HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC 310; Kirgis Property; Zone Change (ZC)APPLICATION
Change
GJGeneral Plan Amendment
QTentative Tract Map
DPlanned Unit Development
DMajor Condominiun Permit
DMinor Condominiun Permit
DMaster Plan
DMajor Condominium Conversion
QMajor Redevelopment Permit
(check other boxes if appropriate)
D Minor Redevelopment Permit
QPrecise Development Plan
DSpecif ic Plan
O Site Development Plan
D Conditional Use Permit
OVariance
D Planning Commission Determination
DSpecial Use Permit
OAdministrative Variance
Complete Description of Project (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Prezone, General Plan Amendment, Annexation
Location of Project
Adjacent to northeast corner of Macario Canyon Annexation
Legal Description (complete)
See Attached Exhibit "A"
'arcel Number
Zone
County RR-2
General Plan
NRR and RL
Existing Land Use
Vacant
Proposed Zone
R-l-10
Proposed General Plan
RLM
Site Acreage
21.91 acres
Owner Applicant
(Print or Type)
Howard G. Kirgis -t Ida
Name (Print or Type)
SZYTEL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.
nailing Address
8332 Pinotage Court
Mailing Address
935 West Mission Ave. Ste. H
City and State Zip Telephone City and State Zip Telephone
San Jose, California 95135 (A08)270-51
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND
THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SI
Escondido, California 92025 (619)7^1-6979
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE
AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGMKTURB DATE
r\
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Lot F of RANCHO AGUA HEDIONOA, according to the
partition map thereof No. 823, filed November 16,1896, In the office
of the Recorder of San Diego County, described as follows:
BEGINNING at Point Five of said Lot, thence Westerly along
the boundary of said Lot along the line connecting Point Five and
Point Six a distance of 1200 feet to a point; thence Southerly at
right angles to said first line 740 feet to a pofnt; thence Easterly
parallel to said first line a distance of 1^00 feet, more or less, to
a point on a line connecting said Point Five and Point Fourteen of
said Lot F; thence Northerly along said line connecting Point Five
and Point Fourteen to the point of beginning; and containing 22 acres,
more or less.
CASE NO.: Z C - 3 f
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
DATE RECEIVED:
ENVIRONMENTAL
EXEMPT OR EXCEPTED:_
Posted:
Led: :
Prior Ccctpliance:Published:
Filed:
NEGATIVE DECLARATICN:_
Posted:Published:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Notice of
Preparation:
Notice of
Completion:
Notice of Determination:
Notice of
Determination:
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Date of Hearing:
2. Publication:
3. Notice to Property Owners: /-//-
4. Resolution No._
(Continued to:_
5. Appeal:
Date; /-ACTION;
CITY COUNCIL
1. Date of Hearing:
2. Notices to City Clerk;
3. Agenda Bill:
4. Resolution No.
5. Ordinance No./ 7^"
Date:
Date:
ACTION;
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff Report to Applicant:_
Resolution to Applicant:
8332 Pinotage Court
San Jose, Jalifornia 95135
September 4, 1984
iir. Michael J. Holzmiller „-
Land Use Planning Manager «r
City of Carlsbad •• REttiVEO
1200 Elm Avenue , . UNO USE
Carlsbad, Jalifornia 92C08-1989 V-, fWHINQOFFICE
Dear !.1r. Kolzmiller: " .--,.,-
Reference is made to our conferences and previous correspondence
regarding my 22-acre property in North San .Diego County.
I am especially concerned about Mike Howes letter of August 9. 1984
in which I was informed that my request for annexation and rezoning had again
been delayed, that another iinvironmental Study was needed and that an addi-
tional processing fee was required. Your attention is invited to the fact «
that I have spent almost *8,CCC.CG to provide the information requested in- .
itially and, to date, there has been no progress in providing the desired *
action. This delay is absolutely without .iustification.
It is my contention that there are no environmental factors of any
concern. In fact, development of this property could be verv beneficial
in that it, would eliminate the agricultural-worker campsites present in
the area, reduce the polution resulting therefrom, reduce the danger of
brush fires and provide valuable new housing in .North San Diego County.
Further, it is my contention also that the easements into my land are
being ignored in the planning underway for the property which surrounds
mine. This is a most serious error in that my easements should be given
priority in the planning rather than being ignored.
YOUT* attention is invited also to the fact that mv present request is
for only 32 residential units. This is a reduction of 66 per cent from
the number on which the objecting parties based their objections. No reason-
able person could possibly oKiect to development of this magnitude,
In view of the foregoing, I wish to appeal the action which has been
taken on my request and request that it he submitted to the Planning .lorn-
mission for their opinion in this matter.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
8 inaerely,
'0
WRITE IT— DON'T SAY IT INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
ff] i c fo* I noT0 /~ DATE
3
'5 3+*** 7
3
<=:PLY ON THIS SHEET FROM
+* /
fl -Ir^ t
"StRvice"UKB STANDARD INTER DEPT. MEMO FORM ti-24-po
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
July 26, 1984
(916/445-0613)
Mr. Mike Howes
Carlsbad City
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: SCH# 84062707, Kirgis GPA/LU 84-7/2C-310
Dear Mr. Howes:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments.
This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents/ pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines/ Section 15205). Where
applicable/ this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional
authority or title interests of the State of California.
The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit
authority or jurisdiction by law. If so/ the state agencies will have to use
the environmental document in their decision-making. Please contact than irrr
5?£Jv ^L?6 <*X?ient 1S finalized With a «** of the
o *0** mitigati°n ^^ «*
Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR)
and if a **,,«,«„ 'smade to approve the project/ a Notice of Determination
wHi-v, «, a «."- S?te agencv' t*16 Notice °f Determination must allo bTfiledwith the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines/ Section 15094(b)).
Sincerely/
John B. Ohanian
Chief Deputy Director
8332 Pinota^e Court
San Jose, California 95135
Mr. Mike Howes
Assistant City Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
Dear Mike:
Thenks for your telephone call of Aueust 6th.
Please amend my application for annexation and zoniru? to enable me
to construct thirty-two (32) residential units on my 22-acre tract.
It is my understanding that this matter will be resolved on Auerust
22nd.
Is it permissable, and/or desirable, for me or mv representative to
attend the meeting of the Planning ftroup?
Thenks for your assistance and cooperation.
Sinoerely,
H. G.
MB
RECEIVED
LAND USE
PLANNING OFFICE
&&&¥•-
8332 Pinotage Court
San Jose, California 95135
July 23, 1984
Mr. Mike Howes
Assistant City Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Garlsbad, California 92008-1989
Dear Mike:
Reference is made to my request for annexation of my 22 acrejj^gf/land
located adjacent to the Kelly Ranch property and certain acrea^e/^by the
City of Garlsbad. Reference is made also to our conversation on June 27,
1984 regarding this matter and the possibility of an amendment to my in-
itial request.
Subsequent to our meeting I have made a study of the economics of
the actual development of the land and have come to certain conclusions.
First, in order to have a viable development project, I must have a
minimum of forty units. These would be constructed as two-level condo-
miniums in clusters so as to minimize the land surface involved. The steep
slopes would remain undisturbed thus providing ample green space for pro-
tection of the flora and fauna indigenous to the area.
Second, my easements into the property must stand unless alternate
routes providing equal or better access are provided.
Third, early resolution of these matters is absolutely essential. I
would hope that this could be done prior to September 1, 1984.
I trust that the foregoing does not provide unnecessarily difficult.
problems. If so, Please let me know at an early date so that we can dis-
cuss them further.
'Sincezrely, X"
/ffar.fa*H. ft.
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
Cttp of
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
November 29, 1983
Howard G. Kirgis
2 1 5 Brookwood Road
Woodside, California 94062
SUBJECT: CARLSBAD AREA PROPERTY
I am responding to your letter regarding the 22 acre property you
own in the Carlsbad area. I have visited the site and based on
its location and topography, I feel it would be more appropriate
for residential use than industrial use. Regarding access, we
are reviewing preliminary plans for the Kelly Ranch property
located to the north of your property and we will address whether
access should be provided through Kelly Ranch. At first glance,
it appears that access to your property from the north would make
sense unless some other existing or proposed alternative is more
appropriate.
An explanation of the process for amending the city's general
plan and annexing the property to the city is somewhat too
complicated to address in a letter so if you would be interested
in discussing processing requirements and timing, I would be
happy to meet with you. Feel free to contact Anita Ramos at our
office (438-5613) if you wish to schedule a meeting.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
MJH/ar
DEVELOPMENTAL •£_ ^J^ 1200 ELM AVENUESERVICES m*&rm CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE W??H-^ „ (619)438-5591
^jjjjPP '-'/*->^
Citp of Carlrtab
Hay 8, 1984
Howard Kirgis
8332 Pinotage Court
San Jose, CA 95135
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE
Dear Mr. Kirgis,
This letter is in regards to the above mentioned applications
for your 22 acre parcel in the City of Carlsbad. Before the
City can schedule the above mentioned applications for a public
hearing the following environmental information must be
supplied:
1) Biological Survey of the property
2) Archaeological Survey of the property
3) Traffic study indicating how adequate public access can
be provided to the site.
The archaeological survey is necessary because a recent EIR done
on the adjacent Kelly property indicated the presence of several
significant archaeological'*sites. The biological survey is
needed to determine whether any rare or endangered species exist
on the property. A traffic study is necessary to determine
access routes to the site.
If the above mentioned information is supplied to staff before
the end of this month, it will be possible to schedule this item
for the June 27th Planning Commission meeting. If this
information is not received by that date it will be necessary to
reschedule the requested general plan amendment and zone change
for the next .-Planning Commission hearing dealing with general
plan amendments which will be sometime in the fall.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free
to contact me.
MIKE HOWES
Assistant Planner
c: Gary Szytel
MH:bw
KKMiJNTAL IMPACT' A5SHSSM11NT FORM - -Part II
«*•••• »•-_ j - .. -u L i i __ -_-j _ _ . - _. — »
(To Be Completed By the
PUNNING
CASE NO.GPA/LU 84-7/zc-3jn
DATE: June 5, 1984
I. BACKGROUND • . - ' " ' '
1. APPLICANT; Ho^rd & Ida Kirgis- (Szy-f-gi Engineerin^
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE IflJMBER OF APPLICANT: • '
935 West Mission Avenue f Hni4.0 H
EscondidO, CA ' 92025
3. DATC CI-iF.C!CLIST SUBMIT1H): April 9 r i
•
II. FX\rJRC:v.^.>;TAI. IMPACTS
:VvATTO.SS Ci; .ALL ATFIKMMIVE ANSWERS ARE TO BE BITTEN UNDER
Section III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION)
»
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth "'ill the proposal have signi-
ficant results in:
• •'.:•''
. a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? " '_ • '
b. Disruptions, disp]accments, ccm-
.. paction or overcovcring.of the soil? •_ «___ _i^
c. Cliangc in topography or ground
surf .ice re] icf features? ' ' '' ' '_ '' 'x '
d. The destruction, covering or •'•-...-
.woilification or any unique- geologic * . ' • x
or pliysical features? " . ' '__ ' ____ ' _H
* • •
c. Any increase in wind or water * .' .
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? ' ••' • ' '' ' x''
f. Chanf.es in deposition or ero- . . '
sjon of Iv.-n-h :;:ind«;, or cJianj\e« *
in siliation,'deposition or erosion
which way im.ljiy t|lo cliannol of a1 river or r.t ream or the lu.-il of l!u>.
ocean or nny l>;iy, inlet or l.-il.o? • '•; . 'j/1
I M '
Yes Maybe No
2. Air: Will the proposal have si'gni-
results in: •
a. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
. odors?
c. Alteration of air movement,
mositurc or temperature, or any
change in clinnte, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water: Will the proposal have sigi-
Hcant results in:
, a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water move-
ments, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
*
d. Change in the amount of sur-
face water in any water body? .
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxyp.en or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction
or rate of flow of ground waters?
fi. Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct odd it ions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
nquifcr hy cuts or excavations?
1», Uoduction in'the amount of •
water othcrwir.o available for
. public water supplies?
x
'X' '
"Yes
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal have signi-
Hcant results in: '
* •
a. Change in the diversity of •
species, or numbers of any species
of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and • ' ;
aquatic plants)? . '• • x
•
'b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants? •"• x
c. Introduction of new species • , -..'..
of plants into an area, or in a ' •
barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species? x'
d. Reduction in acreage of any •'"''.
agricultural crop? - . ''' ' ''' _ ' x
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal have signi-
ficant results in: * •
a. Changes in the diversity of • •
species, or numbers of any species •
of animals (birds, land anijr^.ls
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, bcnthic organisms, insects or • ' . . .
roicrofauna) ? . . '• * x
* •
b. Reduction of the numbers of
any unique, rare or endangered
• species of animals? • . /. •' • x_
. c. Introduction of new species ..'.'.
of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? • "• '_ ' • ' x
d. Deterioration to existing
fish or wildlife habitat? ' '. • ' x
C. ^°_L1;£.* WH1 the proposal sio.ni- *
ricnntly increase existing noise ' •
levels? . • •' . x
PVO")x>sai si^nfC'icanlly produce new
lij'.ht or glare?
l-'JIl'l.!1^:.- V,rill tho propo:;.-jl have
r.)j-.niru"-;iut ivsullj; in the .1! tiT.-tvion
of tlu- |»n-:;fni or nlaimnl l.nul u.-;o of
an ;nv;i?
Yes Maybe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the pro-
posal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use
of any natural resources? . x
b. Depiction of any nonrcnewable ' '
natural resource? . • . •' x
• • >t .» • '10. Risk of Unset. Docs the proposal
involve a significant risk of an
explosion or the release of haz-
• ardous substances (including, but • .
not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the •
event of an accident or upset " ;."••'••
conditions? . " • 'x'
11. Population. Will the proposal •'
significantly alter the location, .
distribution, density, or grovrth •
jrate of the hunxm population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal signi- .
'ficantly affect existing housing,
*or create a deraand for additional
housing? .
- . »
13. Transportation/Circulation.' Will' . .-.
the proposal have significant re- ' » '
suits in: . .
a. Generation of additional
vehicular movement? • . . ''_____ '..' x " 'J_]
b, F.ffccts on cxistinji parking
facilities, or demand for new .
parking? • '' ' " _____ '' 'X'
c» Impact upon existing trans- t .
port a ti on systems? ' ' • • • • '• • • • 'x' • • yj
c. Alterations to watcrbornc,
' -* rail or air traffic?
d, -Alterations to present
patterns of circulation or move- < ' • • . "- .
went of people nnd/or &oods? ''' ' " '' "x
'x
f» Increase in traffic hazards • .
to motor vrhicJcs, bicyclists or • vi ...t ..•:.. .o '• * . ........ .x-
\ ., Maybe No
14. Public Services. Will the pro-
posal have a significant effect — •
upon, or have significant results ' ..
in the need for new or altered
governmental services in any of _ • - .-
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? . ; ' J x
b. Police protection? ' '• ._ ' . ; x_
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? . x
e. Maintenance of public facili-
ties, including roads? ;• .. ; x
x' f. Other governmental sendees?
15. Energy. Will the proposal have
significant results in: . • ;
a. Use of substantial amounts of .
fuel or energy?- > • . '.'' ' jc'
b. Demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy? ^ 'J ' 'x''
16* Utilities. Will the proposal have . •
significant results in the need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
• X"a. Power or natural gas? ____ ' ' '' '
K Communications systems? ' '' ____ ' x
c. Water? _ ; ' x
d. Sewer or septic tr.nks?
t
c^ -Stonu water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17* Ifcnn-JJl^Ionlth. Will the proposal
liavo siTfiuV'rcant resultr. in the-
cre.nt ion'of ;jny hi-alih h;i:!.ard or ..
potent in 1 hiMl'th h,T.'.nrd (-excluding
' ' '"•' ' x '
-5-
Yes No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruc-
tion.of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal have
sigh iTi..;: r,t results in the impact
upon the quality or'quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Archeologien1/Historical. Will the
proposal have significant results
in the alteration of a significant
• archcolo^ical or historical site,
structure, object or building?
x
X
x
21. ANALYZE VIABLE. ALTERNATIVES TO TIIE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) PHASED DH\Ii.Of'/i!:NT Cl: 11-02 PROJECT; b) AJ/iKKMA'iE SITE
DESIGNS; c) ALTERNATE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT; d) ALTERNATE
• USES I:CR HIE SITE; e) DEVELOPMENT AT SCM FUTURE TIME RATW-R
THAN N0'\'; Q ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED USE; g) NO
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.
The applicant does.not.propose any construction at the
•r<%!eK^ 6* Devel°P^ent at a lesser density would
probably create less adverse environmental impacts
-6-
Yes Maybe No
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. _
a) 'DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CURTAIL THE
DIVERSITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT? . X
b) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTEN-
TIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG-TERM,
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT- .
TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RE-
LATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE
' PERIOD OF TIME WILE LONG-TERM
IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL INTO
THE FUTURE.) ' X
c) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS
WHICH ARE, INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED,
BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE?
(A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TOO
OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES
WHERE-THE IMPACT ON EACH RE-
SOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL,
BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE
TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.) X
d) DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL
CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE ' •'
EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?
III.- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUTION '
The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment from
RL, Residential Low. Density (.0-1.5 du/ac) and Ndn-Residential
Reserve to RLM, Residential Low-Medium (0-4 du/ac) nri a 21.9
acre site. The majority of the site consists of steep slopes
covered with native vegetation. The applicant has submitted
supplementary information regarding archeology, biology and
traffic. Mitigation measures suggested in these reports will
be incorporated into all future projects.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
These mitigation measures' include placing a substantial portion of
the property in a Biological Open Space easement to protect a
significant portion of the onsite population of three sensitive
plant species. The archeological survey revealed that there were
no archeological sites on the property. The traffic study suggested
four possible routes of access for the subject property.-
Based on the information supplied by the 'applicant -and field survey
of the site, staff feels that a Negative Declaration is appropriate
for the proposed General Plan'Amendment 'and Zone Change.
IV. DimiRMlWTIOM. (TO BE COMPLETED BY 110: PUNNING mU'AIONENT)
•*" • ,
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
•
x I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
. effect on the environment, and a NEGYl'IVE DECLARATION will
be prepared. • •
j 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 conditional negative declaration will
will be .prepared.
I find the proposed project M\Y have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required. .
Date:June 5, '1984
• fate
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Signature
Mike'G. Howes
FEE:
RECEIPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I
(To Be Completed by APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE: April 9.1984
Applicant: HOWARD G. KIRGIS AND IDA B. KIRGIS
Address of Applicant: 8332 Pinotage Court
San Jose, California 95135
Phone Number: ( Aofl ) yjn-SMii
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than
935 West Mission Ave. Ste. H
Applicant): SZYTEL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING. INC Escondido, California 92025
~~~ (619) /4 1-69/9
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Description of Project: Prezone, General Plan Amendment, Annexation
Project Location/Address: Adjacent to northeast corner of Hacario Canyon Annexation
Assessor Parcel Number: 2'2 - 01° - °3
Zone of Subject Property: Existing: County RR-2 Proposed: R-l-10
Proposed Use of Site: residential •
List all other applicable applications related to this project:
Prezone, General Plan Amendment, Annexation
2. Describe the activity area, including distigui<~.Aiig natural and man-
made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when
appropriate.
The subject property is situated on the South sloping ridge approximately one
mile east of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Currently vacant, the property is covered
sparsely with native chapparal. Slopes vary from 5 to 50%.
Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
N/A
4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.
N/A
5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities.
N/A
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities.
N/A
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits
to be derived from the project.
N/A
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMt..i- ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as
necessary.)
YES NO
T) Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity?
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
J) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
nodest cost housing units in the city?
€) Could the activity decrease the number of low and
nodest cost housing units in the city?
7} Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation?
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings?
*) Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource?
10) Does the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource?
11) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life?
12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area?
13) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
14) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches?
15) Could the activity result in the erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands?
16) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas?
-3-
YES NO
17) Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc.)?
18) Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or
federal environmental .control agency?
19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance
or conditional use permit by the City?
20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
21) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain?
22) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault?
23) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater?
24) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of noise?
25) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust?
26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
27) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.)
28) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)?
29) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form?
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: N/A _ _ .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form:
_
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:N/A
________ ; _ __ -------- --------- - -*
30) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects?
-4-
- II,- STATEMENT OF NON-. ^GNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL -t £CTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section
I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
GARY M. SZYTEL President, SZYItL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING,
Date Signed April 5>
-5-
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
Citp of Cartebab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Between the southerly border of the Kelly
Ranch and Macario Canyon City Park.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment and preannexational
zoning for 21.9 acres. The applicant is requesting a General Plan
Amendment would be from RL, Residential Low Density and NRRf Non-
Residential Reserve to RLM, Residential Low-Medium. The applicant is
requesting a Zone Change would be a preannexational zoning of R-1.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project 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 Declaration (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
Land Use Planning Office.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Land Use Planning Office/ City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please
submit comments in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten
(10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: June 6, 1984
CASE NO: GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310
APPLICANT: Kirgis
PUBLISH DATE: June 16, 1984
MICHAEL J,NlJ>LZMII&ER
Land Use Planning Manager
ND-4
5/81
APPLICATJ-- SUBMITTAL DATE
APRIL 9, ^84
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January^23, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310 - KIRGIS - Request for a General
Plan Amendment and Pre-annexational Zone Change for a
21.9 acre parcel located adjacent to the southeast
corner of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan area
approximately one mile west of El Camino Real.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and
ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2407 and 2408 recommending APPROVAL of
GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310 to the City Council based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element
of the General Plan from NRR (Non-Residential Reserve) to RL
(Residential Low Density; 0-1.5 du/ac) for property located as
described above. As shown by Exhibit "A", this parcel has two
general plan designations; RL and NRR. Approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendment would designate the entire site as RL.
The applicant is also requesting a preannexational zone change
to R-1 on the subject property.
The subject property has an area of 21.9 acres and is covered by
native vegetation and some introduced species. Nearly 74% of
the site consists of slopes of 20% or greater. The only access
to the property is via dirt roads in easements crossing Macario
Canyon Park and the Kelly Ranch. The applicant has informed
staff that he has no development plans at this time.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Is the proposed land use of residential low density an
appropriate use for the site?
2) Would the proposed general plan amendment adversely
affect the surrounding properties?
3) Is the proposed R-1 zone consistent with the RL
General Plan designation?
4) Is the proposed R-1 zone and the uses allowed within
this zone consistent with surrounding zoning and land
uses?
Discussion
The subject property presently has two general plan designations
RL and NRR. Staff believes that it is appropriate to change the
land use designation of NRR to residential. Normally, a change
from NRR would be to a non-residential land use. In this
instance it is evident that the site is physically separated from
future industrial development to the east and the future Macario
Canyon Park to the south and relates more to the residential
property to the north. In addition, the subject property is
outside the Palomar Airport influence area.
A general plan designation of R-L, Residential Low Density for
the entire site would permit a maximum of 32 dwelling units on
this property. Staff believes that this designation is
appropriate because this site is severely constrained by steep
slopes, sensitive plant species and access problems. Only
approximately 5 acres in the north central portion of the site
is developable because of the above mentioned constraints.
At the present time this site obtains access through easements
over dirt roads crossing Macario Canyon and the Kelly Ranch. The
best permanent access to this site has not been determined at the
this time. However, it is highly probable, that when access
is resolved, this site will obtain access via a cul-de-sac. The
City's cul-de-sac policy permits a maximum of 50 dwelling units
on a cul-de-sac. Approval of the proposed amendment to RL would
allow development of this property in conformance with the City's
cul-de-sac policy, since the maximum number of units permitted
would be 32.
Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not
adversely impact adjacent properties. Future development on this
site will probably consist of townhomes or condominiums clustered
on the relatively, level, north central portion of the site.
This would result in a project with a density that would appear
to be similar to future development immediately to the north in
the Kelly Ranch.
Zone Change
Staff believes that a Zone Change to R-1-30,000 would be
consistent with a general plan designation of RL, Residential
Low Density 0 - 1.5 du/ac. This zoning designation would allow
the site to be developed at a maximum density of 1.5 du/ac.
Staff believes that it is important for the zoning to coincide
-2-
with the general plan designation. It is highly unlikely that
this site will be developed with 30,000 square foot lots. The
applicant will probably utilize the flexibility of the City's
Planned Development Ordinance to clustered townhomes or
condominiums on the flatter portion of the site.
Since the R-1-30,000 zoning designation would implement the
General Plan designation of RL, staff believes that the uses
permitted by this zoning designation would be compatible with
surrounding zoning and land uses for the reasons previously
discussed.
In conclusion staff believes that the proposed General Plan
designation of RL is appropriate for the site and will not
adversely impact surrounding properties. The proposed zoning of
R-1-30,000 is consistent with the RL General Plan designation
and the uses allowed within this zone will be consistent with
surrounding zoning and land uses. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310.
The City Council Policy prohibiting general plan amendments was
adopted after the staff work was completed on this project. The
City Council is aware that about six projects were in this
situation and have concurred with staff that these items should
be allowed to continue through the process.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project
will not have a significant effect on the environment and,
therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on October 4, 1984.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2407 and 2408
2) Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Disclosure Form
5) Environmental Documents
6) Exhibits "A" - "B", dated December 21, 1984
MH:bw
1/8/85
-3-
LOCATION MAP
CARLSBAD
RESEARCH
CENTER
ZC-310
KIRGIS GPA/LU 84-7
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310
APPLICANT: Kirgis
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment from NRR to RL and a Pre-annex-
ational Zone Change to R-1 for property between the Kelly Ranch and Marcario
Canyon Park.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot F of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map
823 filed November 16, 1896. APN; 212-010-03
Acres 21.9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation NRR & RL
Density Allowed 0 - 1.5 Density Proposed 0-1.5
Existing Zone County RR-2 Proposed Zone City R-1-30,000
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site County RR-2 Vacant
North P-C Vacant
South L-C Vacant
East L-C Vacant
West CM Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated April 7, 1984
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued October 4, 1984
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
HOWARD G. ANL ,.4* 0. It IRQ IS
(individual,
8332 Pinotaae Court Jft*e- California 95135
(1*08)270-51
Telephone
SZYTEL ENGINEER INa AND SURVEYING, INC.
935 West Mission Avenue Suite H - Escondido, California 92025
Business Address ; .; '
Telephone Humbcr
Naa« '(individual, partn«r, joint:
venture* corporation, syndication)
Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Nunber Telephone Humber
Nase Borne Address
Business Address
Telephone Mcaber Telephone Jiunber
(Attach store sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be*
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
HOWARD G. KIRGIS HDA D. KIHGIO
NG.& SURVEYING, INC
^§1$^'^^*^.^* £ 3*^f.y ^:^v: ^ W^Sf
GARY M. SZYTEL, President--
DEVELOPMENTAL f, ^ rift 120° ELM AVENUE
SERVICES • V$W • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE \F3UfJ {619) 438'5591
Cttp of Carlatmb
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Adjacent to the southwest corner of the
Kelly Ranch approximately one mile west of El Camino Real.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Preannexational zone change to R-1-30,000 for a
21.9 acre parcel. The General Plan amendment will effect
approximately 9 acres of the site which will be changed from NRR, Non-
Residential Reserve to R-L, Residential Low Density 0-1.5 du/ac.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project 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 Declaration (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
Land Use Planning Office.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please
submit comments in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten
(10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: October 4, 1984
MI
CASE NO: GPA/LU 84-7/ZC-310 Land Use Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Kirgis
PUBLISH DATE: October 13, 1984
ND-4
5/81
iENERAL PLAIV
EXHIBIT A
12-21-84
RL/RM
NRR to RL
OS
RLM
KIRGIS GPA/LU 84-7
ZONING MAF
EXHIBIT B
12-21-84
Co. RR-2 to
CITY R-1-30,000
BH
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 10, 1984
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: KIRGIS PROPERTY - Appeal of the Land Use Planning
Manager's decision to require a focused Environmental
Impact Report.
BACKGROUND
This item is an appeal of the Land Use Planning Manager's
decision to require a focused Environmental Impact Report for a
proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the Kirgis
property located adjacent to the southerly edge of Kelly Ranch
property. In April, the applicant, Howard Kirgis, submitted a
request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for his 21.9
acre parcel. At that time, the applicant requested a general
plan amendment from R-L, Residential Low Density and NRR, Non
Residential Reserve to RLM, Residential Low Medium Density. The
applicant requested a preannexational zone change to RD-M.
Based on supplemental environmental information supplied by the
applicant dealing with biology, archaeology and traffic
circulation, staff issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed
general plan amendment and zone change.
The subject site is in the Coastal Zone and in compliance with
state law, staff sent a copy of the Negative Declaration to the
State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review. During that review
period, the agent of an adjacent property owner and one other
group submitted letters protesting the Negative Declaration, see
attached letters dated August 1, 1984 and July 26, 1984.
Section 15064(g) of the State California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines states:•
"if a Lead Agency (City) is presented with a fair argument
that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared
even though the Lead Agency may also be presented with
other substantial evidence that the project will not have a
significant effect"
Based on this section and the letters of protest, staff required
a focused Environmental Impact Report for the proposed general
plan amendment and zone change. This focused Environmental
Impact Report would address noise and the environmental impacts
created by providing access to the subject property.
The applicant objects to this decision and believes that the
information that has been supplied is sufficient to justify a
Negative Declaration. In addition, the applicant had modified
his requested general plan amendment to significantly reduce the
density on the subject property. His original request was for
RLM on the entire site which would have permitted up to 87 units
on the subject property. Subsequently, the applicant has
modified his request to RL, 0-1.5 du/ac, for the entire site
which would permit a maximum of 32 units.
Staff believes from a planning and environmental perspective
that a Negative Declaration is justified for this project.
Staff is requiring an Environmental Impact Report based on the
CEQA requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Location Map
2) Letter, dated September 4, 1984
3) Letter, dated August 1, 1984
4) Letter, dated July 26, 1984
5) General Plan Map
6) Zoning Map
MH:bw
9/27/84
-2-
ELFEND ASSOCIATES
July 26, 1984
PROJECT PLANNING AND PROCESSING
JUL 1984
Mr. Marty Orenyak, Director
Building and Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Kirgis Property GPA and Zone Change Negative
Declaration
Dear Mr. Orenyak:
We are pleased to offer this response to your letter of June
11, 1984 regarding environmental documentation for the Kirgis
Property GPA and zone change requests. In t-hat letter, you
addressed several matters with respect to environmental
processing of the Kirgis project, including statements that
there is no factual basis for our conclusion that significant
environmental effects will occur, our statements in this regard
are merely conclusionary, and that no serious public
controversy over the environmental impacts of the project
exists. We have considered these comments and offer 'the
following information within the public review period
determined by City staff.
As you may recall, our June 6, 1984 letter to you raised
several questions regarding the environmental documentation for
the Kirgis Property. In summary, our position was that an EIR
is required for the Kirgis project based on the determination
of significant environmental effects in accordance with the
State CEQA Guidelines. Of particular relevance in this regard
is Section 15064(h) of the Guidelines which states:
"...If there is a disagreement between experts over
the significance of an effect on the environment, the
Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and
shall prepare an EIR..."
"If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial
evidence in the record that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the Lead
Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988). Said
another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a
fair argument that a project nay hav-e a significant
effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall
prepare an KIR even though it may be presented with
other substantial evidence that the project will not
have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68)."
. (714| 495-2399
Mr. Marty Orenyak, Director
City of Carlsbad
July 26, 1984
Page Two
In reviewing the Kirgis proposal, we note that the supporting
studies prepared by NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc.
(May 1984) indicate significant environmental effects may
exist. Therefore, based on this determination of significance,
we are surprised that the City did not require the preparation
of an EIR for the project. Nonetheless, we offer the following
information which supports the statements contained in our
earlier letter.
1. Access - The provision of access is an important issue
affecting development of the Kirgis site. Four
alternatives (A-D) are proposed in this regard which rely
on the completion of certain developments (Kelly Ranch,
Macario Canyon Park) and circulation improvements (Cannon
Road, College Boulevard, Faraday Avenue). The issue of
access to the site has not yet been and cannot be resolved
without further analysis of the potential direct and
indirect impacts on surrounding developments, roadway
systems and the natural environment. Impacts in this
regard which we believe are significant are described
below.
2. Grading - The proposed access alternatives, as evaluated
in the NEW HORIZONS studies, would require extensive
grading in areas containing slopes in excess of 25%. In
particular, Alternative A proposes connection to the
planned Kelly Ranch street system through an area
characterized by very steep slopes, deep narrow canyons
and unstable geologic conditions. A review of this access
proposal by Owen Geotechnical (see attached letter)
indicates that due to terrain and geologic constraints,
construction of this roadway would require extensive
cutting and filling to achieve appropriate stability and
safety factors. Therefore, significant direct and
indirect impacts on landforms, biology and drainage in
this planned open space area may occur as a result of the
required grading activity.
3. Circulation - Access Alternative A would result in the
distribution of 880 daily vehicle trips on local streets
through private residential neighborhoods within the Kelly
Ranch development. This additional "through" traffic on
residential streets may overburden planned roadway
capacities within the development and result in adverse
impacts of community disruption and increased noise, air
emissions and safety hazards.
Mr. Marty Orenyak, Director
City of Carlsbad
July 26, 1984
Page Tbree
4. Biology - The provision of access to the Kirgis site
through the Kelly Ranch would require construction in a
designated open space area with grading of steep slopes
and filling of canyons containing native vegetation and
important upland wildlife habitats.
5. Drainage - Required grading of hillside and canyon areas
will modify drainage patterns, remove vegetation and
result in increased slope erosion and sedimentation.
In summary, we have provided precise responses to the items
stated in your June 11, 1984 letter. We believe that
significant impacts on the environment will occur as a result
of the Kirgis Property GPA and zone change proposal.
Furthermore, these environmental concerns should be considered
during the current discretionary actions rather than at some
future date. The CEQA process encourages this approach (State
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b) ) which enables agencies to
retain more discretion in avoiding or minimizing significant
adverse environmental effects during the early stages of
project planning.
We hope that the information presented in this letter will
assist the City in complying with the CEQA process for the
Kirgis project. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to give me a call at (714) 731-6011.
Respectfully submitted,
ELFEND ASSOCIATES
Franklyn R. Elfend
President
cc: Michael Holtzmiller
Michael Howes«*^
Wayne Callaghan
Ken Glandt
Jon Friestedt
State 0.1 California Busirwss, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To: Terry Roberts, Manager
State Clearinghouse Unit
Office of Resources, Energy,
and Permit Assistance
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dote: August 1, 1984
Clearinghouse
From: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Of AfBONAUnC* .
Subject Project Review - Negative Declaration On A General Plan Amendment
And Preannexation Zoning - SCH #84062707.
The proposal is to amend the general plan and preannexationally
zone a vacant 21.9-acre parcel located within the coastal zone.
The Negative Declaration and initial Study is deficient in that
it does not discuss the impact of airport operations on the
residential low/medium development that is programmed. While
the Initial Study indicates that the proposal will not signi-
ficantly increase existing noise levels, there is no discussion-
of impact of airport noise on the project. 7
n
Since the project is within a mile of the airport, the issue
of overflight of the project due to the airport traffic pattern
and safety issues should be addressed even though they may not
be of significance. This cannot be determined, however, without
appropriate analysis.
MARK F. MISPAGEL, Chief
Division of Aeronautics
Kenneth J. Payne
Associate Transportation Planner
KPrjmd
bcc: F. Darrell. .Husum - DOTP
Ken Payne - DOA
Dick Saliba - 11
Jim Cheshire - 11
i GENERAL PLAN
NRR
to RL
EXHIBIT A
8-7-84
CARLSBAD
RESEARCH
CENTER
KIRGIS ZC-310
ZONING
EXHIBIT B
8-7-64
(Co.)RR-2
to (CITY)R-1-30,000
KIRGIS I ZC-310
Frofnt
Sacramento,
To:
MIKE HOWES
1200 ELM AV Q08
CARLSBAD ^ yZU
II,
/yaOJCWLBDGSMENT
State of
Project Notification and Review Systew
State Clearinghouse
(916) 445-0613
TITLE: KIRGIS GP&/UJ 84-7/2C-310 £
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 84062707
REVIEW STARTS: 06/27/84
REVIEW ENDS: 07/26/84
CONTACT: CHRIS GOGGIN
(REVIEW STARTS ON NEXT DAY WHEN DOCUMENT IS
RECEIVED AFTER 10:00 A. M.)
Please uea the state Clearinghouse Number on future correspondence with thi
office and with agencies approving or reviewing your project.
Tliis card does not verify ccnpliance with environmental review requirements.
A letter containing the State's comments or a letter confirming no Stat,
ccmnents will be forwarded to you after the review is ccc%>lete.
Rev. 8/8