HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-07; City Council; 7399-3; Environmental Impact General Plan Amendment Pre-Annexational Zone Change WoolleyCITVl F CARLSBAD — AGENDA
MTG 6/7/83
PPPT.
TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND PRE-ANNEXAT10NAL
ZONE CHANGE - EIR 82-3/GPA-67(D)/
ZC-275 - WOOLLEY.
DEPT. HD
CITY ATTY
CITY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City
Council CERTIFY EIR 82-3 and direct the City Attorney's Office to
prepare documents APPROVING GPA-67(D), and ZC-275, as recommended
by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The project is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
the general plan and preannexational zoning for approximately
475 acres. The proposal includes two large areas (designated
Area A and Area B), the largest of which is located on both
sides of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road. The
smaller parcel (Area B) is located approximately one mile east
of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue
(see attached map).
The major determination to be made by Council on the project is
the desirability of adding an additional 475 acres to the City of
Carlsbad. The project area is presently outside the City's
adopted sphere of influence boundaries. The Planning Commission
is recommending that the General Plan be amended to include the
entire area within the City's sphere of influence. Other issues
include the amount of Open Space being recommended for both
areas, the appropriateness of the proposed neighborhood
commercial area at the intersection of Olivenhain Road and Rancho
Santa Fe Road, and the zoning being proposed for the center
parcel of Area A (Rice parcel - Subarea 5).
The attached Planning Commission Staff Report contains detailed
information on this item. Also attached are maps which show the
applicant's proposal (Exhibit A) and the Planning Commission and
staff's recommendation (Exhibit Y) and a chart summarizing the
proposal and recommendations (Exhibit Z).
The Planning Commission feels that the EIR was prepared in
accordance with State law and Title 19 of the Municipal Code and
is recommending certification.
FISCAL IMPACT
Most of the property proposed for annexation is years away from
development and it is difficult to tell what the ultimate level
of development may be for these parcels. For the same reason,
fiscal impacts to the City cannot be determined at this time.
However, the applicants will have to pay a Public Facilities Fee
at the time of development which will help to offset the cost of
providing public services to the area.
Page Two of Agenda Bill No. 7399 - #2
EXHIBITS
1) Location Map
2) Exhibit "A", General Plan Amendment as proposed by Applicant
3) Exhibit "Y", General Plan Amendment as recommended by
Planning Commission
4) Exhibit "Z"
5) Existing County Zoning Map
6) Planning Commission Resolutions 2106, 2107, and 2108
7) Staff Report, dated April 13, 1983 w/attachments
8) EIR 82-3 (previously distributed)
9) Ownership List
31
LOCATION MAP
SA2j WEIGAND
SA3 I 1 SHELLEY RICE
SA5
fcg
m
o
RANCHO VERDE
\ S_A6_
AREA A
""1I
SHELLEY
AREA B
GPA 67(D)/ZC-275 WOOLLEY?^
PROPObED
jR-1-20,jOOO
I
«vr 'APPROVED
VISTA
SANTA FE
PROJECT
n ^. ;•»&<*(.; T)
(i i" t • t
OS OPEN SPACE
RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(0-1.5 D.U./ACRE)
RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (0-4 D.U./ACRE)
RM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(4-10 D.U. /ACRE)
RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (10-20 D.U.
/ACRE)
TS TRAVEL SERVICE COMMERCIAL
O PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED
C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
SA SUB AREA
WOOLLEY
GPA 67(D)
ZC-275
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS AND PREZONING
AS PROPOSED BY
THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT A 33
APPROVEDVISTASANTA FEPROJECT
OS OPEN SPACE
RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(0-1.5 D.U./ACRE)
RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (0-4 D.U./ACRE)
RM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(4-10 D.U. /ACRE)
RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (10-20 D.U.
; /ACRE)
TS TRAVEL SERVICE COMMERCIAL.
O PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED
C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
SA SUB-AREA
WOOLLEY
GPA 67(D)
ZC-275
GENERAL PLAN LAWD USE
DESIGNATIONS AND PREZONING
AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLAWNttSG COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT Y
EXHIBIT Z
GPA-67(D)/ZC-275
AREA A LAND USE ZONING
PROPOSED RECOMMENDED PROPOSED RECOMMENDED
SUBAREA 1
SUBAREA 2
SUBAREA 3
SUBAREA 4
SUBAREA 5
SUBAREA 6
AREA B
N
OS
RLM
RLM
RLM
RL
RL
RLM
OS
RLM
RLM & OS
RLM & OS
RL
RL & OS
C-2
0-S
R-1-10,000
R-1-10,000
R-1-10,000
R-1-20,000
R-1-20,000
R-1-10,000
O-S
R-1-10,000
R-1-10,000
& OS
R-1-15,000
& OS
R-1-25,000
R-1-40,000
& OS
OS OPEN SPACE
RL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(0-1.5 D.U./ACRE)
RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (0-4 D.U./ACRE)
RM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(4-10 D.U. /ACRE)
RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (10-20 D.U.
/ACRE)
TS TRAVEL SERVICE COMMERCIAL.
O PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED
C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
SA SUB-AREA 4/13/83
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RESIDENTIAL (1 D.U./ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL (2 D.U./ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL (2.9 D.U./ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL (4.3 D.U./ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL (7.3 D.U./ACRE)
7 RESIDENTIAL (10.9 D.U./ACRE)
13 GENERAL COMMERCJAI
17 ESTATE (1 D.U./2 ACRES)
22 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
24 IMPACT SENSITIVE AREA (1 D.U./4 ACRES)
EXISTING COUNTY DESIGNATIONS
COUNTY ZONING MAP
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
2J
23
24
2i
26
2'
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2106
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 82-3) FOR A
PROJECT INCLUDING ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
AND PREANNEXATIONAL ZONING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED IN TWO SEPARATE AREAS CONTIGUOUS TO CARLSBAD'S
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES.
APPLICANT: WOOLLEY PROPERTIES
CASE NO; EIR 82-3
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1983 the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, held a public hearing on EIR 82-3 pursuant to the
provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the
comments and documents of all those persons testifying at the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received EIR 82-3
according to the requirements of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
15 Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Com-
mission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
-o 1) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2) That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-3) will be amended
to include the comments and documents of those testifying at
the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in
good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of
said public hearings into the report.
3) That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-3) has been completed in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
state guidelines implementing said Act and the provisions of
Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning
Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the infor-
mation contained in the report.
4) That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-3) as so amended
and evaluated, is recommended for acceptance and certification
as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final
Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and
provides reasonable information on the project and all reason-
able and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
37
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
r f
5) That each and every significant environmental impact identified
in the Environmental Impact Report would be overruled or
counterbalanced by changes or alteration in the project which
would mitigate against said adverse impacts or, in certain
circumstances, that mitigation of such adverse impacts would be
feasible under the circumstances and under the economic and
social needs, objectives and concerns in providing the improve-
ments if the project were to be approved, would be included as
conditions of approval of the project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 13th day of April, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Marcus, Rombotis,
Farrow, Friestedt and Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Jose.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. "BQ|JZMILL£B>, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO. 2106 -2-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2107
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
3 OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL
4 LOW DENSITY (RL), RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
(RLM), OPEN SPACE (OS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD
5 COMMERCIAL (N) USES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF OLIVENHAIN ROAD, EAST AND WEST OF RANCHO
g SANTA FE ROAD.
APPLICANT: WOOLLEY PROPERTIES
7 CASE NO; GPA-67(D)
g WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the
g General Plan designation for certain property located, as shown on
•^Q Exhibits X and Y, dated April 13, 1983 attached and incorporated
•Q herein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and
^2 WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request
-^3 for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
-j_4 Code; and -
3_5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 13th day of
jg April, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
jy law to consider said request; and
^s WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con-
^g sidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
2Q desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
21 relating to the General Plan Amendment.
22 NOW/ THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
23 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
24 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
25 B) That in view of the findings made and considering the applicab
law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to recommend
26 APPROVAL of GPA-67(D), as shown on Exhibit "Y", dated April 13
1983.
27
Findings;
28 1) The subject property is physically suitable for development
permitted in the respective land use designations, as discusse
in the staff report. j^v"
8
_
•^_
__
•Lw
_ .
J. ^t
.. f.
2) The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations will be
compatible with future land uses, as discussed in the staff
report.
3) That all significant environmental impacts have been mitigated,
or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these
impacts, or social or economic factors exist which override
these significant impacts as described below:5
A) Air Quality
Mitigation: Identified significant impacts are cum-
..„
_„
19
20
23
28
Impact: The proposed General Plan Amendment is considered
to have significant impact on the attainment of acceptable
regional air quality by increasing the use of energy and
subsequent pollutants beyond those anticipated by the RAQS
mulative in nature. The project has been changed to
eliminate the commercial portion, thereby lessening
consumption of energy, traffic and attendant pollutants
Additionally, the need to provide diverse housing for
the City of Carlsbad overrides this impact. Finally,
effective long-term mitigation can only be accomplished
on a regional basis.
B) Biological Resources
Impact: Development of the property will significantly
impact the grassland and chaparral communities and
.,_ associated wildlife on the property
Mitigation: The project has been changed to adopt
increased open space. Preservation of additional open
space would reduce impacts to biological resources to ar
acceptable level.
C) Visual Aesthetics
Impact: Any future development of the subject property
will have an unalterable effect upon the natural landform
resulting from grading of pads and access roads.
22 Mitigation: Approval of the project would not, in
itself, result in the implementation of any development
plans. The subject property has been previously com-
mitted to residential development and urbanization will
occur regardless of the project determination. Preser-
vation of some high-visibility slopes will be accomplish
ed by inclusion of increased open space into the
project. These measures combined with daylight grading
techniques and rounding manufactured slopes to blend
with natural topography would minimize visual impacts if
incorporated at time of project review and approval.
i ////
PC RESO NO. 2107 -2-
D) Archaeological Resources
Impact: Seven cultural resource sites may be impacted by
development on the subject property.
Mitigation: A testing program followed by excavation
and documentation of the site, if warranted, will be
performed.
E) Community Services
s>
Impact: Schools that would serve the residents of the
project site are currently over capacity. Although the
districts would allow the additional student population to7
_ attend the schools, a significant overcrowding problem
could occur
g Mitigation: School fees are currently being collected
10
11 F) Geology
12"
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
24
25
26
27
28
to develop additional facilities. "Will serve" letters
are being issued following payment of school fees.
Impact: Any development on the subject parcels will be
impacted by potential hazards resulting from possible
landslides, secondary seismic effects and liquefaction.
Mitigation: A detailed geotechnical study, prepared
prior to development, would outline any special
engineering measures that would be required.
G) Traffic
Impact: The project would generate approximately 20,000
ADT as opposed to 8,900 ADT anticipated under existing lane
use classifications. These trips will primarily affect
Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Olivenhain Road and
Olivenhain Road to the west.
Mitigation: Affected roadways will be impacted by
development with or without the project. The project
has been revised to eliminate the commercial segment,
significantly decreasing expected traffic. Potential
traffic impacts can be avoided by upgrading of Rancho
Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road at the time of dev-
elopment .
////
////
////
////
PC RESO NO. 2107 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on tt
13th day of April, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Marcus, Rcmbotis,
Friestedt and Rawlins.
NOES: Commissioner Farrow.
ABSENT: Conmissioner Jose.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO, 2107 -4-
PLANN^NG_CO_MMISSION RESOLUTION NO 2 108^
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY
3 R-1-10,000, R-1-15,000, R-1-25,000 AND O-S ON
4 OLIVENHAIN ROAD EAST AND WEST OF RANCHO SANTA FE
5 APPLICANT: WOOLLEY PROPERTIES
6
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
8
Rancho Las Encinitas, according to map thereof No. 848,9 filed in the office of the county recorder, June 27, 1898.
10
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
OLIVE!
ROAD.
APPLI<
CASE NO: ZC-275
wit:
Portions of lots 6, 13, 14 and 15 of the subdivision of
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
•^ Planning Commission; and
12 WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
1 "^| provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
^ WHEREAS,- the Planning Commission did on the 13th day of
15 April, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con-
sidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change and
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
Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-275, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since
the proposed residential densities are within the density
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
ranges specified for the properties as indicated on the land
Use Element of the General Plan.
2) The sites are physically suitable for the types and densities
of the development since the sites are adequate in size and
shape to accommodate residential development at the densities
proposed.
3) The project is consistent with all City public facility policies
and ordinances since:
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate
condition to this project, insured that the final map will
not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer
service is available to serve the project. In addition,
the Planning Commission has added a condition that a note
shall be placed on the final map that building permits may
not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building
cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied
that the requirements of the public facilities element of
the general plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
b) School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of
school facilities in the San Dieguito and Encinitas Union
school districts.
c) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion
of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee
Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will
enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the general
plan.
5) The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future
land uses since surrounding properties are designated for
residential development on the general plan.
6) That all significant environmental impact shave been mitigated,
or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these
impacts, or social or economic factors exist which override
these significant impacts as described below:
A) Air Quality
Impact: The proposed General Plan Amendment is considered
to have significant impact on the attainment of acceptable
regional air quality by increasing the use of energy and
subsequent pollutants beyond those anticipated by the RAQS.
Mitigation: Identified significant impacts are cum-
mulative in nature. The project has been changed to
eliminate the commercial portion, thereby lessening
consumption of energy, traffic and attendant pollutants.
PC RESO NO. 2108 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
acceptable level.
C) Visual Aesthetics
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
24
25
26
27
28
Additionally, the need to provide diverse housing for
the City of Carlsbad overrides this impact. Finally,
effective long-terra mitigation can only be accomplished
on a regional basis.
B) Biological Resources
Impact: Development of the property will significantly
impact the grassland and chaparral communities and
associated wildlife on the property.
Mitigation: The project has been changed to adopt
increased open space. Preservation of additional open
space would reduce impacts to biological resources to an
Impact: Any future development of the subject property
will have an unalterable effect upon the natural landform
resulting from grading of pads and access roads.
Mitigation: Approval of the project would not, in
itself, result in the implementation of any development
plans. The subject property has been previously com-
mitted to residential development and urbanization will
occur regardless of the project determination. Preser-
vation of some high-visibility slopes will be accomplish
ed by inclusion of increased open space into the
project. These measures combined with daylight grading
techniques and rounding manufactured slopes to blend
with natural topography would minimize visual impacts if
incorporated at time of project review and approval.
D) Archaeological Resources18
Impact: Seven cultural resource sites may be impacted by
development on the subject property.
Mitigation: A testing program followed by excavation
and documentation of the site, if warranted, will be
performed.
pp*•*' ' E) Community Services
Impact: Schools that would serve the residents of the
project site are currently over capacity. Although the
districts would allow the additional student population to
attend the schools, a significant overcrowding problem
could occur.
Mitigation: School fees are currently being collected
to develop additional facilities. "Will serve" letters
are being issued following payment of school fees.
PC RESO NO. 2108 3.
"
J.O
_ -JLo
2O
„-
pp
p_
p_
28
F) Geology
Impact: Any development on the subject parcels will be
impacted by potential hazards resulting from possible
landslides, secondary seismic effects and liquefaction.
Mitigation: A detailed geotechnical study, prepared
prior to development, would outline any special
engineering measures that would be required.
G) Traffic
Impact: The project would generate approximately 20,000
ADT as opposed to 8,900 ADT anticipated under existing land
„ use classifications. These trips will primarily affect
' Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Olivenhain Road and
Olivenhain Road to the west.o
Mitigation: Affected roadways will be impacted by
* development with or without the project. The project
has been revised to eliminate the commercial segment,
significantly decreasing expected traffic. Potential
traffic impacts can be avoided by upgrading of Rancho
•^ Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road at the time of dev-
elopment.
General Conditions;
1) Approval is granted for ZC-275, as shown on Exhibit "Y" dated
April 13, 1983, incorporated by reference and on file in the
Land Use Planning Office. Development shall occur
substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions,
3) This project is approved upon the express condition that
building permits will not be issued for development of the
subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewe
facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
4) This project is approved upon the express condition that the
applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by Cit
Council Policy No. 17f dated April 2, 1982, on file with the
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according
to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said
fee, a copy of that agreement, dated December 16, 1981, and
January 12, 1982, is on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference. If said fee is not paid as
promised, this application will not be consistent with the
General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
5) The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions
of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These
fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time
of building permit application
PC RESO NO. 2108 4.
L-fC.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
13
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on th
13th day of April, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Marcus, Rombotis,
and Fries tedt.
NOES: Commissioners Farrow and Rawlins.
ABSENT: Commissioner Jose.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
14 LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PC RESO NO. 2108 5.
f
STAFF REPORT
DATE:April 13 1983
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: EIR 82-3/GPA-67(D)/ZC-275 - WOOLLEY PROPERTIES -
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to designate property for residential low density
(RL) and low-medium density (RLM); open space and
neighborhood commercial uses; approval of preannex-
ational zoning of R-1-15,000, R-1-10,000, C-2 (general
commercial) and O-S (open space) and certification of
EIR 82-3.
I.RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE Resolution
No. 2106, recommending to the City Council certification of EIR
82-3. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution Nos. 2107 and 2108, recommending APPROVAL of GPA-
67(D) and ZC-275, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in two separate areas contiguous
to Carlsbad's southern and eastern city boundaries and outside
the city's current sphere of influence. The majority of the
project area, approximately 395 acres, is located on both sides
of Rancho Santa Fe Road, just south of Olivenhain Road. This
property is labeled Area A on the attached location map (Exhibit
A). The remaining property, 80 acres, is located approximately
one mile east of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho
Santa Fe Road, adjoining the city's easterly boundary and is
labeled Area B on the attached maps. With the exception of
approximately 20 greenhouses located in the east central portion
of Area A and miscellaneous structures adjacent to Olivenhain
Road, the property is essentially vacant.
The project request involves consideration of an environmental
impact report, a request to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan and preannexational zoning. Proposed general plan
designations and zoning are shown on the attached Exhibit A.
III.EIR 82-3
Major impacts of the project from eventual development and
possible mitigation measures, as identified in the EIR, are
summarized below:
r r
Significant Irreversible Impacts
1. Air Quality
Future development of the parcels will result in an incremental
increase to basinwide accumulation of air pollutants. Develop-
ment under the proposed City of Carlsbad land use designations
will increase the use of energy and subsequent pollutant
emissions beyond those anticipated by the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS). Because this represents an unanticipated in-
crease, the impact to the RAQS must be considered significant.
Other Major Impacts
2. Biological Resources
Development of the property will significantly impact the
grassland and chaparral communities on the property. Since the
grassland area will be significantly reduced, the populations of
associated wildlife will also be affected (e.g., raptors and
black-tailed gnatcatcher). Development would also remove a
portion of the coastal mixed chaparral community and encroach
into the mesic area along Encinitas Creek, significant effects
upon the sensitive plant and wildlife species (e.g., San Diego
Horned Lizard and Del Mar manzanita) associated with those
habitats can also be expected. These impacts can be anticipated
whether the property develops in Carlsbad or under the current
San Dieguito Community Plan. If the "increased open space"
alternative were selected, as contained in the EIR, impacts to
biological resources could be reduced to an acceptable level.
3. Visual Aesthetics
Development of the subject parcels would result in significant
irreversible landform alteration and a significant change in the
character of the area from rural to urban. Preservation of the
high-visibility slopes in natural open space, combined with
daylight grading techniques and rounding manufactured slopes to
blend with the natural topography, could minimize visual impacts
of future projects.
4. Archaeology
Seven cultural resource sites may be impacted by eventual
development on the subject parcels. These impacts would result
from grading, filling, erosion, or inadvertent disturbance to
surface or subsurface components of the sites. Two potential
mitigation measures are proposed: preservation or data
recovery.
5. Community Services
The Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) presently has
commitments greater than its capacity to process sewage.
However, it is still accepting hookup applications. The status
-2-
of annexation to the district is unresolved, which only affects
the separate northern parcel of the project. Because of LCWD's
program pursuing increased capacity and an underuse of the
current capacity, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Schools that would serve the residents of the project site are
presently over capacity. Although the districts (Encinitas, San
Dieguito) would allow the additional student population from the
subject properties to attend the schools, a significant
overcrowding problem could occur. Therefore, the addition of 943
new students that would live within future residential
subdivisions of the project site would represent a significant
impact to the various schools serving the project.
6. Traffic
Willdan Associates reports that a total of 20,000 average daily
trips will be generated if maximum development occurs as
specified under the proposed City of Carlsbad General Plan while
development of the subject properties under existing
designations would generate approximately 8,900 ADT. These
trips will primarily affect Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Oliven-
hain Road and Olivenhanin Road to the west.
Based on the existing roadway system, the development of the
parcels either under the San Dieguito Community Plan or under
the proposed City of Carlsbad General Plan land use designations
will add significant traffic volumes to the roadways along
Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Olivenhain Road and on Olivenhain
Road west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is anticipated that the
upgrading of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road can
adequately accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic
resulting from future development of the subject property under
either plan.
Staff believes that EIR 82-3 was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has adequately
identified and discussed the environmental impacts. For these
reasons, staff is recommending certification of EIR 82-3.
IV GPA-67(D)
Analysis
Planning Issues
1) Is annexation of the subject property to the City of
Carlsbad appropriate?
2) Are the proposed land use designations (as shown on attached
map) the most appropriate for the site?
-3-
( C
Discussion
The project includes a proposal to amend the City's sphere of
influence, adding approximately 495 acres to the general plan and
establishing land use designations for the property if the
general plan is amended. (Please see Exhibit Z which describes
proposed and recommended general plan and zoning designations
and Exhibit Y which shows these designations on a map).
The southern boundary of Area A is defined by a ridgeline. Due
to this physical characteristic, the property relates
topographically and visually to Carlsbad more closely than to
surrounding county property. Correspondingly, ultimate
development of the property will most directly affect Carlsbad.
Overall, staff believes that the ultimate advantages outweigh the
disadvantages of annexation of the subject property to Carlsbad.
This relationship will extend not only to visual impacts but to
issues of drainage, water quality, service jurisdictions and
circulation. Circulation is extremely important in this area
because access decisions on the south side of Olivenhain Road
could negatively affect properties on the north side of
Olivenhain Road already in the City of Carlsbad. Shared
jurisdictional boundaries in this area could also impact the pro-
vision of services. Residents within the same area could receive
different levels or qualities of service and could pay different
fees for the same service. The infrastructure for sewer or water
facilities could also be different requiring dual systems within
the same basin. The City Council is aware of the above concerns
and has voted to recommend to LAFCO exclusion of all territory
south of Olivenhain Road to the ridge line, and specifically the
"Woolley Properties" from the proposed incorporation of San
Dieguito.
Anticipated development in the project area makes resolution of
jurisdictional boundaries more pressing. The project area could
become urbanized in the near future. The City of Carlsbad has
approved a tentative map for the Vista Santa Fe project,
providing for the construction of 650 residential units on land
adjacent to the northern boundary of Area A. The County of San
Diego has approved the Vista Del Rio Encinitas project, on the
west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and adjacent to the subject
property, for development of 187 units.
Staff believes that since the property most closely relates to
Carlsbad, that control of services and circulation should lie
with this municipality. The ridgeline at the southern end of the
property would create a logical and definite city boundary.
Such arguments of topographical distinction cannot be made in
the case of the property abutting the City to the east, Area B.
The property slopes in a generally southern direction with no
significant topographic features. This area is not presently
receiving services. The most direct source of access to the
property is via a private road that connects to Lone Jack Road
within the proposed incorporation area.
f; c
Although there are no physical characteristics of Area B which
would dictate the logical inclusion of this area into the City,
there are, likewise, no topographical features which currently
distinguish the City's boundary in this area. Staff, however,
believes that consideration of this property for annexation is
premature. No development has been approved in the project
vicinity and extension of public services would be difficult at
this time. Additionally, sole access to the property is derived
from property and roadways within the county.
For more specific discussion of land uses proposed for Area A,
(RL, RLM, N & OS) the property has been divided into four
subareas, corresponding to proposed land use classifications as
shown on attached Exhibit A.
Staff believes that all of the proposed residential designations
(subareas 3, 4, 5 & 6), with some open space modifications, are
appropriate. The proposed classifications would be compatible
with surrounding existing future land uses, would not
significantly impact adjoining properties (as discussed in the
EIR) and would create a transition between the City's current
land use designations and those uses and densities indicated in
the county.
The applicant's proposed land use designations provide for
approximately 12.8 acres of open space west of Rancho Santa Fe
Road. The land use plan for the City of Carlsbad shows an open
space area beginning immediately north of the southern parcel,
extending northeastward to the eastern boundary of the city.
Approval of the land uses, as proposed, would effectively
separate open spaces. A corridor connecting these two areas
could add to the significance of these natural areas.
Staff does propose that portions of the "increased open space
alternative" as contained in the EIR be included in the general
plan and zoning. (Please see Exhibit X, Proposed Open Space).
Significant biological impacts, resulting from development of the
subject property, were identified in the EIR. This proposed
staff alternative would increase the areas designated for open
space while creating a logical extension into Area A of those
areas preserved in Carlsbad as open space. The staff proposal
It would not, however, include all the open space recommended
for preservation in the EIR.
Preservation of the additional sensitive habitat areas, primarily
coastal mixed chaparral, as shown on Exhibit X, could preserve a
number of rare and endangered plant and animal species, and
reduce the anticipated significant biological impacts identified
in the EIR to an acceptable level.
Subarea 1 is proposed for Neighborhood Commercial use. Staff
believes that a commercial designation, at this time, is
premature. Through the La Costa Master Plan, approximately 57
acres within the core area have been set aside for commercial
development. At this time 57 acres appears to be more than
adequate to service the surrounding area.
-5-
r;
The long,, narrow configuration of the subject parcel may also
create difficulties in future access. Both Olivenhain Road and
Rancho Santa Fe Road are designated major arterials. Requiring
a minimum intersection (driveway) spacing of 1200 feet. This
spacing could be achieved on Olivenhain Road but not on Rancho
Santa Fe.
Another problem with the proposed commercial area is that access
to this parcel will ultimately be determined by the reconfigur-
ation of the Rancho Santa Fe/Olivenhain Road intersection.
Actual plans and geometries have yet to be approved but it is
likely, that Rancho Santa Fe (south) will be realigned to the
west to connect to Olivenhain Road with a curve. This would
divide the subject property, creating major access problems for
the two smaller commercial parcels which would be created.
Staff believes that until such time as a need for additional
commercial can be presented and issues of access resolved, that a
commercial land use designation is not appropriate and is
premature.
Staff recommends a RLM, residential low-medium density (0-4
du/ac) designation be approved for subarea 1. This classifi-
cation would be compatible with surrounding development and
future land uses and would, as discussed in the EIR, reduce
impacts on traffic circulation, energy, utilities and community
services.
Staff recommends approval of the requested residential land use
classifications, modified by increased open space, as shown on
Exhibit X. Staff further recommends that subarea 2, proposed
for open space, be approved as requested and that subarea 1 be
designated RLM rather than commercial.
As stated earlier, staff is recommending that Area B not be
considered for annexation at this time. If the Planning
Commission and City Council decide to consider this area for
annexation, then staff would recommend the RL designation as
proposed.
V. ZC-275
Analysis
Planning Issues
1) Are the proposed zones consistent with the general plan,
appropriate for the site and compatible with surrounding
land uses.
—6 —
c r
Discussion
The applicant has proposed preannexational zoning of C-2
(General Commercial), 0-S (Open Space) and R-1-10,000 for the
375 acres located in Area A. Preannexational zoning of R-1-
15,000 has been proposed for the 80 acres located in Area B.
The applicant has requested that subarea 1, proposed for a
Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, be zoned C-2,
General Commercial. Staff, as previously indicated, has
recommended that this site be designated RLM, (0-4 du/ac).
Staff believes that R-1-10,000 would be an appropriate zone for
this property. This zone would be consistent with the
recommended general plan designation compatible with surrounding
property and land uses. Although the subject parcel is
irregular in shape, staff believes that it would be adequate to
accommodate R-1-10,000 development.
Subarea 2, immediately to the south, is proposed for Open Space
zoning. This zoning would correspond to the proposed open space
land use designation following the Encinitas Creek. This zoning
would be both appropriate to the sensitive biology of the area
and consistent with the proposed amendment to the General Plan.
Subarea 3, contiguous to the south and subarea 4 to the east are
proposed to be zoned R-1-10,000. This zone would be consistent
with the proposed RLM land use classifications and would be
compatible with surrounding county designations of 2.9 du/ac
density and the approved Vista Santa Fe project to the north of
subarea 4. Both subareas 3 and 4 are adequate to accommodate
development permitted in the R-1-10,000 zone.
Subareas 5 and 6, to the east, are also proposed for R-1-10,000
and R-1-20,000 preannexational zoning. Staff believes that these
properties are more appropriately zoned to create a transition
from the proposed R-1-10,000 zone to the west to property
indicated by the county for development at a density of one
dwelling unit for every two acres. Staff recommends that subarea
5 be rezoned R-1-15,000 and subarea 6 be zoned R-1-25,000.
Staff believes that these zones would create a suitable
transition between land uses and ensure their comptaibility while
being consistent with their respective RLM and RL general plan
designations.
Area B, the 80 acre northern parcel, is proposed for zoning of R-
1-20,000. Should the Planning Commission and City Council
consider this property for annexation, staff recommends that
this property be zoned R-1-40,000. The proposed zoning would
not be consistent with the requested RL land use designation.
Staff believes that the recommended R-1-40,000 zoning would be
compatible with future land uses including county densities
corresponding to 1 du/2 ac and residential low densities
adjacent within the City of Carlsbad.
—7 —
c r
Overall staff believes that the R-1-10,000, R-1-15,000,
R-1-20,000, R-1- 40,000 and 0-S zoning as recommended and
illustrated on Exhibit Y, would be consistent with the proposed
land use designations, compatible with adjoining existing and
future land uses, would not adversely impact surrounding
properties or circulation systems and would be appropriate for
the size and shape of the sites.
Attachments
1. PC Resolution No. 2106 (EIR 82-3)
2. PC Resolution No. 2107 (GPA-67(D)
3. PC Resolution No. 2108 (ZC-275)
4. Exhibit A - Location, area divisions and proposed
designations.
5. Exhibit X - Increased open space alternatives
6. Exhibit Y - Recommended general plan and zoning
7. Exhibit Z - Proposed and recommended general plan and zoning
CDN/ar
4/8/83
-8-
c
,.w " •. -** ) •*- \ i /f •v^/^u.-.x*.}. ^ - • ^
;'*""- --"T.--. —_-?rr.^«.^irk^^.ds^^^^^^—_- 7. Uf» JJj ^ '••'.'X_J-_V_^_-_ : ^..fc .. J^r ' .'—-._' -.--L .- Tr'-- f *-**! l'~ "" ^'"'^^rzr'ft'.'. rrr.~7— *7^. .* ~-... r^-»-.._.*-..—*r*.—»;,*...*,.....—..'.'.««..,. .^. ^^- - -/ , , „—' - , \ i-*jj'-;. ]---••'.; •. *.-.., Tt-vX^, V' /
p '^^^S^H^',^^^^S^i^M^r'\ ' ^'
^^%rr^^v^b^o^^ /**'a^iCTr-^^r,
'4rA^v V^^'Y'^\\ /~\^/(. i %V f f rg1^^p^^^^>^^ Ox •-/
!&&^g^;C5(?^^^^fe^^^/>J
;b^?T(t COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ^S^v:^f.
•H'^i^^^ri
$><$
A Vr^r.-'J-.^V.-iiS/ . A^v-y^ 7
ENCINITAS CREEK FLOODPLAIN
f vv^^^=^'-- )C^.-' ' -^;A>^^y^.r(^;:. c; • c
v^x^//?o *,3^/>;
•n S v ^\'f/r A^-^ »,'•>'»x\ --? ^^N\0i'^
>-3 ^>>>\Sn: ^ i/l -•' /1 - '\-' >***:.( ! '. 'L~^
^fU?^"^' -SP** ("'•'/^"vv vVx^-Jr^:^:7 kxM ?^.if>\'/^i\^^:N^T-v
COASTAL MIXED CHAPARRAL
VsC"-"" ~ T-.-' ^ " C' -'•sft''-;\?~/'•,o-*<vC -"-•.// ;;-_^ ^ ' ,i5°^^ ,--../• >^=o>l/ -N ; c/r L(M-; •-„* ^
r EXHIBIT X OPEN SPACE ALTERNATIVE
R-1364
\FEC0N\
OWNERSHIP LIST
WOOLLEY PROPERTIES
AGENT: ROGER S. WOOLLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O Box R
Rancho Santa Fef Ca. 92067 756-1144
APPLICANT: DANIEL T. SHELLEY, an individual; HECTOR A. SHELLEY, an individual;
and CERTIFIED CHARTER BUSES, INC., a corporation.
1537 Bay View Avenue
Wilmington, Ca. 90744 (213) 518-0033
MEMBERS: DANIEL T. SHELLEY; HECTOR A. SHELLEY; and CERTIFIED CHARTER BUSES
APPLICANT: WIEGAND PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, a California general partnership
424 Recluse Lane
Encinitas, Ca. 92024 753-0969
MEMBERS: DANIEL H. WIEGAND, 3024 Via de Caballo, Olivenhain, Ca. 92024
JOHN A. WIEGAND, 424 Recluse Lane, Encinitas, Ca. 92024
CARL F. & NELLIE WIEGAND, 415 S. Almond St., Dixon, Ca. 95620
HAROLD D. & ROLYNE WIEGAND, P.O Box 666, Dixon, Ca. 95620
MARGUERITE & MEREDITH MILLER, Star Route Box 77, Palo Verde,
Arizona 85343.
JOHN MIZE, Route 2, Box 32D, Poteau, OK 74953
JAMES WEIGAND, JR., 10808 SE 293, Auburn, Washington 98002
NEIL WIEGAND, 911 North bend, Austin, Texas 78758
APPLICANT: RANCHO VERDE, a California limited partnership
P.O Box 20
Olivenhain, Ca. 92024 753-6265
MEMBERS: RANCHO VERDE, INCORPORATED, a California corporation
ROBERT A. LAUGHLIN, 3981 Roblar, Solvang, Ca 93460 (805) 963-1559
IRA E. BROOME, P.O Box 20, Olivenhain, Ca 92024 753-6265
CAROLINE J. FRYE, 1404 South Bay Front, Balboa Island, Ca. 92662
673-4077.
APPLICANT: DR. MAURICE M. RICE
7 Deerwood Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Daniel Shelley
169 Rancho Santa Fe Rd
Olivenhain, Cal. 92024
(619) 753-8409
May 31, 1983
Honorable Mayor & Members
of the City Council
Carlsbad City Hall
Carlsbad, Calif.
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
My family owns two parcels of land within the proposed
"Woolley Annexation," which I believe your City Council will
be considering at their June 7th meeting. Last year LAFCO
voted 6 to 1 in favor of excluding these properties from the
proposed City of San Dieguito so that we could pursue this
annexation to Carlsbad. Last month your Planning Commission
unanimously approved our application, and now we request that
your City Council give us your approval also. We believe these
properties are a logical and desirable addition to your City
and are hopeful that you will agree and support our annexation.
Mr. Roger Wooley is representing the property owners in
this annexation and we feel that he is doing a fine job for us.
However there are two particular matters related to our prop-
erties on which we felt our input as property owners might be
helpful. We are writing this letter to make the individual
Council members aware of these matters, hoping that doing so
will make your hearing go more smoothly.
Our first area of concern is the recommended open space
zoning along the middle branch of Encinitas Creek on the east
side of Rancho Santa Fe Road in "Area A." Our concern here is
that the maps in the Staff Report are drawn so as to interface
with the Carlsbad Land Use Plan approximately as shown in
2.
Figure #3 of the Recon E.I.R. The problem is that these maps
are not drawn to exact scale and the open space area shown is
distorted. We feel that these lines were originally drawn to
convey the concept of a continuous, uninterrupted open space
corridor, rather than to accurately delineate the boundaries of
that open space.
To solve this problem, we suggest that the open space in
this area should interface with that shown on the "Vista Santa
Fe" tentative map approved July 21, 1581, which abuts "Area A"
on the north. Since this map is drawn to exact scale, it ac-
curately shows the open space corridors presently within the
Carlsbad City limits. The north branch of Encinitas Creek runs
along the western side of "Vista Santa Fe" through an open space
corridor approximately 200 feet wide. The middle branch corridor
along the south-eastern side of "Vista Santa Fe" is also approx-
imately 200 feet wide. We feel that an extension of this 200
foot open space corridor through "Area A' would be adequate and
logical and we will submit a large map showing such a corridor
for your consideration.
The three branches of Encinitas Creek converge at Rancho
Santa Fe Road and the most environmentally sensitive area is
west of that point. With regard to that portion east of Rancho
Santa Fe Fd., the Recon E.I.R. states in the last two sentences
on page 45: "If this alternate open space plan is implemented,
local impacts to the biological resources will be reduced to a
level of insignificance. This would be the case even if no open
space was designated along Encinitas Creek east of Rancho Santa
Rd. due to marginal grassland conditions." We added the under-
line for emphasis.
We have discussed our concerns about the Encinitas Creek
open space with your Planning Staff and feel that they were in
general agreement that something along the lines we have pro-
posed above might be a logical solution to this problem. We
hope this will prove to be so.
3.
For your convenience, we are attaching hereto a contour map
of the upper Encinitas Creek drainage basin. This map shows the
drainage area of each of the three branches and the percentage
each contributes to the main channel west of Rancho Santa Fe Rd.
Our second area of concern is the Recommended Open Space
in "Area B." We feel very strongly that there is not enough
factual information available to justify this open space zoning
at the present time and that zoning of open space in this area
should be deferred until actual development is proposed.
Knowledge of the Black-tailed gnatcatcher (a rare and el-
usive bird which is the only real environmental concern in this
area) and its nesting habits, is so limited that there is no way
presently to determine the size, configuration or location of
open space best suited for protection. Studies are presently
being conducted on the habits of this bird, and new information
should be available before the property is needed for develop-
ment.
We have prepared a two page fact sheet titled "Information
Supporting the Deferral of Open Space Until Time of Development"
which we are including with this letter. This gives the facts
and reasoning why we as property owners feel such zoning is
arbitrary and unwarrented at this time. Please keep in mind,
we do not disagree with the amount of open space, it is the lo-
cation and timing which we feel is not justified.
We discussed the open space zoning in "Area B" with your
Planning Staff. They indicated that it may be possible to
identify the area north of the power line easement as environ-
mentally sensitive on the General Plan and still leave the
actual zoning as residential. If that can be done, we will not
object to their recommendation that the residential zoning be
reduced from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000.
4.
We are hopeful that the City Council will support the above
solutions to these problems.
Sincerely
Daniel Shelley (
169 Rancho Santa Fe Rd.
Olivenhain, Cal. 92024
(619) 753-8409
AREA WB" OP THE WOOLLEY ANNEXATION
INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE DEFERAL OF OPEN SPACE ZONING
UNTIL TIME OF DEVELOPMENT
1. UNIQUE OPEN SPACE SITUATION IN AREA "E"
The most sensitive biological resource in Area MBM is the
black-tailed gnatcatcher, a small bird species. In Area "A"
the most sensitive biological resources are rare plants. It
is easy to set aside open space areas to protect existing
plants, but predicting future nesting areas of the black-tailed
gnatcatcher is virtually impossible. Even ornithologists have
only limited knowledge of this bird and his nesting habits.
2. ARBITRARY LOCATION OF RECOMMENDED OPEN SPACE
The open space recommended for Area "B" is delineated by
arbitrary ownership and easement boundaries, unlike the
recommended open space in Area "A" where the boundaries iden-
tify the specific location of the biological resources being
protected. (See E.I.R. Figures 6 & 7)
DEVELOPMENT SEVERAL YEARS OFF
Actual development of Area "B" is probably eight or ten years
in the future, since the La Costa property to the west must
be developed first. A complete E.R.I, at time of development
will provide the needed information to determine which areas
should be zoned open space. By then the available knowledge
regarding the black-tailed gnatcatcher will be much greater.
There are several studies now in process.
LOSS OF ALL OCEAN VIEW HOMES ITES
When land is developed, open space zoning is often given to
the less usable portions of the property, (i.e. hillsides,
ravines, marshes, areas with unstable soil, etc.) when this
can be done and still provide the needed environmental pro-
tection. However, in the case of Area "B" just the opposite
has been done. The recommended open space takes in the most
level and usable portion of the property, including all of
the land with ocean and lagoon views. We are confident that
a creative and innovative development plan could provide areas
of open space just as large and just as suitable for protect-
ing the environment, without causing the total loss of all of
the ocean view land.
Continued on next page
5. INEFFECTIVE HABITAT PROTECTION
The black-tailed gnatcatcher nests In Coastal Sage Scrub, not
in grassland areas. Yet 40$ of the recommended open space is
grassland, which is not the birds natural habitat. Since 75%
of Area "BM is Coastal Sage Scrub, we could easily select an
open space area which is 100^ Coastal Sage Scrub.
6. THE RECOH E.I.R. DID NOT ASSUME OPEN SPACE ZONING AT ANNEXATION
A. They assumed biological impacts would be mitigated at
time of development. (See page 45 or E.I.R.)
B. Their recommendation assumed R-1-20,000 zoning for
Area "B". Staff is recommending R-1-40,000 zoning.
A 50$ reduction in density.
C. They assumed that density from the open space areas would
not be lost, but that it could be used in the developable
portions. (See page 14 of the E.I.R.) Staffs recommendation
that open space areas be zoned open space at time of annex-
ation would result in the loss of that density.
7. INAPPROPRIATE TIMING
To lock our property into the recommended open space zoning
at this early date would greatly limit the options for creat-
ing a desirable and innovative development in the future. The
biological resources can best be protected by relying on a
new E.I.R. at time of development. The environmental situa-
tion at that time could be greatly different from what it is
today. We do not dispute the amount of open space that should
be set aside on this parcel. However, we seriously question
the location and timing of the recommended open space zoning.
Prepared by
Daniel Shelley
169 Rancho Santa Pe Rd.
Olivenhaln, Ca. 92024
(619) 753-8409
-cJi»^^.R. A'M-/ •4<:*l.l!V •
UPPER ENCINITAS CUIflSK
' 7,
'Iv^/f'OnYVi;
' ~J/
;,^^'^p^^^^:-^<-v •••"-"-;.n5.*e$* Indicates percent of
drainage from e;ich
branch of Encinitus
Creek before passing
through the culverts
under Huncho Santa
;-."• •:,)
! I ( VV,:f£:;:;,c/<<nwov ^<^_,' /^-:"'-Vlr ': ••->,-> /• * /.??*r' ,v -of^QsJ?N
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
EIR 82-3A3PA-67 (DVZC-275
on property generally located in
two separate areas contiguous tothe City's southern and easternboundaries. Three-hundred nine-
ty-five acres of the project is lo-
cated south of Olivenhain Road,
east and west of Rancho Santa Fe
Road, adjoining the City's souther-
ly boundary. A remaining 80 acres
are located approximately one
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe City Council of the City of Carls-
bad will bold'a public hearing at
the City Council Chambers, 1200 are located approximately one
Elm Avenue, Carllbad, California, mile east of the intersection of Laat 6:00 P.I*, on Tuesday, June 7, Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe1963V to consider certification of a Road, adjoining the City's easterlydraft enYironmental Impact report, boundary and more particularly- •"•*—• •"-t amendment desig- rf..<.rf»—> ~tlal low (RL, 0-1.5 du/
t low-medium (RLM,
en space (OS) and
nmercial (N) land
ational zoning of
G-2 (general
(open space)
described »«:
Portions of tots<13. It and 15 ofthe subdivision of Rancho Las En-
cinitas, according to Map thereof
No 848, filed in the Qffice of the
County Recorder, June 27,1898
Applicant ffoolley ,
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
. Kay. 25-19. . 83
19,
19,
19
19.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on t.hp ?3t-h ,
day of Hay 1983 /
CJW398: May 29,1983 Clerk of the Printer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EIR 82-3/GPA-67(D)/ZC-275
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, June 7, 1983, to consider
certification of a draft environmental impact report, a general plan
amendment designating residential low (RL, 0-1.5 du/ac), residential low-
medium (RLM, 0-4 du/ac), open space (OS) and neighborhood commercial (N)
land uses and preannexational zoning of R-l-15,000, R-l-10,000, C-2
(general commercial) and O-S (open space) on property generally located in
two separate areas contiguous to the City's southern and eastern boundaries.
Three-hundred ninety-five acres of the project is located south of Olivenhain
Road, east and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, adjoining the City's southerly
boundary. A remaining 80 acrea are located approximately one mile east of
the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, adjoining
the City's easterly boundary and more particularly described as:
Portions of Lots 6, 13, 14 and 15 of the subdivision
of Rancho Las Encinitas, according to Map thereof
No. 848, filed in the Office of the County Recorder,
June 27, 1898.
APPLICANT:
PUBLISH:
Woolley
April 20, 1983 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Fred M. Reva
1056 Lark Song Lane
EnciRitas,. CA 92024
Wayne R. Swartz
2118 14th Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Alfred J. Eliseo
1156 Via Di Felicita
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Roger L. Freeberg
7819 Gaviota Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Seymour W. Nelson
P.O. Box 442
San Marcos, CA 92069
Alireza Aletaha
c/o Mel rose Corp.
200 Newport Cen. Dr. 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Frank Esparza
1330 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Ralph Rodriquez
1028 E. Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Russell S. Perkins
3489 Lone Jack Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Kenneth L. Liberty II
2491 Caminito Ocean Cove
Cardiff, CA 92007
Floyd A. Sheets
1350 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Mary L. Porter
Carolyn A. Kutzke
1335 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Neal W. Delay
2160 El Ami go Road
Del Mar, CA 92014
Gene E. Mason
548 Warwick Avenue
Cardiff, CA 92007
Booke L. Jarrett III
3770 Avocado Blvd.
La Mesa, CA 92041
Richard J. Kapernick
1652 Eolus Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
Carmen M. Vasquez
1557 Caudor StreetLeucadia, CA 92024
Lone Jack Development Co
c/o Stein Brief Group
2081 Business Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92715
Santa Fe Highlands
2199 Avenida De La Playa
La Jo!la, CA 92037
Christopher S. Lloyd
P.O. Box 4382 Term. Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051
Manfred J. Dittman
5545 Avenida Fiesta
La Jolla, CA 92037
Dererk A. Tidman
10714 Gatewood Avenue
Silver Springs, MD 20903
M. Jonathan Haire
Chris J. Hamilton
1113 Santa Madera Ct.
Solana Beach, CA 92075
George P". Linehan
355 Santa Fe Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Trustees of Cent. States SE
&SW Areas Pen. Fun
c/o Asses Administration
8550 W.' B'ryn Hawr Avenue I
Chicago, IL 60631 _ , |
Olivenhain Munic. Water Dist.
1966 Olivenhain Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Daniel F. Ward
2817 Jacaranda Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert E.H. Potter
948 Springwood Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
County of San Diego
Department of Real Property
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Joseph E. Kowalski III
955 Springwood Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
^Roger A. Stennecke
2014 14th Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Joanne K. Meyerhoff
M. Sharon Axt
2004 14th Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Earl H. Smith
8455 Melvin Avenue
Northridge, CA 91324
Frank E. Lesko
2815 Jacaranda Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jack C. Clark, Ed Anctil,
Nicholas Pappas
P.O. Box 315
Encinitas, CA 92024
Douglas A. Avazian
949 Springwood Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
William Lyon Co.
366 San Miguel Drive, SteNewport Beach, CA 92660 201
Neil Greco
1156 Wild Canary Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Stephen M. Thomas
1150 Wild Canary Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Walter F. Beran
600 Clinton Place
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Daniel K. Green
1115 Rancho Santa Fe RoadOlivenhain, CA 92024
Philip L. Coleman
1134 Wild Canary lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Scott Trust
c/o David John Ruyle
591 Camino del la Reina, 1023
San Diego, CA 92108
Rancho Bernardo Inc.
16770 W. Bernardo Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Harry L. Summers, Inc.
4430 Cass Street
San Diego, CA 92109
San Dieguito Union H.S. Dist.
625 N. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Thomas L. Reilly
1089 Rancho Santa Fe RoadOlivenhain, CA 92024
John Fredericks
1093 Rancho Santa Fe Road
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Brooklyn Land Company
c/o Larry Eden
227 N. El Camino Real
Encinitas, CA 92024
W. Fredrick Muhlethaler
2010 14th StreetOlivenhain, CA 92024
William J. Stone
1159 Wild Canary Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Lawrence D. Resnick
1151 Wild Canary Lane
Olivenhain, CA 92024
John Bianchi
920 Bonita Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
James Fairbanks
7533 El Cortez Court
Buena Park, CA 90621
Citp of Cartebab
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
WDOLLEY, DAY & WHITE
P. O. Box R
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
City of Carlsbab
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Wiegand Properties Partnership
424 Recluse Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
rrea n.
1056 Lark Song Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
r!
Wayne R. Swartz
2118 14th Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Frank Esparza
1330 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Kenneth L. Liberty II
2491 Caminito Ocean Cove
Cardiff, CA 92007
Floyd A. Sheets
1350 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Mary L. Porter
Carolyn A. Kutzke
1335 Desert Rose Way
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Neal W. Delay
2160 El Amigo Road
Del Mar, CA 92014
*Mv V
'IfJ I Gene E. Mason
548 Warwick Avenue
Cardiff, CA 92007
f !4
Booke L. Jarrett III
3770 Avocado Blvd.
La Mesa, CA 92041
Richard J. Kapernick
1652 Eolus Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
Mirrea u. uisea
1156 Via Di Felicita
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Roger L. Freeberg
7819 Gaviota Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ralph Rodriquez
1028 E. Street
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Lone Jack Development Co
c/o Stein Brief Group
2081 Business Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92715
Santa Fe Highlands
2199 Avenida De La Playa
La Jolla, CA 92037
Christopher S. Lloyd
P.O. Box 4382 Term. Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051
Manfred J. Dittman
5545 Avenida Fiesta
La Jolla, CA 92037
Dererk A. Tidman
10714 Gatewood Avenue
Silver Springs, MD 20903
M. Jonathan Haire
Chris J. Hamilton
1113 Santa Madera Ct.
Solana Beach, CA 92075
George PI Linehan
355 Santa Fe Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Seymour W. Nelson
P.O. Box 442
San Marcos, CA 92069
Alireza Aletaha
c/o Melrose Corp.
200 Newport Cen. Dr. 30C
Newport Beach, CA 9266C
Russell S. Perkins
3489 Lone Jack Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
•••'}
Carmen M. Vasquez
1557 Caudor Street.Leucadia, CA 92024
i*!iii