HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 98-16; Agua Hedionda Visitor Center; Hillside Development Permit (HDP).
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 7,1998
Application complete date: August 18, 1998
Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: SDP 98-15iCDP 98-59/HDP 98-16PCD 98-01 - AGUA HEDIONDA
VISITOIUNATURE CENTER - A request for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a Site Development
Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Planning
Commission Determination for the relocation of the 3,600 square foot Aviara
Information Center to the area known as Village “F” of the Kelly Ranch for use
by the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation as a visitorhatwe center near the
future intersection of Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue in Zone 8.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4404
APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4401, 4402, 4410 and 4403
APPROVING SDP 98-15, CDP 98-59, HDP 98-16, and PCD 98-01 based upon the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The Building Ordinance of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC 18.24.040) requires that the
Planning Commission review and approve structure relocations prior to the issuance of building
permits. In addition, the Kelly Ranch Master Plan’requires the approval of a Site Development
Plan for this use within “Village F’. As a site within the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development
Permit is required. The project boundary is also within 100 feet of a wetland and is therefore
within the appeal area of the Coastal Zone.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project involves the relocation of the existing 3,600 square foot Aviara Information
Center from Aviara Planning Area 23 to the area known as Village “F” of the Kelly Ranch.
Village “F” is part of a 244+ acre parcel which will be subdivided as part of CT 97-16. The area
of Village “F” is defined by the Cannon Road alignment and the area of lagoon dedication to the
California Department of Fish and Game.
intent of being able to be relocated once
The structure was built in three modules with the
its life as an information center for Aviara was
IC‘ h
SDP 98-15/CDP 98-55/Hl“ 98-16RCD 98-01 - AGUA EDIONLA
VISITORLNATURE CENTER
October 7, 1998
complete. Aviara Planning Area 23 has been sold to a merchant builder, Brehm Communities.
with a stipulation that the information center be removed by December 3 1, 1998.
The information center is being donated to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation for use as a
visitor and nature center. Improvements to the site will include placing the structure on a
permanent foundation, provision of sewer and water to the structure, and full paving and
landscape improvements surrounding the building.
The project is subject to:
Kelly Ranch Master Plan (SDP)
Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 21.06 (SDP)
Local Coastal Program: Mello I1 (CDP)
Hillside Ordinance (HDP)
Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8
0 Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24 (PCD)
IV. ANALYSIS
Kelly Ranch Master Plan
Currently the Kelly Ranch is undergoing review for the development of what the applicant has
called the “core area.”. The core area includes Village “F” which is being requested as the site for
the relocation. Development of the “village” requires issuance of a Site Development Plan
pursuant to Qualified Development Overlay Zone (21.06).
The proposed interpretive center is designated as an allowed use within the master plan. The
building siting is also consistent with the required building setbacks for Village “F” based on the
proposed configuration in CT 97-1 6. The building is set back 105 feet from Cannon Road.
Driveway and parking areas are 30 feet. At its closest point, the building has a 20 foot setback
from the top of the slope facing the lagoon. The proposed location does not conflict with the
area required for the construction of improvements for Cannon Road. The proposed project is
therefore suited to the site, surroundings and environmental settings and the site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the use.
Parking has been provided at an approximate ratio of one space for every 164 square feet of
building. This ratio exceeds the “office” requirement of one space per 250 square feet of
building and the “museum” ratio of one space per 500 square feet of building area. A
combination of the two ratios is appropriate in that there will be areas for museum displays as
well as office space within the structure.
The building is a single story and is below the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The
architectural style and detailing of the building is typical Spanish or Mediterranean. Landscaping
- ?
SDP 98-15KDP 98-55lhuA’ 98-16RCD 98-01 - AGUA HEDIO~L~A
VISITOR/NATURE CENTER
October 7, 1998
Page 3
has been designed with the intent of creating a smooth transition fiom the site to the natural areas
which surround it.
Local Coastal Program: Mello I1
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan and tract map (CT 83-30) were approved in accordance with the
policies of the Mello I1 section of the Local Coastal Program. Those approvals included the
identification of areas of disturbance as well as the dedication of nearly 200 acres of lagoon
wetland as part of a mitigation package. The proposed area of disturbance for the Agua
Hedionda VisitorNature Center falls within and is less than that approved by the master plan
tract map.
A total of .05 acres of the disturbance are within slopes greater than 25%. There are 2.47 acres of
dual criteria slopes onsite. Avoidance of this area would preclude the ability to create adequate
access and circulation for school busses and therefore up to a 10% encroachment (.247 acres)
into the dual criteria slopes may be permitted. The project requires a .05 acre disturbance which
is approximately a 2% encroachment. Mitigation for the overall sage scrub disturbance will
consist of preservation of 2.05 acres of coastal sage scrub onsite.
The proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all
applicable policies in that the project does not obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual
beauty of the coastal zone, there are no impacts to wetlands, no development is proposed within
100 feet of a wetland, and no agricultural activities or geological instability exist on the site.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased
runoff and soil erosion and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction.
Hillside Ordinance
Property with a slope of 15% or more and an elevation differential greater than 15 feet are
required to be reviewed under a Hillside Development Permit. This project is subject to the
Hillside Ordinance because there is a portion of a manufactured slope approximately 20 feet in
height which will be impacted by proposed fill.
The intent of the ordinance is to preserve significant natural resource areas and to preserve the
natural appearance of hillsides. The proposal meets these intents in that the predominance of
natural slopes onsite have been preserved and that the proposed grading will closely follow
existing contours.
A portion of a manufactured slope greater than 40% will be disturbed. The slope was created
with the construction of a desiltation basin and access road. Although the slope is greater than
40% and would typically not be developable, the slope may be excluded fiom the requirements
.h
SDP 98-1 5lCDP 98-55/HLA 98-16PCD 98-01 - AGUA HEDIONLA
VISITORNATURE CENTER
October 7, 1998
of the Hillside Ordinance as an area previously disturbed by authorized grading.. A finding to
that effect is included in the Hillside Development Permit resolution.
Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 8 in the northwest
quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY COMPLIANCE WITH IMPACTS
STANDARDS
City Administration Yes NIA I
Library
Wastewater Treatment
Yes NIA
Yes 1 EDU
Capacity
Parks
Yes 72 ADT Circulation
Yes NIA Drainage
Yes NIA
Fire Station 3 Yes
Open Space NIA ' Yes
Schools
Yes 220 GPD Water Distribution System
Yes 1 EDU Sewer Collection System
Yes NIA
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24
This chapter requires a Planning Commission Determination for the relocation of any structure
into the City or from one location to another in the City. The purpose of the requirement is to
provide staff and the Planning Commission with an opportunity to review the appropriateness of
such moves.
In the present case (PCD 98-01) there are no staff concerns regarding the proposed building
relocation because the building is attractive and can provide all of the required setback
requirements. Therefore, a Planning Commission approval is recommended
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal species and none were identified. However
some disturbance to coastal sage will occur'. Mitigation has been proposed in the form of onsite
preservation of coastal sage,scrub. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures the
relocation project will be considered to have significant but mitigable impacts. The Planning
Director has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c- - SDP 98-15KDP 98-55/LiJ 98-16PCD 98-01 - AGUA HEDIOI\I,A
VISITOIUNATURE CENTER
October 7, 1998
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4404 (Mitigated Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4401 (SDP)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4402 (CDP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4410 (HDP)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4403 (PCD)
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Exhibits “A”-“D” dated October 7, 1998
CW:mh
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
F h
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4404
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO RELOCATE
A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE TO PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF CANNON ROAD AT FARADAY
AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORNATURE
CASE NO.: SDP 98-1 SKDP 98-59/HDP 98-1 6RCD 98-0 1
WHEREAS, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation , “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land
Company, “Owner”, described as
CENTER
That portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the offke of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October, 1998, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to
Exhibit “ND“ dated September 9, 1998, and “PII” dated September 1, 1998, and
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
Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on
the following findings and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed. analyzed and considered
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for ths
project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project. Based
on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. The -Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Project Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
..
..
..
..
...
PC RES0 NO. 4404 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
I Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4404 -3-
C' Zity of Csrlsbad f
_____....._
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I'rqject Address/Location: West of Cannon Road at Faraday Avenue
Project Description: Relocation of a 3,600 square foot structure for use as 3
visitorhature center.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro-ject
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Dedaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
SEPTEMBER 18,1998
SDP 98- 1 5/CDP 98-59PCD 98-01
AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOIUNATURE CENTER
SEPTEMBER 18,1998
Planning Director
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98- 1 5KDP 98-59/PCD 98-0 1
DATE: September 1. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Aeua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center
2. APPLICANT: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O.Box 4004 Carlsbad. CA 9201 8
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14. 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocation of a 3.600 sauare foot structure for use as a visitorhature
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant lmpact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicatkd by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
~~~
,-
DETERMINATION.
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect@) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Date I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires 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 checklist. This checklist 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 (EIR). Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in. the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact’’ answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact’’ answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation. and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based. on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
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 environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 If there are one or more Potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end ofthe
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detemined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (The proposed project does conflid with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. In addition, it is an albwable use, consistent with the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan, which allaws tourist-recreational uses. C@ of Cafkbad Zoning ordnance Tile 31, Kelly Ranch Master Plan).
Conflict with appliie environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposed project is consistent with the Carlsbad Draft Wi Management Program. A Sadion 4(d) pennit wil be required to confirm this consistency. In addition, the proposed project does not preclude the implementation of the City’s General Plan, including the Open Space Element. General Plan, MER 93-01, Habitat Management Ran for Natural Communities 12/1/97).
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Surrounding existing land uses am
primarily historical agricultural and native open space uses. The proposed project wil not be incompatible with these uses. MER 93-07,Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to -Nils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (The inpacts of urban land use and the discontinuance of agricutture in this area have been addressed in the City’s General Plan EIR, and the General Plan does not consider agricutture a permanent land use; The proposed project wiY not directly affect existing agricuitural uses. Kelly Ranch Core Area Dtaft EIR
7/98). Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority communrty)? (The proposed temporary storage project is to be located within an area which S presently undeveloped, is not near or adjacent to any low-income or minority neighborhood, and will not divide or displace any existing neighborhoods; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant tmpact
No
tmpact
i
X
X
X
X
X
5 Rev. 03/28/96
.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be mierred io and attached)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed Mil regional or bcal population projections? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not generate any population).
b) Induce substantial growth in an ama either directly or indirectly (eg. through projects in an undeveloped ma or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed project k planned for an ma that has been desigtnated for urban uses in the Ci General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Growth Management Program. As a result, it will not affect or induce addiinal planned growth in any significant way; MBR 93-01, Zoning Ordinance 7iWe 31, Cdy of Carislaad Growth Management Pmgram).
c) Dwlace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project site S currently undeveloped and installation of the Visitor Center facility will not affect any existing residences; (Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7m).
UI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (The proposed project will not mutt in exposure of people or property to known geologic or seismic hazards beyond those identified generally in the Cis General Plan EIR and the Kelly Ranch EIR, since there is no actiie or potentially active geologic faults identified within or near the construction zone; MEIR 93-01, UR 83-
04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
Seismic ground shaking? (See above; Also, soils in the area of the proposed storage are of sufficient compadion and no landslides or other soils problems are anticipated within the construction area: MEIR 93-01).
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (See above; Also, the Ci General Plan Master EIR concluded that significant soils and geology impacts throughout the Clty of Carlsbad can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures. These
measures am the General Plan Pubiic Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs, NR 83-04).
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The proposed project is not located in an area identified m the Cis General Pbn EIR as
susceptible to Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
6 Rev. 03/28P6
~ ~~~
.-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (supplemental drnmen& may be mtem to and Significant Significant Significant Impact
attached) Impact UhkSS Impact
lnco rated
Landslides or mudflows? fSee above; M€IR 93- 01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
EIR as described above: MEIR 93-01).
defined and concluded in the General Plan Master Carlsbads policies regarding soil protection as Center project will comply with the Ci of X Subsidence of the land? (The proposed Visitor
EIR). edge d the subject site; UR 83-04 Kelly Ranch existing desiltation basin located at the westerly are proposed. All runoff WP be directed into the requirements. Only minor topographical changes included consistent with the Ci of Carlsbad approximately 2.5 acres. Erosion control will be subject project will involve grading of ix conditions from excavation, grading, or RI? (The Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
I
Expansive soils? (The proposed project will be X installed on a concrete slab, constructed consistent with Carisbad building requirements and as recommended through Geotechnical Evaluations; MEIR 93-01, Paa7ic Soils Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, 7Zm)
~ Unique geologic or physical features? (No unique X physical features exist within the boundaries of the proposed project; M€IR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
"
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or X the rate and amount of surface runoff? (The proposed project 'will not significantly change drainage patterns, runoff, flooding hazard, 'nor impact groundwater quality. All runoff will be channelized in improved storm drain taciliiies to the existing desiltation basin at the westerly end of the subject site. (MEIR 93-01).
hazards such as flooding? (The proposed project
will be situated at approximately elevation 75 msl, which is significantly above the 100-foot flood stage. As a result, it will not be exposed to flooding potential; M€lR 93-01).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water qualrty (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed project will not involve discharge of any surface waters which will it result in an alteratin of water quality, since it will be consistent with Carlsbad water quality and erosion control requirements; ME/R 93-01). 1 I 1 1
b) Exposure of people or property to water related X
X
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be refened to and attached)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (The proposed project wll not discharge direCrty or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters, modify surface water paths to any significant degree whatsoever, nor result in an alteration of water quali; Potential temporary erosion impacts during the pad grading period may occur, but will be mitigated through standard Carlsbad erosion controal methods. Ci& of Camad Gmding Ordinance).
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (The proposed project will result in no substantive change in the course or direction of water movement BS concluded in the City's General Plan EIR; M€lR
Changes in the quantiiy of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabiii? (The proposed temporary building storage does not invohre any withdrawak or
additions to the groundwater; Mf/R 93-01). Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (See above: MElR 93-07, EIR 83W Kelly Ranch
flu).
lrrpacts to groundwater quality? (The proposed project will not result in impacts to groundwater qualrty; MElR 93-01).
Substantial .- reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (The proposed project will not result in impacts to groundwater or water otherwise available for public water supples; MElR 93-01).
V. AIR QUALTTY. Would the proposal: Violate any quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air qualrty violation? (The proposed project will not generate ai pollution, or
generate significant amounts of vehicular traffic, and as a result, will not impact or affect the region's air resources: MflR 93-07).
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The proposed project will not create any impacts to sensitive receptors; MElR 93-01).
Alter ai movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in dimate? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not invoke climatic or ai mass changes; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant lrnpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated T I I
I I X
I
8 Rev. 03/28P6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to ant
attached) impact Unless Mitigation
d) Create objectionable odors? (The Visitor Center
project will not create noxious odors; EfR 93-01)
VI. TRANSPORTATlONlClRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The proposed project will generate only a minimal amount of destination vehicular trips, and 85 a result witl not create traffic congestion; ME/R 93-
01).
Hazards to safety from design features (e.Q. sharp cutves or dangerous intersection$ or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The proposed project will achieve access to Cannon Road via an access point consistent with Ci of Carlsbad standards; MElR 93-01).
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The proposed project will not affect approved emergency access to the ama in compliance with applicable Ci codes; MEIR 93-
01).
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(The proposed building storage project will not require or necessitate vehicular parking. Permanent vehicular access for routine maintenah will be provided for the project: MEIR
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not create any significant hazard or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists; M€lR 93-07).
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (The proposed project will not affect alternative transportation methods in any way; M€lR 93-07).
Rail, waterborne or ai traffic impacts? (The proposed project will not affect rail, Waterborne or air traffic impacts in any way: MElR 93-07)
93-01).
L IX
X
X
X
X
X
I
9 Rev. 03128P6
"~
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
aitached) Unless Impact
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
Mitgation lnoorporated
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
e
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, X
insects, animals, and birds? (The proposed project
coastal sage scrub vegetation, and a single coastal coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed
is anticipated to affect approximately 0.39 acres of
califomia gnatcatcher (poloptila califomica);Kely
Locally designated species (e.@ heritage trees)?
Ranch Con? Area Draft EIR 7/98).
the subject ma; Kelly Ranch Core &a LWt EIR (No bcaUy designated species are bcated within
whii are considered sensitive coastal resoums, and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub project will affect 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub forest, coastal habiiat, etc.)? (The proposed X Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
7/98).
Management Plan for Natural Communities within Ranch Con? Area Draft EIR 7/98, Hat
Carlsbad Habi Management Pmgram. Kelly and are determined to be sensitive in the Draft
X Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The wetlands; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). pool)? (The proposed project will not affect any Wetland habii (e.g. marsh, &rian and vernal
me cw of cartsbad).
area; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98). occupies the identified coastal sage scrub in the federally threatened California gnatcatcher
.. I
++-
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(The proposed project will be constructed m a fashion which is consistent with Clty of Carlsbad
policies regarding energy conservation; M€lR 93- 0 7).
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (The proposed project will not involve the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and wia be consistent with Ci of Carlsbad policies regarding energy conservation: MflR 93-01). c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (No known mineral resources occur within the area of the proposed Visitor Center; MElR 93-07, EIR 83-04). .
No
Impact ;
X
X
X
X
X
10 Rev. 03RBP6
.c
issues (and Supporting information Sources):
(Supplemental documents my be feierred to and
attached) Mitigation I I Incorporated
DC HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: I I l
A risk of &ental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or tadistion)? (The proposed Visitor Center project will not involve risk
of these circumstances as determined in the Cis General Plan EIR; MEIR 93-01).
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (The proposed building stofage will not impede emergency response; M€lR 93-01).
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (The proposed Vir Center project will not create any health harards as concluded in the Ci of Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR; MElR 93-01).
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (The proposed wil not
expose people to existing sources of health hazards as determined in the General Plan Master El R; MEIR 93-0 1).
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (The proposed project will comply with City of Carlsbad tire suppression programs, and will not increase fire hazard).
..
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levek? (The proposed Visitor Center smcture and use will not increase noise levels to any significant degree; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR July 1998).
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (No significant impacts from Cannon Road or other sources will occur as a result of the proposed
project; Kelly Ranch Core Ansa Draft EIR July 1998, MElR 93-01).
X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or mutt in a need for new or altered I government sewices in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (No tire hazard. nor sianificant additional need for fire protection. will be Fequired as a result of the proposed project. (MEIR 93-07). b) Police protection? (No additional police protection requirements will result from installation of the subject Visitor Center structure; ME/R 93-01).
No Impact I
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11 Rev. 03t28t96
~
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Impact Unless Impact attached)
Impact Significant Significant Significant (Sup@emn&l documents may refsned & and
No Less Than Potentially Potentially
Mitigation tncorporated
c) Schools? (The proposed project vvil not generate
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
1x1
XI a demand for schools; MEIR 93-01).
(The project k located within an ma designated by the General Phn, Zoning Map and KeWy Ranch Master Phn BS future urbanizing am, and BS a result no unanticipated substantive increase in mad maintenance will be necessitated by the project; MElR 93-07, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
project wip not require significant additional governmental services; MElR 93-07).
e) Other governmental services? (The proposed X
XI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial atterations to the fouoWig utilities:
Power or natural gas? (Development of the
proposed project will not create any significant demand for new power or natural gas facilities or services. MElR 93-07).
Communications systems? (The proposed project X will not create a significant new demand for major facilities or to require substantial alterations to existing facilities; MEIR 93-07).
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (The proposed project will not result in significant increase in sewage generation or water usage, and as a result, will not significantly affect - local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities; MElR 93-01. EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). , Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project will
not result in any significant demand for new, or ., unplanned sewer facilities.). Storm water drainage? (The proposed Visitor Center building will not result m a need for
significant storm water drainage facilities. Runoff from the subject site will drain into the existing
desittation basin located a! the westerly edge of the subject site; MElR 93-07).
Soli waste disposal? (The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste;
Local or regional water supplies? (The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in demand for tocal or regional water supply, and will increase the opportunity for supply of reclaimed water for the Citv. M€/R 93-07 1.
X
X
X
X
X
X
MElR 93-07).
. - -- - -,- I 1 I I
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be refetred to and
attached)
MII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vi& or scenic hghway3 (The proposed building will be visible fmm Park Drive, however, due to its small size, should not constitute a significant visual impact; Kelly Ranch
Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
(The proposed project is single story in she and scale, is aesthetically and archiecturaly pleasing, and 8s a resutt will have no negative aesthetic effect).
Create light or glare? (No light or glam will result from the proposed project: M€IR 93-01).
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (There are no known paleontological resources within the subject area; EIR 83-04).
Disturb archaeological resources? (The proposed project site is not within an area identified as posessing archaeological resources;ElR 83-04).
Affect historical resources? (There are no known historical features within the alignment of the proposed project; MEIR 93-07, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR). , .
Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (The proposed project is located within an area which is not known to contain unique ethnic cuttural resources: MEIR 93-01).
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact &a? (The proposed project is located within an alignment which does not restiii religious uses or impact sacred areas: MEIR 93- 0 7).
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational tacilities? (The proposed project will create no additional need for parks or other recreation facilities. MEIR 93-01).
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The proposed project will not affect existing recreation opportunities; MEIR 93-01).
Potentially
Mitigation Impact Unless Impact
Less Than Potentially Significant Significant Significant
Incorporated . -
1
13 Rev. 03/28P6
~
-.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemntal documents may be refmed t~ ant
attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habi of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a phnt or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anhnal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (The proposed project does have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment as a result of its impacts to coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, and its potential impact on a single California gnatcatcher. a however, will not affect the habitat of fish populations, and as conditioned with mitigation, should not result in a significant impact on wildlife species.: Kelly Ranch Core Area Draff EIR 7N).
b) Does the project have impacts that am individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project does not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable incremental impacts to a significant degree. The project is temporary m nature, and will not cumulatively impact growth).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The
proposed Visitor Center project will not cause substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly on human beings, since it is to be utilied as an amenity for public use.
Potentiall) Significani Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated
X
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
;I i
T
X
X
14 Rev. 03128196
~~ ~~
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. for effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Earlier analyses used in conjunction with this assessment are the:
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, 1992,
2. Carlsbad Growth Management Program, 1987,
3. Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01,
4. Kelly Ranch EIR (EIR 83-04),
5. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR, dated 7/98,
6. Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Title 21,
7. Pacific Soils Engineering Geotechnical Evaluation, dated July 23, 1998.
b) PISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAI FVAl UATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked
"No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked
"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout
15 Rev. 03/28/96
according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your
discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will resutt in increased gas and - electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently resuti 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. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin,” any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout,
a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements 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 alternative 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. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the
project is located within a “non-attainment basin,” therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact.” This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of
air quality impacts is required. This document is available at.the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which
the City has no jurisdictional control. 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 City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR.
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. 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. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project
approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through- traffic, however, project related impacts are considered to be below a level of significance with mitigation identified in the Zone 19 LFMP. The "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." Development of the subject is consistent
with the current General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required
because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-
246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This
"Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered
by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
BlOLOGlCAl IMPACTS: The proposed project involves the disturbance of 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, a California gnatcatcher has been sighted on the subject property, and disturbance of this treatened species may occur. Mitigation for these impacts will be necessary in order to result in a finding of no significant impact.
VlSUAl IMPACTS: The proposed building is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to visual resources. This is because the subject building is single story, low in scale, and the greatest potential for visual impact occurs along Park Drive, which is located over 2000 horizontal feet away. The building however, must be installed in an architecturally and aesthetically pleasing manner.
17 Rev. 03t28P6
”.
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
h
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall consult with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army
Corps regarding any obligation to obtain State and/or Federal permits for the
disturbance of jurisdictional vegetation and the California gnatcatcher.
Disturbance to .32 acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub shall be mitigated through the preservation of .64 acres of coastal sage
scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite.
“Take” of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of a 4(d) Habitat
Loss Permit.
All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans.
All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical to provide
sufficient night visibilitv vet Drotect offsite areas from liaht oversDil1.
18
APPLICANT CONCURRIAWE WITH MITIGATION 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 1 Signature
19
PROJECT NAME: Agua Hedionda VisitorlNature Center FILE NUMBERS: SDP 98-151CDP 98-551HDP 98-161PCD 98-01
APPROVAL DATE: MITIGATED NEG. DEC.: 9-9-98
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall
consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Game regarding any obligation to obtain
State and/or Federal permits for the disturbance of jurisdictional
veaetation and the California anatcatcher.
The property owner shall place 1.33 acres of coastal sage scrub
and .72 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite into a
conservation easement as mitigation for the disturbance to .32
acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub. The easement shall be submitted for recordation prior
to the issuance of a aradina permit.
“Take” of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of
a 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit. The Habitat Loss Permit shall be
aDDrOVed bv Citv Council Drior to the issuance of a grading permit.
All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to commencing
construction. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading
plans.
All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical
to provide sufficient night visibility yet protect offsite areas from
light overspill to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Monitoring Monitoring Shown on Verified
TY Pe Department . Plans Implementation Remarks
Proiect USFWS I
artment
I
Project Planning
Department
Project Engineering
Department
Project Planning
Department
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.
this column will be initialed and dated.
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
P
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 4401
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF CANNON ROAD AT FARADAY
AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORNATURE
CASE NO.: SDP 98-15
WHEREAS, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land
Company, “Owner”, described as
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 98-15 TO RELOCATE A 3.600
CENTER
That portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”-“D” dated October 7, 1998 , on file in the Planning
Department, AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/NATURE CENTER, SDP 98-15, as provided by
Chapter 2 1.06/Section 2 1.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of October, 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public 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 Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing. the Planning
Commission APPROVES AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOlUNATURE
CENTER, SDP 98-15, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the requested use is properly related to the. site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the project is on an isolated parcel of land relative to
surrounding developable areas and has been designed with sufficient onsite parking
and circulation.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that all of the required setbacks have been met or exceeded.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained; in that the proposed building is situated on the site in such a
way that all setbacks are exceeded and all landscaping has been designed with the
intent of creating a smooth transition from the site to the natural areas which
surround it.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project is adjacent to Cannon Road which is
a major arterial.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require owner to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Site Development Plan document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The owner shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless
the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby.
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The owner shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Site
Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the
conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
The owner shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated July 10, 1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
The project is subject to the Agreement Between Kelly Land Company and
Carlsbad Unified School District Relative to Mitigation of K-12 School Facilities
Impacts.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this .residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
Trash receptacle areas shall be screened from public view.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent property.
An erosion control plan consistent with the Grading Ordinance shall be prepared
and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -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
28
12.
13.
14.
c
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director.
The owner shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the
approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans shall
be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to building
occupancy. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the
approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
The Owner shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Agua Hedionda
Visitor/Nature Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Enpineerinp:
Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions,
upon the approval of this proposed Site Development Plan, must be met prior to approval of a
building permit.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The net developable acres for the site shall be shown by the owner on the Grading,
Drainape & Utilitv Plan and Site Plan conforminp mvlars to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
Prior”to issuance of any building permit, the owner shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-grafliti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formerly established by the City.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the owner shall submit to ahd receive approval from the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route and obtain an oversized load permit from the City. The
owner shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose
with regards to the hauling and building relocating (oversized load permit) operation.
The owner shall install sight distance corridors in accordance with Engineering
Standards and prior to issuance of a grading permit, shall record the following
statements on the Grading. Drainage & Utilitv Plan. Site Plan and LandscaDe
ConceDt Plan conforminp mvlars:
a. Mature vegetation within the site line area of all intersections shall be no
greater than 30’’ in height or have a canopy no less than 8’ in height above
the adjacent major street grade.
b. No structure, fence, wall, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the major
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -4-
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
street level shall be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a
sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standards. The underlying
property owner shall maintain this condition.
FeedAmeements:
19. This project is within the Cannon Road West, Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee District
No. 3. This project is required to pay a fair share contribution towards the
construction of Cannon Road West in accordance with the fee program. The owner
shall pay a fee of %210.00/ADT attributable to the project, subject to potential
increase or decrease at time of building permit.
20. The owner shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
2 1. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
22. The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
GradinP:
23.
24.
25.
26.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan, a grading permit for this project is required. The
owner must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes
and standards.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the owner shall submit proof that a Notice of
Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Upon completion of grading, the owner shall ensure that an "as-graded" geologic plan is
submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed
by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and
must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This
plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan
shall be prepared on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a
permanent record.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project, or
encroach into any public or private easement, unless a grading or slope easement or
agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the
owner is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit
will be issued. In that case the owner must either amend the Site Plan or modify the
plans so grading will not occur outside the project site or within any public or private
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -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
easement in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved Site Plan, as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. .
Dedicationsnmmovements:
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the owner shall enter into the City's standard
Grading and Erosion Control Agreement and post any required bonds/securities,
which shall include basin maintenance obligations in conformance with said
agreement, to the satisfactory to the City Engineer. Additionally, the existing on-site
desiltation basin shall be serviced by an all-weather access/maintenance road. This all-
weather access/maintenance road shall be shown on the Grading, Drainage & Utility
Plan and Site Plan conforminp mvlars.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
Direct access rights for the project frontage with Cannon Road shall be waived by the
owner by separate instrument, excepting therefrom the driveway access to the site.
The owner shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The owner shall provide best management
practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices
Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to
sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be prepared by the owner and
approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying
prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A.
B.
C.
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
A minimum 660' Corner Sight Distance, sight line shall be shown by the owner at
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -6-
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
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
- Fire:
39.
40.
41.
42.
the site access driveway/Cannon Road intersection. This sipht line shall be shown
on the Grading, Drainaqe & Utilitv Plan, Site Plan and Landscaue Concept Plan
Conforming mvlars, and. final proiect landscaue Dlans.
On-site driveways, aisle ways and parking areas shall be constructed by the owner
with A/C pavement, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This shall be shown on
theGradine, Drainage & Utilitv Plan and Site Plan conforming: mvlars.
Prior to occupancy, the Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan, Site Plan and Landscape
Concept Plan shall be combined into one comprehensive site plan, plan set, by the
owner, and labeled as Sheet’s 1 - 3 of 3. This shall be shown on the conforming
mvlars.
Prior to occupancy, a preliminary striping plan shall be submitted by the owner for
the site driveway access/Cannon Roadmaraday Avenue intersection, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Through lanes for the site driveway and Faraday
Avenue shall align. If the proposed site access driveway must be widened, this shall
be shown on the conforming mvlar (also prior to issuance of a grading permit).
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Owner shall show the project’s Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) on the conforminP mvlars.
Prior to occupancy, sewer & water must be available for the project, to the
satisfaction of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), District Engineer.
The Owner shall show the sewer and water information on the conforminp mylars.
Access to the site shall be maintained throughout the construction of Cannon Road
by the Owner. This access shall be shown on the improvement plans, or as required
by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to occupancy, the ultimate sewer facilities, which may be located on this site
(i.e., any sewer lines and the ultimate pump station) shall be shown on the
conforming mvlars. Owner shall construct, or contribute payment for the
construction of the ultimate sewer and water facilities, to the satisfaction of the
CMWD, District Engineer.
The building shall not be occupied until it is served by all weather access.
No Electrical connections may be made to the building until it is served by all weather
access.
Occupancy will be withheld until the Fire Marshal has approved a fire suppression
plan.
The applicant shall be aware that the building will not have fire service until it is served
by all weather access and fire hydrants.
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -7-
,
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
-.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees.
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from October 7, 1998 to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review. set aside. void. or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning.
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October, 1998 , by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
~~ ~~
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4401 -8-
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. 4402
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF CANNON
ROAD AT FARADAY AVENUE .IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/NATURE
CASE NO.: CDP 98-59
WHEREAS, The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land
Company, “Owner”, described as
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP 98-59 ON
CENTER
That portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A”-“D” dated October 7, 1998, on file in the
Planning Department, AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOlUNATURE CENTER, CDP 98-59 as
provided by Chapter 2 1.20 1.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of October 1998, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered ail factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/NATURE CENTER, CDP 98-59
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinm:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the development does not obstruct views or
otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone and no agricultural activities
or geological instability exist on the site.
2. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion and the site is not
located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods
or liquefaction.
3. Less than a 10% disturbance of dual criteria slopes is necessary to provide
reasonable bus access and turn-around on the site.
4. No disturbance is proposed within 100 feet of a wetland. However, there are several
sensitive plants and animals including coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats
nearby and therefore grading may not be postponed until the summer 1999 grading
season because it would then conflict with the summer breeding season of the
California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and
in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within
two (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless
extended per Section 21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer which includes extensive erosion
control measures consistent with the City's Master Drainage and Storm Water
Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance.
4. Grading may occur after October 1, 1998 but no later than February 1, 1999. All
erosion control measures shall be in place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
PC RES0 NO. 4402 -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
prior to commencing onsite grading which guarantee that there will be no off site
erosion.
5. Prior to occupancy, the property owner shall place all areas outside of the proposed
area of disturbance into an open space conservation easement. The easement may
include some passive recreational uses such as a trail and maintenance access
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4402 -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
28
,e -
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4410
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF CANNON ROAD AT
MENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORNATURE
CASE NO: HDP 98-16
WHEREAS, The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, “Developer”, has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land
Company, “Owner”, described as
FARADAY AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
CENTER
That portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the ofice of the County
Recorder of San’ Diego County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”-“D” dated October 7, 1998, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOFUNATURE CENTER, HDP
98-16, as provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October 1998,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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 Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
16, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
APPROVES, AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORINATURE CENTER, HDP 98-
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the predominance of natural slopes
onsite have been preserved.
That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of
the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that manufactured slopes will closely
follow existing contours.
That’the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the predominance of onsite slopes will be preserved.
That the slope area created by the construction of the onsite desiltation basin and
access road as shown on Exhibits “A”-“D” may be excluded from the requirements
of Chapter 21.95.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit document(s) necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
PC RES0 NO. 4410 -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
2s
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 44 10 -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
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4403
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF CANNON
ROAD AT FARADAY AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/NATURE
CASE NO: PCD 98-01
WHEREAS, The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation , “Developer”. has filed
a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land
Company, “Owner”, described as
CENTER
That portion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planning
Commission Determination as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”-”D” dated October 7, 1998, on file in
the Planning Department AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORDIATURE CENTER, PCD 98-01
and Chapter 18.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October 1998,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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 Planning Commission Determination; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission APPROVES
AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOIUNATURE CENTER, PCD 98-01 based on the
following frndings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. The request to relocate the structure has been conditioned to fully protect and
maintain the public's general health, safety and welfare.
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide all necessary protections to the maintenance of the
general health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4403 -2-
-.
..
AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/
NATURE CENTER
SDP ‘98-1 5/CDP 98-591
HDP 98-1 6/PCD 98-01
,I -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 98-1 5/CDP 98-59/HDP 98-1 6PCD 98-01
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA VISITORhJATURE CENTER
APPLICANT: AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON FOUNDATION
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Relocation of a 3.600 sauare foot building to “Village F” of the
Kelly Ranch for use as a nature center.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That Dortion of Lot “I” of Rancho Agua Hedionda and that
portion of Lot “F” of Rancho Agua Hedionda. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego,
State of California. according to mau thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego Countv, November 16,1896.
APN: 208-020-34/35 Acres: 7.8 Proposed No. of LotsNnits: NA
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Travel Related Commercial
Density Allowed: NA Density Proposed: NA
Existing Zone: Planned Communitv Proposed Zone: NA
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning, Land Use
Site PC T-R, Vacant
worth PC OS, Vacant
south PC OS, Vacant
East PC RM, Vacant
West PC OS, Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CARLSBAD Water District: CARLSBAD Sewer District: CARLSBAD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: July 10. 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued SeDtember 9. 1998
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,