination of habitat planning efforts.
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent, and Specific Requirements of Section 65032, of
the Califomia State Govemment Code
Consistent witii Section 65562 of the State Govemment Code, the intent of this Element
is to: (1) establish policies for the protection, preservation and conservation of
environmentally sensitive resources; (2) provide specific programs for the preservation
and conservation of land and natural features, and for regulations necessary to contiol
tiie possible negative impact of development which may be allowed; (3) identify and
protect, where appropriate, existing vacant open land, natural resources and
environmental features as integral and necessary components of the Open Space and
Conservation Element; and (4) provide a framework and guidelines for open space and
conservation systems as identified on the open space and conservation maps.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 23
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan ccx)rdinates and guides
decisions related predominantiy to the undeveloped land and water resources which
influence and shape Carlsbad's physical environments. The Open Space Element
specifically serves as an official policy statement for the identification, preservation,
conservation, acquisition and maintenance of open space in the City. The Conservation
Element specifically addresses resource management - the planned management of
natural resources to prevent exploitation, destmction or neglect.
The Open Space and Conservation Element programs apply citywide, as indicated on the
maps titled "Official Open Space and Conservation Map" and "Conceptual Open Space
and Conservation Map". These maps identify important recreation, ecological, natural,
scenic resources and proposed linkage routes relating to a comprehensive trail and
greenway system. They also identify hazardous areas which should not be developed,
and identify where development should be limited to ensure public health and safety.
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
The Parks and Recreation Element was revised and adopted in 1991. Minor revisions in this
update include changes to inventories and tables, as well as new programs to reflect biological
and conservation concems of the City's habitat planning efforts and the Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan. There are no major policy changes that have been
made in the update of this element.
Current revisions include only one major change which addresses the recommendation of the San
Diego Association of Govemments' (SANDAG) report. Regionally Significant Open Space -
Definition. Three of the City's Special Resource Areas (Lake Calavera, Agua Hedionda
Lag(X)n, and Batiquitos Lagoon) and one community park (Veterans Memorial) have been
identified as Regional Open Space Parks, in addition to their primary city park classification.
This identification simply denotes that the parks are part of the region's park system; however,
they will continue to function pursuant to their primary park classification.
A. Primary changes to the Parks and Recreation Element
1. New Topics
A Parks and Recreation Development Plan summary section has been added to
the element. This section was added to summarize the information of the element
and to provide a reference to the park location maps and the Uses in Recreation
Areas Table.
2. New Maps/Graphics
All maps have been revised to reflect park locations and new park names.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 24
3. Specific Additions
a. The Growth Management section was mcxlified by adding a statement that
the number of dwelling units identified in Proposition E was estimated at
54,600. Population estimates both existing and buildout, were changed
to reflect the best data available.
b. The Needs Generated by Industrial Uses section was modified to include
the park mitigation fee as a requirement of Lcxjal FacUities Management
Zones 13 and 16.
c. The Park Inventory Introduction section was modified by identifying three
Special Resource Areas and one Community Park as Regional Open Space
Parks. The Regional Open Space Park designation is a regional
designation established by SANDAG in their Regionally Significant Open
Space Report. This designation was added to tiie element to be consistent
with the recommendations of SANDAG's Regional Growth Management
Strategy.
d. The Future Recreational Development section was mcxlified by
consolidating the information of the Anticipated Future Park Development
Projects section into a table. Also, language has been added to this
section summarizing the Recreational Facility Financing Committee
recommendations.
e. The inventory in the Uses in Recreation Areas Table was modified by
deleting sculpture park in the northwest quadrant, and by adding the
ballfields in the northeast quadrant. Additionally, future park demand
acreages were modified to reflect the new population estimates (obtained
from the 1990 Census) accepted by the City CouncU in 1992. The
decreased population estimates have resulted in a lower demand for future
parkland. The park buildout demands have been reduced appropriately
reflecting the new census data.
Please refer to Attachment 4, page 33, for a listing of new goals, objectives, and
implementing policies and programs which have been added to the Parks and
Recreation Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
No major policy changes have been proposed in the Parks and Recreation Element.
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent and Specific Requirements of Article 5, Scope of
General Plan of the Califomia State Govemment Code
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 25
The Parks and Recreation Element is an optional element of the General Plan as provided
for in Section 65303 of the Govemment Ccxle and as such has no required issues that
must be addressed to be in compliance with State code. AU programs and policies
included in the Parks and Recreation Element have been integrated into other elements
of the General Plan, including the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements.
PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
The Public Safety Element, formerly the Geologic and Seismic Safety Element, was entirely
rewritten and expanded. Updated technical information was provided to address many additional
public safety topics both in the text as well as in the section addressing Goals, Objectives, and
Implementing Policies and Programs.
A. Primary Changes to Public Safety Element
1. New Public Safety Topics - Text was expanded to address several additional
potential hazards. Topics now addressed include: fire, disaster preparedness,
hazardous materials, crime, McClellan-Palomar Airport, oU spiUs, and
electiomagnetic fields (EMFs). The revised element also updated geologic,
seismic and flcxxl hazard technical data. This resulted in an extensive set of
maps, available at Community Development Services, which identified geologic
and seismic hazards, inactive faults (no active faults in City), catasttophic dam
failure inundation, and slope percentages (0-25%, 25-40%, and 40-1-%). A
matrix of land uses was included which identified land uses which are appropriate
to these specific conditions and/or locations. A layman's version of the geologic
history of the Carlsbad area. The Geologic Story of Carlsbad, was prepared to
describe the rock and soil units that may be encountered within the City limits.
In addition, common concems relating to the field of geology are discussed and
measures to correct or minimize these concems are describal. This bcxiklet is
also available to the public at Community Development Services,
2. Maps/Graphics - Existing graphics have been replaced with updated graphics
which include: 1) Seismic Faults; 2) 100 Year Flood Boundaries; 3) High
Pressure Gas & Petroleum Mains; 4) Airport Influence Area; and 5) Electric
Transmission Lines and Substations.
3. Specific Additions - Please refer to Attachment 4, page 33, for new goals,
objectives, and implementing policies and programs which have been added to tiie
Public Safety Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs). The major emphasis in terms of new policy direction
in this element addresses the issue of electro-magnetic fields. Although there has been
a great deal of discussion, speculation, and controversy with regard to EMFs, at this time
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 26
there have been no scientific standards developed to establish safe levels of exposure.
The Public Safety Element proposes that the City monitor research in this field as well
as regulatory proposals of federal and state health and environmental agencies until
comprehensive land use procedures are developed and required by such agencies.
C. Consistency with the Purpose, Intent and Specific Requirements of Article 5, Scope of
the General Plan of the Califomia State Govemment Ccxle.
Pursuant to Califomia Govemment Code Section 65302(g), public safety elements must
be included in general plans to protect the community from any unreasonable risks
asscxjiated with the effects of seismically induced surface mpture, ground shaking,
ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides;
subsidence and other known geologic hazards; flcxxling and wild land and urban fires.
Safety elements must also address evacuation routes, peak load water supply
requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around stmctures. Elements are
also required to be reviewed by the Division of Mines and Geology of the Department
of Conservation.
The proposed Public Safety Element addresses the issues required by State code as weU
as other relevant safety issues such as hazardous materials, crime, disaster preparedness,
airport hazards, oil spills and electromagnetic fields. The element has been reviewed by
the Division of Mines and Geology; however, no comments were received from that
agency. Programs and policies of the Safety Element have been integrated, where
appropriate, in other elements of the General Plan, such as Land Use, Circulation and
Open Space and Conservation.
ARTS
As the shortest element of the General Plan, there were few changes to the text of this section
other than the overall reformatting. However, numerous goals, objectives, policies and
programs were added to the Arts Element, with an emphasis on the development of one or more
permanent facilities for the exhibition, performance, rehearsal, discussion, or teaching of visual
and performing arts and cultural endeavors.
A. Primary Changes to the Arts Element
1. Specific Additions - Several additions were made to directiy reflect the
recommendations of the Arts Commission who participated in reviewing this
element. Please refer to Attachment 4, page 38, for a Usting of new goals,
objectives, and implementing policies and programs which have been added to the
Arts Element.
B. Major Policy Emphasis
No major policy changes have been proposed in the Arts Element.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 27
C. Consistency with the Purpose Intent and Specific Requirements of Article 5, Scope of
General Plan of the Califomia State Govemment Code.
The Arts Element is an optional element of the General Plan as provided for in Section
65303 of the Govemment Code and as such has no required issues that must be addressed
to be in compliance with State code. All programs and policies in the Arts Element have
been integrated, where appropriate, into other elements of the General Plan.
VI. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
The Coastal Act of 1976 requires that individual coastal jurisdictions, to implement State
law, must adopt Lcx;al Coastal Programs (LCP) which are designed to protect coastal
resources. Approximately one third of Carlsbad is Icxiated in the coastal zone and is
subject to LCP regulations. In these areas, proposed development must comply with
both the requirements of the General Plan and the LCP. As required by the Land Use
Element, if inconsistencies exist between the Lcxial Coastal Program and the General
Plan, the terms of the Local Coastal Program must prevail.
The City is currentiy assembling coastal regulations which have been adopted in the past
at separate times and for separate geographic areas, into a single Local Coastal Program.
Once this dcxiumenl receives effective certification the City will assume the authority to
issue coastal permits from the State.
vn. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Attachment 4, General Plan Programs, Status and Implementation, contains a list of
implementing policies and programs found in the General Plan. These have been
included as a separate document as a first step in developing an annual monitoring
program for the General Plan as required by Govemment Code Section 65400. This
requirement is addressed in a new program in the Land Use Element to monitor the
status of the General Plan and the City's progress towards implementation. On an annual
basis, staff will prepare a list of still outstanding programs which would be addressed by
the City Council during their yearly Goals and Objectives discussion in
December/January. This list would then be reviewed and evaluated during budget and
Capital Improvement Program hearings. Priorities would be assigned with subsequent
staff direction provided. A report would then be presented to the Planning Commission
and the City Council, followed in October by the mandated reports to the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Office of Planning and Research.
The 1994 report will address the numerous zone changes and zone code amendments
required to implement the updated General Plan.
vm. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Update of the Carlsbad General Plan included the preparation of a Master Environmental
Impact Report (MEIR). The provisions for Master EIRs were established in Assembly Bill 1888
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 28
which was signed into law in 1993. The bill was written for the purpose of streamlining the
CEQA prcwess and authorizes the use of a Master EIR to: 1) allow complex and controversial
environmental impacts to be analyzed and addressed early in the CEQA prcxiess; and 2) reduce
or eliminate subsequent, redundant analysis of environmental impacts. Cities are allowed to
prepare Master EIRs concurrentiy with any comprehensive or substantial update of their General
Plan. The MEIR then serves as the primary source of environmental information for CEQA
review of later development proposals for a five-year pericxi following certification. Please refer
to Attachment 7 for a fiow chart illustrating the MEIR relationship to subsequent projects.
The Master EIR evaluates a broad range of potential environmental impacts associated with long-
term implementation of the updated General Plan and allows the City to consider broad policy
altematives and programmatic mitigation measures. The degree of specificity used to analyze
the potential adverse environmental impacts is related to the broad nature of the policy
recommendations contained in the updated General Plan. The Master EIR includes the same
contents presentiy required for all EIRs plus a description of anticipated subsequent projects that
are within the scope of the Master EIR.
The Master EIR assumes the "worst case", or highest yield of development permitted under the
updated General Plan. It focuses on the environmental impacts that are Ukely to result from
long-term implementation of the Plan and addresses the following issue areas:
- Soils and Geology - Hydrology
- Air Quality - Biological Resource
- Population/Housing - Health, Safety & Nuisance Factors
- Land Use - Aesthetics
- Circulation - Utilities & Public Services
- Cultural/Paleontological Resources - Natural Resources
- Noise
The program-wide mitigation measures identified in the MEIR will be achieved by implementing
policies and programs which are part of the General Plan. Many of the program-level measures
will require further refinement as the project-level impacts of subsequent projects and
appropriate project-level mitigation measures are determined. While implementation of some
of the mitigation measures will be ongoing, implementation of other measures will cx;cur only
if the need arises. Certain programmatic mitigation measures will be subject to funding
availability.
Based on the data and conclusions in the MEIR, it has been determined that the updated General
Plan wiU have potentially significant but mitigable impacts in all areas except Air Quality and
Circulation. With these two exceptions, all impacts can be mitigated to level of less than
significant by the implementation of the programs and policies presented in the General Plan.
Cumulative impacts to Air Quality and Circulation are significant and cannot be mitigated due
to regional ambient air quality conditions and regional through-traffic over which the City has
no contiol. These two items are discussed briefly below.
EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 29 -
i) Air Ouality.
Implementation of the updated General Plan will result in increased gas and
electric power consumption and vehicle miles ti^veled. These subsequentiy result
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides
of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates or aerosols. These aerosols are
the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air
Basin.
Regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional traffic contribute
to the non-attainment of daily State and Federal standards for such air pollutants
and are not within the ability of the City to contiol. All feasible mitigation
measures to reduce air quality emissions for the project have been applied and
State and Federal standards will be exceeded with or without the proposed
project. AU project altematives, including the No Project altemative, wUl also
result in emission standards being exceeded within the air basin. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final MEIR to the extent possible by the City of Carlsbad.
A variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final MEIR to
minimize short-term air quality impacts. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements to reduce carbon monoxide emissions at
congested intersections prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of
transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy
efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth
management strategies when adopted. Short-term impacts are not significant
locally, but are cumulatively significant because the area is located within a non-
attainment air basin. There are no known additional measures that can reduce air
quality impacts for the proposed project without significantiy interfering with the
project objectives. Please refer to Section 5.3-1 of MEIR 93-01 for further
details.
ii) Circulation.
BuUdout of the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommcxlate buildout Oiaffic; however,
20 intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which
the City has no jurisdictional contiol. These generally include all freeway
interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with
the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are
projected to fail the adopted Growth Management performance standards at
buildout.
EIM 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GHNERAL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 16, 1994
PAGE 30
Numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final MEIR to
reduce circulation impacts. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision
of circulation facUities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional
circulation strategies when adopted. Impacts from local tiaffic are not significant,
but are cumulatively significant due to regional through-traffic. The diversion of
regional tiirough-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City
stieets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to contiol.
There are no known additional measures that can reduce circulation impacts for
the proposed project without significantiy interfering with the project objectives.
Please refer to Section 5.7-1 of Master EIR 93-01 for further details.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations is proposed to address impacts to Air QuaUty and
"!irculation and is contained in attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 3630 for
artification of the MEIR. Eleven (11) letters of comment were submitted during the public
view period and have been included with attached responses in the Final MEIR.
MMARY
The updated General Plan and the Master Environmental Impact Report are consistent with all
applicable legislation. Based upon the required mitigation measures, no significant adverse
wironmental impacts will occur due to implementation of the project except for impacts to Air
lality and Circulation. As addressed in the Statement of (Dverriding Considerations, it has
en determined that the benefits of the Project have been balanced against the environmental
^sequences and the benefits of the Project have been found to override the long term
aificant effects. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of EIR 93-01 and GPA 94-01.
TACHMENTS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3630 with attached Mitigation Monitoring Report
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3631
3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed)
4. New General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Implementing Policies and Programs
5. Errata
6. Revised Land Use Element (redline/strikeout)
7. Master EIR Flow Chart
8. General Plan Programs, Status and Implementation (sample)
9. Public Participation Calendar
10. Proposed General Plan Designation Changes
11. Location Maps
AL:vd
Febraaiy 1. 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3630
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, EIR 93-01, ON THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN INCLUDING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ATTACHED
ADDENDUM.
CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CASE NO: EIR 93-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Comniission did, on the 16th day of March, 1994,
the Sth day of April, 1994, and the 20th day of April, 1994, hold a duly noticed pubUc
hearing as prescribed by law to consider a comprehensive update of the General Plan
including a detaUed review and subsequent update of aU the elements, existing background
information, tables and map figures, graphics, goals, objectives, poUcies, and programs; and
WHEREAS, at said pubUc hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Master Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, attached as
Exhibit "A" and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That Master Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-01 and Addendum has been
completed in conformance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the State
guideUnes implementing said Act, and the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and
evaluated the information contained in the report.
C) That Master Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-01 and Addendum wiU be
amended to include the coniments and documents of those testifying at the public
hearing and responses thereto, hereby found to be in good faith and reason by
incorporating a copy of the minutes of said pubUc hearings into the report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D) The Master Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-01 and Addendum as so amended
and as evaluated in the staff report (March 16, 1994), is recommended for
acceptance and certification as the final environmental impact report and Addendum
and that the final environmental impact report and Addendum as recommended is
adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and
feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
E) That the Master EIR analyzes direct and secondary effects that could occur from
conceptual buildout of the General Plan and wiU be used to determine when
subsequent environmental review is needed for specific development proposals that
are consistent with the General Plan.
F) That the Master EIR has been circulated to interested pubhc and private agencies
and parties with a solicitation of commeni and evaluation pursuant to the
requirements of the CaHfornia Environment Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA).
Findings:
1. That the following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for the comprehensive update of the Carlsbad General
Plan based on the Final MEIR text and Addendum, including comments and
responses to the draft EIR, and all documents, maps, public testimony and
illustrations included in the public record.
2. That the Final MEIR and Addendum will serve as the primary source of
environmental information for CEQA review of subsequent projects for a five-year
period foUowing certification.
3. That each and every significant environmental impact identified in the Final Master
Environmental Impact Report and Addendum would be overruled or counter-
balanced by changes or alterations in the project which would mitigate against said
adverse impacts or in the case of Air Quality and Circulation, that mitigation of such
adverse impacts is not feasible under the circumstances and that a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is contained herein, to support the approval of the
project.
4. That the Addendum attached to the Final Master EIR compUes with the provisions
of CEQA in that:
a. None of the concUtions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred;
b. OiUy minor technical changes or adcUtions have been provided to make the
MEIR more complete;
PC RESO NO. 3630 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. The Addendum does not contain significant new information not previously
discussed in the MEIR nor alter significantly the conclusions of the MEIR;
d. The Addendum does not need to be circulated for pubUc review but wiU be
attached to the Final MEIR and wiU be considered by the decision-making
botUes concurrent with the Final MEIR.
5. That the MEIR mitigation measure which states "Require residential development
to achieve the minimum density stipiUated under the appropriate General Plan
designation unless approved by a General Plan amentiment" shaU be deleted
wherever so stated because the Planning Conunission finds that the range of density
categories is sufficient to provide balanced housing consistent with the Housing
Element without the need for requiring the minimmn density within each range to
be achieved.
6. That the foUowing findings are made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California
Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
a. Public Resources Code Section 2108Ua). The decisionmakers, having
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final MEIR for the
proposed update of the Carlsbad General Plan, and having reviewed and
considered the information in the pubhc record, find that changes have been
incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental impacts thereof, except in the areas of Air
Quality and Circulation as discussed below:
i) Air QuaUty.
Impacts. Implementation of the updated General Plan wiU result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and
sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin.
Findings. A variety of mitigation measures are recommended in rhe
Final MEIR to minimize short-term air quality impacts. These include:
1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or
concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips
through fhe implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes
of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to
promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation
PC RESO NO. 3630 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
in regional growth management strategies when adopted. Short-term
impacts are not significant locally, but are cumulatively significant
because the area is located within a non-attainment air basin.
Facts in Support of Findings. The City CouncU finds that no
additional measures are known that can reduce air quality impacts for
the proposed project without significantly interfering with the project
objectives. See Section 5.3-1 of Master EIR 93-01 incorporated herein
by this reference.
ii) Circulation.
Impacts. Buildout of the updated General Plan will result in increased
traffic volumes. Roadway segments wiU be adequate to accommodate
buildout traffic; however, 20 intersections will be severely impacted
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional
control. These generally include aU freeway interchange areas and
major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the adopted Growth Management performance
standards at buildout.
Findings. Numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in
the Final MEIR to reduce circulation impacts. These include: 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent
with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation
in regional circulation strategies when adopted. Impacts from local
traffic are not significant, but are cumulatively significant due to
regional through-traffic. The diversion of regional through-traffic
from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control.
Facts in Support of Findings. The City Council finds that no
additional measures are known that can reduce circulation impacts for
the proposed project without significantly interfering with the project
objectives. See Section 5.7-1 of Master EIR 93-01 incorporated herein
by this reference.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 (bl. The decisionmakers, having each
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final MEIR for the
proposed update of the Carlsbad General Plan, and having reviewed and
considered the information contained in the public record, find that there are
PC RESO NO. 3630
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
no changes or alterations to the project that would substantially lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the projects and that these are the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and should be
adopted by such other agency.
c. Public Resources Code Section 21081(c). As discussed above, the Final MEIR
concludes that development of the project as proposed would result in
significant, unmitigated cumulative impacts to air quality and circulation.
However, pursuant to Public Resources Codes Section 21081(c), the
decisionmakers find that none of the project alternatives, as analyzed in
Table 2.0-2 of Master EIR 93-01, reduce the impacts to air quality and
circulation to less than significant because the primary sources of impacts are
regionally generated and not within the jurisdiction of the City to control.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 15093 of the CEOA Guidelines
The decision makers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final MEIR, and having reviewed and considered the public record, find that the foUowing
factors support approval ofthe project despite any significant impacts identified in the Final
MEIR and, therefore, make the following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City of Carlsbad finds that the mitigation measures discussed in the CEQA findings and
the Final MEIR (EIR 93-01), when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the
significant effects identified in the MEIR. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the
project on AIR QUALITY and CIRCULATION are unavoidable even after incorporation of
all feasible mitigation measures such as those listed in Section 5.3-1, Air Quality, and
Section 5.7-1, Circulation of Master EIR 93-01. The impacts to Air QuaUty and Circulation
are regional issues which require regional solutions and are beyond the jurisdiction of the
City to control. The City has included text, and numerous programs and policies which
acknowledge the City's responsibility and willingness to participate in regional efforts to
resolve these issues. The City required an Updated General Plan which reflects the current
goals of the community and recognizes the quaUty of life standards that are fundamental
to the citizens of Carlsbad. The benefits of adopting the Updated General Plan outweigh
the incremental contribution to regional Air QuaUty and CircvUation impacts.
Conditions:
1. The Carlsbad General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit "A", dated March 16,
1994, and should be referred to for all conditions, mitigation measures, and
momtoring programs applicable to subsequent discretionary actions at the
appropriate level of project implementation.
PC RESO NO. 3630 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Revisions to EIR 93-01 shaU be made, as necessary, to ensure that aU dcxniments are
consistent with approved changes to General Plan Update GP 94-01.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Califomia, held on the 20th day of April, 1994, by the
follov\dng vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Noble,
Welshons, Erwin & HaU.
None.
Commissioner Betz.
None.
PEGGY^'gAvARY, Chairpersc
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3630 -6-
EXHIBIT "A"
ADDENDUM TO
MASTER EIR 93-01
APRIL 20, 1994
The foUowing minor technical changes or additions are included as addendum to Master
EIR 93-01 to provide more accurate and complete information. The Addendum does not
need to be circulated for public review but vAW be considered by the decision-makers
concurrently with the MEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
pg 2.0-16 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES #21
Prohibit motorized off-road vehicle use in the City except at the Carlsbad
Raceway.
POPULATION/HOUSING
2. Require rGsidontial dovGlopmcnt to achieve the minimum density stipulated
under the appropriate General Plan designation unless approved by a General
Plan amendment. (Land Use Elomont, RcGidontial, C.2.)
pg 2.0-19
pg 2.0-21
LAND USE
15. Roquiro all parcels of land located in the Airport Influence Area to
rccoivG discretionary approval as followo: parcels over 25 acres in size must
process a specific plan; aU smaller parcels must process oithor a site
development plan, plaimed industrial permit or other discretionary permit.-
Any dcvGlopmont proposals in this area should also bo submitted to the
County Airport Land Use Commission for thoir review. (Land UGG Element,
Special Planning Considerations, C.l.)
Require all parcels of land locate in the Airport Influence Area to receive
discretionary approval as follovvs: all parceb must process either a site
development plan, planned indtj^'al permit or other discretionary permit
Unless otherwise approved by City Council, development proposals must be
tn compUance with the noise standards of the Comprehensive iand Use Plan
(CLUP) and meet FAA requirements with respect to building height as well
as the provision of obstruction lighting when appurtenances are pennitted to
penetrate the transitional surfece (a 7:1 slope from tlie runway primary
surfece). Consider Counly Airport Land Use Commission recommendations
in the review of development proposalsii
6. Enforce the policy of the City that sixty five (65) (60) dBA...
7. Require that a noise study be submitted with all discretionary applications
for residential projects of five or more single-family and any mtilti-famiiy
dwelling units...
14. Apply the noise mitigation guidelines of the Noise Guidelines Manual to
aU proposed development within the 65 60 dBA...
pg 5.5-3 #2
Roquiro rcGidontial dcvolopmcnt to achieve the minimum density stipulated
under the appropriato Gonoral Plan dosignation unless approved by a Gonoral
Plan amendment. (Land Use Element, Residential, C.2.)
pg 5.6-17 #15
Requiro all parcels of land located in tho Airport Influonco Aroa to rccoivo
discretionary approval as foUows: parcels over 25 acres in size must procoss
a specific plan; aU smaUor parcels must process oithor a sito dovolopmont
plan, planned industrial permit or other discretionary permits Any
dovolopmont proposals in this aroa should also bo submitted to tho County
Airport Land Use Commission for their review. (Land Use Element, Special
Planning Considerations, C.l.)
Require all parcels of land located in the Airport Influence Area to isceive
discretionary approval as follows; all parcels must process either a site
development plan, planned industrial permit, or other discretionary permit.
Unless otherwise approved by City Council, development proposals must be
in compUance with the noise standards ofthe Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUP) and meet FAA reqtiirements with respect to building height as well
as the provision of obstruction lighting when appurtenances are pernutted td
penetrate the transitional surface (a 7:1 slope from the runway primaiy
surface). Consider County Airport Land Use Commission recommendations
in the review of development proposals.
CIRCULATION
pg 5.7-10 last paragraph beginning with Une 4
"...buUdout traffic; however, 20 12 fufl and 2 partial intersections within
Carlsbad will be severely impacted by regional through traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. (The partial intersections are those fbr
wMcfa responsibility is shared with neighboring jurisdictions) These
intersections are shown on Map 5.7-7: Impacted Intersections."
pg 5.7-12 see attached replacement map
pg 5.7-13 first paragraph, line 3
"...General Plan roadway configuration, 3012 fiill and 2 partial intersections
are identified..."
second paragraph, line 1
"The 30 impacted intersections were then analyzed..."
fifth paragraph, line 3
"Assuming General Plan roadway configurations, twenty 12 Ml and 2 partial
intersections were identified..."
NOISE
pg 5.9-9, section 5.9.3, paragraph 3, line 4
"levels above 65 CNEL adjacent to freeways, state highways, prime arterials,
airport or rail corridor, and futuro rosidcntial silos with roadway noise levels
abovG 60 CNEL adjacent to all other Circulation Element roadways, will be
required..."
pg 5.9-14
7. Require that a noise study be submitted with all cUscretionary applications
for residential project of five or more single-famUy dwelUng units and any
multi-family dweUlng units..."
14. Apply the noise mitigation guidelines of the Noise Guidelines Manual to
all proposed development within the 6& 60 dBA CNEL...
pg 5.12.7-2 UTILITIES AND SERVICES
replace Map 5.12.7-1 with revised map showing corrected San
Marcos/Carlsbad School District boundaries.
PARKS AND RECREATION
pg 5.12.8-4 Table 5.12.8-1
Uses in Recreation Areas, page 2 of 2, line three
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, ownership ST 1
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX B - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
pg 23, #21 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prohibit motorized off-road vehicle use in the City except at the Carlsbad
Raceway
pg 23 POPULATION/HOUSING
3T—Roquiro rosidontial dovolopmont to achiovo the minimum donsity
stipulated undor the appropriato Gonoral Plan designation unless approved
by a General Plan amendment.—(Land Uso Element, Residential, C.3.)
Additionally, delete the balance of the line on the mitigation monitoring
checklist showing when applied, etc..
pg 29 9. Pursuant to Section 65400(b) of the Govemment Code, the Planning
Commission shaU do both of the following:
(a) Investigate and make recommendations to the City Council
regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the
general plan or element ofthe general plan, so that it will serve as an
effective guide for orderly growrth and development, preservation and
conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the
efficient expenditure of pubUc ftinds relating to the subjects addressed
in the general plan,
(b) Provide an annual report, by October 1 of each year, to the Gty
Council, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of
Hotising and Community Development regardingi
(1) The status of the plan and progress in its implementation,
including the progress in meeting its share of regional bousing
needs determined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts
to remove govemmental constraints to the. maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing pursuant to
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.
(2) The degree to which its approved general plan compUes
with the guidelines developed and adopted pursuant to Section
65040.2, and the date of the last revision to ijie general plan.
(Land Use Element^ Overall Land Use Pattem, C13.)
10. Develop a periodic five year plan to thoroughly review tiie General Plan
and revise the document as necessary. (Land Use Element. Overall land Use
Pattern^ C.14.)
11. Develop a program estabUshing poUcies and procedures for amending
both mandatory and optional elements of the General Plan. (Land Use
Element, OveraU Land Use Pattem, C.l 5.)
12. Update the adopted Local FaciUties Management Plans to reflect relevant
changes mandated by the General Plan Update. (Land Use Element, Overall
Land Use Pattem.)
13. Conduct a comprehensive review of General Plan boundary Unes when
improved technology becomes available so that boundary lines fbUow
assessor property lines as closely as possible. In addition, where General
Plan boundaiy lines spUt an individual parcel into two or more sections, the
boundary lines shall be located as accurately as possible based on mapping
done at the time of project approvai. (Land Use Element, Overall land Use
Pattem.)
14. Update and revise all maps affected by the General Plan Update to
reflect land use changes, (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattems.)
9r 15. "Permit the approval of discretionary actions ..."
iOr 16, "Limit medium and higher density residential ..."
HTT 111 "EstabUsh development standards ..."
•tSr IB. "Require comprehensive environmental review ..."
-1^ 19. "Require that the construction of all projects ..."
44? 20. "Strictly adhere to the natural resource ..."
21. Participate in programs fhat restore and enhance the City's degraded
natural resources. (Land Use Element, Environmental, Cll.)
22. Implement the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Pian. (Land Use
Element, Environmental, C,12.)
i&7 23. "Require aU parcels ..."
24. "Coordinate with, the San Diego Association ..."
pg 31 ITT^ 25. "The following mitigation measures shall ..."
pg 47 NOISE
6. Enforce the poUcy of the City that sixty fivo (65) 60 dBA...
7. Require that a noise study be submitted v^th aU discretionary appUcations
for residential projects of five or more single-family and any mtilti-fanuly
dwelling units...
pg 49 14. Apply the noise mitigation guidelines of the Noise Guidelines Manual to
aU proposed development within the 65 ||i dBA...
NOTE: Changes made to the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist in the Technical Appendices
wiU also be made in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist attached to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3630.
ADDED RESPONSE TO 5B LETTER OF COMMENT FROM THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1993
Additional information regarding traffic has recendy become available pertaining to projects
which are proposed within the City of Encinitas near the southem boundary of Carlsbad.
If these projects are developed^, it is possible that additional intersections south of La Costa
Avenue and El Camino Real will not have adequate capacity to accommodate traffic at
buildout of the City. Increased traSic at impacted intersections vnll be caused by
cumulative regional through-trafiic and will be beyond the abiUty of the City to control.
This additional infonnation does not alter the conclusions of the MEIR vdth. regard to
Circulation, In this area, the EIR has determined that there are significant and unmitigable
impacts. The City is proposing to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
address this issue*
Environmental review of the Updated General Plan addresses the broad nature of programs
and policies outlined in the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. It does not address
potential projects which may be proposed in adjacent cities. However, there are policies
v«thin fhe General Plan which require Carlsbad to "enter into discussions and negotiations
with other cities, the county, or responsible agencies when prospective developments in
their areas are incompatible with adjacent Carlsbad areas in regards to land uses, deitsity,
and type of dwellings of zoning,.," The Generai Plan is a progri level document and does
not address environmental impacts created by specific projects. Such issues are more
appropriately addressed when individual projects are submitted to the City,
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
April 20, 1994
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Savary called the. Regular Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Hall..
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and Welshons
Absent: Commissioner Betz
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner
Don Neu, Senior Planner
Van Lynch, Planning Technician II
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner
Terri Woods, Associate Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
COMIVIENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Savary announced that Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, who is unable to attend the meeting
due to illness, requested a change to the Minutes of April 6,1994 on page 9. She requested that the last
sentence of paragraph 4 read as follows: "...that this draft EIR, with the exception of a few minor changes,
is the same one which was presented to the public, so it is not the same as the Laurel Heights situation".
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 6,1994, as amended.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - A request for recommendation of certification
of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment
to comprehensively update the General Plan.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGE 2
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, reviewed the events of the General Plan public hearing from the two
previous meetings, for the benefit of the Commissioners. She then explained the housekeeping changes
contained in Errata #5. This errata includes changes requested by the Commission at the previous two
meetings as well as an addendum that needs to be made to the EIR. The reason for the addendum is
because the circulation study outlined 20 impacted intersections which could not be mitigated; however the
study failed to mention that some of those impacted intersections were not located within the City limits.
Staff has corrected the number of impacted intersections from 20 to 12 full intersections and 2 partial
intersections.
Ms. Landers stated that the addendum also includes comments from the City of Encinitas which state that
there may be additional impacted intersections south of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real if projects
proposed within the City of Encinitas are constructed. These intersections would be impacted by regional
through traffic and are beyond Carlsbad's jurisdiction to control. However, the General Plan does contain
statements which require the City to work with nearby cities in addressing land uses where there is
potential incompatibility. Staff is doing as much as possible to address those issues but there still may be
impacts which are beyond the City's jurisdiction. The inclusion of this comment from the City of Encinitas
does not change either the impacts or the conclusions of the EIR. There are still significant but
unmitigable impacts with regard to circulation.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the map which shows the intersections of Melrose and Rancho Santa
Fe and inquired if the projected intersections are based on developments which have been approved in
other jurisdictions but not yet constructed. Ms. Landers replied that the information used by staff was
based on the 1990 traffic model provided by SANDAG. That model was based on information provided to
SANDAG by adjacent cities.
Ms. Landers stated that oniy one comment was received regarding the Housing Element. Margie Monroy,
representing the League of Women Voters, requested that the technical information for the Housing
Element be updated to include the census data from the 1990 census. Although this information may be
available on a local level, it cannot be used until SANDAG has compiled the data on a regional level, which
may take two more years.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Housing Element could be invalidated if we don't use the same
data throughout the document. Ms. Landers replied that the 1990 census data was used as a baseline for
noise and circulation, however it was not available when the Housing Element was prepared.
Mr. Wayne added that the Housing Element is governed by an entirely different section of State law, which
specifies what data must be used. Carlsbad cannot replace the 1980 census data in the Housing Element
with 1990 census data until SANDAG completes their regional needs study.
Commissioner Welshons inquired when the SANDAG study will be available. Mr. Wayne replied that
Carlsbad was due to update its Housing Element in 1996. However, due to budget constraints, that has
been pushed back two years. He anticipates that it will probably be in 1998.
Ms. Landers stated that the Housing Element was adopted and has already been certified by HCO.
Commissioner Hall referred to page 60 of the Housing Element regarding CEQA Program 4.1 and asked
staff to explain the housing impact fees. Mr. Wayne replied that this section means that when you provide
for all levels of income within the City boundaries based upon jobs/housing, that the employees don't have
to travel as far to work in the City, and that contributes to an overall reduction of air pollutants.
Commissioner Hall thought it had been decided to strike that. Ms. Landers replied that the Commission
had discussed deleting it as a mitigation measure under air quality; however, there was no decision made.
Staff had mentioned that the Commission may want to include a recommendation to the City Council to
not approve that particular study when it is completed.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGE 3
Commissioner Hall stated that there is a lot of documentation in the General Plan which relates to that
study. He does not like to vote on something if he hasn't seen the facts to substantiate it. Ms. Landers
replied that the Commission would only be voting on having a study done; the City Council has already
approved the Housing Element and the need for a study to evaluate that particular fee.
Commissioner Hall referred to page 72 regarding job/housing impact fees and inquired if the study will also
call for some type of impact fees. Ms. Landers replied that the study would evaluate the possibility of doing
that.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if this section means that a nexus study is needed and that those
corporations bringing in higher paying jobs would not be required to pay the fee. Mr. Wayne replied that it
would probably be done by categories, i.e. retail, research and developrnent, manufacturing. Michael
Holzmiller, Planning Director, added that the nexus study only shows that businesses located in the City do
have employees that need lower income housing. That nexus study wiil be used by the City Council to
decide whether or not the City wants to charge a fee.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if this means that the impact of the particular company will dictate the
amount that they will have to pay. Mr. Holzmiller replied yes.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that whenever you establish a nexus and fee situation, it has to be
legally upheld. He is sure that the City attorney will give it close scrutiny.
Commissioner Hall referred to page 99, Objective 2.2, Development Standards, and requested staff to
address modified codes and standards. Mr. Holzmiller replied that this is the ordinance which has already
been adopted. It allows, by site development plan, consideration for modifying development standards.
The Planning Commission and the City Council have already used that ordinance on a couple of projects.
It allows the City the ability to modify development standards in order to get affordable housing in projects.
Commissioner Hall referred to page 109 and requested staff to explain the balance regarding housing
impact fees. Mr. Holzmiller replied that this is the study which has been done to determine if the City wants
to charge nonresidential housing impact fees.
Commissioner En^vin referred to page 108, Objective 3.11, where it discusses reducing the size of housing
by reducing costs and increasing affordability. In the policy paragraph, where it discusses reducing the lot
size, he Inquired if we will maintain our minimum setbacks, (20 ft. front, 5 ft. side, and 10 ft. back) or would
setbacks also be reduced. Mr. Holzmiller replied that there are no plans to reduce the setbacks. This
program has already been implemented by the PUD ordinance which is currently in effect. When the
Housing Element was written, it included all of the things that were currently being done.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he is also concerned about Objective 4.1. He states that this indicates we
will do a study and then take action. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the nexus study has already been prepared
by staff, although it hasn't gone to City Council yet. That nexus study fulfills all the programs and
objectives in the Housing Element. Staff considers this study to be complete. The City Council may just
decide to file the information.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if it will be up to the City Council whether or not to charge a fee and who will
be required to pay the fee. Mr. Holzmiller replied that this is correct. As far as staff is concerned, they
have completed their task.
Commissioner Hall doesn't read it that way. He believes that a lay person who reads this would assume a
fee is required.
Chairman Savary stated that the Commissioners should state their views and objections before the
tentative vote. That will go into the record as a recommendation to the City Council.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGE 4
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Commission is allowed to change a word from "will" do something
to "may" do something. Mr. Holzmiller replied yes.
Commissioner Welshons commented that Commissioner Enwin's point is that the sentence reads "...these
measures will include but are not limited to the requirement for the developers to contribute and in-lieu
fee." She thinks Commissioner Hall is correct in assuming that a lay person picking this up would think a
fee is required.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the structure of the paragraph is that staff will do a
study and where adverse impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be considered. The Council has
the right, ability, and purvue to say they don't want to do anything. The measures they will be considering
include all of those things and they can say no to every one of them. Doing the study is all the City has
ever committed to. It hasn't committed to adopting it, it hasn't committed to taking actions on initiating a
fee or requiring employer assistance to finance affordable housing, it hasn't committed to any of those
things by the City Council approving this program 4.1.
Commissioner Hall stated that this study has a tremendous impact on the future of Carlsbad. Not knowing
what the outcome of that is, and the way the sentence is worded, he has a lot of difficulty accepting it. He
thinks we have the cart before the horse. In his opinion, this should be added after the study, not now. He
sees no reason to do it now.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the City can only amend the General Plan four times a year. This is
a General Plan proposal. He is in favor of doing something tonight because we can't turn around and
amend the General Plan the moment the City Council adopts it. Commissioner Schlehuber could accept
the use of the word "may" as suggested by Commissioner Erwin. Mr. Holzmiller replied that if the wording
a causing a problem, it can be changed. He reassured the Commission that the only intent is to bring the
study fonward to City Council.
Commissioner Welshons stated that some of the Commissioners may have no qualms about a study but
they may have a problem with the whole idea of a fee. She thinks using the word "may" might diffuse the
problem.
Commissioner Schlehuber doesn't know how the Commission can vote on this when they have no
information on the study. Until all the facts are on the table, it would be impossible to decide the feasibility
of such a fee, and that in itself would require a full public hearing.
Commissioner Enwin couldn't find any reference in the Housing Element to the use of minimum densities.
Ms. Landers replied that this information is not in the Housing Element, but rather the Land Use Element.
It was also included in the EIR but has now been deleted.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he could not accept any reference to minimum densities In the
Housing Element and, if it is included, he would like it stricken.
Ms. Landers requested a clarification of which "will" needs to be changed to "may." Commissioner
Welshons stated: "Where adverse impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be considered to reduce
the impacts. These measures may include...".
Commissioner Welshons called for an informal poll on all those in favor of changing "will" to "may" in
Program 4.1. The sentence should read, "These measures may include...". The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Commissioner Schlehuber called for an informal poll on all those in favor of accepting the Housing
Element and all errata sheets, with the understanding that staff will correct anything in the Element that
refers to a requirement for a minimum density. The vote was 5-1 with Commissioner Hall voting no.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGES
Commissioner Hall requested that the record show he voted no because of the wording in 4.0 and 4.1.
Ms. Landers advised the Commission that when the General Plan goes fonward to the City Council, it will
be in the form of a clean copy, including all of the changes made by the Commission. The agenda bill will
include a discussion of the issues that are important to the Planning Commission. All comments and
opinions will be included.
Terri Woods, Associate Planner, reviewed the comments made regarding the Open Space and
Conservation Element.
• Density Transfers. Ms. Besecker recommended density transfers in conjunction with providing open
space. Staff believes it is premature to include this wording in the Open Space Element because it is
just one of the methods under consideration at this time as part of City habitat management planning
efforts. This topic is covered in the preliminary draft of the Habitat Management Plan and staff feels that
is the correct place for density transfers to be addressed.
• Protection Measures. Dolores Welty, on behalf of Project Future, discussed a lack of specific protection
measures for sensitive resources. She also expressed concern about the amount of time the City might
take in developing future programs for open space. Ms. Welty cited several policies which she believes
might take a long time to develop. One policy is to develop an inventory of habitat in the City. Staff has
already completed this program through the HMP efforts. The open space mapping has been completed
through the Open Space & Conservation Resource Management Plan. Constrained lands have been
mapped to a level of 400 scale, which is much more highly defined than that of most cities. Ms. Welty
suggested that the City consider a much larger percentage of land to be set aside as open space and
claims that we only set aside 15%. In actuality, the City requires 15% of the developable land. Further,
all constrained lands must be set aside. Together, this far exceeds 15%. Staff is currently working on a
multi-species habitat plan which, if the HMP is ever approved, would result in far more open space in
the City. Staff does not recommend changing the 15% growth management requirement for open space
at this time.
• Financing. Ms. Welty made several comments regarding financing of open space. The Open Space &
Conservation Resource Management Plan does include several means to finance open space, including
a possible general obligation bond and an assessment district to pay for maintenance and liability of a
trail system. Staff is also looking at numerous financing mechanisms for a habitat management plan,
including a mitigation fee and general obligation bond.
• Sherman Property. Richard Chick commented about the constrained lands mapped on the Sherman
Property in Zone 25. A good portion of his property is heavily constrained. To alleviate his concerns,
staff has no problem leaving the designation as hatched, with the understanding that a General Plan
Amendment will be required at the time a specific plan comes fonward.
• Sunny Creek Property. Chase Coman commented about the heavy constraints on his mother's property
in Sunny Creek. Staff has written him a memo stating that we agree with a minor adjustment of the
open space boundary on his property. This change is reflected on the new draft Land Use Map.
- Trails. Commissioner Hall commented that whenever trails are mentioned, they should be referred to as
proposed trails. Staff has looked at the logistics of doing this but decided it woukJ be cumbersome to
add the word proposed throughout every document which discusses trails. Therefore, staff would prefer
to include a citation in the minutes that the trails are proposed until a financing mechanism is in place.
This would alleviate the need to process a General Plan Amendment once financing is confirmed.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the Open Space Element or the Parks & Recreation Element should be
changed. Ms. WocxJs replied that staff would prefer to remove the reference to proposed trails in the Parks
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGE 6
& Recreation Element and then leave the Open Space Element alone. A citation would be added that trails
are proposed until maintenance and liability can be financed.
Commissioner Hall stated that his only concern is next week or next month there may be a whole new set
of players. He wants the General Plan to mention that the trails are proposed rather than have to refer
back to Minutes.
After several suggestions were discussed. Commissioners and staff agreed that a sentence be added to
C.l as follows: "Until such financing mechanism is in place, the trail system shall be considered
proposed."
Commissioner Welshons called for an informal poll on all those in favor of accepting the Open Space &
Conservation Element, with the added sentence in C.l regarding the trail system as proposed, and a
change to the Sherman property to the split general plan designation of TS/O/OS. The vote was 6-0 in
favor.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, stated that there had been no public comments with regard to the
Public Safety Element.
Commissioner Welshons called for an informal poll on all those in favor of accepting the Public Safety
Element and any errata corrections related to it. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, stated that there had been no public comments with regard to the Arts
Element.
Commissioner Welshons called for an informal poll on all those in favor of accepting the Arts Element and
any errata corrections related to it. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, stated that the next item would be a final vote on the Master EIR and
addendum.
Commissioner Hall inquired if he needed to restate his objections for the record. Michael Holzmiller,
Planning Director, replied that no errata sheets will be fonwarded to the City Council. All changes will be
made and a clean copy of the General Plan will be sent fonward. As for the EIR, staff will place the
addendum in the front of the EiR. The addendum to the EIR will contain all of the corrections which have
been made. The agenda bill which goes to the City Council will explain the process which was followed on
the General Plan Update and it will Include a detailed staff report of each informal poll which was taken
and any comments or objections by Commissioners on specific Items. A copy of the Minutes will also be
included in the Council package.
Commissioner Hall wants to make sure that the City Council members are made aware of why each
Commissioner voted the way they did. Mr. Holzmiller replied that he could also cross reference the
Minutes to each specific item.
Commissioner Enwin commented that in the past, impacted intersections were identified as were proposed
developments in surrounding communities which could have an effect on the City of Carlsbad. Mr.
Holzmiller replied that the overall findings being made on the EIR do not override growth management.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 1994 PAGE 7
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3630 recommending certification of the Environmental
Impact Report No. 93-01, subject to all addenda contained in Errata Sheets numbered 1
through 5, including the change in language to add an addendum to the Master EIR.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Savary called for the final vote on the General Plan Update.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3631, recommending approval of GPA 94-01, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with all corrections which have
been made, including those made tonight.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Hall requested that the record show that although he supported the General Plan Update,
he has strong concerns about the Housing Element and the Land Use Element, with special attention on
future commercial in Land Use and Policy 4.1 in Housing.
Commissioner Enwin requested that Planning Commissioners be given a final copy of the General Plan
before it is forwarded to City Council.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. PCD/GPC 94-03 - CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - A request for approval of a Negative
Declaration and a Determination of Consistency with the General Plan for the acquisition of 422
acres of property north of Palomar Airport Road and east and west of College Avenue for the
ultimate development of a municipal golf course, which includes a club house and maintenance
facilities.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the City of Carlsbad
is requesting approval of a Negative Declaration and a Determination of Consistency with the General Plan
for the acquisition of 422 acres of property north of Palomar Airport Road and east and west of College
Avenue, for the ultimate development of a municipal golf course. Title 7 of the California Government
Code states that prior to purchasing any land for public purposes, the City must bring the proposed
acquisition fonward to the Planning Commission to make sure it is consistent with the General Plan. A golf
course is allowed in any zone in the City with a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Welshons noted that the Planned Industrial zone allows outdoor recreation uses on an
interim basis. She inquired how staff can justify a golf course as an interim use. In her opinion, a golf
course would seem to be more of a permanent use. Mr. Hunter replied that golf courses generally stay in
place until a better use comes along.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the Commission is to assume that a golf course can be built at this l<x:ation.
Mr. Hunter stated no—only that it is consistent with the General Plan.
MINUTES
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
April 6, 1994
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Savary called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Welshons.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Staff Present:
Also Present:
Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and
Welshons
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner
Terri Woods, Associate Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney
David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst
John Bridges, EIR Consultant (Cotton Beland & Assoc.)
Rob Greene, Noise Consultant (Woodward-Clyde Consultants)
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT USTED ON THE AGENDA:
Elsa Bengulat, 2947 Lexington Circle, Carlsbad, stated that she would like to address the barking dog
issue and she did not know whether or not that was an agenda item. Commissioner Savary advised Ms.
Bengulat that Ms. Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, had informed her that comments regarding barking dogs
should be made when the Noise Element of the General Plan is discussed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, requested a correction to the Minutes of March 2,1994 on page 9,
paragraph 3, first and second sentences. She requested that the first sentence read as follows:
"...commented that the City's current ordinance is based on a very specific...". She requested that the
second sentence read as follows: "...Santa Ana's occupancy ordinance was invalidated...".
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Enwin, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of March 2,1994, as corrected.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Enwin requested a correction to the Minutes of March 16,1994 on page 11, paragraph 3,
first and third sentences. He requested that the first sentence read as follows: "...can be as high as 70-75
MINUTES
i .
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 2
CNEL but it must be mitigated to 60 CNEL.". He requested that the third sentence read as follows:
"...story exterior could be...".
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, requested a correction to the Minutes of March 16,1994 on page 12,
paragraph 3, last sentence. She requested that it read as follows: "Ms. Hirata disagrees with Mr. Krupp's
legal analysis."
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of March 16,1994, as corrected.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED PUBUC HEARINGS:
1. ZCA 92-4 - SECOND DWELLING UNITS ZONE CODE AMENDMENT - Request for approval of a
Negative Declaration and an amendment to various chapters and sections of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code (Title 21) to: (1) add a definition for Second Dwelling Unit, (2) allow the development ot
Second Dwelling Units through administrative permit in the R-A, R-E, R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones
and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached dwellings in the P-C zones of the
City, and (3) amend the requirements for the creation of Second Dwelling Units in the R-A, R-E,
R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones and areas designated by a master plan for single-family detached
dwellings in the P-C zones of the City.
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on March 2, 1994
this Zone Code Amendment pertaining to second units was heard by the Planning Commission and they
voted for a continuance to enable staff to research and respond to concerns regarding inclusionary
housing requirements for second dwelling units, second dwelling units on smaller single-family residential
lots of less than 7,500 s.f., tandem parking for second dwelling units, and the impact of second dwelling
units on the excess dwelling unit bank. In response to these concerns, staff is recommending the following
ordinance revisions:
- Inclusionary Housing Requirement - Staff recommends the deletion of the requirement for second
dwelling unit owners to either pay the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee or deed restrict the second unit as
affordable to lower income households. Instead, staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to
stipulate that the maximum monthly rental rate for a second dwelling unit shall be affordable to lower
income households. This provision would not be placed as a deed restriction on second units, nor would
it be monitored and enforced by the City, except on a complaint basis. It would, however, require that
the owner provide the City with prospective rental rate information for the second unit, upon application
for a building permit. The proposed rental rate would then be reported to the State Department of
Housing & Community Development during our yearly report to the State. Provided that the rental rate
is affordable, it would be counted towards satisfying the City's regional share housing needs. He noted
that staff has been advised by HCD that they will count second dwelling units in their calculation as long
as the rental price meets the affordable criteria.
• Second Dwelling Units on Smaller Single-Family Lots - Staff recommends the addition of new
development standards to the planned development chapter of the municipal code which would regulate
the placement of second units on single-family lots less than 7,500 s.f. as follows: (1) all second
dwelling units shall be set back the same distance from the front and side property lines as the primary
unit on the lot; (2) the second dwelling unit shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the rear property
line; (3) second dwelling units shali not be permitted to encroach into the recreatton area of the primary
residence and (4) for detached second dwelling units, the distance between ttie
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 3
primary dwelling unit and the detached dwelling unit shall not be less than 10 feet. He showed diagrams
on the overhead of where a second dwelling unit could be placed on various sized k}ts under 7,500 s.f.
He also showed a photo of the only granny flat now existing in the City.
• Tandem Parking - Mr. DeCerbo stated that the present requirement for one additional parking space to
be located outside of the setback areas has prohibited the development of second dwelling units. Staff
recommends that the parking requirement be changed to allow tandem parking to satisfy the parking
requirement. He showed several photos of tandem parking now existing throughout the City.
• Excess Unit Bank - There are currently 2,000 units in the City's Excess Unit Bank. These excess unit
exist as a consequence of residential projects being approved at lower densities than permitted. Based
on this historical trend, staff believes that the units in the Bank are sufficient to meet our affordable
housing objectives without exceeding the dwelling unit limitations of the Growth Management Plan.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what kind of agreement the homeowner would have to sign saying that
the second dwelling unit is affordable. Mr. DeCerbo replied that no agreement would be signed. The
homeowner would only need to provide the City with the prospective rental rate upon application for a
building permit.
Commissioner Welshons inquired what would happen when a complaint is received. Mr. DeCerbo replied
that the City would then have the option of enforcing the rental rate.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if that means that today we won't enforce it but tomorrow we might.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the City couldn't selectively enforce the rental rate.
Zone code enforcement is on a complaint basis. Our ordinance stipulates that the rent for a second
dwelling unit must be affordable. If the homeowner rents the unit for more than the affordable rate, it
would be considered a zone code violation, which is enforceable. However, enforcement is on a complaint
basis.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he thinks this will be good because the units are small, and the
affordable rental rate is relatively high. He doesn't think a homeowner would realistically be able to get a
higher rent than the affordable rate because of the size of the unit. For instance, the average rental rate for
a one bedroom apartment is $556 per mo. However, the affordable rental allowance for two person
occupancy is $673 per mo. Commissioner Schlehuber feels the ordinance is well written and doesn't think
there is anything to be lost. He thinks it is a win-win situation.
Commissioner Hall commented that the average second dwelling unit will house a child, mother, or maid
so, in all probability, there may be no rent paid at all. He also thinks it will be a win-win situation.
Commissioner Welshons doesn't understand the requirement to rent to only low income. Mr. DeCerbo
replied that this is necessary to ensure that second dwelling units qualify as affordable housing.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the reference to low income also includes very low income. Mr.
DeCerbo replied that the mandate is only for 80% of the median income.
Commissioner Betz stated that if a second unit is built on a new lot, she would rather see an extra parking
place provided for in the plans—perhaps a three car garage; she is not in favor of tandem parking in this
instance. Furthermore, she noted that second dwelling units can only be single story. She inquired about
the possibility of having a parking garage located under a living unit. Mr. DeCertxj replied that it is possible
to have a detached garage with a living unit above it.
Commissioner Betz would like to see more flexibility if the lot is large enough. Gary Wayne, Assistant
Planning Director, replied that unique situations could be handled with a variance.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 4
Commissioner Betz stated that variances are very exclusive and hard to get. If a lot is large enough, she
feels the ordinance should allow some flexibility.
Commissioner Hall stated that the other complaint might be having a neighbor peer out a back window at
you while you are in your back yard around the pool. In order to protect the privacy of neighbors, he
doesn't think added height should be allowed.
Commissioner Schlehuber thinks that a second dwelling unit with two floors and parking below would look
like a Spite House. He is still convinced that tandem parking is a good idea.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how services and facilities would be calculated and addressed for these
second dwelling units which are created after the local facilities management plans (LFMPs) are in place.
Mr. DeCerbo replied that the LFMPs are broken up into critical and non-critical facilities. For instance,
sewer, water, and roads would be critical facilities associated with the preservation of health, safety, and
welfare. Those have all been planned with excess capacity above the Proposition E caps. Second
dwelling units would not exceed those caps.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if fees are collected for second dwelling units. Mr. DeCerbo replied yes;
public facilities fees would have to be paid for each second unit when the permit is pulled. Those fees
would go into the capital improvement project (CIP) budget for freeway interchanges, roads, libraries. City
administration, parks, etc.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff had any comments on the letters received from Fieldstone
(dated April 6,1994) and the Ladwig Design Group (dated March 31,1994). Mr. DeCerbo replied that the
Ladwig letter requested second dweiling units in the R-P, R-T, R-W, and RD-M zones. Staff can support
that on lots which have single-family residences. As far as the request for gravel paving is concerned,
staff explained to Mr. Ladwig that this requirement applies only to the rural estate zone with minimum one
acre lots and 70 ft. front yard setbacks. Staff feels that concrete and asphalt paving are needed to prevent
erosion. Mr. Ladwig understands the reasoning and concurs with staff.
Mr. DeCerbo stated that the Fieldstone letter requests that second dwelling units of less than 500 s.f. not be
counted as a unit under growth management. Staff does not have the authority to exclude these units
from counting as dwelling units under growth management since they would tte equipped with bath and
kitchen facilities.
Chairman Savary stated that the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting but she reopened
it for new comments only.
Sharon South, Director of Business Services for the Encinitas Union School District, 101 So. Rancho
Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that she is concerned about possible
impacts to the district since the requirement for senior citizen occupancy was replaced with no age
restriction. She feels that many of the units on larger lots could house parents with small children.
Brooks Worthing, 1136 Larkspur Lane, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a small
builder. He has had three requests over the years about the granny flat concept but the fees which were
required stopped the projects cold. He likes the idea of this concept being loosened up because it is a
good solution to the affordable housing shortage. He thinks it will be self-policing and that the units won't
be rented anywhere near the maximum unless it is on a view site in La Costa.
Robert Ladwig, 1947 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 108, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and urged the
Commission to support the revised ordinance. He thinks staff did an excellent job in researching what
other cities have done regarding second dwelling units. He woukJ be happy to answer questions, if any.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 5
Doug Avis, Fieldstone-La Costa, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated
that he was a member of the affordable housing task force. Early on, he advocated the use of second
dwelling units to help fulfill the affordable housing quota. He likes the ordinance and thinks there are many
places where this can be used. However, he would like to see a threshold below which the second dwelling
units would not count as dwelling units. Mr. Avis thinks there are many second dwelling units already out
there which need to be qualified so they can count towards affordable housing. He welcomed questions.
Commissioner Hall stated that there has been some discussion regarding an additional garage on new
construction. Mr. Avis did not hear the earlier comments regarding the additional garage. However, he
thinks the market would respond well to a second dwelling unit in the rear yard for some product types in a
new project. Unfortunately, under the existing code, that unit in the rear yard would count as another living
unit. In his mind, it should be counted towards the affordable housing quota.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if a third garage could be dedicated to the second dwelling unit. Mr. Avis
replied that he feels tandem parking, if any, should be allocated to the primary house. The third garage
could be framed in and allocated to the granny flat. However, the reality of it is that people will still park on
the street, no matter what. People have a tendency to put their bicycles, barbecues, and storage in the
garage, and park the cars outside.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if a tandem garage is one that houses two cars, side by side, with two
cars behind them. Mr. Avis replied that is correct. Many homes down by the lagoon have this
arrangement because the lots are thinner and longer. Unfortunately, the market will not respond to
tandem garages so they probably wouldn't get built. That is why you see three car garages in some new
developments.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic. Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Enwin cannot accept tandem parking but he thinks second dwelling units will work on lots
which are large enough.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he likes the improvements to the ordinance which staff has
presented tonight. The tandem parking doesn't txjther him. He thinks it is a really good ordinance.
Commissioner Betz can support it as long as new construction does include a third garage designated
particularly tor the second dwelling unit. Mr. DeCerbo replied that this provision could be added for new
developments if the Commission desires.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is neutral. He thinks the ordinance is necessary in order to proceed.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, requested a clarification regarding new construction.
Commissioner Betz replied that she is talking about a new house being built from the ground up, whether it
be a single or a development.
Commissioner Welshons requested staff to comment on Mr. Avis' comment regarding second dwelling
units being counted as separate units. Mr. DeCerbo replied that a second dwelling unit with kitchen
facilities and a separate entrance would be counted as an individual unit under growth management. Staff
has no authority to interpret othenwise.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about Mr. Ladwig's request for gravel paving. Mr. DeCerbo replied that
this was only for very large lots with 70 ft. front yard setbacks. Staff cannot support that request.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 6
Commissioner Welshons inquired if dedicating a third garage specifically to the second dwelling unit will
diminish the tool to get these affordable units built. Mr. DeCertx} replied that it would tie another hurdle
and could possibly have that effect.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that if a PUD came in for approval, the Planning
Commission would have an opportunity to see it. But if someone came in with a standard R-1 -7500
subdivision, all the Commission would see is lots. When they come in with the houses, they come for
building permits and it doesn't come back to the Commission. He knows that it is a whole lot cheaper to
build the second dwelling unit at the same time the primary unit is being built. If dedicating the third
garage to the second unit is required, he is reasonably sure they will find a way to do it.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels that putting a three car garage up front on a 7,500 s.f. lot, it will look like
all garage and the house gets pushed aside. He thinks it will affect the design of the project and he is not
in favor of it but he will be neutral if that is what it will take to get it approved.
Commissioner Welshons would like to know if this requirement will tie the hands of developers.
Commissioner Noble supports the ordinance as it was presented. He feels that tandem parking works. He
has seen it work in Terramar. The object of the ordinance is to get more affordable housing. He doesn't
think it will have any impact on schools because schools will base their decisions on growth management.
He doesn't think very many of these units will be built and even if they are, he doesn't feel we will reach the
maximum growth established in the Growth Management Plan.
Chairman Savary asked if staff wished to comment further.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the Deputy City Attorney has suggested that on
page 5 of the ordinance, item (P), line 6, we should replace "the household" with "a low income
household". He feels it would be more clear.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3542 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution l^k>. 3543
recommending approval of ZCA 92-04, based on the findings contained therein,
including the change recommended by Robert Ladwig to also include zones R-P, R-T,
R-W, and RD-M, as well as the wording change recommended by staff on page 5,
item (P), line 6, and recommending that the City Council direct staff to sut)sequently
open up the six week public review period to amend the City's six Local Coastal Program
segments accordingly.
VOTE: 5-2
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Schlehut)er and Welshons
NOES: Commissioners Betz and Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened at 7:32 p.m.
2. EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - A request for recommendation of certification
of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment
to comprehensively update the General Plan.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, reviewed the actions which had taken place at the last meeting and
then reviewed each of the attachments which were included in the Commissioners' packets. She then
MINUTES
PUNNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 7
stated that after the public testimony, she or another member of the staff would present information on
each of the elements, discussion would take piace, and an informal poll would then be taken. When all of
the elements have been considered, a final vote would be taken.
Commissioner Hall inquired when the commercial aspect of property and the minimum dwelling units in a
zone would be discussed. Ms. Landers replied that they would both be discussed under Land Use.
Chairman Savary stated that the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting but she reopened
it for new comments only.
Mark Chomyn, representing San Diego Gas & Electric, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, addressed the
Commission and stated that in the Land Use Element and the Parks & Recreation Element it discusses
accessory uses in powerline easements and access to wetlands along the south shore of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. SDG&E would appreciate the opportunity to review accessory uses and any matters of
public access because of the topographical constraints along the south shore. Further, he stated that
SDG&E is very open to expanding recreational facilities on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon but noted that the
lagoon was dredged and flushed as an adjunct to cooling waters for the power plant. Any consideration of
uses in the lagoon must be considered along with the uninterrupted supply of cooling water to the power
plant and SDG&E's continued ability to maintain dredging, etc. Mr. Chomyn also noted that in the Open
Space & Conservation Element it identifies several portions of SDG&E's existing transmission easements
which might become components of the trail system. Where components of the trail system are
implemented within the easements, SDG&E would appreciate the opportunity to consult with staff and/or
private developers to ensure that access for maintenance is not compromised. He was happy to see EMF
discussed and stated that SDG&E would be happy to provide information on this subject if there is interest.
Lastly, Mr. Chomyn's major concern is on page 18 of the Land Use Element where it discusses Precise
Development Plans (PDPs). It is not clear if this refers to wastewater treatment facilities or if it also applies
to electrical energy treatment of wastewater, maintenance and storage of operating facilities, and other
functions. He would like a clarification since substations are currently serviced under a CUP. He thinks
the PDP process might be too involved for those types of uses.
Commissioner Schlehuber advised Mr. Chomyn that the City cannot arbitrarily put a trail within an
easement without talking to SDG&E. Mr. Chomyn stated that he was only reaffirming their concerns
regarding implementation of some of the elements in the General Plan and they are willing to work with
staff to make them happen. However, there may be times when SDG&E may not be able to accomplish
100% of the goals and objectives of the specific plan. He would like to know if the PDP is being applied to
all uses or just to uses defined as treatment of wastewater.
Paul Yrisarri, 1817 Hanscomb Drive, South Pasadena, addressed the Commission and stated that he
spoke at the last meeting but now wished to comment on the sunset provisions proposed for the
commercial zones. He feels that the sunset provision will result in an undersupply of commercially zoned
land. If there is an undersupply of commercial land, developers will go elsewhere and Carlsbad residents
will be sending their sales tax dollars to other cities. He also commented on the open space maps and
noted that they contain a legend that they are imprecise. He would like to see this comment carried to the
text as well.
Sharon South, Director of Business Services for the Encinitas Union School District, 101 So. Rancho
Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and reviewed the text of her letter dated April 3,
1994. Essentially, the school district can accept the school mitigation as long as the growth management
plan continues in force. However, the school district is still concerned about the open space designation
which they feel discounts the value of school sites. Mr. Holzmiller has advised them that existing and
future schoo\ sites would be noted on the maps and would bear the same designation as surrounding
properties. With this change, the school district could support adoption of the Plan. Ms. South submitted a
copy of her letter to each Commissioner and a copy of the letter is also on file in the Planning Department.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGES
Elsa Benguiat, 2947 Lexington Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that her comments
were in regard to the Noise Element. She and her husband had written a letter to the Planning
Commission suggesting an alternative process for handling barking dogs. They received a reply stating
that staff wouW look into the possibility of changing the City's enforcement method for barking dogs. She
stated that it took them over two years to take care of one dog using the present system. Even after going
to court twice, there are still other barking dogs in her area which need to be controlled. She has a letter
from the Office of Noise Control explaining a very simplified system which is used in San Diego County
and the North County cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Oceanside, and Escondido. She would
be interested in what type of effective system the City might be considering.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if they had to file a criminal complaint in order to take care of their problem.
Ms. Benguiat replied that they had used two systems and a citation was finally issued, but it did require
them filing a criminal complaint. It was a very frustrating ordeal.
Commissioner Enwin asked to see the letter from the Office of Noise Control. Ms. Benguiat replied that she
only had one copy. She let Commissioner Enwin read it and stated she would send staff a copy of it after
this meeting.
Mark Chomyn, SDG&E, returned to the podium and stated that he had neglected to mention a possible
error on page 23 of the Parks & Recreation Element, Table 5, where it states that Agua Hedionda Lagoon
is owned by the State. He thinks that should be changed to SDG&E.
Commissioner Noble advised Mr. Chomyn that this had come up once betore when he served on the
Beach Erosion Committee. He stated that the Parks & Recreation staff has determined that the lagoon is
owned by the State because it is considered to be navigable waters. Mr. Chomyn stated that he will also
look into it further.
John Freidlander, 2245 Nob Hill Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is
concerned about the landing pattern for aircraft at Palomar Airport. He spoke at the March 16,1994
meeting but wanted to mention tonight that, since the last meeting, another airline is currently in the
process of being approved for landing. This will essentially double the number of commercial flights per
day into Palomar Airport. In effect, this doubles the impacts to all residential property within the flight
pattern.
Commissioner Hall inquired if this is commercial flights or total flights. Mr. Freidlander replied that he is
speaking of commercial flights.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission memt)ers.
Before going into the individual elements, Ms. Landers stated that the consultant, John Bridges, would like
to address some of the EIR comments made at the last meeting by Dolores Welty.
John Bridges, Cotton Beland & Assoc., stated that the letter from Project Future, presented by Dolores
Welty at the last meeting, mentioned that the EIR document and the mitigation were both very broad in
scope and relied on City programs which may or may not take place. Mr. Bridges stated that a General
Plan is supposed to be broad in scope because it is a set of actions (rather than a single action) which will
take place over the next 10 to 20 years. As a result, the environmental analysis which is conducted is also
of a broad nature because it, too, covers a 10 to 20 year span. As each project comes fonward, there will
be a specific assessment made regarding environmental impacts and mitigation. The Project Future letter
also stated that the draft EIR needed to be recirculated because new information has become available
which was not included in the document. He noted that their were only 10 or 11 comments received on the
EIR when it went out for public review. In accordance with CEQA, Section 9 of the EIR includes all of the
MINUTES
^:ORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 9
written comments which were received, as well as the responses. Several changes were made as a result
of those comments. There is a letter from Project Future in Section 9, and the response is there as well.
That letter was almost identical to the Project Future letter presented by Dok>res Welty at the March 16,
1994 meeting. Mr. Bridges sees no reason for the document to be recirculated since there have been no
substantial changes.
Ms. Landers stated that Housing Program 4.1 which was discussed at the last meeting has now been
completed and is in the City Manager's office for review. It contains information on a non-reskjential
impact fee for commercial development. It is mentioned as a mitigation measure for air quality and if the
Commission would like it deleted, it could be included in the Minutes of this meeting as a citation advising
the City Council of the Commission's desires.
Commissioner Welshons asked where this information is located in the document. Ms. Landers replied
that it is contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist on page 13 under Air Quality, item 16.
Commissioner Enwin referred to the Project Future letter and stated that they see it as deficient because of
the defects they listed. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that Mr. Bridges addressed their
concerns appropriately because a General Plan is intended to be broad in scope and more details are
provided when specific projects come forth. In the Laurel Heights case, there was an allegation that new
information came up after the draft EIR was prepared. When the final EIR document came fonward to the
Board of Regents, it was substantially different than the document which the publk: had received, so they
had not been given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Bridges responded adequately to Project Future's
concern by stating that this draft EIR, tbhtiJt\6ti/iJII/a/1t\6/piibIilt/ttfnMbm/iJi/*iat/6^^ with
the exception of a few minor changes, is the same one which was presented to the public, so It is not the
same as the Laurel Heights situation.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, inquired if there were any questions regarding the Vision Statement of
the General Plan.
Commissioner Hall requested she explain how the goals, policies, and objectives work and how they are
carried on through each of the elements. Ms. Landers replied that the goal is a very broad concept to keep
in mind as you go through the element. The objective breaks down that goal into various components and
discusses how it will be achieved. In effect, the objective is an intermediate step towards attaining a goal.
The program and policy breaks the goal down even further. The Vision Statement incorporates the major
goal of each element and then as you go through each element that goal is reinforced.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, reviewed the comments made regarding the Land Use Element.
• Carlsbad Research Center. Mr. Eyreni objected to the change of land use designations from
PI/RS/C/TS to PI (Planned Industrial). After reviewing this request, staff still recommends the PI
designation change. This change is consistentwith what has been done for other industrial specific
plans and eliminates a long series of designations on the Land Use Map.
• Minimum Density. Ms. Besecker commented that it would be difficult to achieve the minimum density in
some residential projects due to environmental constraints or neighborhood compatibility. This occurred
in Arroyo La Costa. Exhibit "A" prepared by staff, includes revistons whk;h altow more flexibility
regarding density.
• So. Coast Commuter Corridor. Ms. Besecker recommended that this corridor be deleted from this
section. Since Specific Plans witi be required for the large vacant parcels atong this corridor, staff couid
accept this recommendation if the Commission concurs.
• Feasibility Study on Commercial Sites. Ms. Besecker questtoned this poltoy because she felt it placed
fundamental decisions about a project into the hands of a third party. This is a program that has been in
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 10
the General Plan for many years with regard to Neighborhood Commercial development and staff is
simply broadening the policy to include community and regional commercial development. It is
appropriate to require feasibility studies for larger sites as well to determine if they are appropriate for
commercial development.
• Periodic Reviews of Commercial Sites. Comments were made by Ms. Besecker and Messrs. Yrisarri and
Ladwig regarding the two year periodic reviews. Exhibit "B" prepared by staff, modifies this section with
regard to larger commercial properties.
- Schools. Marshall Krupp expressed concern with regard to the deletion of the performance standards
from the Land Use Element and how this affects school mitigation. These standards have been put back
into the Land Use Element. He also had a problem with the zoning of school sites as open space. Staff
felt that zoning of school sites would be more appropriately discussed at the time a school conditional
use permit is reviewed. Zoning is not really an appropriate discussion in the General Plan and therefore,
all references to zoning of school sites have been removed in Errata #3. Mr. Krupp has reviewed both
changes and has found them to be acceptable. The Commission has received a copy of the revised
language which includes a minor modification as follows: "...with the previous General Ptan land use
designation or a land use designation compatible with adjacent uses...". Mr. Krupp was also concerned
that the generation rates for schools were not included in the text. The generation rates referenced in
the EIR were received from the school district. If these are out-of-date or inaccurate, staff requests that
the school district note this in the record.
Arto Nuutinen requested a condition be included in the General Plan which was used in the Zone 20
Specific Plan to fund new school facilities using Mello Roos. Staff indicated that this is a project
mitigation measure which should not be included in a broad policy document like the General Plan.
Staff would prefer to do that on a project level basis. Mr. Nuutinen also stated that the school mitigation
measures in the EIR and Growth Management Plan are inadequate. The City disagrees because the
current process through the Growth Management Plan allows the school district to vary mitigation as
student generation rates vary. The City believes funding sources are the district's issue and that this is a
matter which the school district needs to pursue with the State.
• Precise Development Plans. SDG&E inquired about the use of PDPs for all types of utility uses,
including substations. Mr. Wayne stated that PDPs will be used for all utility uses with a "U" designation.
Substations would still come under the CUP process.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Olivenhain Elementary school site on El Camino Real had been
corrected. It should be located on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Ms. Landers stated that this was overlooked
and would be corrected.
Commissioner Erwin referred to Exhibit "A" and stated that he has a problem encouraging developers to
increase densities. He does not feel that the citizens of Carlsbad want densities increased.
Commissioner Schlehuber agrees with Commissioner Enwin. He would like the entire last paragraph of
page 16 deleted.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, feels that something needs to be included whtoh states that if
anyone goes below the density range it is still consistent with the General Plan. Staff has had some
problems with this in the past and they are trying to eliminate them now.
Commissioner Hall agrees with Commissioners Schlehuber and Enwin, although he could accept
something if it was very simple. Mr. Holzmiller stated that they could eliminate the whole thing and include
a sentence to the effect that if the City approves a project below the minimum General Plan density range,
it would stiil t>e consistent with the General Plan.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 11
Commissioner Enwin referred to Mr. Nuutinen's letter of March 16,1994, and asked if staff's
recommendation is to not include in the General Plan the agreement between the City Council and CUSD.
Ms. Landers replied that staff does not feel this statement should be included in the General Plan because
it is something which should be done at the project level review. Mr. Wayne stated that once it is contained
in the General Plan, it would require a General Plan Amendment to make even a minor modification.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commission that this language was approved by the City
Council but only for certain zones. The Council did not adopt a general policy.
Commissioner Schlehuber referred to Exhibit "B" and stated that he likes the five year review for
commercial sites because it allows for changes if they are needed. He thinks this is quite fair.
Commissioner Betz disagrees. She would like to see that part stricken.
Commissioner Hall inquired if this has been done in the past. Ms. Landers replied that it is something new
and has not been done before. Commissioner Hall would like to see it stricken also. He feels that an
owner of commercial land should be able to develop his property whenever he sees fit. He thinks that this
is a property right which should not be taken away by a City or governmental agency. If a property owner
has been paying taxes on commercial land, he should not have to come to the City every two years in
order to keep his commercial zoning active. This sends a very clear message that we do not want people
to invest in our community.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that the proposed program came about as a result of an
economic development policy which was adopted about six months ago. Sometimes when a commercial
venture wants to locate in the city, it may be on land which is not zoned commercial. He used as an
example the Price Club. Staff had tried to encourage them to locate at El Camino Real and College but
one of the reasons they did not locate there was because of the commercial designation right across the
street which had been zoned commercial for eight years.
Commissioner Hall replied that the property owner who has been paying taxes on commercially zoned
property for eight years should have more rights than someone new coming into town. He thinks it sends
the wrong message to people who have invested in this community over the past eight years. It says that if
you don't do something with your property soon, those outsiders who wish to come to the community will
have priority.
Commissioner Enwin says he can support the review because it makes it consistent with the way we handle
master plans. Ms. Landers replied that it is similar after the first two years. Then they would be subject to
a five year review just like a master plan.
Commissioner Hall stated that he may not want to do something in two years. As a property owner, he
should have that right. He should not be demanded to do something with his property.
Commissioner Welshons asked the attorney if this would be an impingement on a property right. Ms.
Hirata replied that in a general sense it is a property right. However, zoning can be changed by the City
and there is no legal impediment to going in and changing zoning. There are laws against spot zoning
because, in the past, there have been some dishonest dealings which have taken place. She feels that
Commissioner Hall's argument is more of a moral issue than a property right where the City could get
sued.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that many cities that create general plans will designate,
up front, certain areas as potential commercial. Carlsbad has traditionally been very different. When a
project comes into this City, commercial zoning is often created for that project. He thinks that is why the
original General Plan carried this review clause. If the project did not get completed for one reason or
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 12
another, the zoning was not deemed to be a God-given right and it could be changed. If we are going to
change our philosophy now, we would also need to change our zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Betz stated that there are so many things which go into developing commercial property
that five years may not be enough time. She would like to see this stricken.
Commissioner Hall stated that if people in Carlsbad who own commercial property realized what was on
the table tonight, he would venture to say this room would be packed and out the door. He thinks this is
the wrong message to send. Furthermore, he feels that five years is too short a time and this is a major
issue. He believes this topic should have its own hearing. Ms. Landers replied that all of the vacant
commercial property owners were notified of this hearing. She did not hear from anybody, although she
notices that Mr. Morey is here tonight.
Mr. Holzmiller commented that when staff originally started working on this, consideration was given to
only applying it to the future and grandfathering the existing zoning. Staff is currently dealing with some
commercial proposals where the applicant has said they can't get someone interested in a particular site
unless it has a commercial designation. They have had requests for conditional two year zoning so the
property can be marketed. If, after two years, nobody is interested in the property, they are willing to revert
back to the existing zoning.
Commissioner Hall could buy off on the future but he is concerned about those property owners who have
owned commercial lots for many years. These properties don't change hands that often.
Ms. Landers stated that if the Commission would like to make that change, it could be easily
accommodated.
Commissioner Hall would like to hear from Mr. Morey, who is in the audience.
Fred Morey, representing La Costa Towne Centre, addressed the Commission and stated that this property
has been on the General Plan Land Use Map since 1972. The development of this property depends on
development north and south of it, which could take another ten years. In their most optimistic viewpoint,
they hope to have occupancy on some part of it within 5-6 years but they can't do any planning if they
have to deal with these reviews every few years, it is of great concern to him.
Commissioner Enwin noted that staff seemed to need this review in order to take care of some problems.
He would like to know if this tool is needed in order to review existing commercial property to make some
decisions or if it is only needed as a future tool. Ms. Landers replied that it would be a valuable tool to use
to evaluate existing commerciai sites because some sites impact other sites. However, staff would be open
to some modiftoations to Exhibit "B" if necessary.
Commissioner Schlehuber called for a straw vote on all those in favor of accepting Exhibit "B." The vote
was 5-2 with Commissioners Hall and Betz opposed.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the option to delete the study for the commuter corridor (red-line
version, page 35). Ms. Landers replied that this section could be deleted if it is felt that the comprehensive
plan is not needed. Mr. Wayne feels that item #C could be deleted since there is already a requirement for
a Specific Plan along this corridor.
Commissioner Schlehuber called for a straw vote on ali those in favor of accepting the Land Use Element
as presented and amended, namely the language in Exhibit "A" deleted and replaced by one sentence as
read into the record by Michael Holzmiller, Exhibit "B" retained as is, item #C regarding the South Coast
Corridor study deleted. Attachment #6, and all changes pertinent to Land Use on Errata Nos. 1,2 and 3.
The vote was 5-2 with Commissioners Hall and Betz opposed.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 13
Terri Woods, Asscxjiate Planner, reviewed the comments made regarding the Noise Element.
• 60 CNEL. Comments were made by Ms. Besecker and Mike Howes that they are opposed to the 60
CNEL and the statement that noise walls are discouraged. Staff believes 60 CNEL is a reasonable
standard. The City has been implementing the 60 CNEL standard since Policy #17 was adopted in
1990. There has been only one project since Policy #17 was adopted where 60 CNEL was not achieved
and, in that case, findings were made to exceed the standard.
• Noise Walls. Staff is recommending various types of noise walls. Ms. Besecker requested information
on how the noise walls would be implemented. Staff has proposed a draft Noise Guidelines Manual
which would contain that information. The manual is available in draft form and is anticipated to be
brought fonward for review and approval by the Planning Commission following adoption of the General
Plan.
• College Avenue. Several comments were received about noise along College Avenue in the northeast
portion of the City. It is the City's policy that we won't go back and retrofit areas,, In this case, however,
cost estimates and mitigation measures will be provided to the homeowner associations and they will
have to decide how they want to proceed.
• Aircraft Noise. The County is preparing a master plan for the airport and is in the process of installing
noise monitoring equipment in the City which will be able to detect which aircraft is violating airport
take-off and landing procedures. This will enable the County to go directly to the offender and advise
them of the violation.
• Barking Dogs. The issue has been looked at extensively by City staff. The City has adopted the
County's Animal Control Ordinance by reference. The City contracts with the County to implement those
procedures. The City Council has determined that these methods are adequate.
Commissioner Welshons called for a straw vote on all those in favor of accepting the Noise Element with
all references to CNEL being changed to 60 CNEL, and all changes pertinent to Noise on Errata Nos. 1
and 3. The vote was 7-0 in favor.
David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the comments made regarding the Circulation Element.
• Melrose Drive. Ruth Besecker, on behalf of the Fieldstone Company, requested that Melrose Drive south
of Rancho Santa Fe Road be fully downgraded from prime arterial to secondary arterial status. The
Circulation Element presently calls for this to go from prime arterial to major arterial, with the potential of
secondary arterial. Staff would like to keep this flexibility in case plans change and in order to presen/e
adequate right of way. He stated that the map is in error and should correctly read major arterial.
The Friends of Carrillo Ranch have requested that Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
Alga Road be deleted or greatly downgraded since Highway 680 was cancelled. Staff would like to
retain the existing classification of prime arterial since SANDAG predicts that, even without the southerly
connection, Melrose Drive will have traffic volumes ranging from 34,000 to 54,000 ADT on this segment.
In addition, the recently approved Carrillo Ranch Master Plan provided a standards reduction on the
horizontal and vertical design criteria from prime arterial to major arterial. This reduction reduced the
Melrose fill height from 80 ft. to 50 ft.
• Future Transportation Needs. Oan Downing has requested more consideratton be given to future modes
of transportation, i.e. public transportation. Staff does not recommend changes or taking additional
dedications at this time since transportation needs are served by f^rth County Transit District and they
have no plans in place to move beyond established roadways and the rail corrkjor.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 14
- Palomar Airport Road Access. Paul Yrisarri, who represents property owners along Palomar Airport
Road, has requested that the City provide some policy to protect historical access to those properties at
the Laurel Tree intersection. Staff believes existing policy is adequate regarding limiting access to prime
arterials and does not recommend any changes at this time. Mr. Yrisarri's request can be
accommodated through the standards variance process and is best considered at the time a
development application is submitted.
Commissioner Betz stated that C-1, Alternative Modes of Transportation, states thatthe Plan encourages
construction of sidewalks in high pedestrian areas such as schools and commercial centers. She noted
that there are no sidewalks at Magnolia Elementary School nor Valley Junior High School. She would like
to know where on the prioritization list for sidewalks that these schools fall. Mr. Hauser replied that there
are many variables to establish the priority for sidewalks. Schools are very high priority and he knows that
plans are currently in process to construct sidewalks on Valley, between Chestnut and Magnolia and also
along Monroe Street at its intersection with Magnolia Street.
Commissioner Welshons called for a straw vote on all those in favor of accepting the Circulation Element
including any changes pertinent to Circulation on Errata Nos. 1,2 and 3. The vote was 7-0 in favor.
Terri Woods, Associate Planner, reviewed comments made regarding the Parks and Recreation Element.
- Trails. Commissioner Hall commented that he would like all references to the Citywide trail system
noted as the "proposed" trail system. Staff has noted that request, is in agreement, and will make the
appropriate changes.
Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst, Parks and Recreation, discussed the comments made by
SDG&E.
• SDG&E. Mr. Beverly stated that SDG&E has requested thatthe City enter into agreements to establish
and maintain access along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The City currently has in place a
long term lease agreement for a 92 acre Hub Park area on the south shore of the Lagoon with provisions
for significant extensions of time. There is also an agreement in place for Macario Canyon which
includes the hub area. There are also conceptual plans for a beach area boat dock facility on the south
shore of the Lagoon. In addition, there are conceptual plans to establish connecting access between
Veteran's Memorial Park and Hub Park. SDG&E has also requested limited public access to the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon wetlands. This issue will be regulated by the environmental agencies and is identified
on the conceptual plan of Macario Canyon. SOG&E is concerned about safe recreational use at the
Lagoon on a self-sustaining basis. The City currently provides a Lagoon patrol to ensure safety of
tjoaters and passive use of the Lagoon.
Commissioner Welshons inquired as to who owns the Lagoon, the State or SOG&E. Mr. Beverly stated
that in the ownership matrix the owner is identified as the State. There is a question regarding the status
of the lagoon as an open navigable watenway. There was a question about the City's ability to require
insurance and the State Lands Commission has advised that it is an open navigable watenway. The City
has since dropped its requirement for insurance because the owners and operators of Snug Harbor require
insurance.
Commissioner Enwin inquired about the issue of pocket parks in master ptanned communities and inquired
if we were changing our philosophy. Mr. Beverly replied that the City supports pocket parks to the extent
that those parks are owned and maintained by homeowner groups and not the City.
Commissioner Enwin called for a straw vote on all those in favor of accepting the Parks and Recreation
Element with any changes pertinent to Parks and Recreation on Errata Nos. 1 through 3. The vote was
7-0 in favor.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 6, 1994 PAGE 15
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to continue this
item to April 20,1994.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS:
Chairman Savary reminded the Commissioners that there would be a Growth Management Workshop held
on Wednesday, April 13, 1994, at 6:00 p.m. at the Safety Center.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of April 6,1994 was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. to the Growth
Management Workshop on April 13,1994.
'WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
March 16, 1994
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Savary called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OP ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Noble.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Staff Present:
Also Present:
Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber, and
Welshons
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner
Anne Hysong, Assistant Planner
Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner
Terri Woods, Associate Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney
David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer
John Bridges, EIR Consultant (Cotton Beland & Assoc.)
Robert Green, Noise Consultant (Nolte & Assoc.)
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT USTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the Minutes for March 2,1994 was continued to the April 6,1994 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - A request for recommendation of certification
of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment
to comprehensively update the General Plan.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, explained that since the General Plan is a very lengthy document, the
Environmental Impact Report will be reviewed first and then each section of the General Plan will be
reviewed and discussed. She will make her presentation first, Planning Commissioners will ask questtons,
and then public testimony will be taken. After public testimony is closed, Planning Commissioners will
have their discussion followed by a straw vote. At the completion of all discussion, a final vote will be
taken.
Commissioner Hall commented that he wants to make sure that everyone in the audience has an
opportunity to comment on the various elements.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 2
Commissioner Enwin stated that he agrees with Commissioner Hall. Also, he would like the purpose of the
straw vote to be whether or not to move fonward to the next element. He wants the approval vote taken at
the very end, after all of the elements have been discussed.
Commissioner Noble indicated that the straw vote merely means that all of the questions have been
answered and staff can move on to the next element.
Chairman Savary assured the Commission and audience that no one would be denied the opportunity to
ask questions or express their opinion. Everyone will be exchanging ideas in an effort to come up with a
satisfactory General Plan that will benefit all of the citizens of Carlsbad.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the City
prepared, in conjunction with Cotton Beland & Associates, a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR)
to assess the environmental impacts that will result from implementation of the updated General Plan. The
Master EIR assumed the worst case or that maximum buildout will occur in the year 2010. This year was
picked to avoid over-estimated long-term impacts. However, due to the present economic climate,
buildout probably will not occur until after 2010 so that actual development and associated impacts will
probably be less than those identified in the EIR. The EIR is a program level document. It establishes
mitigation programs through the General Plan policies and programs which were based on public input
received during the public participation program and the review of the EIR. These programs will then be
included as mitigation measures when later development projects come in. The EIR addressed all the
usual issue areas and determined that impacts were mitigable in all areas except air quality and
circulation. In these two areas, the impacts were significant and cannot be mitigated by the City.
Ms. Landers stated that air quality impacts cannot be mitigated for four reasons. As the City builds out and
the population and workforce increases, air quality will be impacted due to increased gas and power
consumption as well as vehicle miles traveled. These all result in increased air pollutants such as carbon
monoxide. Due to the City's proximity to Interstate-5 and Highway 78, we will also experience regional
traffic traveling through the City. Lastly, the City is located within the San Diego air basin which is
presently a non-attainment basin and does not comply with State and Federal standards regarding air
quality. The City has no jurisdictional control over either the through traffic or the San Diego air basin so
while there are local impacts to air quality, it is really a regional issue over which the City has no control.
However, the General Plan is proposing numerous programs to improve air quality and reduce traffic
congestion. Some of these include roadway and intersection improvements, methods to reduce the
number of daily trips, steps to address alternative modes of transportation such as bicycles and mass
transit, and participation in regional strategies to improve air quality. However, even with these measures,
impacts to air quality will still be significant and unmitigable due to regional impacts which are beyond the
City's ability to control.
Ms. Landers stated that circulation is the other area with unmitigable impacts. Again, as buildout occurs,
there will tie an increase in traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to handle buildout traffic;
however, 20 intersections will be severely impacted by regional through traffic over which the City has no
jurisdictional control. These generally include freeway interchange areas and major intersections along
Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements such as striping and
additional dedication, a number of intersections are projected to fail the growth management performance
standards at buildout. The General Plan proposed a number of programs to address this issue. Included
are policies to ensure that roadway facilities are in place when needed, programs addressing alternative
modes of transportation (bicycles, trails and the commuter rail) which acidress not onty circulation impacts
but are also an attempt to improve air quality as well. There are programs to participate in regional growth
management and traffic congestion strategies, when finalized by SANDAQ. Despite the City's best efforts,
however, there are still significant unmitigable impacts due to regional through traffic which, again, the City
cannot control.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 3
Because the Master EIR has determined that there are significant and unmitigable impacts to air quality
and circulation, the City is required by CEQA to provide a Statement of Overriding Considerations to certify
the EIR. This has been provided in the EIR resolution which is part of the packet. It simply states that
impacts in these two areas are regional impacts requiring a regional solution. In accordance with
Government Code, this statement is supported by findings which are also included in the resolution. She
introduced John Bridges, the EIR Consultant, and stated that he was available to answer questions on the
Master EIR and how it affects subsequent projects as they come fonward.
Commissioner Noble inquired if the reason it is difficult to control the traffic impacts is because a large
percentage of it comes from Los Angeles. Mr. Bridges replied yes. There is evidence that a large amount
of transport smog affects the San Diego basin during certain times of the year.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if the public will be allowed to speak on each separate issue, even though
they may have spoken before. Chairman Savary replied yes.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony for the EIR and issued the invitation to speak.
Marshall Krupp, President of Community Systems Associates, Inc., 730 El Camino Way, Suite 200, Tustin,
California, representing the Encinitas Union School District, addressed the Commission and stated that his
comments cross over EIR and Land Use, but he will oniy address EIR issues at this time. He referred the
Commission to page 5.12.7-1 which discusses education. In Section 5.12.7-3, it makes qualitative
conclusions of the impacts of the General Plan on schools. It is his understanding that CEQA requires
both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts and there is no quantitative impact within the EIR.
There is no statement in the EIR of what the impact on schools will be. There is no statement on the
number of students which will t>e generated, the number of facilities which will be required. However, in
Section 5.12.7-4 it states that there will be an impact on schools, regardless of the fact that there was no
quantitative analysis. It then states that the impact can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Mr.
Krupp contends that the EIR cannot conclude impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance if the
quantitative impact is unknown. Although the conclusion may be appropriate, it is not supported by the
EIR documentation. Under mitigation measures (5.12.7-5) it then states that mitigation will be in
conformance with the growth management plan, i.e. school capacity to meet projected enrollment within
the zone as determined by the appropriate school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy.
This statement references Land Use Element section C-2. If you turn to the Land Use Element, the
redlined strike out copy eliminates this provision. There is no longer any performance standard in the Land
Use Element. So the EIR suggests a mitigation measure that is supposedly in the Land Use Element but
the Land Use Element has eliminated the performance standard. Therefore, the mitigation measure is
inappropriate. Finally, he stated that development fees under the statutory provisions of State law do not
mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance which makes that mitigation inappropriate as well.
Furthermore, Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts must be agreed to by the developer in question
when he moves forward so that may not mitigate the Impacts either. Mr. Krupp believes that, in addition to
air quality and circulation, schools should also be identified as not being able to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Ruth Besecker, Benchmark Pacific, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and
stated that she had FAXed over a letter dated March 16,1994 which set forth her comments on the EIR.
She requested that her letter be entered into the record and become a part of the Minutes. She will then
make verbal comments during the public testimony period for the Land Use Element.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, speaking on behaff of Project Future, addressed the
Commission and stated that considering the abundance of open space, rare, threatened, and endangered
natural resources, Project Future is astonished that this project states that only air quality and traffic will
result in unmitigable impacts. All the mitigation is set aside for the future. She cannot see how there can
be a finding that natural resources will be mitigated to a level of insignificance when there is no
identification of what natural resources will be lost. Some of the natural resources to be considered are
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 4
endangered species, threatened species, endangered habitats, vernal pools, sage scrub, three wetlands,
riparian areas, etc. There isn't even a map which shows where these things are. She doesn't understand
how the City can say they have mitigated for all of these resources when nobody has even defined where
they are located.
Arto Nuutinen, 4920 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California, representing the Carlsbad Unified School
District., addressed the Commission and stated that his concerns overlap somewhat those made by Mr.
Krupp earlier. He referred to his letter dated March 16,1994 which details his oljjections to the EIR and
the Land Use Element, and requested that the letter be entered into the record. In essence, the District is
concerned about approving an element of the General Plan which would allow the City to grant
development approvals on affordable housing projects which would result in unmitigable facilities impacts.
One of the bases for this concern derives from conclusions in the EIR which suggest that affordable
housing is characterized by lower student generation rates than that of equivalent standard housing in the
community. In fact, the District alludes to certain findings of the consultant firm of Recht, Hausrath &
Associates which indicates that affordable housing demographics are characterized by student generation
rates in excess of what is normally characteristic of student generation in this community. He will make
available to staff copies of that report after he makes his comments on the Land Use Element. Mr.
Nuutinen feels that the fundamental flaw of the environmental analysis is the supposition that there will be
a lower student generation.
Commissioner Erwin referred to Section 5.12.7-3 ofthe EIR, second paragraph, which states that
"...higher density affordable housing does not generate larger number of school-aged children than similar
types of housing for the general population." He inquired if this is the statement that the District contends
is in error. Mr. Nuutinen replied yes. That conclusion was based on certain findings involving certain
census reports which were the same fundamental analyses which were used by the Recht, Hausrath
report. He passed out pages 10-16 of the report for the benefit of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Noble inquired if the survey was conducted in Carlsbad. Mr. Nuutinen replied that it was
taken in the Carlsbad area and surrounding communities. It was a two-tiered analysis.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on the EIR, Chairman Savary declared
the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Schlehuber would like staff's response to the issues raised by the two school districts.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that the pertormance standards for schools, referred to by
Mr. Krupp, have been incorporated back into the Land Use Element (Errata #2). They were deleted in
error. Staff used the Growth Management Plan as mitigation for schools because they felt that was the
proper vehicle. In regard to the issue of affordable housing and student generation, he stated that this is
the first time he has seen the Recht, Hausrath study. Staff has not been aware of any studies or research
which indicated that affordable housing projects generate more students than mcxlerate income housing.
In fact, SANDAG prepared a study that compared bedroom size to low-income and moderate-income and
it concluded that there is no difference. Staff would have to disagree with the school district's conclusion
based on the information they studied.
Commissioner Enwin asked Mr. Holzmiller if "bedroom size" means number of children per s.f. of bedroom.
He replied no; that the study compared family size of one bedroom/low income with family size of one
bedroom/moderate income. A total project comparison is not as valid as when the project is broken down
into bedroom size. SANDAG's report concluded that there is no difference.
Commissioner Enwin stated that he would like to read that report. Mr. Holzmiller replied that he did not
bring the report with him.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that Mr. Krupp was concerned about the conclusions in 5.12.7-4. He
inquired if staff feels this has been remedied by Errata #2. Mr. Holzmiller replied that his understanding of
the speaker's comments was that it was significant but it is mitigable by the pertormance standard of
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 5
Growth Management. The copy of the Land Use Element which Mr. Krupp had showed those standards as
being deleted. Errata #2 reinserts those pertormance standards so they are, in fact, a part of the Land Use
Element.
Commissioner Schlehuber would like to know if this reinsertion of the Growth Management performance
standards would satisfy their concerns. Marshall Krupp, CSA, replied that this reinsertion does address
their concern because it now provides a mitigation measure. However, that doesn't resolve the fact that the
EIR is still inadequate in defining what the environmental impact is. In essence, the mitigation measure is
mitigating something that has not been defined. The previous statement about level of significance is
based upon the impact. When you read the language in the EIR, you cannot determine what the impact is.
As long as the pertormance standards are there, the school district is satisfied that there is a remedy they
can use in order to ensure that the implementation of the General Plan will not impact the district. The
difficulty is that anyone who reads the EIR, once it has been certified, and once the General Plan has been
adopted, can come to the same conclusion that there was no definition of what the impact was. It is
undefined at this point. In that case, the impact would have to be defined on every single project as it
comes fonward to the City Council.
Commissioner Schlehuber believes this is a full protection because the school district has to, in effect,
certify the impact. Mr. Krupp replied that once the performance standard has been reinserted into the
General Plan, it satisfies his client's concern about impact mitigation. He is not sure, however, if it will
satisfy CUSD's concern regarding affordable housing.
Mr. Nuutinen, representing CUSD, stated that he was aware of Errata #2 and he recognizes that this
provides a mitigation measure. His client's concern relates to the actual analysis in the E|R which states
that schools will be able to meet incremental growth in the community as it evolves. If that conclusion is
premised on what they believe to be inaccurate information regarding student generation, they cannot
agree with it because they feel there may be a worst case scenario.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that even with the worst case scenario, the school district has the
hammer. Mr. Nuutinen replied that is true since affordable housing units will be pulled from the excess unit
fund. However, the school district has not received confirmation that this is true with the General Plan
Amendment. They want more clarification of the analysis so that they can point out where they disagree
with the analysis. They just want to make sure that the policy established by the City Council will continue
to be implemented.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the school district would have no problem with the EIR if, in fact, it is
determined that all housing is governed by the City's growth management plan and that affordable housing
must come from excess units. Mr. Nuutinen replied that even if the overall cap is met and excess units are
pulled from the excess unit resen/e, the school district would still be impacted when certain regions are
maximized. Their concern is that individual discretionary approval would still be allowed and could result
in the approvai of units beyond the control points.
Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out that even if that happens, the school district still has the hammer.
Mr. Nuutinen appreciates that reminder.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Aftorney, requested that the study which Mr. Holzmiller referred to on student
generation for low income versus other types of housing be included as part of the record, even though he
did not bring that information to the meeting. The Commissioners unanimously agreed to that inclusion.
Commissioner Hall stated that in the EIR we speak to Housing Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. He
asked staff to explain Housing Program 4.1 (page 146) for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Holzmiller
replied that one component of the adopted Housing Element was to see whether or not we should charge a
fee to non-residential commercial/industrial development to help provide affordable housing. It was
included in the work program for the Housing Element. The study has been completed by staff and is now
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 6
pending review by the City Council. They will make the decision on whether or not to go fonward and
direct staff to adopt a fee program.
Commissioner Hall did not recall this program being adopted. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the adoption was
to "study and consider" creating a non-residential fee to help provide affordable housing. In effect, a fee
would be charged to commercial and industrial development, based upon square footage, that would then
go into the Housing Trust Fund and be used to provide affordable housing. The program to consider that
type of a fee is part of the adopted Housing Element. After the Housing Element was adopted, the
Planning Commission and City Council then approved a work program for all of the components in the
Housing Element. That was one program which was included. Staff has completed the work and has
drafted a report which is now pending consideration by the City Council.
Commissioner Hall asked staff to explain the relevancy of Item #16 on page 2.05 under Air Quality. John
Bridges, EIR Consultant, replied that this is needed to provide a balanced set of land uses in the
community where people can have the opportunity to both live and work in the community to reduce
vehicle miles traveled. This is a regional strategy to improve air quality and is an indirect connection.
Commissioner Hall does not agree with that premise. He stated that it is used again in 5.5-4, Item #8. Mr.
Bridges stated that section of the EIR deals with the impacts of increased population in the community as a
result of growth over time. The Housing Element programs are designed to address that increase in
population because housing is needed to accommodate the population. It is one of a combination of
programs suggested as mitigation.
Commissioner Hall inquired if when we speak to 4.1 we are speaking to future jobs, i.e. increase in
commercial and industrial activity. Mr. Bridges replied yes.
Commissioner Hall stated that his next concern relates to the trail system. In his interpretation of the EIR
document, it sounds as though the trail system is a sure thing. His understanding is that the trail system is
only a proposal. In each element, it discusses the trail system. Only when you get to the Parks &
Recreation element does it mention that the trail system is proposed. He thinks that the trail system should
be described as proposed throughout the entire document. Mr. Holzmiller replied that this is a valid point.
The comprehensive Citywide trail system is subject to a financing mechanism.
Commissioner Welshons commented that the two unmitigable points are air quality and circulation. If
alternate methods of transportation are needed to mitigate the air quality, it seems that the trail system
would be a high priority. Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, replied that C-1 of the Open Space and
Conservation Element is to establish a trail system, provided that financing is approved. All of the
programs in the General Plan have been put into an implementing programs status chart that will be given
to the Council for consideration on a yearly basis. They will take that into account when they establish
their annual goals and objectives and budget guidelines. That will be monitored and evaluated on the
City's ability to fund it.
Commissioner Betz referred tiack to Program 4.1 on page 5.3-8. Item #16 refers to an in-lieu fee for
affordable housing. She questions the last sentence which states "...employer assistance to provide
affordable housing for their emptoyees." She doesn't understand why this is included in air quality. Mr.
Holzmiller replied that the idea is that if you have employees who qualify for affordable housing, and there
is no affordable housing in the City which causes them to live somewhere else, the distance between where
they live and where they work in Carlsbad is greater so it causes more air quaiity problems because there
are more vehicle miles traveled. The idea is that if there is affordable housing in the City, and employees
qualify for that, not only will they be able to work here but they will be able to live here, thereby shortening
the distance that they have to travel from home to work.
Mr. Bridges pointed out that air quality is one of the significant unmitigable impacts so if some of these
mitigation measures for air quality improvement seem like a stretch, they are intended to be. The City
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 7
needs to do everything they possibly can to improve the air quality situation, even though you cannot fully
mitigate it. What they have tried to do is identify any programs in the General Plan that offer an
opportunity to reduce impacts to air quality. By doing that, you will have done everything you can, and you
can then adopt a statement of overriding consideration.
Commissioner Hall is concerned about the downside to this correlation. He understands where staff is
trying to go with this but he doesn't think it has been studied enough to be included in the General Plan. It
sounds like this is the sure method the City will pursue. He is not sure we have enough background to
incorporate this. Mr. Holzmiller replied that he thinks the misunderstanding is that there is nothing in the
Housing Element or EIR that says we have to adopt this type of program. All it is saying is that it should be
studied and considered. If the City Council decides that there isn't that correlation, and they don't want to
have non-residential contribute towards providing affordable housing in the City, it's okay to make that
decision. It won't violate the General Plan or the EIR if, after consideririg it, they decide not to do it.
Commissioner Welshons referred back to 5.5-4, Item #8, and stated that "The maintenance of a high
quality of life and a strong local economy..." sounds like an oxymoron. She thinks it is a contradiction
when you follow it through and correlate it with the Housing Element, aftordable housing, loss of open
space, etc. You can't have both things. Ms. Landers replied that these are goals in the Housing Element
which was adopted recently and approved by HCD. Commissioner Welshons stated that it still doesn't
make it right.
Commissioner Noble doesn't think it is contradictory because the goal is to strive for those two things. The
General Plan is only an outline of goals.
Commissioner Welshons requested staff to address the mitigation measures for natural resources which
was brought up by Dolores Welty. Ms. Landers replied that biological resources are included on one of the
maps in the General Plan. There are many policies and programs addressing habitat management
planning efforts.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if staff feels the concerns of that speaker have been addressed. Mr.
Holzmiller replied that the two concerns were (1) that we didn't have anything showing where the sensitive
resources are, and (2) that habitat protection was inadequately covered. He feels both issues have been
addressed because there is a vegetation map on page 5.4-2 showing a complete inventory of the habitat in
the City and there are also numerous references to the habitat management planning efforts that the City
and the region are involved in.
Chairman Savary inquired if the Commission is prepared to vote on the EIR. Adrienne Landers, Senior
Planner, noted that the Planning Commission would be recommending certification of the EIR to the City
Council.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that he believes the school district has some valid concerns but he
does think the impacts have beer] mitigated. As to Project Future's concerns, he believes that the map
clearly states what is needed. Commissioner Hall's comment regarding the proposed trail should be
included. In regard to the comments regarding the Housing Element and a possible tax on employers for
affordable housing,. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that since these are only goals, any action would only
be taken after significant public hearings and the tax may never happen. Someone will have to convince
the City Council to do it and now it only gives them a tool to consider. He can accept the EIR with Mr.
Hall's suggestion on any reference to the trail system.
Commissioner Hall has strong objections to Section 4.1. He has stated these objections before and he will
not vote in favor of the EIR as long as this wording exists.
Chairman Savary requested Commissioner Hall to reiterate exactly what he objects to. Commissioner Hall
replied that wherever the EIR speaks to 4.1, it is speaking to a future tax on business.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 8
Commissioner Betz agrees with Commissioner Hall. She would like to see 4.1 deleted.
Commissioner Welshons thinks the trails should be a flashing red light because it would help minimize
circulation and air quality.
Mr. Holzmiller suggested that a vote be taken on whether or not to strike 4.1 because it comes up again in
the General Plan Amendment. The City Council has already directed staff to bring this fonward. When
they adopted the Inclusionary Ordinance, they promised residential developers that they would at least
consider this aspect. That will go fonward to the City Council, regardless of what is in the EIR. However, if
the issue is whether or not to believe that this is an adequate mitigation measure to reduce air quality, staff
has already determined that air quality is unmitigable. He doesn't want the two issues confused.
Commissioner Noble stated that if the City Council has final authority, he doesn't think any options should
be taken away from them. They could also force employers to urge employees to use alternative forms of
transportation.
Commissioner Hall knows that the City Council has the final say but these are the driving documents.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to strike 4.1 wherever it is
referenced in the Environmental Impact Report.
VOTE: 3-4
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, and Hall
NOES: Commissioners Enwin, Noble, Schlehuber, and Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Savary called for a straw vote on the EIR.
Commissioner Hall stated that he would cast his vote in favor of the EIR but he wants all documents which
go to the City Council to be extremely clear about his objection to 4.1.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to recommend
certification to the City Council of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report to the
City of Carlsbad General Plan Update dated March 1994 as presented, and that the trail
system be asterisked throughout the document noting that it is subject to a funding
mechanism.
VOTE: 6-0-1
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Enwin
Commissioner Enwin stated that he did not wish to cast his vote in the straw vote but he would vote when
the final motion is made.
RECESS
The Planning Commisston recessed at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened at 7:36 p.m.
Adrienne Landers, Senior Planner, addressed the Commission and presented the staff report on the
General Plan. Using a slide presentation for the benefit of the audience, she reviewed the vision and the
eight elements of the General Plan. She stated that the last revisions to the Land Use Element occurred in
1985 to incorporate the Growth Management Plan. The present element has been extensively revised to
address numerous new topics, however the major changes affect commercial and residential land uses.
Many commercial designations have been redefined and some were consolidated. New policies were
added addressing compatibility between commercial and residential land uses, including a provision for
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 9
commercial uses in master planned and industrial areas. The Element also focuses on programs to create
a stronger economic focus in the City. Policies were also added to require a full range of residential
densities and stress the necessity of achieving minimum permifted densities. The Public Facilities Element
has also been integrated into the Land Use Element. Ms. Landers discussed the major issues of the
circulation, noise, public safety, housing, open space and conservation, parks and recreation, and arts
elements.
Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Ofelia Escobedo, 1611 James Drive, Carlsbad, President of the Barrio Carlsbad Association, addressed the
Commission and thanked staff for including the Barrio in the Land Use Element. The Association has
been working very diligently to raise awareness of the Barrio and to enhance and improve the Barrio
community.
Arto Nuutinen, 4920 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing the Carlsbad Unified School District
(CUSD), addressed the Commission and reiterated his previous comments regarding the environmental
analysis as part of the land use discussion. Although the General Plan contains a pertormance standard
which states that "school capacity to meet projected enrollment within each zone must be provided prior to
projected occupancy", there is no policy which ensures that public school facilities will be property funded.
The school fees presently authorized are not sufficient to ensure that school facilities will be adequate to
meet the needs of the community. CUSD is therefore seeking mitigation which would provide that
assurance as part of the General Plan Update. CUSD also disagrees with the statement that affordable
housing provides fewer students than equivalent conventional housing. This premise by the City could
allow for approvals which result in density intensive zones that, even with the growth management ceiling,
would have physical environmental effects on the public facilities of the City, including schools. To address
this impact, CUSD would like to have the development condition which the Planning Commission and the
City Council have included in recent development approvals integrated as part of the General Plan
Amendment.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if the mitigation that CUSD is seeking is to include in the General Plan the
agreement CUSD has with the City. Mr. Nuutinen replied that is correct. Even though each individual
project would contain the condition, they would also like to have it integrated into the General Plan.
Chase Coman, 5855 Sunny Creek Road, Carlsbad, representing himself and his mother, Dorothy Ebright,
addressed the Commission and stated that he had wriften a letter dated March 11,1994 which discusses
his reasons for being in attendance at this public hearing. Mr. Coman read the letter aloud and requested
that it be included in the minutes. In his letter, Mr. Coman stated that his mother had received notice that
her 9+ acres might be affected by the proposed open space amendments to the General Plan. After
reviewing the maps at the Planning Department, he discovered that most, if not all, of his mother's property
would be classified as constrained. He met with Terri Woods and was advised that the constraints were
the result of the 100 year flood plain and the creek which runs through his mother's property. However, the
Open Space and Conservation map is at odds with the Zone 15 LFMP Constraints Map which, he believes,
more accurately depicts the flood plain affecting far less of the site. He is concerned that a generalized
boundary on a map, even though it is incorrectly drawn, could eventually lead to a complete taking of his
mother's property. Section 3.a. on page 10 of the March 16,1994 staff report states that the map revisions
pertaining to constrained lands do not depict precise boundaries. It further states that boundaries will be
modified slightly in the future as more detail becomes available, i.e. the tentative map process. The
primary purpose of his lefter is to state, for the record, that more than a slight modification to the open
space map presented this evening may be required to accurately reflect conditions on his mother's
property. He is also requesting an opportunity to meet with staff to revise the limits of the open space
designation affecting her property in order to reflect actual conditions prior to the City Council adoption of
the proposed General Plan Amendment. If that is not possible, he is requesting confirmation that site
specific studies will be required before the actual boundaries of the City's open space zone is established in
the area.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 10
Commissioner Noble inquired if he was aware of the Planning Commission memorandum dated March 15,
1994. Mr. Coman was unaware of the memorandum. Commissioner Noble advised him that this
memorandum states that staff has already made the changes you requested on the Open Space Map.
Ms. Landers stated that she would see that Mr. Coman receives a copy of that memorandum. She
confirmed that staff has met with Mr. Coman and the changes he requested have been made.
Ruth Besecker, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, representing Benchmark Pacific, Fieldstone, and Kaiza
Poinseftia, addressed the Commission and referred to her nine page lefter dated March 16,1994. These
entities own approximately 3,092 undeveloped acres of land which will be impacted by the proposed
General Plan Amendment. She stated that the updated General Plan creates some potential conflicts
which she would like to see remedied. Some of her concerns are as follows:
• Noise Walls as a Last Resort - This requirement could prohibit many developers from meeting the
minimum density requirement. Further, when the Habitat Management and Open Space plans are
overtaid, they will create additional conflicts. She requested that a subcommiftee be formed to discuss
some of the ambiguities and internal inconsistencies in the proposed General Plan Amendment.
• 60 CNEL Noise Level - She noted that the noise level is stated at 60 CNEL instead of 65 CNEL. She
was under the impression that 60 CNEL was only an interim policy to see how it worked until the Noise
Element was updated. She feels this issue deserves more study and she renewed the same otijections
that were discussed when the idea was first proposed. Some consideration needs to be given to areas
where noise levels cannot be controlled, i.e. properties adjacent to freeways, the rail corridor, and prime
arterials. In the Arroyo La Costa project, for instance, if no walls or berms were allowed and 60 CNEL
was the standard, the project would lose 206 lots or 19% of its project. That would probably eliminate
the feasibility of the project from an economic standpoint. She realizes that the General Plan is only an
outline, however, rather than making a statement that is too specific when addressing noise mitigation,
she would suggest wording such as "encourage attractive street scenes" as a possible alternative.
- Minimum Densities - The staff report states that a developer would be required to show cause why
densities thresholds could not be met and, in addition, would be required to process a General Plan
Amendment. However, in the strike-out version of the Land Use Element, it appears that this may be
discretionary rather than mandatory. Since there is an inconsistency here, she would like to go on
record as objecting to a requirement for a General Ptan Amendment.
- South Coast Commuter Corridor - The language states that additional planning would be required due
to emerging issues with SANDAG regarding densities in those areas, etc. Benchmark Pacific has
recently purchased 3,000 undeveloped acres in that area and is the largest landholder. They are ready
to start the application process. They are concerned that their application may be delayed significantly if
the City decides to require a comprehensive plan for the commuter corridor. She would like to see this
language changed.
• Two Year Review for Commercial Uses - It is next to impossible for a developer with a multi-phased
project to secure financing from a lender if the project must be completed within two years. She would
like some reconsideration on that language.
- Circulation - Fieldstone would like to request consideration in classifying Melrose, south of Rancho
Santa Fe, to secondary arterial status. This subject is dealt with in detail in her letter but, basically, she
is requesting that this decision be made now so that the debate does not continue into the future.
• Open Space Element - She would like some thought given to how the Open Space Element related to
the Habitat Management Plan once it is implemented. She suggested the possibility of open space
credits to create some flexibility.
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 11
Commissioner Enwin inquired about her feelings on 4.1 and non-residential entities helping to provide
subsidized housing in the community. Ms. Besecker replied that Fietostone participated in some extensive
research when the Housing Element was being created. She would agree that this issue needs to be
studied further.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if Arroyo La Costa can be built to 60 CNEL. Ms. Besecker replied that it can,
using 6 ft. walls and berms.
Commissioner Enwin stated that he would like to clear up a misunderstanding about the noise requirement.
Exterior noise can be as high as 70-75 CNEL but it must be mitigated to 60 CNEL, The interior first
story must be mitigated to 45 CNEL. The second story exterior could be 70 CNEL. Ms. Besecker
understands these noise requirements.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, on behalf of Project Future, addressed the Commission
and stated that even though maps may be available, the txiundaries have not been set. Project Future is
hopeful that the Commission will set aside certain natural resources t)ecause the General Plan Amendment
does not give enough information as to how or if this will be supported. Neither does the General Plan
Amendment identify a funding source so it appears that the hard decisions will be postponed until later. It
invites developers to develop first and the citizens will be left with the residual. She does not feel that this
premise complies with community values and attitudes. The community has been outspoken in the need
for open space and agricultural retention. Instead, the Plan allows major urban development. She would
like to see a nexus of what can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. If a trail is mapped, it would ensure
its placement in the future.
Marshall Krupp, Community Systems Associates, Inc., 730 El Camino Way, Tustin, California, representing
the Encinitas School District, addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned that there are
errors in the documentation. As an example, in Aftachment #11 a school is identified at the El Camino
Real and Rancho Santa Fe intersection and there is no such intersection. Other items he discussed were
as follows:
• School Impacts - He can accept the mitigation regarding pertormance standards as contained in the
errata sheet prepared by staff.
• Open Space - On page 29 of Attachment #26 and page 25 of Attachment #4, there is discussion of open
space as it relates to schools. He is concerned that existing school sites are designated on the map as
open space since it is a violation of State law, specifically Government Code 65852.9. (He provided a
copy of that language for the benefit of staff and the Commissioners.) The Encinitas School District is
opposed to the zoning of school sites as open space because it effectively devalues the property and it is
a costly process to have the site rezoned. Furthermore, in Attachment #10, the General Plan
designation for Olivenhain Elementary School is being changed from RLM to E but under the zoning
action it shows that site as R-1 -10,000 with no change. Mr. Krupp provided an errata sheet for
consideratton with wording that is consistent with State law.
Mr. Krupp stated that he has prepared a letter to the Commission which he would like included in the
record. The letter was given to Mr. Holzmiller. Mr. Krupp apologized for submitting his material at such a
late hour.
Commissioner Noble commented that there is nothing stated in the Land Use Element which requires the
School District to rezone the property. Mr. Krupp replied that according to State law, a school site must be
designated the same as surrounding properties. In other words, it cannot be zoned as open space.
Commissioner Schlehuber suggested that perhaps staff should consider using the "Unplanned" zone for
school sites. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that if a site has been purchased or there is a
school on it, it is designated in the General Plan as a school site. However, for the past 15 years. Carlsbad
has always zoned proposed school sites as open space until it is either purchased by the school district or
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 12
a school is built on the site. The school district doesn't have a problem with the General Plan designation.
They only have a problem with the zoning. This law may have been created after all of the school sites
were rezoned about 15 years ago.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, disagrees with Mr. Krupp's assessment and how it applies to what the
City is doing here. In her opinion, the City is doing nothing illegal here and it hasn't been doing anything
illegal in the past. This code section states that the City cannot "rezone" a site to open space prior to their
sale. If the school district were trying to sell a site for a goodly sum, the City could not come along and
rezone the site to open space just to stop the sale of the property. This is not what we are doing; the
school sites are not being rezoned.
Mr. Krupp believes that zoning school sites as open space is inconsistent with this government code
section because it clearly states that the land use designation must be compatible with surrounding land
uses. He believes there is no reason to zone a school site as open space unless the City desires to
purchase that site at a devalued price if it became available for sale. Ms. Hirata disagrees with Mr. Krupp's
£iSSiimpIM>n legal analysis.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if this reasoning is because the school district wants to get the highest
zoning possible in the event of a resale. Mr. Krupp replied no; it is actually more related to the school's
asset management program.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if this is so the property could be sold and developed into a large apartment
complex. Mr. Krupp replied no. If R-1 is the surrounding zoning, then the school site should be R-1 as
well.
Commissioner Enwin understands that when a school is built, the site is usually provided by the developer
and the State provides the rest of the money. Mr. Krupp replied that is not correct. There is a 50-50%
program as well as a 100% program. The State doesn't always put up all the money and developers are
not required to dedicate property for a school. They are required to pay a fee. However, Carlsbad has
greater leverage as a result of the Growth Management program. Some developers have dedicated land in
lieu of school fees.
Commissioner Enwin inquired when a school is sold that was built under the 50-50% program, does the
State get back 50% of the money. Mr. Krupp replied that if a school is undercapitalized, the State
sometimes waives this requirement. If a school is under capacity, the State may require payment. The
actual amount would be negotiated.
Wesley Radoycich, 2620 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he
represents the Friends of Carrillo Ranch. The proposed Highway 680 was cancelled due to environmental
problems. The Friends would like to recommend that the Melrose Avenue link from Palomar Airport Road
to Rancho Santa Fe Road be greatly downgraded or, preferably, deleted from the Circulation Element of
the General Plan. Othenwise, the huge amounts of traffic on Melrose will create a traffic bottleneck that
would injure the delicate Carrillo Ranch. Mr. Radoycich's remarks were submitted to the Minutes Clerk for
inclusion in the record.
Bob Ladwig, 1947 Camino Vida Robles #108, Carlsbad, representing MAG Properties, addressed the
Commission and stated that his client is concerned about the two year review on commercial properties
since the development of commercial properties normally has to wait for development of the surrounding
area. Many times this takes up to four years for an area to fully develop. He requested consideration in
having that language deleted or amended.
Richard Chick, 2775 Spokane Way, Carlsbad, representing Joe Sherman, addressed the Commission and
stated that his client owns 96 acres in the northwest quadrant adjacent to the South Coast Asphalt Plant
on Highway 78. The proposed General Plan shows a split land use designation on this property with a
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 13
large portion designated as open space. He stated that the delineation of open space depends on the
future alignment of Marron Road. Therefore, he requested consideration in having the land use
designation remain in its present state rather than the designation which has been proposed.
Margie Monroy, 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission and congratulated staff for producing a user-friendly document that is easy to
understand. However, she believes that some of the errata strike out changes make the document less
clear. For instance, on page 39 the strike out portion shows growth management as being deleted. She
inquired if the errata corrected that situation. Ms. Landers replied that it did. Ms. Monroy commented that
the City Library did not have that correction in their version. Ms. Monroy stated that the League wants
people to have all of the facts before the public hearing. She thinks there is a problem bringing this large
of a document fonward at one time unless all of the material is available for public review well in advance of
the hearing. One major item that the League is interested in is the Housing Element. She realizes that it
was adopted in 1992 and it is coming up again in 1994 with no changes. However, in 1992 the 1990
census figures were not available and they are now. She would like to have those census figures included.
Those figures are used in the Parks & Recreation Element and she thinks the document should be
consistent. She would also like to know if efforts are being made to do a housing inventory rather than rely
solely on the census. Also, in Section 3 she doesn't see any mention of constraints regarding affordable
housing and neighborhood negativeness. She inquired if something should be said about that and if there
are ways to mitigate this problem.
Commissioner Welshons commented that she had recently attended the Planning Institute Conference and
one thing they stressed was to make sure that data is consistent. She appreciates Ms. Monroy's comment
regarding the 1990 census data.
Dan Downing, 7254 Mimosa, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the proposed General
Plan takes Carlsbad into the 21st century. If it is done right, our children will have a wonderful place to
live. If it is done wrong, they will be the ones to pay the price. He hopes the Commission will take this into
consideration. He feels we need a new vision because in the 21st century cars will be a thing of the past.
He thinks we need to modify the plan and promote alternate methods of transportation. He thinks we need
to plan now for rights-of-way for public transportation rather than wait until later when we have to tear
down buildings.
Commissioner Noble inquired if Mr. Downing was aware of the plans for the commuter rail from Oceanside
to San Diego and Escondido. Mr. Downing replied that he doesn't think the proposed General Plan
addresses that very well.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if Mr. Downing is advocating the setting aside of rights-of-way now for the
future. He replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he is suggesting that we leave properties in their natural state. Mr.
Downing replied no. He thinks we need to include plants and drip irrigation. We also need to address
habitat issues.
Larry Lamb, 4669 Wocxjstock, Carlsbad, representing himself and the Cape at Calavera Hills Homeowner's
Association, addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned we are giving preferential
treatment to new development at the expense of existing residents. If this is the case, then something is
wrong with this City. He moved here from Los Angeles to get away from the walls. Now College
Boulevard is being approved with walls. He has talked about this on numerous occasions. He is not
talking about mitigation. He is talking about the realignment of College Boulevard. In some cases, College
Boulevard will be only 18 ft. away from the existing homes. He urged the Commission not to make this
mistake at the expense of existing residents.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16. 1994 PAGE 14
Don Friedlander, 2245 Nob Hill Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that in looking at
the EIR, he sees an area of noise mitigation which has been overlooked. That is the noise of aircraft in the
City of Carlsbad. The proposed General Plan seems to address the concerns of airport noise in terms of
the areas immediately surrounding the airport. The landing paftern runs east and west, however the flight
paftern for aircraft from Los Angeles runs the entire breadth of the City. He realizes that the City has no
direct control of aircraft because the airport is controlled by the County. Mr. Friedlander would like to see
some controls on aircraft-generated noise in the City. He thinks existing residents have the right to enjoy
quiet.
Commissioner Enwin inquired if the aircraft noise he is referring to comes from twin turbo props. Mr.
Friedlander replied yes, that it is mostly from commercial aircraft. He feels the noise will be 40% worse at
buildout but it depends on where the San Diego airport is moved to.
Ernestine Graves, 4620 Buckingham Place, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives
at Tamarack Pointe. She has called the City several times to complain about the aircraft noise. She also
has a problem with barking dogs.
Caroline Prescoft, 4669 Woodstock, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she likes the
proposed General Plan but she is concerned about College Boulevard and the setback requirement for
walls. She would like to see trees planted along streets with a lot of traffic. It would also protect the walls
from graffiti artists. She is concerned that the wall along College Boulevard will be a great target for
graffiti. She also has a problem with barking dogs in her neighborhood, but she has never found airport
noise to be a big problem. She loves being able to fly out of Carlsbad. Lastly, she would like to know if
powerline easements were considered due to the public controversy about EMF.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how the College Boulevard realignment will affect her. Ms. Prescott
replied that the proposed College Boulevard will bring a tremendous amount of traffic into her
neighborhood. Her father used to be on the Planning Commission and he told her that when that
alignment was created there was never a plan to place business uses in the residential area.
Albert Benguiat, 2947 Lexington Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has had
many problems with barking dogs in his neighborhood. He brought along a tape recording made in his
bedroom if anyone was interested. He asked the City on numerous occasions to look into the problem.
The County of San Diego has an Office of Noise Control. They send a warning letter and if the problem
continues, the District Attorney's office files a misdemeanor complaint against the offender. If convicted,
the offender can be fined up to $1,000 for each count or they can be sent to jail. He thinks the City of
Carlsbad needs an effective process to deai with barking dogs. He will continue to complain until the
process is improved.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that Mr. Benguiat has written numerous letters to the City and
staff has spent a great amount of time investigating the problem. She feels that our ordinance is adequate
and staff does not recommend any changes.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and
stated that he hopes the Planning Commission will adopt 65 CNEL as the standard because it is extremely
difficult to meet the 60 CNEL requirement. It means the difference between a 6 ft. wall and a 10 ft. wall.
Berms eat up land. For instance, a 6 ft. berm requires 27 ft. of developable area. In order to mitigate
Rancho Carrilto to 60 CNEL, it wilt require 10-12 ft. walls or 125 ft. setback. Many cities use 65 CNEL
along freeways and major transportation corridors.
Commissioner Erwin asked staff what the consultant recommended for the CNEL. Terri WocxJs, Associate
Planner, replied that staff originally suggested 65 CNEL but the noise consultant recommended 60 CNEL.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION March 16, 1994 PAGE 15
Commissioner Enwin stated that a survey was taken in 1990 and a number of cities use 60 CNEL. He
believes that 5 dBA is a significant amount of noise. Mr. Howes concurred that 5 dBA is when you can
notice the difference.
Paul Irisari, 1817 Hanscomb Drive, South Pasadena, addressed the Commission and stated that he is
representing the owners of property located in the southeast corner of Laurel Tree Lane and Palomar
Airport Road. Under air quality and circulation, mitigation calls for limited access on high use roads such
as Palomar Airport Road. However, he is concerned that historical access be preserved. The property he
is speaking to is served by Laurel Tree Lane, which has and can provide future access to the property. He
would like to make sure that historical access is not denied, particularly in areas where access may be
denied because the arterial is an important one and the deceleration lanes are extreme. He contends that
if other access is denied from important arterials, then secondary access should be assured.
Bob Ladwig, 1947 Camino Vida Robles #108, Carlsbad, representing MAG Properties, addressed the
Commission and stated that this is the first time he has seen the exhibit which was handed out regarding
potential alternatives. Program C.12. As he understands it, if commercial sites are within a Master or
Specific Plan, they will be exempt from the periodic reviews. If that is correct, he would be satisfied with
that.
Chairman Savary noted that the hour was late. She asked the Commissioners how they wished to
proceed.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to close public
testimony and continue this item to April 6,1994.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Enwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
After discussion, the Commission was polled and they unanimously agreed that public testimony would be
reopened at the April 6 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of March 16,1994 was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
illy sut
WAYNE
&nt Planning Director
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES
CITY
COUNCIL
ACTION
Q < 03 05 _l Z <
< o
{:
tr — a ^ .J .
^ >^
2 z
oc I
o
Ol
lij S
> T CC S a S
* o 9 ^
to 5
o 3
8 ;3
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 9^-246
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR
9 3-01, AND ADDENDUM THERETO, AND APPROVING
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GPA 94-01 AND
THE SEAPOINTE RESORT APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND
SEAPOINTE RESORT
CASE NO: EIR 93-01, GPA 94-01, GPA 93-04
ZC 93-05/LCPA 93-04
WHEREAS, on March 16, 1994, April 6, 1994, and April
20, 1994, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider a comprehensive
update of the Carlsbad General Plan (GPA 94-01) including a
detailed review and subsequent update of all the elements,
existing background information, tables and map figures,
graphics, goals, objectives, policies, and programs and a Master
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01). At the conclusion of
the hearing the Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 3630 and 3 631
recommending to the City Council that (GPA 94-01) and (EIR 93-
01) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
August 9, 1994 and August 16, 1994, held a public hearing to
consider tihe Commission's recommendations and heard all persons
interested in or opposed to the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01)
and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council also
considered an ••errata" sheet dated August 9, 1994 and an
"Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-01"; and
WHEREAS, the vision and introduction of the General
Plan sets forth the vision of Carlsbad to provide a balanced
UJ o> > v
Q S
< O
o z a: DC O
UJ
o
2 i
5 Q
u S
O 01 O _l CVJ CC
~ <
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
variety of land uses for living, business, employment,
recreation and open space opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the Council affirms this statement and shall
review all future, proposed amendments to the General Plan to
ensure that they are harmonious with and consistent with the
intent of this vision statement as well as the goals of each
element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the
proposed amendments are consistent with this vision; and
WHEREAS, while the City Council recognizes that
existing noise is adequately addressed and that amendments to
the Noise Element of the General Plan shall provide for
appropriate mitigation, nonetheless, it also recognizes a need
to monitor new sources of noise, including, but not limited to
"nuisance noise" resulting from unplanned or uncontrolled noise
generators and shall review the need for future amendments to
the General Plan and implementing policies for ordinances in the
future; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1994, the Carlsbad Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a
Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment, General
Plan Amendment (GPA 93-04) , Zone Change (ZC 93-05) and Local
Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 93-04) all relating to Seapointe
Resort. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission adopted
Resolution Nos. 3661, 3662, 3663 and 3664 recommending the
Seapointe Resort be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
August 16, 1994, held a public hearing to consider the
2
ii
< o
CD >.
o z
oc oc o
<
2 i
^ o cc
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission's recommendations and heard all persons interested in
or opposed to the Negative Declaration for the General Plan
Amendment, General Plan Amendment (GPA 93-04), Zone Change (ZC
93-05) and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 93-04) relating
to Seapointe Resort.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council adopts and incorporates the
findings and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution Nos.
3630 and 3631 certifying the Master Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 93-01) and Addendum for the comprehensive update of the
Carlsbad General Plan (GPA 94-01) including a statement of
overriding considerations and attached addendum except as
modified herein:
(a) Delete Finding No. 6(b) in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3630.
(b) Add the following to the findings as new
Finding No. 6(b):
"LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(d),
all the materials that constitute the administrative
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and
can be found in the offices of the City Clerk and the
Director of Planning in the City of Carlsbad. The
administrative record includes, but is not limited to:
the Final MEIR and Addendum thereto, all technical
appendices thereto, the Draft MEIR and all public
comments thereon received during the public review
period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of
the Planning Commission and the City Council thereon."
(c) Delete previous Finding No. 6(c).
a>
CO UJ Oi
ii
_J z 5
1%
6
O
<
o d < ca
05
_j DC < O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(d) Add the following as new Finding No. 6(c):
"INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21082.1, that the Final MEIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council."
(e) Modify the STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS as follows:
"Sections 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines
The City of Carlsbad finds that the mitigation
measures discussed in the CEQA findings and the Final
MEIR (EIR 93-01), when implemented, avoid or
substantially lessen most of the significant effects
identified in the MEIR. Nonetheless, certain
significant effects of the project on AIR QUALITY and
CIRCULATION are unavoidable even after incorporation
of all feasible mitigation measures such as those
listed in Section 5.3-1, Air Quality, and Section 5.7-
1, Circulation of Master EIR 93-01. The impacts to
Air Quality and Circulation are regional issues which
require regional solutions and are beyond the
jurisdiction of the City to control. The City has
included text, and numerous programs and policies
which acknowledge the City's responsibility and
willingness to participate in regional efforts to
resolve these issues. The City Council has balanced
the benefits of having an updated General Plan to
guide the future development of the City against these
remaining unavoidable environmental effects and finds
them acceptable. The City rec[uired an Updated General
Plan which reflects the current goals of the community
and recognizes the quality of life standards that are
fundamental to the citizens of Carlsbad. The benefits
of adopting the Updated General Plan outweigh the
incremental contribution to regional Air Quality and
Circulation impacts."
3. The Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01)
and Addendum are amended to include the comments and documents
of those testifying at the public hearings and responses
thereto, and found to be in good faith and reason and by
incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearings into
the Report.
4. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist (Exhibit "B"
to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3630 and Appendix "B" of
4
< o
CD ^
UJ a> ii
UJ
C3
3 s
z
DC
o
<
< z
§
It
o
Q 2 05 -1
oc
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Technical Appendix to the EIR) is approved with the
follow^ing changes to be made:
a) On page 13, insert the following item as Air
Quality Item No. 16 in the checklist, with all subsecjuent items
renumbered accordingly:
"The City will study the impact of commercial and
industrial development on housing demand and the
ability of local employees to afford local housing.
Where adverse impacts are identified, mitigation
measures may be considered to reduce the impact.
These measures include, but are not limited to, the
requirement of commercial and industrial developers
and employers to contribute an in-lieu fee towards the
production of affordable housing and employer
assistance to finance affordable housing for their
employees. (Housing Element, Program 4.1)"
b) On page 45, Cultural and Paleontological
Resources No. 10, change the word "and" to "or" so that the
introductory phrase reads as follows:
"Prohibit the alteration of properties, with state or
national significance..."
c) On page 47, Noise No. 6. delete the first
sentence, which reads:
"Enforce the policy of the City that sixty-five (65)
dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all
residential units should be mitigated."; also, change
*(65)' to '(60)' in the next (now first) sentence
following the word "sixty".
5. That among the alternatives evaluated, the City
Council finds that the project, as defined in the MEIR and the
staff report, which incorporates mitigation measures as
discussed below, is approved for implementation.
6. That the City Council adopts and incorporates
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3631 approving the General
< o
a: t
_J
o z
cc DC
00 UJ at
ii
UJ
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plan Amendment updating all elements to the City of Carlsbad
General Plan except as specifically changed herein:
a) Amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, Section II "Description of the Land Use Plan" to change
the word "a" to "be" in the third sentence after the word "will"
and before the word "comprehensive" in subsection D.7.a.
"Special Planning Considerations" (Barrio) (at page 25) .
b) Amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, Section III "Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies
and Action Programs", to delete the words "both existing and"
from subsection C.12 in "Commercial" (at page 33).
c) Amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, Section III "Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies
and Action Programs" by adding the following new policy C.13 in
"Commercial" (at page 33):
"C.13 Strip commercial development shall be
discouraged along scenic roadways and major
thoroughfares, including but not limited to
El Camino Real, so that land uses and
scenic roadways are preserved and enhance
the visual, environmental and historical
characteristics of the local community
through sensitive planning and design of
transportation and utility corridors."
d) Amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, Section III "Goals, Objectives, and Implementing Policies
and Action Programs" to add the word "trails" after the phrase
"recreation areas," in "Transportation Corridor" subsection B.2
(Objectives) (at page 37).
e) Amend the Open Space Planning and
Conservation Element of the General Plan, Section III "Goals,
Objectives and Implementing Policies and Action Programs" by
6
IAD OJ
oo m Ul O) 05 > ARL DRI cb
s U LU CM _J
_I u. o Oi BAI OA LLA NIA ai
Q CIT >
Q FOR —I < > BA z UJ 05 O o z _J O
oc oc tr Q
o 00 CA < ATT 00 CA LSB CVJ AR o O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adding the following new policy C.30 in "Open Space Planning and
Protection" (at page 25):
"C.30 The City shall incorporate in this
element" any requirements of a city, sub-
regional, or regional multi-species habitat
plan if and when such plan is adopted."
7. That the City Council adopts and incorporates
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3661, 3662, 3663 and 3664
recommending approval of the Seapointe Resort Negative
Declaration for the General Plan Amendment, General Plan
Amendment (GPA 93-04), Zone Change (93-05) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 93-04).
a) Independent Judgment: The City Council finds
that the Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's
independent judgment.
b) Location and Custodian of Record of
Proceedings. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081.6(d), all the materials that constitute the administrative
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and can be found
in the offices of the City Clerk and the Director of Planning in
the city of Carlsbad. The administrative record includes, but
is not limited to: the Negative Declaration and all public
comments thereon received during the public review period and
responses thereto, and the proceedings of the Planning
Commission and the City Council thereon."
8. That these two changes to the General Plan
constitute a single General Plan Amendment pursuant to the
provisions of Government Code section 65358.
< 05 CO _J cc
<
< o
tr t
Ul a>
> "7
OC S Q S w Si
3|
> OC
CD ^
2 05
CM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective
upon tts adoption, except as to the General Plan Amendment,
which shall be effective (30) days following its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 6th day of SEPTEMBER/ 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Co uncil M6inb6rs L6wi.s> St3.nCony Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C\erk
(SEAL)
MEETMQOF:
DATEOF
TIME OF MEETINQ:
PLACE OF MEETING:
MINUTES
CrrvCOUNCI. (Regular Maedns)
Augusts. 1904
6:00 pja
Clly Counci Chamben
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lewis caUed the Meeting to order at 6:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL was taken by the City Clerk, as foUows:
Praaart: Coundi Members Finnila, Nygaard, Kuichia Mayor Pro Tam Stanton and Mayor Lewis.
Nona.
PlfflJ<?H6^PiN<?$:
11. AB #12.821 . QENERAL PLAN UPDATE . EIR 93.1/QPA 94.1 fCONTlNUED FROM 8/9/94L
Mayor L«wis amouncad that publto testimony was received and tha Publto Hearing was ctosed
at tha maating of August 9,1994. The item had than baan cor«inuad to this meeting for Council
discussion and action.
Land Uaa Elamant
in response to Council query, staff stated tha Impiamaniing PoHcy 0,12, which raquiras tha
pariodfc raviaw of commarcial sites. appUae toal commarcial t>ae axistir)g and futurt proposals.
ACnoW: By consensus. CouncM diractad staff to grandfather axUtlng commarcial sites by
tha amandmant of Poltoy C.12. on paga 33 of tha Land Usa Element, to delete
tha word *axisting*.
August 16.1994 Page 4
PUBUC HEARINQS: (Continued)
Mayor Lewis inquired whether the prohibltton of commercial davelopmant along scanto corridors
was addressed in the Plan. In response, staff explained ttiat there was a Scanto Corndor Study
completed previously, and it is incorporated in the Circulatton Element, but it is not addressed in
the Land Use Element
ACTION: By consensus. Council directed staff to indude language in the Land Use
Element that woukj *prohibit strip commercial devetopment atong major
thoroughfares, parttouiarty scanto corridors such as El Camino Rear.
Councii Member Nygaard referred to Transportatton Corridor Ot>jective 8.2 on page 37 of the
Larxi Use Element, and requested inclusion of the word trails*.
ACTION: On motion by Council Member Nygaard, Council directed staff to add ttie word
trails' to Transportatton Ccxridor Objective B.2 on page 37 of the Land Use
Element
AYES: Lewis, Stanton, Kutohin arxl Nygaard
Firviila
Circulation Elemen:
Mayor Lewis requested an expianatton from staff regarding Melrose Avenue. The Assistant City
Engineer explained that the street will be biriit to prime arterial standards; however, there was a
waiver to aitow toss grading. The street maintains the prime arterial designation.
Noiaa Elament:
Coundl MemtMr Finnila stated she woukj like staff to look into a nuisance noise program that
ccxikJ bm implememed in the future.
ACTION: By majority consensus, Coundl direded staff to add language to the Noise
Element which would dired staff to retum at a later date for consideratton of a
noise study, with thm possit)ility of implementing a nuisance noise program at
some time in the future.
Housing Elainant:
Coundl Member Finnaa referanced tha wording in tha Housing Elamart which addresses
encouraging tha uaa of fadoty-tHjilt housing/manufadured housing. Sha expressed the opinton
that tha CHy doas not encourage the buitoing of such housing types: therefore, tha wording
shouid be deleted,
ACTION: By majority consensus, Coundi datarminad to retain tha wording and make no
changes to the Housing Element.
Opan Spsoa and CmiaeiwiMluii Element:
Council Members questtoned whether wording would be added requiring conformance with a
ragtonal Habitat Management Plan.
August 16.1994
PUBUC HEARjNQS: (Continued)
ACTION:
Page 5
By consensus. Council direded staff to add language to the Opan Space and
Conservation Element stating that the City shaN incorporate into the Qeneral Plan
any requirements of a city, sut>-regional or regtonal multi-species habitat plan if,
and wfien, such a pian is adoptad.
Pubic SaMy Elamert:
Council Memt)er Finnila referenced the fad that a crew would tM coming from luxig Beach if tfiere
were an oil spill off our coast, and questtoned whettier the response wouki be fast enough.
Staff explained that SDQ&E has the responsibility for any oil spills in the ocean and the City deals
with the land porttons.
Paries and Recreation Elamert:
No dianges were made.
Arts Element:
No cfianges were made.
AddUonai ModHcations:
ACTION: In response to Coundl request from the previous meeting, staff suggested, and
Councii concurred with the additton of the foltowing language in the Land Use
Element in the Overail Land Use Pattem Sectton: The City shall review all future
proposed amendments to ttie Qeneral Plan to ensure that they are harmontous
with and consistent with ttie intent of the Viston Statement, as well as ttie Qoais
of each Element of the Qeneral Plan.*
Coundl. by consensus, approved the modiicattons made by staff to the
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist as detailed in the memorandum dated August 9,
1994, from the Planning Department to the Coundl
On motton by Mayor Pro Tem Stanton. Coundl dk«ded the City Attorney to
prepare documents approving Qeneral Plan Amendment (QPA 94-1), as modiTied
by their prevtous actions, to comprahensively update the Qeneral Plan.
Lewis. Stantoa Kulchin, Nygaard arxl Finnla
Mayor Lewis dedared a recess at 7:59 p.m. and Coundl re-convened at 8:12 p,m,, with an Members
prMsnt
ACTION:
ACTION:
AYES:
MINUTES
MEETING OF:
DATE OF MEETINa
TIME OF MEETINa
PLACE OF MEETING:
CnY COUNCIL (Regular Meeting)
August 9,1994
6:00 pni
City Coundl Cfiambers
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lewis called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL was taken by the City Cleric, as follows:
Present: Council Members Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem Stanton and Mayor Lewis.
Atjsent: None.
AB #12.821 • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - EIR 93-1/GPA 94-1.
Mike Holzmiller, Planning Diredor, began the staff report by explaining the reasons for the General
Plan Update. He aiso summarized the process used for ttie update.
Dee Landers, Sentor Planner, continued with the staff report by detailing the process used during
the public review portion of the program, and explained some of the general changes made to
the Plan.
August 9, 1994 Page 4
PUBUC HEARINGS: (Continued)
Mr. Holzmiller then referenced a memorandum dated August 9,1994, which explains corredions
staff made to the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist.
RECESS:
Mayor Lewis declared a recess at 7:50 p.m., and Council re-convened at 8:03 p.m., with all five Members
present.
PUBUC HEARINGS: (Continued)
John Bridges, Consultant with Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., and Rob Greene, Senior Project
Scientist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, explained the purpose of a Master EIR and confirmed
that a master EIR does not preclude the opportunity for public input.
Council Member Nygaard stated she would like to have something written in the Plan stating all
Amendments would also be reviewed for compliance with the Vision Statement contained in the
Plan.
Mayor Lewis opened the duly noticed Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m., and issued the invitation to
speak.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, representing Projed Future, read a letter, a copy
of which is on file In the City Cleric's Office, expressing concerns about the proposed update.
Mark Chomyn, San Diego Gas & Electric, 101 Ash Street, San Oiego, expressed concern with
Policy Item C.11, which suggested the elimination of 'poweriine' easements from consideration
as meeting the 15 percent Growth Management open space performance standard. He felt Policy
C.11 should be re-wrinen or dropped, so powerline easements could be considered to meet the
15 percent Growth Management Plan.
Mr. Chomyn also stated that SOG&E has had correspondence with the State Lands Commission
in which they say that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located under the Agua Hedionda Land
Grant and is precluded from public holding by the State. Therefore, he requested that staff look
at the issue and make the appropriate modification to the EIR.
In response, the City Anomey stated that the City, In the EIR, is not adjudicating ownership of the
Lagoon and the issue is a private maner between SDG&E and the State.
Pat Knox, 2002 Pintoresco Court, stated she had concems atxiut noise, traffic and air quality.
She stated that she thought the Growth Management Plan was supposed to preclude the
occurring of any 'hot spots* as menttoned in the Generai Plan, and wanted to know how confined
those areas woukJ be, including the intersedions that will faii the Growth Management
requirements. Ms. Knox stated that the traffic circulatton arxl noise issues need to be addressed
more fully.
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, Inc., 1947 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 108, read his letter dated
August 9, 1994, a copy of which is on file in the City Cteric's Offtoe. He asked for language to
be inserted allowing Melrose Avenue to be reclassified as a major arterial.
August 9, 1994 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued)
Ofelia Escotiedo, 1611 James Drive, President, Barrto Carisbad Association, stated they support
the General Plan update, and requested staff to complete the Barrio Plan to tie presented for finai
adoption and incorporation into the Generai Plan.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday, stated tfiat it is difficult to reduce the
noise level to 60 CNEL in developments by prime arterials, freeways and the railroad. He
requested that the staff be given the flexibility to allow developers to exceed the 60 CNEL, if a
projed cannot meet the standard without undue hardships.
Leslie Sipple, 1287 Vera Cruz, Oceanside, stated that she hoped staff would consider the people
impeded t}y the changes in the Qeneral Plan. She stated that she is an owner of 246 acres that
is under the Mello-Roos, and there is no consideration given to property owners who might not
be able to pay the taxes. Ms. Sipple asked for something to be done to give relief from the
tremendous tax bill they owe.
Since no one else wished to speak on this matter. Mayor Lewis closed the Public Hearing at 8:47
p.m.
Clarifications and Responses to Questions
Mike Holzmiller stated that powerline easements have never been counted toward the 15 percent
open space requirement. The 15 percent open space is in addition to things already constrained,
and this was addressed by the Open Space Citizens Comminee. If all requirements have already
been met, and if this is an enhancement, such as a trail system or a buffer, then it can be
counted. In reply to query, Mr. Holzmiller stated that railroad rights-of-way are the same as future
roadways-and not open space.
Council Member Finnila stated if the City continues to grow, it will be necessary to look at a
comprehensive noise ordinance where enforcement can be phased in gradually.
With resped to the intersection 'hot spots', Mike Holzmiller stated that the EIR locks at a worst
case situation. The City's ordinance says we can't have a failure at an intersedion, and that will
still be the situation.
Assistant City Engineer David Hauser. in response to query, stated that through the master
pianning process for Carrillo Ranch, design standards for Melrose were reduced to those of a
major arterial rather than a prime. However, it was still designated as a prime arterial and the
width and improvements met the requirements of the prime designatton.
Mike Holzmiller stated that an annual report will be brought to the City Councii whtoh will provide
an opportunity for the public to say what needs to t>e looked at with regard to the implementatton
of the Generai Plan. When land is changed to the Umited Control Zone, it is removed from the
Mello-Roos arid the tax burden stops at that time.
Terri Woods, Planning Department, stated that the General Plan provides flexibility with regard to
the 60 CNEL noise level, in that there are three findings required whtoh wouki altow a projed to
exceed that level.
August 9, 1994 Page 6
PUBUC HEARINGS: (Continued)
Mike Holzmiller stated staffs concurrence with a suggestion in the letter from Projed Future to
include language that says 'If a Regionai HCP/NCCP is approved, the Generai Plan shall be
amended to be consistent*.
ACTION: On motion by Mayor Pro Tem Stanton, Council direded the City Attomey to
prepare documents certifying the Master Environmental Impad Report (MEIR
93-0.
AYES: Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard and Finnila
Mayor Lewis stated that the remaining issues in the Generai Plan Amendment will tie continued
one week.
8. AB #12.822 - SEAPOINTE RESORT - GPA 93-4/LCPA 93-4/ZC 93-5.
This item was continued one week.
DEPARTMENTAL AND CtTY MANAGER REPORTS:
9. AB #12.823 - PROHIBITION OF HANDBILL PLACEMENT ON AUTOMOBILES IN PARKING LOTS.
ACTION: On motion t>y Mayor Pro Tem Stanton, Coundl introduced ORDINANCE NO, NS-
29a amending Title 8, Chapter 8.28 of the Carisbad Municipal Code to prohibit
the placement of handt>ills upon vehtoles.
AYES: Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard and Finnila
CQUNCIL REPORTS:
Council Reports were continued.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting d August 9,1994, was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully sutsmitted.
kLETHA L RAUTENKRANZ J ALETHA
City Clerk
Harriett Babbitt
Minutes Ctoric
CIT0OF CARLSBAD — AGENl|| BILL CQPY FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
AB#.
MTG..
DEPT. .^PLN
TITLE: CERTIFICATION OF A MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATE THE GENERAL PLAN
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR.
O
o <
o z
o o
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is fTecommencied that the City Council direct the City Attomey to prepare documents
CERTIFYING the Master Environnfiental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). and
APPROVING a General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-01) to comprehensively update the
General Plan.
ITEM EXPLANATION
City Council review ofthe General Plan and its associated Master EIR is the last phase of
the General Plan Update which has been ongoing for several years. Eariier in the Update,
a Planning Commission Subcommittee worked with staff to refonmat and reorganize the
General Plan. During the update, several elements were independentiy revised including
Housing Parks & Recreation, and Open Space & Conservation. These elements were
approved and presented to the public for review as part of the Update process. Six
technical studies were also prepared to ensure that the General Plan included the latest
technical data. These studies addressed noise, housing fiscal analysis, geotechnical issues,
open space management and habitat management
During the Update, the City conducted an extensive, two-phased, public participation
program to provide numerous opportunities forthe community to take part in the process.
The first phase provided infonmation to the public on the General Plan including existing
Crty programs and policies. The second phase solicited input from citizens. The public
participation program provided a variety of activities including a video, a phone survey,
interviews, newsletters, citywide flyers, townhall meetings, workshops, forums, and youth
activities. Altogether, more than 1200 citizens participated in the public input program.
On April 20. 1994. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (one absent member) to
recommend certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report and approval of a
General Plan Amendment to comprehensively update the General Plan. The Planning
Commission reviewed the General Plan on an element-by-element basis with an informal
poll taken at the end of each element review. This procedure allowed the Commission
to individually review and discuss the major issues related to each element There are
specific policies that members of the Commission had differing opinions on and wished to
relay to the Council. To address this matter, staff has prepared an attached memo to assist
the Council in understanding the major discussion Items which arose during the General
Plan review. This includes issues raised by the Planning Commission discussions as well as
any major issues raised by the public. Staff's presentation at the Council meeting will
overview the major changes. Also attached is a staff report which describes in detail the
changes to the General Plan.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
Adoption of the General Plan will, over time, require the subsequent adoption of a number of
implementing policies and programs. This process is described on page 27 of the Staff Report and
further outlined in Attachment 4 of the Staff Report Briefly, on an annual basis the City Council
will establish a priority list of programs to be implemented each year and will provide direction to
staff. The status of this implementation would then be reported annually to the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the OfTice of Planning and Research (OPR)
as now required by state law. In addition, staff will be required to process a numberof individual
zone changes and zone code amendments to implement the updated General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no new costs associated with the adoption of the Updated General Plan. For Council
information, the City has spent approximately $327,000 on the General Plan Update. This amount
includes consultant fees on three studies addressing noise, housing, and geotechnical issues, the
public review program, and the EIR. Added to this sum of $327,000, is a significant amount of staff
time which has been estimated in excess of $ 150,000. This amount will increase slightly over the
next year to include the cost of preparing zone changes and zone code amendments necessary
to implement the General Plan.
EXHIBITS
1. Memorandum to the City Manager, dated May 24. 1994
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3630 & 3631
3. Staff reports, dated March 16, 1994. April 6. 1994 and April 20. 1994. w/attachments
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 1994. April 6. 1994 and April 20. 1994
5. Master Environmental Impact Report {Previously distributed, and on file in the City Clerk's
Office)
6. General Plan {Previously distributed, and on file in the City Clerk's Office)
1.
MAY 24, 1994
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
On April 20,1994, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (Betz absent) to recommend
certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report and approval of a General Plan
Amendment to comprehensively update the General Plan, Review of these documents
spaimed three Planning Commission meetings on March 16, April 6, and April 20, and
included lengthy discussion by Commission members. The Commission reviewed the
General Plan on an element-by-element basis with an informal poll taken at the end of each
element, A formal vote on both the EIR and General Plan then followed. This procedure
allowed separate discussion on the major issues of each element. This memo is intended
to convey to the Council a summary of the discussions which occurred at the Plarming
Commission meeting as well as input from the public attending the hearings.
During review of the Master EIR and General Plan, there were numerous comments offered
by the public and considerable discussion held among Plaiming Commissioners, Staff would
like to ensure that the Council has a clear understanding of these discussions. This memo
presents the major topics of deliberation on an element-by-element basis. There is some
overlap in discussion between the EIR and the General Plan because both documents
address the same issues. For brevity, these discussions have been grouped by topic and
include a staff response.
The packet presented to the Council is extensive, complex and includes the General Plan,
the Master Environmental Impact Report, Plaiming Commission Resolutions, and a detailed
staff report with numerous attachments, A brief description of each of the staff report
attachments has been provided below to assist the Council in identifying the contents of each
document.
# . .^^Attaclliniiait''-^
General Plan The General Plan tieing submitted for City Council review reflects
all the changes recommended for approval by the Planning
Conunission. During the Planning Commission review, a number of
minor additions, deletions, or corrections surfaced, in addition to the
revisions requested by the Commission. All of these changes have 1
been incorporated into the General Plan submitted for review by the 1
City Council. The changes which occurred during the Planning 1
Commission review are docnimented in Erratas l-S as well as in the |
minutes. 1
•b
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGE 2
# Attachment Contents^' ;
1 Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3630
Re(X)mmends certification of Final MEIR with a detailed Mitigation
Monitoring Program attached. Errata #5 dcxniments the addition of
an Addendum, a m(xlific:ation to the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and an additional finding addressing the deletion of
a mitigation measure requiring the minimum density within a range
to be achievecL
2 Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3631
Recommends approval of a General Plan Amendment updating all
elements of the General Plan.
3 Final Master
Environmental Impact
Report
Addresses the impacts of implementing the General Plan. More |
details can be found on Page 27 of the Staff Report All changes
recommended by the Planning Commission have been incorporated
as an Addendum Icxated at the front of the EIR. Changes are
documented in Errata l-S as well as in the minutes.
4 New General Plan
Goals, Objectives, and
Implementing Policies
and Action Programs
Lists the NEW goals, objectives, and implementing poUcies and
action programs. This list functions as a paper trail so staff can
identify the exact date when these goals, etc were approved All
changes recommended \iy the Planning Commission have been
incorporated
5 Errata The first of five erratas making minor revisions to both the General
Plan and the MEIR,
6 Revised Land Use
Element (Redline/
strikeout)
Substantial changes were made to the Land Use Element from the
time the Reformatted General Plan was made available for public
review to the time the General Plan went to the Planning
C^ommission. These modifications were provided in a
redline/strikeout version to enable the Planning Commission to
easily identify the revisions. All changes have now been
incorporated into the final General Plan submitted to the City
CounciL
7 Master EIR Flow Chart Addresses the manner in whic:h the MEIR interfac^es with future
development projects.
8 General Plan Programs,
Status and
Implementation
This document is the first step in developing an annual program to
monitor the sutus of the General Plan and the City's progress
towards implementation. Please refer to Page 27 of the Staff Report
for additional information. Only a sample of this document was
included for the Planning Conunission. The entire document has
been included for the City CounciL
9 Public Participation
Calendar
Provides a Ust of dates and activities which cxxnirred during pubUc
partidpation in the General Pian Update,
10 Proposed. General Plan
Designation Changes
Identifies numerous minor changes to the Land Use map which have
been proposed to correct mapping errors, changes in designation
names, inappropriate designations, and more consistent assignment
of some commercial designations.
11 Location Maps Locates, graphicaUy, the changes proposed in Attachment #10, |
A
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGES
A. LAND USE (Infonnal Poli -S-Z [Hall, Betz])
Most of the discussion at the Planning Commission hearings, both by the public and by the
Commissioners, focused on the Land Use Element and particularly on two new programs
proposed by staff. These two programs addressed 1) minimum density within a range; and,
2) periodic review of commercial sites. Both topics are discussed in more detail on pages
1-13 of the staff report and summarized below,
1, Minimum Density
Staff proposed new text and programs to encourage proposed multi-family
development to provide product types and sizes to ensure that the ininimum density
within a range is provided. This was done to achieve consistency with the General
Plan, to protect multi-family housing locations, and to provide a variety of product
types. Several citizens spoke in opposition to this policy stating that it may be
difficult to achieve in some cases due to neighborhood opposition or environmental
constraints. Subsequently, staff modified the proposed program to provide greater
fiexibility by addressing these concems. However, the Planning Commission still
could not support this proposal. The consensus was that the policy encouraged
developers to increase densities-something citizens do not want. All Conmiissioners
indicated that they could support a simple statement which indicates that when a
project is built below the lowest density within a range that the project is still
consistent with the General Plan. That statement has been entered on page 14 of
the Land Use Element.
2, Periodic Review of Commercial Sites
Staff proposed a new program to fine-tune existing policies with regard to
commercially zoned property. The program proposed that when commercial land is
not developed in a reasonable time period (two years) that it be reviewed by the City
to detennine whether or not the designation is stiU appropriate. If not, then the
property would be redesignated by the City to Unplanned Area (a new designation
which replaces Non-Residential Reserve [NRR]). As discussed on page 13 of the
staff report, the intent of the program is to attract revenue-generating businesses and
to treat property owners equitably. There was strong opposition to this proposal by
both the public and some members of the Commission. Several commercial land
owners indicated that the proposal would be burdensome because it may take much
longer than two years to put a conmiercial project together. They felt it would resuh
in an undersupply of commercially zoned land because commercial developers would
not want to take the risk of proposing a project if there was a chance the City would
rezone the property.
6
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGE 4
The Planning Commission took a divided position on this issue. The majority of the
Commission supported the proposal based on the opinion that the policy is similar
to periodic master plan reviews, that it is reasonable, and that it allows for changes
if necessary. Commissioners Betz and Hall had dissenting opinions. Commissioner
Betz believed the periodic review was not reasonable to property owners and does
not encourage commercial developmenL Commissioner Hall was very strongly
opposed to this policy and wished to have his concems relayed to the City Council,
Mr, Hall believes that once a site is zoned and taxed at a higher rate, that the zoning
becomes a property right that should not be taken away by the City, ff a nearby site
is rezoned commercial this action should not result in the down-zoning of an existing
nearby commercial property. The property owner should not have to come to the
City periodically to retain his property rights and keep his commercial zoning active.
The City should not force someone to develop his property; that should be the
individual's decision. He also believes that the City should have allegiance to present
property ovmers who have had commercially-designated land for years instead of new
developers who have not made the same type of long-term investment.
The program was subsequently modified and established an initial two-year review
and subsequent five-year review thereafter. Commercial sites within master/specific
plan areas were declared exempt, however, still subject to the regular five year review
required for undeveloped Master Plans.
The only other issue in the Land Use Element with much discussion was brought up by the
Encinitas School District and related to language in the General Plan regarding the zoning
of surplus school sites. Text was included which addressed existing City Council policy of
designating school sites as Open Space on the Zoning Map. Also included were references
to the Public Education Code which indicates that if a school site is no longer needed by the
district and if all eligible entities decline to sell or lease the property, then the City, upon
request fi-om the school district, shall rezone the property consistent with applicable general
and specific plans to be compatible with the uses of property surroimding the school site.
The Encinitas School District objected to this policy and language because it believes that
the potential exists for misperceptions and future problems. In the district's opinion, if a
school site is zoned Open Space then residents perceive it as such and would object to a
rezoning thus placing the Council between the school district and nearby residents. They
also believe this designation discounts the value of school sites. After much discussion, it
was detennined by staff that references to zoning were not appropriate in the General Plan
and better left to the Zoning Ordinance and State Law. The school district found this
acceptable and such references were deleted. The deleted language is indicated on the first
page of Errata #3.
CITY MANAGER.
MAY 24, 1994
PAGES
B. CIRCULATION (Informal Poll - 7 - 0)
The major issues raised by the public with regard to the Circulation Element focused on the
roadway status of Melrose Drive at two locations. These issues were responded to by staff
and accepted by the Planning Commission with no further discussion. The first public
comment was a request to downgrade Mehose Drive, south of Rancho Santa Fe Road, from
a major to a secondary arterial. The General Plan allows for the construction of a secondary
or modified secondaiy arterial roadway but does so by preserving adequate right-of-way for
a major arterial if such a roadway is needed in the future. The Engineering Department
believes that the proposed wording is appropriate and that preservation of additional right-
of-way does not unduly restrict development potential in the area.
The other comment with regard to Mekose requested that the segment between Palomar
Airport Road and Alga Road be deleted or downgraded since construction of Highway 680
was canceled. The Engineering Department indicates that the 1990 SANDAG traffic model
predicts that even without a southerly coimection of Melrose to Highway 680, Melrose Drive
will have traffic volumes ranging from 34,0(X) to 54,200 vehicles per day on the stretch
between Palomar Airport Road and Alga Road. These volumes warrant classification of
Melrose Drive as a prime arterial.
C. NOISE (Informal Poll - 7 - 0)
There were four topics raised by the public with regard to the Noise Element, These
addressed the 60 CNEL noise standard, noise impacts along College Avenue, aircrafi noise,
and barking dogs.
Opposition was expressed by representatives of the development community to the 60 CNEL
noise standard because it restricts development and creates walled cities. Further, that high
noise walls should be discouraged. Staff believes that 60 CNEL is a reasonable standard and
one the City has been implementing since Administrative Policy #17 was adopted (60 CNEL
requirement) in 1990. Since that time, there has been only one project where 60 CNEL was
not achieveci and, in that case, findings were made to exceed the standard. Staff has
prepared a draft Noise Guidelines Manual which recommends site design as the prefened
method of addressing noise impacts and then a combination of berms and walls versus solely
high noise walls. As a result of the discussion, staff clarified a proposed program so that it
now discourages noise walls over sbc feet in height,
Concem was expressed by several citizens regarding noise impacts on residences along
College Avenue in Calavera Hills which, in their opinion, calls for the realignment of College
Avenue, It is not the City's policy to retrofit noise mitigation for preexisting situations.
However, cost estimates and mitigation measures will be provided to homeowners'
associations. Each association may then decide which measures it wishes to pursue.
A.
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGE 6
Aircraft noise in the northem part of the City due to aircraft approach pattems at
McQellan-Palomar Airport was also raised as an issue by several citizens. Staff explained
that the County is preparing a master plan for the airport and is in the process of installing
noise monitoring equipment in the City which will be able to detect which aircraft are
violating airport take-off and landing procedures. This will enable the County to identify
offenders and advise them of the violation.
Lastly, several citizens were concemed that the Noise Element does not address the issue
of barking dogs and that the City does not have adequate means to deal with this problem.
This issue has been reviewed extensively by City staff. The City adopted the County's
Animal Control Ordinance by reference and contracts with the County to implement their
enforcement procedures. The City Council has determined that these methods are adequate
and function well.
These issues were addressed as noted above and accepted by the Commission without
further discussion.
D. HOUSING (Informal PoU - 5-1 [HaU], Betz absent)
Discussion on the Housing Element focused on Goal 4,1 which directs the City to prepare
a study which 1) analyzes the impact of commercial and industrial development on housing
demand and, 2) considers the feasibility of a non-residential impact fee for such
development. This goal was included in the work program set up as a result of adoption of
the Housing Element by the Planning Commission and City Council. Potentially, a fee
would be charged to commercial and industrial development, based upon square footage,
that would go into the Housing Trust Fund and be used to provide affordable housing. Staff
has completed the study and drafted a report which is now pending consideration by the City
Council.
There was extensive discussion with regard to this particular goal although it was previously
approved by the Commission. There was concem that the wording could create the
impression that mitigation measures to reduce impacts will definitely include an in-lieu fee.
The Commission concluded that they could approve the Housing Element if the wording
were changed to mitigation "measures may include".
The dissenting vote was cast by Commissioner Hall who wished to relay his concems to the
Council. He beiieves that development fees are already high and that an additional fee is
an unnecessary economic burden on future commercial and industrial developmenL Such
a policy would discourage new businesses from coining to Carlsbad as well as hinder
increased employment at existing businesses. He also expressed concem that the study may
be reviewed by the City Coimcil without much advance public notice. He believes that the
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGE 7
business community will have strong objections to such a policy and that the public should
have adequate time to review the study, Mr, Hall did not agree with the inclusion of Goal
4.1 as a mitigation measure for Air Quality in the Master EIR, The measure was
subsequently deleted as a mitigation measure and so noted in the Addendum at the front
of the EIR,
E. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION (Informal PoU - 6 - 0, Betz absent)
There was relatively little discussion by the Commission on Open Space and Conservation;
however, there were several requests made by a representative of Project Future,
Commissioner Hall expressed concem (with agreement from other Commissioners) that the
General Plan did not clearly state that the trail system is "proposed". This issue was resolved
by clarifying a proposed program in the Element,
Two major concems were expressed by Project Future as follows: 1) that the General Plan
does not identify the locations of sensitive resources, and 2) that funding for habitat
protection was not adequately addressed. Staff has completed an inventoiy of habitat in the
City through the Habitat Management Plan and Open Space & Conservation Resource
Management Plan efforts. This inventory includes constrained lands mapped to a level of
400 scale which is much more highly defined than that of most cities. Precise boundaries
will be determined during project level review. The Open Space & Conservation Resource
Management Plan (OSCRMP) includes several means to finance open space, including a
possible general obligation bond and an assessment district to pay for maintenance and
liability of a trail system. Staff is also looking at numerous financing mechanisms for a
habitat management plan, including a mitigation fee and general obligation bond. Project
Future also requested that the City consider a much larger percentage of land to be set aside
as open space and claims that the City only sets aside 15 percent. In actuality, the city
requires 15 percent of the developable land in addition to all constrained lands that must
be preserved. Together, this far exceeds 15 percent. Staff is cunently working on a multi-
species habitat plan which, if approved, would result in far more open space. Staff did not
recommend changing the 15 percent growth management requirement for open space. The
Commission accepted staff's responses and proceeded without further issue.
After the Planning Commission hearings, staff received a letter from San Diego Gas and
Electric (see attached) which reiterated a prior concem voiced at the hearings. SDG&E
expressed concem related to a proposed program which eliminates powerline easements
from consideration as meeting the 15 percent Growth Management open space performance
standard, except where such land fulfills an open space priority. SDG&E indicates that this
program makes it more difficult for them to obtain utility land rights if the landowner does
not receive some value, over and above monetary compensation.
CITY MANAGER
MAY 24, 1994
PAGES
Further, the ability to receive open space credit is often a tangible value weighed by
property owners when considering granting SDG&E a land right. City policy has established
that a developer can get credit for the 15 percent open space when his proposal for the
easement includes primary and/or secondaiy priorities of the OSCRMP, such as trails or
greenways. If his proposal does not include such items, he does not receive credit. Staff
also believes that the issue of the monetary land value requested for a utility easement is a
matter of negotiation between the property owner and SDG&E, not the City.
F. PARKS AND RECREATION (Informal PoU -- 6 - 0, Betz absent)
There was only minor discussion with regard to the Parks and Recreation Element. San
Diego Gas and Electric raised the issue of ownership of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Staff
subsequently modified charts in this Element to reflect the fact that SDG&E is the owner
of the lagoon as indicated on the Assessor's maps. However, as noted on page 5,6-15 of the
EIR, the State of California State Lands Commission is a Responsible and/or Trustee
Agency over not only Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, put also Buena Vista Lagoon, Batiquitos
Lagoon, and portions of the Pacific Ocean. This right limits the uses of these lands to
habitat preservation, waterbome commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or
other recognized Public Trust purposes.
G. PUBUC SAFETY (Informal PoU -6-0, Betz absent)
There was no discussion regarding the Public Safety Element and only minor public
comments from SDG&E updating technical information in the Element. These updates
have been completed and are integrated into the General Plan received by Council,
H. ARTS (Informal PoU - 6 - 0, Betz absent)
There was no discussion regarding the Arts Element.
Staffs presentation at the Council meeting wiU overview the major changes to the General
Plan, as well as the discussions of the Commission and the public. Please refer to the Staff
Report for a detailed discussion of the major changes to the General Plan.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
AML/arb
Attachment: 1) Letter from SDG&E dated May 11, 1994
San Diego Gas & Electric
PO. BOX 1831 > SAN OIEGO. CA 92112'<1S0 « 619'69«'2000
May 11,1994 FILE NO.
Ms. Adrienne Landers
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
RE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, GPA 94-01
On April 6, 1994, SOG&E attended a Planning Commission hearing on the General
Plan Update and offered comments regarding several elements contained in the text
for that update. Though our comments were recorded as a part of the minutes of
that hearing, we would like to offer those same comments, as weil as some
additional observations, in writing, for consideration by the City Council during their
hearings on the updated General Plan text.
Land Use Element
Residential Land Use
The second paragraph on page 15 indicates that limited development of accessory
or non-residential uses may be permitted within lands subject to major power
transmission easements. Any secondary use of transmission easements or rights-of-
way would be subject to SDG&E's review and approval, SDG&E currently evaluates
all proposals for secondary use of our existing rights-of-way to ensure land use
compatibility. Our Land Management section would be happy to assist the City in
reviewing proposed accessory uses.
Public Utilities
Language in the Public Utilities (U) category on page 18 stated that the primary
functions within that category Include the generation of electrical energy, treatment
of wastewater, public agency maintenance, storage and operating facilities or other
primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial portion of the
community. Siting of these primary functions would be accomplished only by a
change of zone and an approved Precise Development Plan.
SDG&E expressed a concern to the Planning Commission that the section, as
written, might be rtilsinterpreted as requiring a PDP for facilities such as electrical
substations. Electrical substations are currently processed underthe Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) process. Staff responded to SDG&E's concern by clarifying that the
PDP process would only be required for major utility improvements, such as
powerplants, proposed on lands currently zoned PU (Public Utility). We concur with
staff's clarification and would encourage a revision to the Public Utility section text
which correctly reflects the staff's and City's intent.
Parks and Recreation Element
Special Resource. Ooen Space and Cultural-Historical Areas
Objective 8.3, on page 11, discusses establishing access to and along the south
shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. SDG&E commented to staff and the Planning
Commission that access along portions of the shoreline of the lagoon could be
limited by topography, SDG&E expressed an interest in reviewing any future
conceptual or final plans for development of public access along the shoreline of the
lagoon.
Objective 8,4, on page 11, expresses the City's desire to establish a connecting link
(trail) between Veterans Memorial Park and Hubb Park, SDG&E restated its interest,
to staff and the Planning Commission, for involvement in the conceptual and final
planning of those proposed connecting links.
Objective 8.5, also on page 11, discusses the provision of limited access to the
wetlands of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon for the purpose of offering certain visitor
attractions. SDG&E informed staff and the Planning Commission that we have an
existing electricai transmission corridor east ofthe lagoon. SDG&E also advised staff
and the Commission that we currently review requests for secondary uses within our
rights-of-way or easements. We encouraged staff and the City to consult with
SDG&E regarding the wetlands access issue where such access involves secondary
use of our easements or rights-of-way.
Staff responded to SDG&E's concerns by mentioning the City's existing lease
agreement with SDG&E for Hubb Park. Staff also noted that the City had prepared
preliminary plans for Hubb Park improvements which included proposed public
access routes. Staff reassured SDG&E that public access to the wetlands near the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon would be regulated by resource agencies such as the
Department of Fish & Game.
The existing lease, preiiminary park plans and proposed resource agency involvement
not withstanding, we would ask that the City confer with SDG&E regarding
secondary uses within our existing rights-of-way, easements or operating property.
This would permit the City and SDG&E to consider secondary use proposals which
would not compromise the installation and maintenance of, or vehicular access to
existing or proposed SDG&E gas and electrical utility facilities.
Open Space & Conservation Element
Policy item C.11, on page 24, suggests the elimination of "poweriine" easements
from consideration as meeting the 15-percent Growth Management open space
performance standard, except where such land fulfills an open space priority.
SDG&E informed the Planning Commission and staff that our negotiations for land
rights, such as utility easements or rights-of-way, can be a difficult task, A land
owner's consideration for granting SDG&E utility land rights is often incumbent upon
that land owner's ability to receive some value, over and above monetary
compensation, in return. The ability to receive open space credit for land within a
utility easement or right-of-way is often a tangible value weighed by land owners in
consideration of granting SDG&E a land right.
It is also SDG&E's opinion that our facilities have typically been an allowable use
within land designated as open space in general pians and zoning ordinances. Our
presence in these open space lands has not diminished the value or secondary use
(ie: trails, bicycle paths) of these lands, SDG&E would appreciate the Council's
consideration of eliminating policy C.11 from the Open Space & Conservation
Element.
SDG&E noted that the Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map, page 37,
depicted several existing SDG&E electrical transmission corridors accommodating
potential open space trail linkages. Where those particular components of the
proposed trail system are implemented, either through public action ores a condition
of private development, SDG&E expressed an interest in reviewing the trail plans
with the City or private developers.
The Planning Commission responded by noting that it was their understanding that
the City was typically required to consult with SDG&E on issues of joint use. SDG&E
responded by stating that we were currently updating our policies on secondary uses
within the company's rights-of-way and easements. SDG&E's purpose for restating
an interest in reviewing secondary uses was to alert the and staff City that, based
on potential updates or changes to our policies on secondary uses, SDG&E may not
be able to assist the City in implementing all policies and programs of the General
Plan relating to trail development.
Public Safety Elenient
H. Oil Spills
Table 1: Oil Deliveries should be updated to reflect recent delivery activity. Current
activity based on SDG&E records is:
1991 - 1992
No tanker deliveries. Seven barge deliveries, 5 barges at 50,000 barrels each and 2
barges at 100,000 barrels each.
1992 - 1993
No tanker deliveries. Fourteen barge deliveries, 7 barges at 50,000 barrels each and
7 barges at ^00,000 barrels each,
1993 - 1994
One ta jr delivery at 270,000 barrels and one barge delivery at 100,000 barrels.
The first paragraph, following Table 1, on page 7, should be revised to indicate a 20
inch, not a twenty foot diameter pipeline. The last sentence of that same paragraph
should be revised to indicate that deliveries are completed within 12-36 hours not
10 to 24 hours.
The last paragraph on page 7 should be revised to read; "SDG&E submitted a
Contingency Plan to the Department of Fish and Game on April 1, 1994,"
The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 8 should be revised to
indicate that our oil spill vessel carries a 3,000 foot, not 2,000 foot, oil containment
boom. The fifth sentence of that same paragraph should be revised to indicate that
nine not twelve personnel are assigned to our vessels.
Policy C.2 on page 14 should be revised to read; "Support SDG&E compliance with
the provisions of the Contingency Ptan which was submitted to the California
Department of Fish and Game",
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments to the City Council. Should
members of the Council or staff have any questions regarding our comments, please
call me at (619) 696-2732.
Sincerely,
Mark Chomv U
Land Planne