HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-27; City Council; 7503-E; Environmental Impact General Plan Amendment Pre-Annexational Zone Change Hunt Propertiesnoo
(Tl
CH\ JF CARLSBAD — AGENDA JILL
MTP, 9/27/83
DEPT. PLN
TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
AMENDMENT AND PRE-ANNEXATIONAL
EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267.
HUNT PROPERTIES.
PLAN
ZONE CHANGE
O
§
O
8
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Coranission and staff recommend that the City Council CERTIFY
EIR 83-2 and direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING
GPA/LU 83-15 and ZC-267 per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2182 and 2183.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is a request for certification of an EIR and approval of a General
Plan Amendment and preannexational zoning so that the portions of the property
located outside the present city boundaries can be considered for annexation.
The applicant's intent is to have all their land holdings in the city so that
they can prepare and process a comprehensive Master Plan. The preannexation
zone change is required so that city zoning can be established on all the
portions of the property presently located in the county. The General Plan
amendment is needed because two of the parcels are presently located outside the
planning area boundaries (sphere of influence) as shown on the City's General
Plan.
The Planning Commission determined that the EIR for these items was prepared in
accordance with State Law and Title 19 of the Municipal Code and the Commission
is recommending certification.
The applicant's proposed amendments to the General Plan and requested zoning are
shown on attached Exhibits "A" and "B". The staff and Planning Commission's
recommendations are shown on attached Exhibits "C" and "D". The major
difference between the applicant's request and the Planning Commission
recommendation involves the zoning for the lagoon area and the General Plan
designation and zoning for Parcel AC located on El Camino Real between Alga and
Palomar Airport Roads and Parcel AF located at the intersection of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road. The applicant requested P-C (Planned Community)
zoning for the lagoon and staff and the Planning Commission are recommending OS
(Open Space) zoning. For Parcels AC and AF, the applicant requested a
combination General Plan district and C-2 (General Commercial) zoning. Staff
and the Planning Commission are recommending that commercial zoning not be
approved at these locations.
The attached Planning Commission Staff Report contains more detailed information
on these items.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental impact report was prepared for Parcels AA through AF. This
report identified direct impacts created by the general plan amendment and zone
change applications and potential impacts which would have to be addressed at
the time a master plan is submitted. The direct impacts that were identified by
the EIR are land use impacts, fiscal impacts, traffic impacts, and biological
impacts. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending certification of
EIR 83-2. Negative declarations were prepared for Parcels AG and AH by the Land
Use Planning Manager on September 3, 1983 and was approved by the Planning
Commission on September 14, 1983.
Page Two of Agenda Bill No.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal analysis report was prepared to determine fiscal impacts resulting from
the annexation of the Green Valley and Olivenhain parcels (AE and AF). The
report considered three scenarios: 1) "worst" case - 100% residential
development, 2) "likely" case - combination of residential, commercial, and
office and 3) "best" case - 100% commercial. Considering projected costs versus
revenues to Carlsbad, under the "worst" case scenario, a net deficit of $470,000
would result. Under the "likely" and "best" case scenarios, a net surplus of
$670,000 and $3.9 million respectively would result at buildout if these parcels
are annexed.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Location Map
2) Exhibit "C" and "D" - Staff and Planning Commission Recommendations.
3) Exhibit "A" and "B" - Applicants Proposals
4) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2181, 2182 and 2183
5) Staff Report dated September 14, 1983 w/attachments
6) Response to Comments to Environmental Impact Report
.-.--;.
E1R o3~~2
HPI DEVELOPMEFslT
GPA/LU 83-
ZC-267
EXHIBIT C
9-14-83
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
RLM
COMBINATION DISTRICT
(0,C,
KEY
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
RLIVI GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
OUVENHAINROAD
EXHIBIT D
9-14-83
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-ZONING
PC
sr
AA
PC>!
RDM
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
: ZONE
EXHIBIT A
9-14-83
APPLICANT-GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
DISTRICT
(RfyiH,C,O)
COMBINATION DISTRICT
(RMH,C,O)KEY
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
!: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
OUVENHAINROAD
EXHIBIT B
-- 9-14-83
APPLICANT-PROPOSED ZONING
P-C
KEY
AA: PARCEL NUMBER
: ZONE
OUVENHAINROAD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2181
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 83-2) FOR A PROJECT
GENERALLY INCLUDING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY HAVING A TOTAL
ACREAGE OF 1700 ACRES.
APPLICANT: HPI DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. ; EIR 83-2
WHEREAS, on September 14, 1983, the Planning Commission,
of the City of Carlsbad, held a public hearing on EIR 83-2 pursuant
to the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
j WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the
omments and documents of all those persons testifying at the
ublic hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received EIR 83-2
according to the requirements of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 83-2 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 83-2 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
information contained in the report.
4) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 83-2 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
reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no
project.
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
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
not be feasible under the circumstances and under the economic
and social needs objectives and concerns in providing the
improvements 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 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow, Friestedt and
Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
[MICHAEL J
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2181 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2182
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND A STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE VARIOUS
PROPERTIES FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND/OR OFFICE USE
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL
CAMINO REAL AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE.
APPLICANT: HPI DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO.; GPA/LU 83-15 -
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to the
General Plan designation for certain property located, as shown on
Exhibits A and C, dated September 14, 1983 attached and incorporatec
herein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request
for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 14th day of
September, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That in view of the findings made and considering the
applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to
recommend APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-15, as shown on Exhibit C,
dated September 14, 1983.
Findings:
1) The subject property is physically suitable for development
permitted in the respective land use designations, as
discussed in the staff report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
US*"""
2)
3)
4)
The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations will be
compatible with surrounding land uses and with the other
elements of the General Plan.
The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations will be
compatible with future land uses, as discussed in the staff
report.
That all significant environmental issues have been mitigated,
or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these
impacts, or social or economic factors exist which override
these impacts as described below:
A. Land Use
Impact; Removal of the existing County zoning
requirements on agricultural, floodplain and biologically
sensitive areas creates a potential adverse impact.
Mitigation; Impacts on land use will be mitigated by
requiring the applicant to master plan the property. Said
master plan will provide restrictions on the development
of sensitive areas. The City is also adopting the
Floodplain Overlay zone on sensitive riparian areas.
B. Agriculture
Impact ; Annexation and future development of the site
without some preservation of agricultural land would be a
significant impact based on County and State agency
policies.
Mitigation; The City of Carlsbad has no exclusively
agricultural general plan designation. Through the
required master plan, however, the City can require
preservatiion of agricultural areas. This impact should
be mitigated at the master plan level. It is also
anticipated that the Coastal Commission will require
preservation of agricultural lands during the coastal
permit process.
C. Traffic
Impact: Two of the six affected intersections and
possibly four of the six affected intersections could be
significantly impacted from the proposed general plan
amendment and annexation.
Mitigation; All roadways should be constructed to their
planned width. Additional traffic studies should be done
as specific projects become known within the project
boundaries. Mitigation measures identified in these
studies should become conditions of approval for specific
projects which necessitate these improvements.
PC RESO NO. 2182
2
3
4
lagoon areas as open space,
5
E. Hydrology/Water Quality
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. Biological Resources
Impact: No direct impacts will occur from the project.
However indirect effects could be caused by the removal of
County zoning on the floodplain and lagoon areas.
Mitigation; The City is placing the Floodplain Overlay
zone on the sensitive riparian areas and has zoned the
Impact; There will be no direct effects on hydrology and
water quality from the proposed project, however, indirect
or future impacts could occur with development.
Mitigation; The City has placed the Floodplain Overlay
zone on the Encinitas Creek area and has designated the
lagoon as open space. When development plans are approved
special grading requirements may be necessary to protect
these areas from urban runoff and sedimentation.
F. Air Quality
Impact; Full buildout of the project would result in air
emissions approximately 4 to 5 times greater than projectd
by RAQS resulting in a significant adverse impact.
Mitigation; Air quality is a regional problem and RAQS
places emphasis on developing cities. Various mitigation
measures such as rideshare and transit programs should be
included in the master plan. Additionally, -the need to
provide diverse housing and commercial facilities in the
City of Carlsbad overrides this impact. Finally,
effective long term mitigation must be on a regional
basis.
G. Cultural Resources
Impact; The proposed project would not have a direct
impact on cultural resources, however, 23 potentially
significant sites were found on the property and could be
impacted at the time of development.
Mitigation; A testing program, as identified in the EIR,
will be utilized to determine significance prior to the
grading of any site. Further mitigation may be necessary
based on the results of the testing.
H. Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Impact; No direct impacts would be created by the
project. Future development under the proposed
designations could have a visual impact on the north shore
of the lagoon and the Green Valley core.
Mitigation; Mitigation will have to occur at the master
plan and at specific project levels. Mitigation could
include specific siting of developments, preservation of
specific areas, clustering development and special
landscaping requirements.
PC RESO NO. 2182 3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
I. Noise
Impact; Noise created by additional traffic from the
project along major corridors could have adverse impacts
on devleopments located too close to these corridors.
Mitigation; At the master plan and specific development
plan stage special setbacks should be utilized to mitigate
possible noise impacts from passing traffic.
J. Growth Inducement
Impact; Development of the Green Valley area could be
considered to potentially be growth inducing because
agricultural land would be sandwiched between existing
commercial uses to the south and Green Valley.
Mitigation; Specific development concepts for the Green
Valley area are not known at this time. The City has
adopted a Combination District for this area which
contains office, commercial and residential uses. The
location of these uses will be determined at the master
plan level. Portions of the Green Valley site could be
specially treated or phased under the master plan to
encourage preservation of the agricultural areas to the
south.
5) The applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee per
agreement dated September 7, 1983. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow, Friestedt and
Rawlins.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Nonel
None.
None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. UOLZM&LLER
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2182 4.
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
wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2183
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE
CHANGE AND A PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE TO DESIGNATE
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF LA COSTA AVENUE.
APPLICANT: HPI DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO.: ZC-267
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to
The south half of Section 27 and the southeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 28, and Lots 2 and 3 in
Section 33, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to official plat thereof;
Together with the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Section 34, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to
official plat thereof;
Together with Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Section
34, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to United States Government Survey and
shown on the Map of said survey as lying within the Salt
Marsh and Slough.
The south half of the south half of the southwest quarter
of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San
Diego, according to United States Government Survey
approved April 21, 1890.
Portions of the northeast half of Section 32, Township 12
South, Range 4 West; Portions of the south half of Section
33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West; portions of the
northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to official plat
thereof.
as shown on Exhibit "B", dated September 14, 1983, attached and
incorporated herein has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 14th day of
2
September, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
3
by law to consider said request; and
4
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
5
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
6
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
7
relating to the Zone Change; and
8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
9
Commission as follows:
10
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
12 the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-267, as shown on
Exhibit "D", dated September 14, 1983, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since
the proposed residential densities are within the density
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 accomodate development as proposed.
3) The project is consistent with all City public facility pol-
icies 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 satisfiec
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.
PC RESO NO. 2183 2.
1
b) School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of
2
Carlsbad school districts.
3
4) The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future
4
stated in the staff report.
5
5) The zone change of Parcel AG to P-C (Planned Community) will
September 14, 1983.
8
6) The zone change of Parcel AH to 0-S (Open Space) will not
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
school facilities in the San Dieguito, Encinitas Union and
land uses and is compatible with the general plan for reasons
not cause any significant environmental impacts and a negative
declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Manager
on August 29, 1983 and approved by the Planning Commission on
cause any significant environmental impacts and a negative
declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Manager
on August 29, 1983 and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 14, 1983.
7) That all significant environmental issues have been mitigated,
or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these
impacts, or social or economic factors exist which override
these impacts as described below:
A. Land Use
Impact; Removal of the existing County zoning
requirements on agricultural, floodplain and biologically
sensitive areas creates a potential adverse impact.
Mitigation; Impacts on land use will be mitigated by
requiring the applicant to master plan the property. Said
master plan will provide restrictions on the development
of sensitive areas. The City is also adopting the
Floodplain Overlay zone on sensitive riparian areas.
B. Agriculture
Impact; Annexation and future development of the site
without some preservation of agricultural land would be a
significant impact based on County and State agency
policies.
Mitigation; The City of Carlsbad has no exclusively
agricultural general plan designation. Through the
required master plan, however, the City can require
preservatiion of agricultural areas. This impact should
be mitigated at the master plan level. It is also
anticipated that the Coastal Commission will require
preservation of agricultural lands during the coastal
permit process.
PC RESO NO. 2183 3.
1
C. Traffic
2
Impact; Two of the six affected intersections and
3
4
5
6
7
possibly four of the six affected intersections could be
significantly impacted from the proposed general plan
amendment and annexation.
Mitigation; All roadways should be constructed to their
planned width. Additional traffic studies should be done
as specific projects become known within the project
boundaries. Mitigation measures identified in these
studies should become conditions of approval for specific
projects which necessitate these improvements.
8 D. Biological Resources
9 Impact; No direct impacts will occur from the project.
However indirect effects could be caused by the removal of
10 County zoning on the floodplain and lagoon areas,
Mitigation; The City is placing the Floodplain Overlay
11 zone on the sensitive riparian areas and has zoned the
lagoon areas as open space.
12
E. Hydrology/Water Quality
13
Impact; There will be no direct effects on hydrology and
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
water quality from the proposed project, however, indirect
or future impacts could occur with development.
Mitigation; The City has placed the Floodplain Overlay
zone on the Encinitas Creek area and has designated the
lagoon as open space. When development plans are approved
special grading requirements may be necessary to protect
these areas from urban runoff and sedimentation.
F. Air Quality
Impact: Full buildout of the project would result in air
emissions approximately 4 to 5 times greater than projectd
by RAQS resulting in a significant adverse impact.
Mitigation; Air quality is a regional problem and RAQS
places emphasis on developing cities. Various mitigation
measures such as rideshare and transit programs should be
included in the master plan. Additionally, the need to
provide diverse housing and commercial facilities in the
City of Carlsbad overrides this impact. Finally,
effective long term mitigation must be on a regional
basis.
G. Cultural Resources
Impact; The proposed project would not have a direct
impact on cultural resources, however, 23 potentially
significant sites were found on the property and could be
impacted at the time of development.
Mitigation; A testing program, as identified in the EIR,
will be utilized to determine significance prior to the
grading of any site. Further mitigation may be necessary
based on the results of the testing.
PC RESO NO. 2183 4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
BBC
8)
Conditions:
H. Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Impact; No direct impacts would be created by the
project. Future development under the proposed
designations could have a visual impact on the north shore
of the lagoon and the Green Valley core.
Mitigation; Mitigation will have to occur at the master
plan and at specific project levels. Mitigation could
include specific siting of developments, preservation of
specific areas, clustering development and special
landscaping requirements.
I. Noise
Impact; Noise created by additional traffic from the
project along major corridors could have adverse impacts
on devleopments located too close to these corridors.
Mitigation; At the master plan and specific development
plan stage special setbacks should be utilized to mitigate
possible noise impacts from passing traffic.
J. Growth Inducement
Impact; Development of the Green Valley area could be
considered to potentially be growth inducing because
agricultural land would be sandwiched between existing
commercial uses to the south and Green Valley.
Mitigation; Specific development concepts for the Green
Valley area are not known at this time. The City has
adopted a Combination District for this area which
contains Office, Commercial and Residential uses. The
location of these uses will be determined at the master
plan level. Portions of the Green Valley site could be
specially treated or phased under the master plan to
encourage preservation of the agricultural areas to the
south.
The applicant has agreed 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.
1) This project is approved on the express condition that the
applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by
City Council Policy No. 17, 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 September
7, 1983, 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 on this project shall be voided.
PC RESO NO. 2183 5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 14th day of September, 1983, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,'
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow, Friestedt and
Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHOBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. TlOLZMl'LLER
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2183 6.
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
September 14, 1983
Planning Commission
Land Use Planning Office
EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267 - HPI DEVELOPMENT - Request
for a General Plan Amendment, Pre-annexational Zone
Change and Certification of an EIR involving 1730 acres
for property generally located north of Batiquitos
Lagoon and west of El Camino Real, and property located
on the west side of El Camino Real south of La Costa
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission APPROVE the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager,
ADOPT Resolution No. 2181 recommending CERTIFICATION OF EIR 83-
2, ADOPT Resolution No. 2182 recommending APPROVAL of GPA/LU 83-
15 as shown on Exhibit "C", and ADOPT Resolution No. 2183
recommending APPROVAL of ZC-267 as shown on Exhibit "D".
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The application includes amendments to the general plan and zone
changes on a number of different parcels in the Batiquitos Lagoon
and Green Valley areas. The applicant's proposed amendments to
the general plan are shown on Exhibit "A" and the applicants
proposed zone changes are shown on Exhibit "B". The major
general plan changes are taking place in the Green Valley area
and at the southeast corner of El Camino "Real and Olivenhain
Road. The applicant is proposing to have these areas included in
Carlsbad's sphere of influence and to have them designated on the
General Plan with a Combination District comprised of C
(Commercial), 0 (Office) and RMH (Medium-High Residential) uses.
With regard to zoning the applicant is requesting the Planned
Community (PC) zone for most of the property with some
commercial zoning along El Camino Real (please refer to Exhibits
"A" and "B"). The City has included a preannexational zone
change for the state owned portions of the Lagoon west of the
Hunt properties. This area is being proposed as open space (see
Exhibit "F").
For purposes of this report,
three parts: a discussion of
EIR, a section discussing the
zoning section. The various
will be labeled in the report
the EIR, (AA, AB, AC etc.).
the attached exhibits so that
report.
the project will be divided into
the major issues identified in the
general plan amendments, and a
parcels included in the application
the same way they are listed in
These parcels are also labeled on
they may be referenced from the
III. EIR 83-2
The environmental impacts associated with this project can be
divided into two types: 1) direct impacts created by the general
plan amendment, prezoning and annexation applications, and 2)
potential impacts of future development that may occur as a
result of these applications.
A. DIRECT IMPACTS CREATED BY THE GPA, ZONE CHANGE AND ANNEXATION
Land Use Impacts
Prezoning. Parcels AA, AB, AD and AE are proposed to be zoned
P-C (Planned Community). Parcels AC and AF are proposed as C-2
(General Commercial). The P-C zone could result in a higher
density than allowed by the existing County zoning designations.
This is mainly due to the fact that most of the County land is
presently under a holding zone designation.
The P-C zone requires the submittal of a master development plan
for the entire property. This could result in a "positive"
impact if the property is comprehensibly planned and all
environmental resources are considered and incorporated into
this plan. It is likely that environmental impacts would be
more easily mitigated if the project is reviewed under one
Master Plan by one jurisdiction.
General Plan Amendment. The proposed general plan amendment
could result in a 74% increase in residential and commercial
development over what is presently allowed by the existing County
land use designations. This increase assumes a "worst" case
situation of residential development built out to the maximum
density allowed by the General Plan. Most of this increase is a
result of reclassifying the Green Valley (Parcel AD) and
Olivenhain (Parcel AF) parcels which are presently under a County
holding zone.
Any intensification of land uses could potentially result in
significant environmental impacts. These impacts will be
identified and mitigated if possible at the time a Master Plan is
submitted and reviewed by the City.
Annexation. Annexation of the property would put jurisdictional
control of ,the property in the City of Carlsbad. The EIR
indicates that a beneficial fiscal impact is likely to occur
even though the City would be providing community services. The
fiscal impacts are addressed in the following section.
Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts are only addresssed on the .Green Valley (AE) and
Olivenhain (AF) parcels since these are the only parcels not
presently in the City's sphere of influence. Three scenarios
-2-
are considered: 1) "worst" case - assumes 100% residential
development; 2) "likely" case - assumes a combination of
residential, commercial and office uses; and 3) "best" case -
assumes 100% commercial development.
Considering projected costs versus revenues to the City of
Carlsbad/ under a "worst" case scenario, a net deficit of
$470,000 would result if Parcels AD and AF are annexed to
Carlsbad. Both the "likely" and "best" case assumptions result
in net surpluses to Carlsbad of $670,000 and $3.9 million
respectively. The "likely" and "best" case assumptions are
considered to be a beneficial impact to Carlsbad.
Traffic Impacts
Three traffic scenarios are considered to address potential
traffic impacts created by the project: 1) development under
the "existing" general plan land use designations; 2) "likely"
case - assumes a combination of commercial, residential and
office uses on Parcels AC, AE and AF; and 3) "worst" case -
assumes all commercial development on Parcels AC, AE and AF.
All volumes were determined based on the year 2000 traffic
projections.
In terms of traffic volumes,,, under a "worst" case scenario,
Poinsettia Lane and SA 680 would exceed their designed carrying
capacities. SA 680 would also exceed its projected carrying
capacity under the "likely" case scenario.
With respect to intersection capacities, under a "worst" case
scenario, 4 out of the 6 major intersections in the vicinity of
the project would be at an unacceptable service level (see page
3-54). Under the "likely" case scenario, 2 out of 6
intersections would be at an unacceptable service level. Under
both the "worst" and "likely" cases, an adverse traffic impact
would be created on El Camino Real
Mitigation measures would include the construction of streets to
their master planned widths, the reclassification of streets to
widths that could adequately handle future traffic volumes,
access restrictions onto El Camino Real and approval of land
uses that do not create excessive traffic (please refer to EIR -
pp. 3-56, 57 for more specific mitigation measures).ii
Biology
The proposed annexation, general plan amendment and rezoning
would result in the loss of the flood protection provisions
provided for by existing County Ordinances on Parcels AE and AF.
This could result in a potential biological impact created by
the loss of the Riparian habitats located in these parcels.
These impacts would be mitigated by Carlsbad Zoning provisions
that would require flood protection of areas located in the "100
year" floodplain boundary.
-3-
B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Impacts
Proposed land use designations on Parcels AE and AD are different
than those approved as part of the San Dieguito Local Coastal
Plan. Potential impacts that could occur at the development
stage include impacts to hydrology, water quality, biological
resources and agriculture.
Exact impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures cannot
be determined until a master plan is submitted by the applicant.
Agriculture
The proposed land use designations could result in the conversion
of existing agricultural land. If fully developed, Parcels AC,
AD, AE and BB would be in conflict with existing Coastal
Commission policies regarding agricultural land preservation.
Mitigation measures would include the preservation of a portion
of the existing agriculture lands at the time of development.
Biology ./
Potential impacts to biological resources could occur at the time
of project development. Specifically, the potential loss of one
endangered plant species (Salt Marsh Bird's Beak) and five rare
species is considered significant. Also, the potential loss of
four endangered bird species and 33 sensitive bird species is
significant. Finally, the potential loss of the riparian,
freshwater marsh and Oak Woodland habitats are considered
significant potential biological impacts..
Mitigation measures would have to be considered at the time a
master plan is submitted for review. At this time, precise
impacts cannot be determined, however, necessary mitigation
measures could be incorporated into future project proposals.
Community Services
Future development of this project could result in potential
impacts relating to water conservation, solid waste disposal,
energy conservation, police protection, and hospital facilities.
Hydrology/Water
Development of the subject property could result in adverse
impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon water quality. The precise impacts
cannot be determined at this point in time, however, these would
have to be determined at the time a master plan is submitted
for review.
-4-
Cultural Resources
The EIR identifies twenty archaeological sites, two historical
sites and one paleontological site all of which are considered
important cultural resources. Future development of this property
could result in potential significatn impacts on these resources.
At the time of master planning of the property, the applicant
would be required to mitigate the potential impacts to these
sites.
Air Quality
The project, at development, would result in an incremental impact
to regional air quality. The significance of this impact cannot
be determined until an actual development plan is submitted for
review.
Staff believes that EIR 83-2 was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has adequately identified
and discussed both the direct impacts resulting from the project
presently under consideration (GPA, ZC and Annexation) and the
potential impacts which will have to addressed when a Master Plan
for the property is considered. For these reasons, staff is
recommending CERTIFICATION of EIR 83-2.
IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Planning Issues
1) Is the proposed land use appropriate for the site?
2) Is the proposed land use consistent with surrounding
land use?
3) Are the subject parcels logical extensions of the City
of Carlsbad (parcels AE and AF only)?
A. Preannexational General Plan Amendments
The first two general plan amendments would expand the City's
sphere of influence or general plan boundaries into areas which
now have their land use controlled by the County's general plan.
Parcel AE -' Parcel AE is known as the Green Valley Area. The
applicant is requesting a Combination District designation for the
property. The Combination District would be comprised of the 0
(Office), C (Commercial) and RMH (Medium-High Density) categories
(Exhibit "C"). The subject parcel is approximately 280 acres in
size. Except for the portion of the Encinitas Creek area which
runs parallel with El Camino Real, the County has designated this
property for residential use at 2.9 du/ac. The creek area is
designated as a F.loodplain "Impact Sensitive" area.
_ C _
Staff feels that the subject property is a logical extention of
the City of Carlsbad. The City already has jurisdiction south of
La Costa Avenue on the east side of El Camino Real and it makes
sense from a planning standpoint that the area on the west side
of this street should also be included in the City. The bluffs
separating this property from Leucadia on the west side make a
much better boundary than does El Camino Real. By using the
bluffs as the boundary, planning for this area would be much
easier because access on both sides of El Camino Real would be
controlled by the same jurisdiction. Control of the drainage
basin would also be the same and many of the public facilities
and services such as police and fire would be under one planning
unit. Finally the standards required by the City of Carlsbad
would prevent the type of strip commercial being approved south
of the City. Annexation of this area could protect existing
Carlsbad residents on the east side of El Camino Real from
undesirable development occuring on the west side.
Staff feels that proposed Combination District (C, 0, RMH) is an
appropriate use for the site. The property meets the City's
criteria for Commercial use but is somewhat constrained by
Encinitas Creek. As a result a mixed-use approach may be more
logical and could be accomplished under the specific or master
plan required for the property. The master plan could also
provide for protection of the creek habitat. Staff is
recommending approval of the land use proposed by the applicant.
Parcel AF - Parcel AF is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. The
applicant is requesting that this 37 acre area be added to the
City with the Combination District designation comprised of the C
(Commercial), 0 (Office) and RMH (Residential 10-20 du/ac)
categories. Parcel AF is currently designated by the County for
residential use (2.9 du/ac). There is a floodplain designation
on the Encinitas Creek area which also traverses the property.
Staff feels that parcel AF should be included in the City's
sphere of influence for two reasons. The primary reason is that
this area is a logical part of the City based on topography. The
subject parcel is bordered on the south by a ridge which runs
west to east from El Camino Real. This ridge makes a natural
southern boundary for the City of Carlsbad. It also gives
jurisdiction of the Encinitas floodplain to one agency which
simplifies drainage problems, public services, access on
Olivenhain Road and other planning problems.
The second reason is that the City Council has already voted,
subject to the approval of LAFCO, to include areas south of
Olivenhain Road, and north of the ridgeline, within the City of
Carlsbad. The Woolley annexation, located east of the subject
parcel, was approved by Council earlier this year.
—6—
Although this area should be included in the City, Staff does not
feel that the uses proposed by the applicant are the most
appropriate. The applicant is proposing a Combination District
(C, 0, RMH) which does include commercial use. Because of the
property's proximity to other commercial uses (Burnett Center, La
Costa core, and Green Valley) staff feels that there is already
an abundance of commercial use in the immediate area. Commercial
at this location could create additional traffic problems along
El Camino Real by slowing traffic with additional access points.
Because it may be some time before the development of this
property occurs staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission take the same approach as on the Woolley Annexation by
recommending the RL (Low Density) designation. This category
would act as a holding category until such time that an
appropriate land use can be determined for the site.
B. Amendment to the Existing Carlsbad General Plan
This area is already included in the Carlsbad sphere of
influence. The applicant is asking to change the existing land
use.
Parcel AC - Parcel AC is located on both sides of El Camino Real
approximately a quarter mile north of Dove Lane. The applicant
is requesting a change from the existing RM (4-10 du/ac) on the
west side and the existing RLM (0-4 du/ac) on the east side to a
Combination District comprised of the C, 0 and RMH designations.
Staff does not feel that the proposed change is appropriate for
several reasons. One, there is already a large amount of
approved commercial in this area. There is an existing
commercial center located at the southeast corner of Dove Lane
and El Camino Real. A larger commercial site has been approved
on the west side of El Camino Real that starts at Alga Road and
extends northward to Dove Lane. This site is less than a half
mile south of the subject parcel,. Farther north, the Koll
Company, the Signal Company and the Carrillo property all have
some approved commercial use. It is also likely that the large
Bressi property, located on the southeast corner of Palomar
Airport Road and EL Camino Real, will also contain some
commercial development in the future. Staff feels that
additional commercial in this area is uhneccessary andwill
constitute strip development. Staff would recommend that the
existing general plan designations of RM (4-10 du/ac) and RLM (0-
4 du/ac) be retained on the property.
V, ANALYSIS - ZONE CHANGES
Planning Issues
1) Is the proposed zoning consistent with the general plan
designation on the property?
2) Is the proposed zoning consistent with the surrounding
zoning and land use?
-7-
Parcel AA - The applicant is requesting a preannexational zone
change from the existing S-90 County zoning to the PC (Planned
Community zone) on this 20 acre site. Staff feels that the
proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan
designation of RLM (0-4 du/ac) and also consistent with the
surrounding land use. Parcel BB which is contiguous to the
south is already zoned PC. Staff is recommending approval.
Parcel AB - Parcel AB has exactly the same circumstances as
parcel AA except that it is 25 acres in size. Staff is
recommending approval.
Parcel AC - AC is the parcel that is located on both sides of El
Camino Real approximately a quarter mile north of Dove Lane. The
applicant is proposing the C-2 (Commercial) zone for this
property. The zoning should be consistent with the general plan.
Because there is already enough commercial in the area and
because of the possiblity of a "strip" effect along El Camino
Real staff recommended that the existing RM and RLM residential
categories of the general plan be retained. To remain consistent
staff would recommend approval of the RD-M (density multiple)
zone for the west side of El Camino Real and the R-1 zone for the
east side.
Parcel AD - Parcel AD which includes portions of Batiquitos
Lagoon is currently zoned 5^90, A-70-8, Commercial and Floodplain
on the County general plan. The applicant is proposing the PC
zone for the entire parcel. Staff agrees that the developable
portion of the site should be zoned PC to be consistent with the
adjoining parcel to the north, parcel BB. The undevelopable
portion of the property in the Lagoon area should be zoned Open
Space (OS) to be consistent with the existing general plan. In
summary, staff feels that the northern portion of the parcel
should be zoned PC and the lagoon area OS (see Exhibit "D").
Parcel AE - The applicant is recommending the PC zone for parcel
AE. This is consistent with the proposed general plan
Combination District. The PC zone would allow a comprehensive
mixed-use development to occur in conjunction with a specific or
master plan. Staff would also recommend that the FP or
Floodplain Overlay zone be placed on the Encinitas Creek area as
shown on Exhibit "E".
Parcel AF - Parcel AF is located on the southeast corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. The applicant is requesting
the C-2 (Commercial) zone for this property. The zoning should
be consistent with the general plan. Under the proposed general
plan amendment staff has recommended that the property be added
to the City's sphere of influence as RL (low density) because it
was felt that commercial use is inappropriate. The L-C (Limited-
Control) zone would implement the RL designation recommended by
staff and act as a holding zone until a proper use can be
determined for the site in the future. Staff is recommending
that in addition to the L-C zone that the FP zone, or floodplain
overlay, be applied to the Encinitas Creek portion of the site
(Exhibit "E").
-8-
Parcel AG - Parcel AG is a 10 acre site located on the north
side of future Alga Road west of El Camino Real. The applicant
is proposing the PC zone for the property which is consistent
with the RLM designation of the general plan. The PC zone is
also consistent with the zoning proposed for parcel BB adjoining
to the south. Staff concurs with the applicants proposal.
Parcel AH - Parcel AH is the remainder or western end of the
lagoon area (Exhibit "p") and is owned by the State. The City of
Carlsbad has added this parcel to the application so that
annexation of the entire lagoon can occur at one time. The major
benefit of the annexation is that the entire lagoon will be
within one jurisdiction. Staff is recommending the Open Space
(OS) designation which is our most restrictive designation and is
consistent with the rest of the lagoon area and with the general
plan.
Parcel BB - The majority of parcel BB will have no change. The
property is already in the City of Carlsbad and has the RLM (0-4
du/ac) general plan designation. Except for a small piece on the
east end the property is zoned PC. The applicant is proposing to
change the small piece on the east side from R-1 to PC. Staff
concurs with this proposal as it will make all of parcel BB one
zone.
In summary staff feels that the land uses proposed in Exhibit
"C" and "D" are appropriate for the site and compatible with all
other elements of the General Plan.
For a final review of the proposals and recommendations please
see Exhibits "A" and "B" (applicants request) and Exhibits "C"
and "D" (Staffs recommendations). Also attached is a chart
(Exhibit "G") which lists all the parcels, the proposed
requests, and the recommendations.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -
EIR 83-2 was prepared for parcels AA, AB, AC, AD, AE and AF.
Parcels AG and AH were added later to the application and
Negative Declarations were issued by the Land Use Planning
Manager on August 29, 1983.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2181, 2182 and 2183
2) Location Map
3) Disclosure Form
4) Environmental Documents (except EIR, previously distributed)
5) Exhibit "A" and "B", Applicants proposals
6) Exhibit "C" and "D", Staff recommendations
7) Exhibit "E", Floodplain area
8) Exhibit "F", western lagoon annexation
9) Exhibit "G", Project Summary Chart
10) Response to Comments to Environmental Impact Report
BH:CDG:bw
9/8/83
—9 —
J.C UtUvit I. Hi* J.Jli.Uii--"—"-••• J ">•• — '- •
lUuit further information^ ' s required, you will be so ac^ sed.
' WP1-LICJJ.OT: N.B. Hunt .& W.H. Hunt ._ ; _ •
' Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
< .. . • •2800 Thanksgiving Tower '1601 Elm , Dallas, .Testas 75201
Business Address • • .
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
214-573-8400
Telephone Nuraber
The Agatep Corporation
Name ' . ....
P.O. Box 590, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Address
(714) 434-1056- -:
Telephone Nucbar
Narae -(individual, partrter, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home £
Business Address
Telephone Number S?elephcne Kuraber
Borne Address
Busxness Address
: ' .-.. Telephone- Nuinbsr • ' • Telephone Ku
. (Attach wore sheets if necessary) ' '" " •
I/We declare ur.der penalty of. perjury that the information contained in this di£
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be'
relied upon as being trua and correct until amended.
Aytrnt, O-.-.-ni^r, Pcirfn^r , *'
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
Cttp of
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: East of El Camino Real and north of the
future extension of Alga Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A preannexational zone change from County E-1-A
to P-C (Planned Community) on 10 acres of land.
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 ijnpact 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: August 29, 1983
CASE NO: ZC-267
APPLICANT: HPI Development
PUBLISH DATE: September 3, 1983
MICHAEL J./HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
ND-4
5/81
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 438-5591
Citp of Carlstoab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Western one-third of Batiquitos Lagoon.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed annexation to the City of Carlsbad for
those portions of the lagoon area controlled by the State of
California.
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: August 29,1983-
CASE NO: EIA-888
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE:, September 3, 1983
MICHAEL7 J. HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
ND-4
5/81
EXHIBIT E
9-14-83
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIiM OVERLAY AREA
ENCINITAS CREEK
OLIVENHAIN ROAD
EXHIBIT F
9-14-83
COUNTY ZONE TO PROPOSED OS ZONE
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
LA COSTA AVE.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EIA-888 PROPOSED ANNEXATION
EXHIBIT "G"
TABLE 2-1
EXISTING, PROPOSED LAND USES AND ZOti.EXHIBIT G
9-14-S3
PROJECT TOTAL
PARCEL ACRES TYPE
1) AA 25 GP
Zoning
2) AB 20 GP
Zoning
3) AC 38 GP
Zoning
4) AD 607 GP
'
Zoning
5} AE 280 GP
Zoning
6) AF 37 GP
II Zoning
7) AG 10 GP
Zoning
8) BS 723 GP
* Zoning
9) AH 135 GP
(City Proposed)
Zoning
EXISTING
LAND USE ACRES OF APPLICANTS STAFF
DESIGNATION* EACH USE PROPOSED CHANGE RECOMMENDATION
RLM (Residential 25
low Medium 0-4
du/ac)
S-90 (Holding Zone)
RLM (Residential 20
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac) . .
S-90 (Holding Zone)
RLM (Residential 15
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac) .
RM (Residential 23
Medium 4-10 du/ac)
S-90
RLM (Residential 98
Low Medium 0-4
du/ac)
RM (Residential 45
Low Medium 4-10
du/ac)
RHH (Residential 7
Medium High 10-20du/ac)
EC (Recreation Com- 12mercial)
TS (Travel Service 6
Commercial)
OS (Open Space) 438
C (Commercial)
S-90 (Holding Zone)
A-70-8 (Limited Agri-
culture)
FP (Floodplain)
RL (Residential 234Low 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodplain) 39
NC (Neighborhood
Commercial) 7
C (Commercial)
A- 1-8, A-70-8, A-72-8
(Limited and General
Agriculture)
FP (Floodplain)
RL (Residential 22
Low 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodplain) 15
R-S-3 (Residential
Low 2.9 du/ac)
FP (Floodplain )
RLM (Carlsbad) 10
S-90
RM (Residential 55
Medium 4-10 du/ac)
RLM Residential Low 658
Medium 0-4 du/ac)
PC & R-1
0-S 135
County
None
PC (Planned Community)
(tone
PC (Planned Conmunity)
Combination District:
C (Conraercial)
0 (Professional and
Related)
RMH (Residential
Medium High
10-20 du/ac)
C-2
Hone
None
tone
None
[tone
Nsne
PC (Planned Community)
Combination District:
C (Commercial
0 Professional and
Related)
RMH (Residential
Medium High
10-20 du/ac)
PC (Planned Conmunity)
Combination District:
C (Commercial)
0 (Professional and
Related)
RMH (Residential
Medium High 10-20 du/ac
C-2 (Commercial)
(tone
P-C
(tone
None
R-1 to PC
None
0-S
As proposed
As proposed
Keep existing
RM & RLM.
R-1/RDM
•
— •— "
— •—
PC/CC (Lagoon)
As proposed
As proposed
with addition
of FP onEncinitas
Creek
RL
)
L-C & FP
(Floodplain)
As proposed
As Requested
0-S
HUNT EIR - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
*Please add to environmental impact report.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HUNT PROPERTIES ANNEXATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SCH #83032309
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Prepared by:
WESTEC Services, Inc.
3211 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92103
September 1983
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
BATIQUITOS POINTE
Section 15141(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency
respond to letters of comment received as a result of public review of the Draft EIR.
The City of Carlsbad received letters of comment from the agencies and individuals
listed below. The comments appear on the following pages, with responses listed below
each comment. The original letters are also provided at the end of this section. The
letters of comment and accompanying responses, in conjunction with the Draft EIR,
comprise the Final EIR for the proposed project.
1. Leucadia Town Council
2. Michael I. Kennedy, HPI Development Company
3. Leucadia County Water District
4. Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
5. Costa Real Municipal Water District
6. California Coastal Commission
7. Local Agency Formation Commission
8. California Department of Fish and Game
9. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Pres-
ervation
10. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 11
11. California Department of Water Resources
12. California Air Resources Board
1. Leucadia Town Council
a. Comments; This letter contained comments regarding various issues
identified in the Draft EIR. The letter expressed concern with the
greater density of the project, and subsequent impacts to air quality,
traffic, and biological resources. A second major point involved insis-
tence that natural buffer zones be provided for both Batiquitos Lagoon
and the riparian habitat of Encinitas Creek.
Response; These comments do not challenge the adequacy of the EIR,
thus no response is necessary. The issues identified in these comments
are all discussed within the text of the Draft EIR.
2. Michael I. Kennedy, HPI Development Company
a. Comment; "In order to consolidate the property under a single juris-
diction ... we are proposing annexation of the parcels of our property
now in the County to the City of Carlsbad. In that way, we would be
able to work with you on the entire property to develop a Master Plan
which would be responsive to both environmental concerns and the
needs of your City. We are pleased to read that the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report agrees that the comprehensive master planning
of our property is a beneficial effect of our proposed project."
Response; See page 6-2 of the Draft EIR, where the above noted bene-
ficial aspect of the project is discussed.
b. Comment; ".. . by combining complementary land uses on the same
parcels to reduce trip generation as recommended in the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report, we are proposing an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan so that these parcels can become
"Combination Districts." As such, commercial and office employment
centers and residential could be located on the parcels of the property
which are adjacent to existing or planned major streets."
Response; See page 3-56 of the Draft EIR. It should be noted that the
proposed GPA involving the Combination Districts will result in sub-
stantially higher densities and hence greater traffic than the existing
general plan designations, as discussed on pages 3-151 and 3-152 of the
Draft EIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed higher density Com-
bination Districts will result in more traffic-related impacts. The EIR
r;
recommends combining uses wherever possible on the same parcel to
minimize traffic, but does not specifically recommend implementation
of the higher density Combination Districts for this purpose.
c. Comment: "Because no development plans or master plans have been
submitted as a part of our current proposal, the California Environ-
mental Quality Act Guidelines require that the DEIR discuss the poten-
tial impacts of the maximum possible development of the property. We
believe that these discussions are highly speculative since the maximum
possible development under the proposed jurisdictional changes may not
actually occur. In general, development is likely to be in the mid-range
of permited densities. The City of Carlsbad would ultimately deter-
mine the future intensity of development."
Response; The Draft EIR addresses the worst case or maximum amount
of development based on full buildout of the property, as required by
CEQA. It is not known to what degree the assumed densities and build-
out will be achieved, although it is possible that maximum development
of the property could occur.
d. Comment; "We would like to point out that the DEIR states that most
of the impacts associated with a future development of the property
are either not significant or can be mitigated during the planning and/or
construction phases of the project."
Response; Please refer to the discussion of unavoidable significant
environmental impacts on page 5-1. As noted in this discussion, the
proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to bio-
logical resources and hydrology issues as a result of the proposed land
uses. Agricultural resources would also potentially be impacted. The
increased density would result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
These impacts can be mitigated at the master development plan level
by the City at the time of Master Plan approval. However, application
of effective mitigation measures in the future is not assured at this
time.
e. Comment; "The DEIR overstates the project's contribution to impacts
on the air quality in the San Diego region. Although technological
advances in emission controls are too speculative to evaluate over the
probable 10- to 20-year buildout of the property, they are certain to
occur. These are not considered in the DEIR."
Response; The calculation of air quality emissions (shown in
Table 3-20, page 3-150) provides a rough estimate of anticipated emis-
sions assuming full buildout of the site. The power generation, fire-
place, and natural gas generation emissions are based on current emis-
sion generation rates from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(see Appendix C). As stated in the EIR, by far the major source of
emissions is automobile exhaust. Generation rates used to calculate
vehicle emissions are based on the year 1995. Use of these rates results
in a decrease in anticipated emissions of approximately 57 percent as
compared to 1982 generation rates. The EIR, thus, does consider tech-
nological advances in emission controls for vehicular emissions over a
12-year period.
f. Comment; "The development of Parcel AE would only contribute to a
number of existing factors which already tend to induce growth on the
land to the south:
The area is designated as a 1985 Future Urbanizing Area in the
County Regional Growth Management Plan.
SA 680, a planned street, will provide additional access to this
area if constructed.
The property south of Parcel AE fronts a major arterial.
The property south of Parcel AE is bounded by commercial
development to the south.
Regional growth will continue.
Market forces will continue to attempt to meet demand."
Response; It is agreed that the factors noted in this comment would
combine with the development of Parcel AE to induce development of
the property south of AE. This area is included within a 1985 Future
Urbanizing Area of the County and hence is expected to be ultimately
developed. The 1985 Future Urbanizing Area applied in the County's
r c
Regional Growth Management Plan (a long-range planning document) is
a rough estimate of anticipated urbanization of areas throughout the
County. The County LCP, which is more specific and is given much
greater weight with regard to land uses, designates the parcel to the
south as AC-SPA 2.8 (Agricultural Cropland, Specific Plan, 2.8 du/ac).
With regard to growth inducement, of utmost concern is the type of
development which is proposed. The relatively high density develop-
ment allowed under the Combination District designation would encour-
age development of the adjacent parcel to the south at a similarly high
density, thereby potentially increasing the intensity of development
over the current planned density (see page 4-2).
g. Comment; 'The DEIR states that the necessity of a permanently open
tidal mouth is a desirable element of any lagoon restoration effort.
Although there seems to be general agreement that the major problem
facing the lagoon is a lack of sea water, there are a number of more
prudent alternatives available as to how to accomplish this."
Recent preliminary evaluations of our consultant team regarding the
concept of opening the lagoon to the ocean reveals significant asso-
ciated environmental and economic impacts. Ultimately, of course, the
restoration and enhancement of Batiquitos Lagoon will be resolved at
the master planning stages of the project among the many participating
public agencies and interest groups. We wish to help the City enhance
the lagoon's natural resource values."
Response; The statement referred to in this comment is located on
page 3-137 of the Draft EIR. As noted on page 3-137, the desirability
of an open tidal mouth has been noted in previous studies of the lagoon.
The Draft EIR does not make a specific recommendation regarding
future enhancement plans, but rather makes general comments
regarding jurisdictional control of the property as it relates to future
enhancement programs for Batiquitos Lagoon. The environmental
effects of any enhancement or restoration plan for the lagoon would
have to addressed in detail in subsequent environmental review.
h. Comment; "We question the DEIR's conclusion that every potential
archaeological site be tested in Phase 1 in the detailed manner pre-
scribed. We feel that a more realistic approach would be to determine
the archaeological work scope when we are in better position to deter-
mine which sites will be affected by the Master Plan."
Response; Potential significant impacts to any of the archaeological
sites found on the subject property could occur as a result of develop-
ment activities. It is agreed that those sites which will not be affected
by the Master Plan (i.e., sites located in proposed natural open space)
would not require any mitigation and hence Phase I testing is not neces-
sary. However, with regard to archaeological sites that would poten-
tially be impacted by development activities, the cultural significance
of each site will not be known until subsurface testing is conducted. It
is desirable to discover which sites are unique and warrant either onsite
preservation or more extensive mitigation prior to formulation of spe-
cific plans and design of particular land use plans so that comprehensive
planning of the property can take this into account prior to adoption of
more specific plans. It is thus recommended that cultural sites located
in potential development areas of the property be tested to determine
their significance prior to adoption of more specific development plans.
Mitigation of the paleontological site on the property would require
monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist during the
construction phase. Mitigation of the two historical sites would likely
require photo documentation, mapping, and possibly excavation of trash
pits. Mitigation of these resources would occur prior to the develop-
ment stage of project implementation.
i. Comment; "On the basis of the evidence presented in the DEIR, we
have questions regarding the value of the riparian habitat in Parcel AE,
and whether the recommended buffer zone concept is appropriate for
this parcel. Also, we must question the accuracy of the 400+ acre fig-
ure reported in the DEIR for HPI's portion of Batiquitos Lagoon as being
too large."
c
Response; The sensitivity of the riparian habitat on Parcel AE and
justification for the recommended buffer zone are explained in detail in
Section m-F of the Draft EIR. The 400-acre figure for HPI's portion of
the Batiquitos Lagoon reported in the Draft EIR, which includes the
lagoon proper and also associated fringe wetland habitats, has been
verified by WESTEC Services.
j. Comment; "With or without the proposed jurisdictional changes, the
property would be developed. The result would be the gradual phasing
out of the interim agricultural uses now existing on portions of the
property as current urbanization continues. And with that urban devel-
opment would come an alteration of some of the visual characteristics
of the views from the vicinity of the site and other impacts which are
associated with any development. But without the proposed jurisdic-
tional changes, comprehensive planning and development would not
occur."
Response; Without the proposed jurisdictional changes, the property
would presumably be developed under existing County and City jurisdic-
tions and land use designations. This scenario is discussed under the
"No Project" alternative, page 6-1 of the Draft EIR. Development
under existing County LCP designations adjacent to Batquitos Lagoon
and Encinitas Creek would result in development of some agricultural
land and impacts to visual quality. However, the existing designations
require retention of a portion of the agricultural land , and impacts to
visual quality would presumably be less (based on assumptions at the
land use level) due to retention of more open space and lower density
development.
3. Leucadia County Water District;
a. Comment; "... your . . . statement: "Both the City of Carlsbad and
Leucadia County Water District have indicated they foresee no prob-
lems in providing onsite sewage disposal utilizing existing and proposed
facilities (Wojcik, 1983; Geiselhart, 1983).' makes no mention of agree-
ments between the City and the District which state that LCWD would
provide sewer service to Parcels AE and AF."
(
Response; According to Mr. Roger W. Greer, Director of Utilities for
the City of Carlsbad, it is not clear whether agreements between the
City and LCWD include Parcels AE and AF. Both the City and LCWD
have the facilities to serve the subject property, thus no significant
sewer service impacts are anticipated, as identified in the Draft EIR.
The issue of which agency will ultimately provide sewer service has not
been resolved and will likely be decided by LAFCO.
b. Comment; "In addition, if the City were to reneg on those agreements
and insist on providing sewer service, a sewer line would have to be
constructed from Parcels AE and AF north along El Camino Real. Such
construction would have an impact on the environment and this aspect
has not been addressed."
Response; The LCWD has constructed a sewer trunk line in El Camino
Real which would provide service capacity to Parcels AE and AF,
whereas sewer service by the City would require construction of a new
line. The new line required for City service would extend from the
existing sewer trunk, located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, south along
El Camino Real. Subsequent environmental review of required con-
struction activities would be required.
With regard to which agency will provide sewer service to the property,
several factors should be noted. The Leucadia County Water District
has submitted a sphere of influence study to LAFCO which includes
Parcels AE and AF. LAFCO will likely consider the proposal within the
next 2 to 3 months. Annexation of the sewer service for Parcels AE
and AF to the City of Carlsbad would place the entire Hunt Properties
holding under a common sewer agency, thereby facilitating comprehen-
sive planning and development of the property. As discussed in Sec-
tion ffl-A, future master plans for the property may involve density
transfers between the Green Valley Parcels (AE and AF) and the north
shore of the lagoon in order to protect sensitive resources of the
lagoon. Consolidation of sewer service under a common agency could
be a beneficial factor in achieving desirable land use planning for the
property. As noted above, the issue of which agency will provide sewer
service will likely be resolved by LAFCO.
c. Comment; "The EIR states: 'Development within Parcel AE and AF
alone would result in an estimated daily generation of 683,100 gallons
of sewage (494,838 more than currently allowed).1 The impact of the
increased sewage generated would have an effect on the City, however,
the impact on LCWD would not be a factor since the District's plans
have always included this area."
Response; As stated on page 3-60 of the Draft EIR, both agencies have
stated they have available capacity to provide sewer service to Par-
cels AE and AF (see above responses).
d. Comment; "We have no objection to the annexation of the property to
the City since agreements do exist which clearly establish LCWD as the
sewering agency of Parcels AE and AF."
Response; As noted above, the City of Carlsbad does not necessarily
agree that the existing agreements clearly establish LCWD as the
sewering agency of Parcels AE and AF. In any event, the decision of
which agency will provide sewer service to Parcels AE and AF will be
made by LAFCO.
4. Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation;
a. Comment; "... in addition to the master plan contents listed on
page 3-19, we feel that a comprehensive grading plan, including effec-
tive and proven erosion control measures, should also be required as
part of the master plan."
Response; The contents of the Master Plan, which is not within the
scope of this EIR, will be determined at a subsequent stage of environ-
mental review. However, it is agreed that a conceptual grading plan
which includes erosion control measures should be required as part of
the Master Plan.
b. Comment; "In developing the master plan, we also feel that every
effort should be made to place open space adjacent to the Lagoon
where possible, and to separate any necessary roadways and structures
from the Lagoon by buffer areas or by public access, limited develop-
ment areas."
Response; The necessity and justification for buffer zones adjacent to
Batiquitos Lagoon and the Encinitas Creek riparian zone is discussed in
various sections of the Draft EIR. The precise width of buffer zones
will be reviewed at subsequent stages of environmental review.
c. Comment; "Any increase in developmental intensity from current land
use designations, particularly residential, will likely lead to increased
pressure on Batiquitos Lagoon and its resources. For example, the
potential for a 74 percent increase in allowable dwelling units (from
5349 to 9284 as noted on page 3-22) that could be achieved under the
new designations is considered by the Foundation to be a significant
increase. Therefore, unless mitigated at the annexation and GPA level,
we would consider the impact from increased densities (particularly on
Parcels AE and AF) as potentially significant. ... we do not feel that
the mitigation offered for increased densities .. is strong enough to
allay our fears. We agree that a 'well-balanced mixture of land uses'
will help mitigate some of the effects of a more intense development.
However, we also feel that more should be done at this stage of the
process to insure that a) any increase in allowable densities will occur
in areas not adjacent to the Lagoon. . ."
Response; It is agreed that the increased density as a result of the
proposed jurisdictional changes would possibly lead to increased pres-
sure on Batiquitos Lagoon and its resources. However, the significance
of this increased density is impossible to delineate until a master devel-
opment plan is submitted. Potential environmental impacts to Bati-
quitos Lagoon are related in large part to the intensity and placement
of future land uses. Increased development setbacks from the lagoon
would lessen potential environmental impacts to biological, visual, and
water quality (erosion) aspects as discussed in the appropriate sections
of the Draft EIR. The formulation of the Master Development Plan
should consider the recommendations in these sections.
10
d. Comment! "The substitution of any City floodplain zoning which offers
less protection to biological habitats than that currently provided by
County designations will also intensify pressure on natural resources in
the Lagoon and its tributaries. Therefore, unless mitigated at the
annexation and GPA level, we would consider the impacts from . . . the
substitution of floodplain designations as potentially significant. We
believe that the floodplain mitigation offered on page 3-25 of the Draft
EIR adequately responds to this concern."
Response: As noted on page 3-20, no significant impacts related to
floodplain zoning are anticipated, since the application of City F-P
floodplain zoning is expected to be implemented by the City Council in
place of existing County floodplain zoning. Mitigation measures in Sec-
tion in-A, W-F, and III-H recommend that floodplain zones be pro-
tected through application of adequate floodplain zoning by the City.
e. Comment; "We feel that more should be done at this stage of the
process to insure that. . . b) impacts to the hydrology, water quality
and biology resources of Encinitas Creek and the Lagoon from increased
densities in Parcel AE will be efffectively mitigated, and c) a compre-
hensive grading and erosion control plan is provided as part of the
Master Plan."
Response; Please refer to mitigation in Sections in-F (Biology) and
ffl-H (Hydrology/Water Quality) which recommends that future devel-
opment be adequately set back from the Encinitas Creek floodplain in
response to biological and hydrology/water quality concerns. With
regard to a comprehensive grading and erosion control plan, please
refer to response 4a.
f. Comment; "TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, Pages 3-47 thru 3-50 - The
Existing Conditions portion of the traffic discussion should be expanded
to provide more information regarding Batiquitos Drive, i.e. its designa-
tion on the City's Circulation Element, its design capacity, and the
number of lanes planned. In addition, has the alignment shown on Fig-
ure 3-3 been firmly established, or can it be moved northward, farther
from the Lagoon, or possibly even eliminated altogether: As indicated
11
on Pages 3-50 and 3-57, the City is currently revising its Circulation
Element, therefore we would propose that sufficient flexibility be pro-
vided at this time to allow HPI and the City to fully examine the need,
size and best routing for this roadway, taking into account not only
traffic flow but also environmental considerations, and to incorporate
an optimal solution into the Master Plan."
Response; Batiquitos Drive is shown on the Carlsbad General Plan Cir-
culation Element as a secondary arterial, with 4 lanes and a design
capacity of 20,000 ADT. The General Plan alignment is a generalized
alignment anticipated to be necessary in response to future traffic
demands. The precise alignment is not finalized and can be moved,
although the City will likely require its construction in an alignment
similar to that shown in the General Plan. The City will approve the
precise alignment at subsequent stages of environmental review.
g. Comment; "In addition to these (biological impacts stated in the Draft
EIR), we also feel that the potential for erosion and sediment transport
into the Lagoon during and following periods of earthwork could have an
adverse effect on the biological resources of the Lagoon unless ade-
quately mitigated. We recognize that more information regarding
actual development plans will be needed before a precise estimate of
these potential impacts can be made, and effective mitigation pro-
posed. However, we feel that it is important that these concerns be
spelled out in this annexation and GPA level EIR so that they can be
fully considered and, if possible, fully mitigated at the Master Plan
level."
Response; It is agreed that the biological resources of Batiquitos
Lagoon would be adversely affected if significant erosion and subse-
quent transport of sediment into the Lagoon basin were to occur as a
result of onsite construction activities. Erosion and sedimentation
impacts are discussed in Section 111-14: Hydrology/Water Quality. With
regard to an erosion control plan, please refer to response 4a.
h. Comment; "GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Page 3-125 - In addition to the
mitigation proposed, we also feel that any onsite soils investigation
12
should include estimates of sediment transport from the individual par-
cels into downstream watercourses and ultimately into Batiquitos
Lagoon, along with a recommended plan for controlling or mitigating
potentially adverse effects."
Response; It is agreed that future onsite soils investigations should
discuss erosion potential and an estimate of sediment transport as a
result of grading activities. The conceptual grading and erosion control
plan should incorporate any applicable recommendations of onsite soils
investigations.
i. Comment; "HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY, Page 3-144 - We recog-
nize that specific measures to maintain the water level of the Lagoon
and control the quality of its waters have not been proposed as part of
the current prezone, annexation and GPA application. It is likely that
such measures will be developed over the next several months, however,
and will probably be included as part of the Master Development Plan
for the properties. If so, we would recommend that, in addition to any
techniques currently under consideration, the possible use of reclaimed
wastewater from upstream reclamation plants also be explored as a
possible source of water to supplement natural flows into the Lagoon."
Response; This comment is noted. Any thorough study regarding
restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon should at least consider all possible
sources of water necessary to maintain adequate levels in the Lagoon,
including the possible use of reclaimed wastewater.
j. Comment; "ALTERNATIVES, Page 6-5 - We agree with the statement
on the top of this page regarding the effectiveness of future planning
and restoration of the Lagoon if it were under a single jurisdiction ....
Because this application deals only with the HPI land, however, the
optimal boundaries of such an alternative are not totally clear. .. ."
Response; Please refer to Alternative D in Section VI. This alternative
would include all of the remaining unincorporated parcels within Bati-
quitos Lagoon not located within the project boundaries as part of the
annexation request. Also, refer to response 6(g).
13
5. Costa Real Municipal Water District!
a. Comment; "We believe that a more appropriate statement that can be
made about water service is to emphasize that the utilization of all
existing facilities as well as the construction of the necessary new
facilities, including pipelines, pressure-regulating stations and reser-
voirs, all combined will be appropriate in order that water service can
be provided to the entire development area at the level that is deter-
mined satisfactory from the standpoint of the Water District."
Response; This coment expands upon the statement in the EIR that the
District has adequate facilities to serve the project site.
b. Comment; "... the financial responsibilities and obligations on the
part of the development as well as the District in general have become
better defined in terms of the recently adopted major facilities pro-
gram and its attendant financial program involving the estabishment of
the major facilities charge."
Response; This comment is noted. Financial aspects of the provision of
water service will be addressed at the development stage of project
implementation.
c. Comment; "... the entire development area within the District can be
provided with an adequate supply of water provided all of the necessary
public water system facilities as identified in our current adopted mas-
ter plans are developed on a timely basis to be phased with the develop-
ment needs of the entire area of the District westerly of El Camino
Real and south of Palomar Airport Road. At the present time, the
District is conducting an extensive master plan evaluation of the entire
20,000-acre area, which includes the City of Carlsbad-Water Depart-
ment, so that with its completion and adoption now scheduled for Jan-
uary 1984, there will be in place an up-to-date and functional plan that
can be utilized."
Response; This comment is noted. See above responses.
6. California Coastal Commission;
a. Comment; "The Coastal Commission has approved (certified) the
County of San Diego San Dieguito Local Coastal program (LCP) Land
14
Use Plan and the Carlsbad Mello I Segment LCP. These two LCPs
provide the Coastal Commission adopted land use controls which affect
the Hunt Properties and which are used, along with Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act, to make all permit decisions."
Response; This comment is hereby noted. The applicable portions of
both LCPs are discussed in Section in-A: Land Use.
b. Comment; "In discussions with project representatives, Coastal Com-
mission staff has indicated that there is flexibility with regards to den-
sities, intensities, and types of use and that through the master plan
process we would be willing to consider modifications to the LCP desig-
nations. However, in none of the discussions was it indicated that por-
tions of Batiquitos Lagoon could be filled or altered (other than for
wildlife enhancement); nor, could significant agricultural areas be con-
verted to urban uses beyond that permitted in the certified LCPs."
Response; The discretionary actions being reviewed at this time
include a rezone, annexation, and General Plan Amendment. Potential
conflicts with Coastal Commission policies as they relate to proposed
land use changes are discussed on pages 3-23 through 3-25 of the Draft
EIR, and in other sections of the Draft EIR as appropriate. Potential
impacts with regard to filling of Batiquitos Lagoon are discussed in
Sections III-F: Biological Resources and m-H: Hydrology/Water Qual-
ity. Land use impacts with regard to preservation of agricultural land
are discussed in Sections III-A: Land Use and III-B: Agriculture.
c. Comment; "With regards to the proposed annexation and prezone, we
understand that such action would facilitiate ultimate development of
the property under a master development plan, thereby allowing com-
prehensive planning for the entire holding. While such annexation and
prezone need not necessarily conflict with the certified LCPs, it cer-
tainly could be misconstrued by persons not familiar with the require-
ments of the LCPs."
Response; Prior to development of the property, the applicant must
submit the Master Plan to the Coastal Commission as an amendment to
the adopted San Dieguito LCP land use designations and the Carlsbad
15
Mellol Segment LCP land use designations. The Coastal Commission
will review a proposed Master Plan for its consistency with the policies
of these LCPs, as noted throughout this letter. The Master Plan stage
of environmental review is outside the scope of this EIR, since the EIR
is directly concerned with the environmental impacts of the proposed
rezone, annexation and GPA.
d. Comment; "The draft conceptual plan which the property owners have
developed confirms our concerns with the proposed annexation and pre-
zone. The conceptual plan ignores the issue of maintaining agricultural
land on a long-term basis and proposes some fill within Batiquitos
Lagoon. Additionally, the conceptual plan does not respect the need to
maintain steep slope areas currently covered by native vegetation in an
undisturbed state."
Response; Please refer to Alternative E in Section VI for a discussion
of the applicant's conceptual plan. The conceptual plan is not under
discretionary review at this time.
e. Comment; "We would recommend, that if the City is going to approve
the annexation and prezone, that the following stipulations be a part of
the approval:
a) That no filling of Batiquitos Lagoon be permitted as part of any
future master planning effort;
b) That consistent with the certified San Dieguito LCP Land Use
Plan and the Carlsbad Mello I Segment LCP, that the agricul-
tural areas north of the lagoon be designated for long-term con-
tinued or renewed agricultural use."
Response; Filling of the lagoon as part of a future development plan is
not within the scope of the discretionary actions under review at this
time, although it is noted that this recommendation is supported by the
floodplain protection of the lagoon advocated in the Draft EIR. The
proposed land use designations for the project do not include enough
acreage of open space or other designations which would ensure reten-
tion of agricultural land, although the proposed designations do not
necessarily preclude retention of agricultural land. The land use
16
conflict with Coastal Commission policies could only be mitigated at
the GPA stage by a project redesign which includes an appropriate
designation to ensure long-term continued use of agricultural land.
f. Comment; "We would further recommend that the City inform the
property owners of the importance and need to retain steep sloping
(over 20 percent gradient), native vegetated lands when developing a
master plan for the property."
Response; This issue will be addressed at the Master Plan stage of
environmental review.
7. Local Agency Formation Commisison
a. Comment; "The Draft EIR focuses on the future annexation or reor-
ganization, prezone and GPA. Several additional actions may also be
required, and should be included in the project description and any
applicable sections in the Draft EIR: sphere of influence amendment;
annexation to Leucadia County Water District; detachment from the
Encinitas Fire Protection District; etc.,"
Response; The actions mentioned in this comment were inadvertantly
omitted from the project description, but are clearly described in the
impact analysis of the Draft EIR. The Carlsbad sphere of influence is
proposed to be amended to include parcels AE and AF. The potential
impacts of annexation of these unincorporated parcels is fully discussed
in Section n-A; Land Use, and m-C; Fiscal Impacts. It is not known at
this time if the property will be annexed to the Leucadia County Water
District (see above comments and responses from LCWD). As noted on
Page 3-60, both the City of Carlsbad and the LCWD have the desire and
adequate capacity to provide sewer service to unincorporated Par-
cels AE and AF. Thus, the annexation to LCWD is not necessarily a
discretionary action since sewer service may be provided by the City.
Provision of sewer service will be decided by LAFCO during considera-
tion of the annexation request. Detachment from the Encinitas Fire
Protection District is discussed in Section in-E. As noted on Page 3-73
of the Draft EIR, detachment of approximately 24 acres of land cur-
rently within the legal boundaries of the Encinitas Fire Protection Dis-
trict would occur as a result of the project, resulting in a loss of
17
revenue from the District. As noted on page 3-73, the Carlsbad Fire
Department does not anticipate any problems in adequately serving the
property.
b. Comment; "The Draft EIR is based on three development scenarios.
The Draft EIR could more fully discuss how these optional plans corres-
pond with the property owners' preliminary development plans;"
Response; In order to quantify anticipated impacts of the project on
such issues as traffic, fiscal considerations, public services, and air
quality, three development assumptions or scenarios were discussed
within the EIR. These scenarios were based on potential development
at varying densities under the proposed land uses. The property owners'
conceptual plan (see Alternative E in Section 6) is not considered in
more detail since it is not a discretionary action under review at this
time. The conceptual development plan is a preliminary plan that is
subject to major changes. Detailed environmental review of a develop-
ment plan will be required at a later date.
c. Comment; "The Draft EIR specifies that Carlsbad would apply a Flood
Protection overlay zone to a portion of the reorganization area cur-
rently designated FP (floodplain). However, the report, in another sec-
tion, specifies that the area would only be considered for FP desig-
nation based on engineering studies. Perhaps the EIR should be more
consistent;"
Response; As stated on Page 3-19, the F-P Floodplain Overlay Zone
will be applied to those areas within the project area which, at the
discretion of the City Council after consideration of documented and
factual data based upon flood experience or engineering studies, are
subject to flooding and inundation. It is anticipated that the F-P zone
will be applied directly to the 100-year floodplain zone now covered by
County zoning, thus, no impact is anticipated. However, it is recog-
nized in the draft EIR that the application of this zoning is not assured.
The mitigation for Section III-A, Land Use, states that the floodplain
areas of Batiquitos Lagoon and Encinitas Creek should be preserved in
18
accordance with recommendations regarding biology and hydrology
issues discussed in Section III-F and in-H respectively.
d. Comment: "The Draft EIR specifies that Carlsbad has not adopted the
Mello Bill LCP and that project development would require a LC per-
mit. The Draft EIR should clearly explain what effect annexation
(changes in jurisdiction from County to City) of territory covered by
the San Dieguito LCP which has been incorporated into the San Die-
guito Community Plan, would have on the current LCP designation;"
Response; Consistency of the unincorporated parcels of the proposed
project with the designations of the adopted County LCP will be con-
sidered during the Coastal Commission review of the project. Upon
approval of a master development plan for the property, the Coastal
Commission would amend the Carlsbad LCP to include the portions of
the property formerly within County jurisdiction. For further explana-
tion, please refer to the Coastal Commission letter of comment and
responses.
e. Comment; "How relevant is the statement that agricultural impacts
could be mitigated through a future master plan if preliminary develop-
ment plans for the area do not provide for agricultural preservation?"
Response; As noted on page 3-40, the potential exists for a significant
environmental impact to agricultural resources based on Coastal Com-
mission, County, and LAFCO policies since retention of agricultural
land is not assured by the proposed land uses at this stage of the project
(i.e., rezone, general plan amendment). The impact to agricultural
resources can be mitigated at the Master Plan Stage if agricultural land
is preserved within the plan. The conceptual development plan is not
under discretionary review at this time.
f. Comment; "The Draft EIR specifies that the improvement of SA 680
would be necessary to support project development, and that County
approval would be necessary before the road could be constructed.
Could the City require approval of a County road as a condition of
development? The Draft EIR should more fully discuss the status/
19
history and maintenance of SA 680. The Draft EIR should also more
fully discuss the impact of this road improvement on surrounding unin-
corporated lands, particularly the Ecke agricultural preserve to the
west and south of the Green Valley section of the proposed annexation."
Response; SA 680 is shown on the County's General Plan as a 4-lane,
undivided collector road, with right-of-way protection for a primary
arterial. This controversial roadway was first planned about
10-15 years ago, and has been included and deleted from the County
Circulation Element several times. SA 680 extends from Leucadia
Boulevard to the City of Poway. Portions of this roadway near Poway
and in the Olivenhain Valley are under construction at the planned
width.
The City of Carlsbad cannot require the construction of a road that is
outside their jurisdiction as a condition of approval for a development
project. The only means the City has of ensuring that SA 680 is avail-
able to adequately mitigate the project is to not approve development
until the roadway is approved by the County.
The environmental impacts of the roadway have been previously
addressed in the following documents:
• Supplemental Draft EIR, San Dieguito Circulation Element, GPA
81-01, prepared by County of San Diego, Dept. of Planning and
Land Use, May 1981.
• Supplemental Draft EIR, San Dieguito Circulation Element, GPA
80-Ce, prepared by County of San Diego, July 1980.
• Draft EIR for SA 680 Revision, prepared by County of San Diego,
June 1979.
g. Comment; "The inclusion of the remaining portion of Batiquitos Lagoon
as a potential project alternative should be considered, as it would help
provide the environmental review necessary should LAFCO decide to
modify the reorganization boundaries. The Draft EIR should also more
20
clearly discuss private property north of the Lagoon that may need to
be included in the proposed reorgnization to avoid creating a county
island, if LAFCO were to modify the annexation boundaries."
Response; The annexation of the entire Batiquitos Lagoon Basin is dis-
cussed as a project alternative in Section 6 of the Draft EIR. It is
noted on Page 6-5 of the Draft EIR that this alternative can be imple-
mented concurrently with the proposed actions without significantly
affecting the environmental review of the current proposal. However,
annexation of parcels outside the project boundaries is not within the
scope of this document and would require additional environmental
review.
The majority of the unincorporated parcels within and immediately
adjacent to the lagoon are owned by the State of California. The only
other parcels of concern are the Savage parcels on both sides of 1-5
north of the lagoon, a small triangular parcel north of La Costa Avenue
and east of El Camino Real, and bluff top parcels south of the lagoon
and west of 1-5. The latter parcels are located adjacent to the lagoon,
but are buffered by a relatively steep slope alongside the lagoon.
Annexation of these parcels is not as essential since sensitive habitat is
not involved and a topographical buffer exists. These parcels are out-
side the Carlsbad sphere of influence. The small parcels under the
other two ownerships are located in wetland areas at the lagoon edge
and are within the Carlsbad sphere of influence. These parcels should
be included within the comprehensive annexation scheme alternative.
As noted above, discretionary review for annexation of these parcels is
not within the scope of this document.
The proposed annexation will not create any additional County islands.
The project includes annexation of a portion (Parcel AC) of a large
unincorporated island east of Parcel BB along El Camino Real (see Fig-
ure 2-3). No new island is being created, although most of the existing
island will remain. The two parcels alongside 1-5, north of the lagoon,
will represent unincorporated upland parcels that are bounded by upland
21
property within the City. The parcels would, however, be contiguous
with unincorporated portions of the lagoon.
8. California Department of Fish and Game
a. Comment! "We recommend that the following measures be included in
the project: All riparian areas should be retained in their natural
state."
Response; Riparian areas, shown on Figure 3-7, page 3-81, are located
within the Encinitas Creek floodplain. The recommendation of the
Biology section of the EIR (page 3-114), that the riparian habitat and an
effective buffer zone be preserved, concurs with the recommendation
of the Department of Fish and Game. The preservation of the riparian
zone is recommended to occur through the application of a floodplain
zoning designation, as discussed in Section III-A: Land Use."
b. Comment; "Slopes over 25 percent containing coastal sage scrub should
also be preserved."
Response; Coastal sage scrub, discussed in Section III-F, Biological
Resources, is a native habitat scattered over much of the slopes north
of the lagoon in the western sector of the property. This vegetative
community provides habitat for a declining bird species, the Black-
tailed Gnatcatcher. The Draft EIR (pages 3-115) states that the Master
Plan development of the property north of the lagoon should maintain
as much natural, scrub-covered slope as possible. The Master Plan for
the property will undergo subsequent environmental review, at which
time the preservation of this habitat will be considered.
c. Comment; "Development which would cause wetland fill or would
cause increased sedimentation into wetlands should be prohibited."
Response; The Draft EIR states, on page 3-112, that any filling of the
lagoon would be considered a significant adverse effect. As noted
above, the Draft EIR recommends preservation of lagoon habitats and
the establishment of an effective buffer zone. Increased sedimentation
into wetlands would be considered a significant adverse effect of onsite
22
development projects. Future environmental reviews of specific devel-
opment proposals will consider impacts from sedimentation (also, see
Response 4a).
d. Comment: "... diversion of the natural flow or changes in the chan-
nel, bed, or banks of any river, stream or lake must include notification
to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in Section 1603 of
the Fish and Game Code."
Response; This comment is noted. Any required permits from the Fish
and Game for streambed alteration must be secured by the applicant
prior to construction activities. This will occur at a subsequent stage
of project implementation.
9. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
a< Comment; "I agree with the conclusion that archaeological testing is
not necessary at this phase (i.e., annexation); however, if it is deter-
mined that the sites will be impacted, a determination of their impor-
tance will be necessary."
Response; This comment is consistent with recommended mitigation in
the Draft EIR. Please also see Response 2h.
b. Comment; "... I disagree with some of the Phase I mitigation mea-
sures. If the archaeological sites can be avoided testing will not be
necessary. Avoidance should include provision as to how the sites will
be preserved in the future. For those sites which cannot be avoided,
testing may be necessary."
Response; It is agreed that testing is not necessary if archaeological
sites can be avoided. Assurance of the continued preservation of
archaeological sites would be required through the implementation of
an open space easement or other land use restriction applied at a subse-
quent phase of environmental review. Preliminary testing of other sites
is necessary to determine their significance prior to development.
c. Comment; "I cannot tell from the information provided whether testing
of all the sites is warranted. For example, based on the information
provided, I doubt whether testing of the historic sites would provide the
types of information necessary to determine their importance."
23
Response; Based on available information, archaeological sites that
would be affected by development activities should be tested to deter-
mine their significance. The historical sites would not need to be
tested through a Phase I test program. It has been determined, based
on available information for the historical sites, that a mitigation pro-
gram consisting of photodocumentation, mapping, and possible excava-
tion of trash pits is all that is necessary to mitigate these sites. Miti-
gation of the paleontological site would require monitoring of grading
activities by a qualified paleontologist. These mitigation programs
would be detailed at a subsequent stage of environment review.
10. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District II
a. Comment; "The EIR has not adequately analyzed the impact on Inter-
state Route 5. Page 3-55 states that no significant adverse impacts
along Interstate 5 are anticipated provided the interchanges are built
out at the master planned widths. That conclusion assumes that the
freeway itself can accept the great volume of additional traffic gen-
erated through these interchanges by the proposed project. In the fore-
seeable future, however, the main lanes of Interstate 5 will be over-
loaded. Ramp metering will probably be needed and additional
on-ramps, if constructed, would probably be for high-occupancy vehi-
cles. The traffic impacts of the proposed project are, therefore, likely
to be more severe than anticipated in the EIR and less easily miti-
gated."
Response; It is agreed that full buildout of the project site would con-
tribute to anticipated congestion problems on the main lanes of Inter-
state 5. This is a cumulative adverse impact of the project. The
impact of full buildout assuming the worst case traffic scenario would
result in more direct impacts on the actual interchanges, which is
where the most severe congestion problems first occur. It was deter-
mined that mitigation of congestion at the interchanges is necessary, as
noted on page 3-56. Traffic impacts to the main lanes of Interstate 5
from the proposed project are not considered severe enough to require
mitigation by the developer.
24
b. Comment; "Mitigation measures such as those proposed on page 3-56
will require funding by local government or project sponsors. Improve-
ments to Interstate 5 will require federal environmental documents
adequate for approval by the Federal Highway Administration."
Response; This comment is hereby noted. Funding and environmental
review for future revisions to Interstate 5 will be required at sub-
sequent stages of project development.
11. California Department of Water Resources
a. Comment; The Department of Water Resources listed recommenda-
tions related to water conservation and flood damage prevention.
Response; The recommendations provided by the Department of Water
Resources are their standard mitigation measures which are applicable
at the development stage of project implementation. These measures
will be considered at subsequent stages of environmental review related
to actual development proposals.
12. California Air Resources Board
a. Comment; 'Information concerning California air quality standards
included in Table 3-19 needs to be updated. The State Air Resources
Board has adopted new standards for Carbon Monoxide and "inhalable"
particulate matter."
Response; The California air quality standard for carbon monoxide of
40 ppm listed in Table 3-19 should be changed to 20 ppm. The
q100 yg/m California standard for suspended particulate matter should
obe changed to 50 ug/m and should apply only to "inhalable" particles,
i.e., those particles less than 10 ym aerodynamic diameter. Neither of
these revisions significantly alters the conclusions of the air quality
analysis in the Draft EIR.
b. Comment; "We suggest the information on RAQS development densi-
ties and trip generation totals (bottom of page 3-150) be added to
Table 3-8, 'TRAFFIC GENERATION BY PARCEL' (page 3-51)."
Response; Table 3-8 shows traffic generated by development assuming
existing land use designations and two scenarios which assume develop-
ment under the proposed land use designations. This table is included in
the traffic section and is used to indicate traffic generation under
potential development scenarios.
25
Development at the densities assumed in the RAQS alternative dis-
cussed on page 150 is not useful for comparison of traffic impacts since
it does not reflect existing allowable densities. The RAQS assumptions
should only be used to determine the compliance of the project with the
RAQS, and not for evaluating traffic impacts. A comparison of the
anticipated emissions (assuming full buildout of the property) between
the RAQS density assumptions, the existing land use designation
assumption, and the proposed maximum density assumption is clearly
stated on page 151.
c. Comment; "We feel the DEIR overestimates the potential air quality
impact of the "most likely" development alternative. We do not agree
with the DEIR's assumption that trips associated with existing zoning
should be added to the total trips projected for any other alternative
(Worksheet 8, Appendix C, page C-5)."
Response; Vehicle emissions in Table 3-20 were calculated on Work-
sheet #8 in Appendix C for the "worst case" development scenario. The
basis for vehicle emissions is the number of trips generated assuming
full development of the property. The number of vehicle trips per day
(185,000) used in Worksheet #8 is not correct. The number which should
be used is 173,350, which is the traffic generated assuming full buildout
of the property under the worst case scenario (see Table 3-8,
page 3-51). The figures in Table 3-20 should be revised as shown below,
which reduces the overall emissions generated by the project by less
than 10 percent.
26
"REVISED"
Table 3-20
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
(TONS/YEAR)
Emission
Source
Vehicles
Power
Generation
Fireplace
Emissions
Natural Gas
Consumption
Total
Hydro-
carbons
633.98
—
5.44
—
639.42
Carbon
Monoxide
5,391.99
38.98
130.20
12.09
5,573.26
Oxides of
Nitrogen
512.96
278.27
1.09
60.57
852.89
Sulfur
Dioxide
—
4.16
—
0.36
4.52
Total
Suspended
Partic-
ulates
—
77.94
21.70
6.06
105.70
The comment regarding the "most likely" development alternative pre-
sumably refers to the anticipated traffic generation of the "likely case"
development scenario shown in Table 3-8. The "likely case" scenario
assumes a mixture of residential, commercial, and office uses on the
Combination District parcels, whereas the "worst case" assumes all
commercial. The "likely case" scenario was not used in the air quality
analysis, but rather was used as a mid-range value to evaluate traffic
impacts.
d. Comment; "We suggest the final environmental impact report (FEIR)
compare buildout emissions from the RAQS assumptions and the three
alternative levels of development."
Response; This comparison is provided on page 3-151 of the Draft EIR.
The proposed project assuming full buildout under the worst case scen-
ario would result in roughly 4 to 5 times greater emisions than fore-
casted using the RAQS assumptions. Full buildout under existing land
use designations would result in an increase of 2 to 2-1/2 times greater
than the forecasted emissions. Emissions generated assuming full
27
buildout under the "likely case" scenario would fall between the existing
and worst case scenarios (between three and four times greater than
forecasted).
e. Comment; "The traffic analysis in Appendix B of the DEIR contains a
recommendation that transportation systems management (TSM)
actions be implemented where significant acreage is devoted to office
and commercial uses (page B-16). Air quality, as well as future mobil-
ity, would be supported by the consultant's recommended strategy:
In general the proposed General Plan Amendment
can be accommodated provided adequate zoning and
development controls are included to assure the mix
of land use in the combination zones does not over-
tax the circulation system (emphasis added).
The air quality section in the DEIR does not identify mitigation actions
which would implement this recommendation. Attainment of clean air
standards through the RAQS depends on the inclusion of the regionally-
adopted TSM measures within local plans and projects. This principle is
especially critical when the proposed rezoning would result in genera-
tion of more vehicle trip emissions than assumed in the RAQS."
Response: As noted on page 3-152 and 3-153 of the Draft EIR, "the
obvious and most effective measure which would reduce emissions is to
limit the density of development." This requires a project redesign.
The adoption of TSM measures would not occur until the Master Plan or
development plan stage of environmental review. A condensed listing
of TSM measures is presented under the "operation" heading on
page 3-153. It should be noted that these measures are only applicable
at subsequent stages of environmental review. The letter comment (see
attached) includes a more detailed listing of TSM measures that should
be considered during subsequent planning for the property.
28
LEUCADIA TOWN COUNCIL
Post Office Box 2193
Leucadia, California 92024
August 26, 1983
Mr. Bill Hoffman
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Hunt Properties Annexation
DEIR (83-2)
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Because of our adjacent location to much of the proposed annexed property,
it is appropriate the Leucadia Encinitas Town Council review this DEIR.
After careful study, we wish to express special concern regarding impacts
on current San Dieguito Community Plan and existing Local Coastal Plan
provisions. The change to the Planned Community designation would
allow much greater density (74% according to the DEIR) and less protection
of sensitive habitat. Inevitable consequences of "worst case" develop-
ment include severe degrodation of air quality, traffic impacts and
biological resources.
Negative impacts can be mitigated by adoption by the City of Carlsbad
of lower density development designations, as outlined in Project
Alternative C (p b-4). The LETC urges the City Council to give serious
consideration to this alternative.
A second major point involves insistance on natural buffer zones for
both Batiquitos Lagoon and the riparian habitat of Encinitas Creek.
To permit concrete channels and manmade structures to act as buffers
would greatly decrease the aesthetic and habitat qualities of these
two very sensitive areas.
Finally, we extend appreciation to Carlsbad for requiring a master
plan approach to these large parcels of land. Unity of development
goals, based on obvious topography constraints, and responsiveness
to area-wide needs and concerns, should result in a better final product
for the region.
Sincerely, ^,
RICK SHEA
President
RS:kc
29
HPI
DEVELOPMENT
CO.
August 23, 1983
Mr/Mike,Holzmiller
Land Use Planning .Dep^rtinent'&a-' •'
As-you know, HPI Development Company owns 1740 acres of property ; located
in the southwest guadrant of the City of Carlsbad which^ we intend to develop
into a quality residential-resort community. ^.: .
Experts predict that over-the next quarter-century, the Pacific Rim; that
geographic area surrounding the shore of the-Pacific Ocean,; will become an ?
increasingly important;:region in terms of international commerce and/influence.
Along>:with the City oriCarlsbad, we .would like^to, become a part ofVthat ; ;-,ri
-,;. special* and importantiwoiHdJ;community;=and we'lire looking forward?tO;?working;-4h^K
with, ybu.to- bring^ittt^eality^ : Accordingly i?|HRl ,' thought it appropriate to " i' : •; "
"" name*ourr resortv«mmmifVi|te^ and ^sor^'^^^-.}\-'4:\-.^^\"—. ., „. „ J!Mi8^i(iiii^H^^We: have;: brought%om boarcftani expert consultant) team to explore innovative-^1 :;; it r- ^'•^
;^step;in-realizing'"-sucfieai;,Master? P|anv'*we^submitted a proposal
months ago fort jurisdictionjaifechari^ property which:Vwel hope
you:wiir approve.4:We;hav*e|;teyi Impact Report
[convey our comments-
.Our property' consists-of ^several parcels;, in both; City and County jurisdictions.:
Also, tt includes aisubstantiar portion of the Batiquitos Lagoon and almost all
its major tributaries. Ini order to consolidate the property under a single
jurisdiction so that a future:community within the tributary areas to. the lagoon
can be comprehensively planned, we are proposing annexation of the parcels
of our property now in the County to the City of Carlsbad. In that way, we
would be able to work with you on the entire property to develop a Master
Plan which would be responsive to both environmental concerns and the needs
of your City. We are pleased to read that the Draft Environmental Impact Report
agrees that the comprehensive master planning of our property is a beneficial
effect of our proposed project.
. c! 1970 North El Camino Real
Mr. Mike HoJzmiller -2- August 23, 1983
Secondly, in order to permit flexibility in master planning the more environ- -_-,..
mentally .sensitive areas of the? property, we arei requesting pre-zoning ,
Planned Community (or PC);;on.all the parcels that meet the City's require-
ments for PC, Most of our property which is in the City of Carlsbad is " •"'', -;'-|'
already zoned Planned Community and extension of this zoning to the
remainder of the property (in the County area) would allow the kind of
comprehensive planning and development we fee! is necessary in this j~
environmentally sensitive areav Our understanding is that the purpose of ^ -•
the Planned Community Zone*is. to encourage creative, imaginative and com- , •
prehensive planning; and* development of large tracts of land in accordance -' K <
with aiMaster: Plaa^^ln&lMorkinc^-^Uh^you and thft-City's planning staff, just
^trip*generatR>R-as-.recamira Impact'Report, we
are^'proposing-ar^amendmenttto4the5rl_and Use Element of;the City's; General
»>
*arprop6sing^ananiendnient^ Use Element of;the City
t Plan^so-that these parcels cam become "Combination Districts." As such>;v ,
^commercial and office emptoymentfcenters and residential could be; located.:on
•^thefparcefs: of the propertyrfwh|ch!^are>adjacentito- existing or planned -major:
streetsiu With your, help^ ,a Master,Plan or Specific Plan can be developed
which defines the precise-zoning for these parcels to the City's satisfaction.
In general, the above constitutes the jurisdictional and related changes we
have proposed and briefly explains why we believe they are beneficial"to
the master planning of the total property and ultimately to the City of
Carlsbad. These jurisdictional changes are also the "Proposed Project" dis-
cussed'in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There are a number of
general comments we. would like to make regarding the stated potential impacts
of a> ^future development, of the -property:.-.,, ,..,.;, ... .•-'.•& -.', ivii^i; ^v^^ ;
i4?r$^£v*;^
,°v {^Because no-development plans or master plans have been submitted as ':'.^•.•..••.;;,•':•..;••
^t*^a*partQfiau&cwren£^plrQposa['*.(tf\G California Environmental Quality; ;:' ^"Y;^'
c^!'rAct?iCuidelines;irequiretthat /theiDEIR discuss the potential impacts of i^-WS,:
the*maximum possible^ development of the property. We bel ieve that
are highly-speculative since the maximum possible^
,;. :i.\*
^;j-j development under the- proposed jurisdictional changes may not actually
-\.'rt|vpccur;T, In generalvVdevelopment; Ts likely to> be in the mid-range of f,
^^"vrP«n'ttec* dens^»es«l?Tn®^P'tyc'Pffr's':>«|d would ultimately determine
ipoint'outlthatrthe! DEI Restates that most of the impacts
:': associated'with'a future development of the.-property are either not.. >'.;;;i::'•"•
l'>: significant oc* can -.be .mitigated during the planning and/or construction , V
'•^'phases of the project i' We concur with this finding. A number" of :,- -
; recommended measures to accomplish this mitigation are also discussed. !
We would like to assure you that by working with our consultant, team
and the City, we intend to do just that. ';"] ,,r
0 Ultimately, when development does occur, it will occur gradually-over a
long period of time of perhaps 10 to 20 years. Consequently, the City
would have time to program these mitigation measures in a timely manner
since the impacts associated with each development phase could be more
v.- accurately assessed. ;< -: ':•,-.•..-fh'-"^ • • .^'O'-N • " . '• •' .. ••",:•:' . ;!-i^;- _ '^-,:::^--.'
Mr. Mike Holzmiller August 23, 1983
Without the benefit of the results of our consultant team's studies which are
still in process, it is difficult to comment in depth with regard to some of
the specific statements made in the DEIR. In general, however, we offer
the following: ^;i^: ;!K
- • • _-* ]j-.j r-vjl-^^r*;.-^ i. '* * : .' . - • •
0 The DEtR overstates-the^project's-contribution to impacts on the air
quality in the San Diego-region.:''Although technological advances in
emission controls are .too--speculative to evaluate over the probable
10- to 20-year, buildoutiof; the property, they are certain to occur.
These are not: considered Mm-the* DEIR.
0 The development/of Parcel-AE would, only contribute to a number of-
existing factorsiwhich^already-i-tend to induce growth on the land to •
"l - -
; The- areaijs^designatedlas -;a4T98S Future- Urbanizing Area;'in
Srrflft -'SA? 68C*jiga*!p|amje^i^ti!^ access
•*« :'£X * i' - - ' . r'Xrv.;..-! . -, -'• •-•'* - •'- t^-'i^foHTW^jaJ^ji-^r^irti.-fet.. .4. ••• 4- *".V*M- H w-t. •' •* . .: . .- .J:.-";---;^*j:r/i----!----::V^ .;,.; :; .\.t •- • •: !:;;i;;::
i;^^; The proVertyi'sbutrcfoffParcel- AEtfronts:.a major arterial. '"'-';. -.'K '-'»wi->^* •• • .--.'-»;>..-^ ...ij--^ *-.*. ;;N f-n -v^iVl"..?. :i,u.-l J..4£.—ii:n.*w.. .' . „ ^ : i -•.-.* - •- - - <„,,..
—-!'^ The property; south;of ••Parcel.'AE~ is bounded by commercial
:,..:.. development to the-south^;>! ; - -• - •
—• Regional growth will continue..
'.:—-.'•'•";' Market?forces- will continue to attempt to meet demand.
'ii{S,-.'i.^':i^b^;:-,:.'.>-5-^i-«v•.-U-i^rj-iJ J^Si^JiiS-iSf; \i :
• •-.'.•isSf**-"'"^ W-'
;^g|*fii?^-.':
. .•.Ti—^i-i-;:-"^:-:.-
The? DEIR states,-that .the, necessity ;of .a permanently open tidal mouth is a
Tdesirable_element;.of^any;^Iagoon«restoration-effort. Although there^seems t
: be^general agreement thatithe- major, problem facing the lagoon :is a 1 lack- of .--i
•'• sea':
. hows,
r.lt'il^fv>«s-^:,--.it'.^-ICJv
» *-•-.-*-'??"m~'. ° ''$'.
Recent preliminary^evaluatiohs 6f-"'our consultant team regarding the^ concept J.-
pf1bpeningHh^iagdohwto--:theocean4reveal& significant associated environ-
mental andi-ecbnomic;impacts.!. Ultimately"/i^pf course,, the restoration: and - - '
enhancementiof JBatiquitos Lagooni-; will: be ;resolved at the master planning ? V'*
•stages of-therprbject-among the-many participating public agencies and
;We;:would'Uke'5'to^assur(e^(yoUi:that:we are aware of the sensitive, nature of the
'cultural and: biological resources or the property as a result of-our consultant
"team's preliminary-investigations^: However,.; we question the DElR's conclu-
• sion that every;potential archeologicaI site be;tested in Phase I in/the de-
taiied manneV prescribed. We ;feel that a more realistic approach would be to
determine the archeological work scope when we are in a better position to
determine which sites will be affected by the Master Plan.
Mr. Mike HoJzmiller -4-August 23, 1983
On the basis of the-evidence presented in the DEIR, we have questions
regarding the value of ;the riparian habitat in Parcel AE, and whether
.the recommended, buffer, zone concept is appropriate for this parcel. Also,
we must-question-the accuracy of the 400+ acre figure reported in the
DEIR for HPI's portion of Batiquitos Lagoon as being too large. As
master planning proceeds, we will have specific information with regard
to these issues. :^f:
With or without the proposed jurisdictional changes, the property would
berdeveloped ,jJ,xThe~ result would be the gradual phasing out of the interim
agricultural uses now? existing on portions of the property as current ur-
banization continues.iv And with that urban development would, come an
.alteration of'some^fofjthe'rivisual characteristics-of the*views from/1
•/.'"• i''.
•:'i;:
Alf'of the impacts ;of a proposed community need to be weighed against its
net: positive benefits-:-^vaniv:expanded housing stock, an expanded employment
and tax base,i additional public, recreational opportunities, assistance in U Hl'j
enhancing the-natural resource values of the lagoon, and a comprehensively
planned community. .-'.'I'., x| :; . -; ,
'- ' •;•-•:•' .,«:>,-:>•'•;/': ::'-'/;.. • " V'V" :" " '"'•.' "'' '-: •' : v, '-^^^ •" ' •• '~(
Master planning for the property is currently in process by our consultant
team, and all master plans, specific plans and site development plans will
be submitted to the City of Carlsbad for review and processing. .Also a
number of other public agencies will be involved in the evaluation of
various aspects of:the project as the planning proceeds. There will be
many opportunities for public participation in these planning and review
In closing, we believe thati;the: jurisdictional and related changes we have
proposed are a first step*jn(accomplishing the goal of The Pacific RirtnCountry
Club-and Resort which meets-the needs of the City. We are looking forward
to working with you-to-develop a Master Plan for this community.. .Wettrust
that.:you ;will concur7with*us and approve our applications for pre-zoning,
annexation, and General PIar> Amendment.
:,-/.•••-; , f t .-.' : ,;j},i
Michael-1. Kennedy, ProjectHPI: DEVELOPMENT: COMP
''v •:- ••'.":.! .-:'i:.H' ' -", f': :;.:!.: z :fc X^j ;v']^ijN'^
•':' -.•••"••• ;'-'i;arr' .>;.;-- ,,l •-j-/;--;yf«T?^: .;.• ;,^feftT;
MIK:md ''^•-l:'^^*ji.iii:^-^,-i.;
-/••;••; ^:i^^: •>:•• ••
33:
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE 3OX 2397 • LEUCADIA. CALIFORNIA 92024 • 7S3-OIS8
August 17. 1983
City of Carlsbad
LAND USE - PLANNING DEPT.
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA S2008
Re: Hunt Annexation
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the Board of Directors I submit the following comments to the
Draft EIR on the Hunt Properties Annexation to the City of Carlsbad.
We concur with your comments on Page 3-60 regarding Sewage Generation:
The Leucadia County Water District is responsible for sewage
disposal in the project vicinity south of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Although Parcels AE arid AF are not currently serviced by the
District (primarily due to lack of development) , the parcels
are located within the District's projected ultimate service
area and have been included in the future capacity planning.
The District recently constructed a sewage trunk line within
El Camino Real which would handle potential sewage within par-
cels AE and AF.
However, your later statement:
Both the City of Carlsbad and Leucadia County Water District
have indicated they foresee no problems in providing onsite
sewage disposal utilizing existing and proposed facilities
(Wojcik, 1983; Geiselhart, 1983).
makes no -mention of agreements between the City and the District which state that
LCWD would provide sewer service to parcels AE and AF.
In addition, if the City were tc reneg on those agreements and insist on
providing sewer service, a sewer line would have to be constructed from parcels
AE and AF north along El Camino Real. Such construction would have an impact on
the environment and this aspect has not been addressed.
34
DISTRICT OFFICE: I960 LA COSTA AVENUE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA
City of Carlsbad
LAND USE - PLANNING DEPT.
August 17, 1983
Page two
The EIR also states:
Development within parcels AE and AF alone would result in an
estimated daily generation of 683,100 gallons of sewage
(494,838 more than currently allowed). These estimates are
based on the worst-case assumption of full buildout of the
subject property. The increased quantities of sewage repre-
sent a potential impact to sewage disposal agencies.
The impact of the increased sewerage generated would have an affect on the
City, however the impact on LCWD would not be a factor since the District's
plans have always included this area.
Although the Board has adopted Resolution 745 which states in Section 2:
The Leucadia County Water District opposes all annexations of
independent special sewer district territory to cities unless
and until a permanent and enforceable agreement is entered into
between the parties concerned to be enforced by the Local Agency
Formation Commission and its successor to preserve the integrity
of the function of the sewer district whose territory is being
annexed to a city.
we have no objection to the annexation of the property to the City since agree-
ments do exist which clearly establish LCWD as the sewering agency of parcels
AE and AF.
Yours very truly,
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Lois E. Humphreys
President, Board of Directors
LEH/bls
35
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
August 22, 1983
Mr. Bill Hoffman
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92OO8
Subject: Hunt Properties Annexation DEIR (83-2)
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
The Board of Directors of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation ha*
reviewed the above EIR and offers the following comments:\
1. GENERAL - Because the Foundation has as its primary purpose
the protection and enhancement of the Batiquitos Lagoon and its
resources, we have purposely limited our comments to those
issues which could potentially affect the Lagoon. While we, as
individuals, do have.concerns about other topics addressed in
the EIR, we feel that they are beyond the specific purview of
the Foundation and that it would, be inappropriate as a
Foundation to comment upon them. Additionally, we have a number
of concerns about the development plans themselves, but have
attempted to restrict our comments herein to the adequacy of the
EIR and the effectiveness of the mitigation proposed. Comments
regarding the project itself will be transmitted later prior to
final action by the City.
2. GENERAL - Overall, we feel that the draft EIR is
comprehensive, thorough and well written. In several areas we
feel that much more project detail and related analyses will be
required before we can make comments more substantive than those
offered below. We assume that this material will be forthcoming
as part of the Master Development Plan for the property, and
will be subject to further environmental analysis and public
review at a later time. A Management Plan for Batiquitos
Lagoon is currently being prepared with the cooperation and help
of a number of public agencies and -landowners, including HU..C
Properties Inc. and the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, for now,
our interest is in insuring that no options for protecting and
enhancing the Lagoon will be lost at this prezone, annexation
and GPA level of the process, prior to the completion of the
Lagoon Management Plan. Specific comments on the EIR are
provided below.'
3. LAND USE, Page 3-19 - We agree that development of a large
holding under an adopted master plan is much preferable to
piecemeal development, particularly when it -an be accomplished
within a single governmental jurisdiction. However, in addition
to the master plan contents listed on page 3-19, we feel that a
comprehensive grading plan, including effective and proven
erosion control measures, should also be required as part of the
master plan. In developing the master plan, we also feel that
every effort should be made to place open space adjacent to the
6992 El Camino Real, Suite 104-449 C 1 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008 36
Lagoon where possible, and to separate any necessary roadways
and structures from the Lagoon by buffer areas or by public
access, limited development areas.
4. LAND USE, Pages 3-22 thru 3-25 - Any increase in
developmental intensity -from current land use designations,
particularly residential, will likely lead to increased pressure
on Batiquitos Lagoon and its resources. For example, the
potential for a 74 percent increase in allowable dwelling units
(from 5349 to 9284 as noted on page 3-22) that could be
achieved under the new designations is considered by the
Foundation to be a significant increase. Likewise, the
substitution of any City floodplain zoning which offers less
protection to biological habitats than that currently provided
by County designations will also intensify pressure on natural
resources in the Lagoon and its tributaries. Therefore, unless
mitigated at the annexation and 6PA level, we would consider the
impacts from these increased densities (particularly on Parcels
AD and AE) and -from the substitution of floodplain designations
as potentially significant. We believe that the floodplain
mitigation offered on page 3-25 of the draft EIR adequately
responds to this concern. However, we do not feel that the
mitigation offered for increased densities on this same page is
strong enough to allay our fears. We agree that "a well-
balanced mixture of land uses" will help mitigate some of the
effects of a more intense development. However, we also feel
that more should be done at this stage of the process to insure
that a) any increase in allowable densities will occur in areas
not adjacent to the Lagoon, b) impacts to the hydrology, water
quality and biology resources of Encinitas Creek and the Lagoon
from increased densities in Parcel AE will be effectively
mitigated, and c) a comprehensive grading and erosion control
plan is provided as part of the Master Plan.
5. LAND USE, Page 3-25 - We agree with and support the
mitigation offered on this page regarding completion
of the Batiquitos Lagoon Management Plan and the incorporation
of its results and recommendations into the Master Plan for the
HPI properties.
6. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, Pages 3-47 thru 3-5O - The Existing
Conditions portion of the traffic discussion should be expanded
to provide more information regarding Batiquitos Drive, i.e. its
designation on the City's Circulation Element, its design
capacity, and the number of lanes planned. In addition, has the
alignment shown on Figure 3-3 been firmly established, or can it
be moved northward, farther from the Lagoon, or possibly even
eliminated altogether? As indicated on Pages 3-5O and 3-57, the
City is currently revising its Circulation Element, therefore we
would propose that sufficient flexibility be provided at this
time to allow HPI and the City to fully examine the need, size
and best routing for this roadway, taking into account not only
traffic flow but also environmental considerations, and to
incorporate an optimal solution into the Master Plan.
C23
37
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Pages 3-1O9 thru 3-114 - We share the
concerts expressed throughout the discussion of potential
impacts, particularly as regards a) increased densities on
Parcel AE, b) loss of the floodplain designation on Parcels AE
and AF plus related protection at the General Plan level, c) any
plans for filling portions of the Lagoon, d> the need for
adequate setbacks around the Lagoon, e) the potential effects of
urban runoff on aquatic organisms in the Lagoon, and f) the
effect of increased human activity on the resources of the
Lagoon. In addition to these, we also feel that the potential
for erosion and sediment transport into the Lagoon during and
following periods of earthwork could have an adverse effect on
the biological resources of the Lagoon unless adequately
mitigated. We recognize that more information regarding actual
development plans will be needed before a precise estimate of
these potential impacts can be made, and effective mitigation
proposed. However, we feel that it is important that these
concerns be spelled out in this annexation and 6PA level EIR so
that they can be fully considered and, if possible, fully
mitigated at the Master Plan level.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Page 3-125 - In addition to the
mitigation proposed, we also feel that any onsite soils
investigations should include estimates of sediment transport
from the individual parcels into downstream watercourses and
ultimately into Batiquitos Lagoon, along with a recommended plan
for controlling or mitigating potentially adverse
effects.
8. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY, Page 3-137 - The Foundation is in
complete agreement with the discussion on this page regarding
the need for inter—agency cooperation and a coordinated approach
to any future restoration effort. We are hopeful that the
forthcoming Lagoon Management Plan will serve as a useful
baseline document and guide for such an effort.
9. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY - Pages 3-138 thru 3-144 - As noted
by our previous comments, we too are concerned with potentially
significant impacts on the Lagoon and its resources from urban
runoff and siltation. We therefore fully support the
mitigation described in this section.
10. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY, Page 3-144 - We recognize that
specific measures to maintain the water level of the Lagoon and
control the quality of its waters have not been proposed as part
of the current prezone, annexation and GPA application. It is
likely that such measures will be developed over the next
several months, however, and will probably be included as part
of the Master Development Plan for the properties. If so, we
would recommend that, in addition to any techniques currently
under consideration, the possible use of reclaimed wastewater
from upstream reclamation plants also be explored as a possible
source of water to supplement natural flows into the Lagoon.
38
C33
11. VISUAL RESOURCES, Page 3-178 - We concur with the statement
that "the combined effect is still that of urban development,
and is considered a potentially significant visual alteration".
For this reason, we feel that sufficient attention should be
paid either now or in the Master Development Plan to the
retention of scenic vistas and the creation of sensitive design
elements, as well as other means of integrating proposed
developments into the topography and visual environment
surrounding the Lagoon. We therefore support the mitigation
measures offered on Pages 3—178 and 3—179.
12. ALTERNATIVES, Page 6-5 - We agree with the statement on the
top of this page regarding the effectiveness of future planning
and restoration of the Lagoon if it were under a single
jurisdiction. Therefore, we feel that at some point in time
all of the land in and adjacent to the Lagoon should be under
the same governmental entity. Because this application deals
only with the HPI land however, the optimal boundaries of such
an alternative are not totally clear. Thus we would look to the
Lagoon Management Plan for a better understanding of what areas
are critical to the long-term enhancement of the Lagoon and its
resources.
The Directors of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation appreciate ths
opportunity to comment on this draft EIR.
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Chairman
EIR Review Committee
39
C43
Kids!WOODSIDE/KUBOTA & ASSOCIATES. INC.
CON*UI-TINO^ ~ •" " "?
S*C' ' " '''Av^••^•^tf'i^aiiii **:•••>•- -.3
• NOINBBRS
2465 Pio Pico Drive • P.O. Box 1095 • Carlsbad. California 92008 • (714) 729-1194
August 23, 1983
Mr. Bill Hofman
Pri nci pal PIanner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: EIR 83-2 -- HPI Development
Costa Real Municipal Water District
Dear Mr. Hofman :
Thank you very much for this opportunity to present the comments and
responses to the important matters of public water service by the Costa
Real Municipal Water District. All of the properties located to the
north of La Costa Avenue that are involved in these EIR proceedings are
within the boundaries of the Costa Real Municipal Water District so that
public water service will come under the spheres of responsibility of
the District. Additionally, we will speak to the matter of the respon-
sibilities of the City of Carlsbad with respect to retail water service.
First of all, we want to advise you that the EIR describes the existing
conditions of the Costa Real District in the context of the availability
of water in the vicinity for the entire new development. We want to »
emphasize that the availability and the total development requirements
for public water service involve not only existing facilitites but addi-
tionally, extensive offsite facilities as well as onsite facilities that
are specifically set forth in the currently adopted master plan of public
water service as well as the latest capijta 1 facilities program that has
recently been adopted by the District. _We believe that a more appropriate
statement that can be made about water service is to emphasize that the
utilization of all existing facilities as well as the construction of the
necessary new facilities, including pipelines, pressure-regulating sta-
tions and reservoirs, all combined will be appropriate in order that water
service can be provided to the entire development area at the level tjiat
is determined satisfactory from the standpoint of the Water District.,.
Addi ti onal ly , j_the financial responsibilities and obligations on the part
of the development as well as the District in general have become better
defined in terms of the recently adopted major facilities program and its
attendant financial program involving the establishment of the "major
facilities charge." For information, we are attaching the following docu-
ments for reference?
In Orange County, Santa Ana 40
Mr. Bill Hofmart
City of Carlsbad
August 23, 1983
Page 2
• NOINBKItm
1) "Final Report - Costa Real Municipal Water District - Major
Water Facilities Financing Plan and Rate Study - June 1983" -
prepared by Bartle Wells Associates.
2) Resolutions No. 438 and 439 - Costa Real Municipal Water District.
The EIR describes the inter-relationships and segregation of responsibili-
ties with the Costa Real Municipal Water District as the "wholesale water
agency" and the City of Carlsbad as the "retail water service agency." In
order to clarify the respective roles of the public agencies, there is
attached the "Water Service Agreement" dated May 25, 1983, executed by the
District and the City of Carlsbad. At the present time, the two agencies
are formulating policies and regulations for the implementation of this
water service agreement.
In summary, insofar as the Costa Real Municipal Water District is concerned,
the entire development area within the District can be provided with an
adequate supply of water provided all of the necessary public water system
facilities as identified in our currently adopted master plans are developed
on a timely basis to be phased with the development needs of the entire
area of the District westerly of El Camino Real and south of Palomar Airport
Road. At the present time, the District is conducting an extensive master
plan evaluation of the entire 20,000-acre area, which includes the City
of Carlsbad - Water Department, so that with its completion and adoption
now scheduled for January, 1984, there will be in place an up-to-date and
functional plan that can be utilized.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions that you may have
regarding this presentation and all of the attachments we have included.
truly yours
bota, District Engineer
l Municipal Water District
Enclosures
cc: Costa Real Municipal Water District (w/o enc)
Mr. Mike Kennedy, HPI Development (w/o enc)
George Nolte & Associates (w/o enc)
(w/o enc)
JYK:paf
CMWD 82-310 41
State of California, George Deukmejiar Governor
/
California CocsKi! Commission
SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT
6154 Mission Gorge RCMC), Su-.te 220
San Diego, CA 92120
<7«) 280-6992
. 1.33
Mr. Don Conaty
State Clearinghouse, Room 121
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report 83-2 for the Hunt
Properties Annexation (SCH 883032309)
Dear Mr. Conaty:
In response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above
referenced project, staff of the Coastal Commission has already commented in
detail .on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) -for the DEIR. We do not intend
to reiterate those comments; however, a copy of our comments on the NOP is
attached and hereby incorporated as a portion of our response to the DEIR.
The DEIR does, in our opinion, include an adequate discussion of the po-
tential environmental impacts. However, Coastal Commission staff feels
several points should be emphasized:
1) The Coastal Commission has approved (certified) the County of
San Diego San Dieguito Local Coastal program (LCP) Land Use Plan
and the Carlsbad Mello I Segment LCP. These two LCPs provide
the Coastal Commission adopted land use controls which affect
the Hunt Properties and which are used, along with Chapter 3
policies of the Coastal Act, to make all permit decisions.
2) In discussions with project representatives, Coastal Coirmission
staff has indicated that there is flexibility with regards to
densities , intensities and types of use and that through the
master plan process we would be willing to consider modifications
to the LCP designations. However, in none of the discussions was
it indicated that portions of Batiquitos Lagoon could be filled
or altered (other than for wildlife enhancement) ; nor, could
significant agricultural .areas be converted to urban uses beyond
that permitted in the certified LCPs.
3) With regards to the proposed annexation and prezone, we understand
that such action would facilitate ultimate development of the
property under a master development plan, thereby allowing
42
Mr. Don Conaty
August 18, 1983
Page 2
comprehensive planning for the entire holding. While such
annexation and prezone need not necessarily conflict with the
certified LCPs, it certainly could be misconstrued by persons
not familiar with the requirements of the LCPs.
4) The draft conceptual plan which the property owners have developed
confirms our concerns with the proposed annexation and prezone. The
conceptual plan ignores the issue of maintaining agricultural land
on a long term basis and proposes some fill within Batiquitos Lagoon.
Additionally, the conceptual plan does not respect the need to main-
tain steep slope areas currently covered by native vegetation in an
undisturbed state.
»
5) We would recommend, that if the City is going to approve the
annexation and prezone, that the following stipulations be a part
of the approval:
'a) That no filling of Batiquitos Lagoon be permitted
as part of any future master planning effort;
b) That consistent with the certified San Dieguito LCP
Land Use Plan and the Carlsbad Mello I Segment LCP, that
the agricultural areas north of the lagoon be designated
for long tern; continued or renewed agricultural use.
6) We would further recommend that the City inform the property owners of the
importance and need to retain steep sloping (over 20% gradient) , native
vegetated lands when developing a master plan for the property.
It will be necessary for the property owners to submit the master plan to the Coastal
Commission as an amendment to the San Dieguito LCP Land Use Plan designations and
the Carlsbad Mello I Segment LCP designations. Unless the master plan complies with
the above requirements, the Coastal Connrdssion may find the master plan to be
unacceptable and inconsistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
If there are any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me at the San Diego District Office of the Coastal Comiaission (619) 280-6992) .
Sincerely,
Chuck Damm
Acting District Manager
CD: am
43
(619) 236-2OI5 • san diego
Local agency formation commission
I6OO pacific highway • san diego. ca 921O"
chairman
Dr. Ciiartas W. Hostler
Public Member
executive officer
William D. Davis
counsel
Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr.
members
J.B. Bennett
Councilman, City of
Imperial Beach
Paul Eckert
County Board of
Supervisors
Paul W. Fordom
County Board of
Supervisors
Marjorie Hertom
Alpine Fire Protection
District
Stanley A. Mahr
San Marcos County
Water District
Lir.ria Oravec
Mayor, City
of Poway
alternate members
Alex L. Adams
Greater Mountain Empire
Resource Conservation
District
Mike Gotch
Councilman,
City of San Diego
August 24, 1983
TO:Bill Hoffman, Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
&HPV&W s\ Buy.-* Cfc* '•-,
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT: Hunt Properties Annexation Draft EIR
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for
the above project. We have the following comments and
questions which should be addressed in the Final EIR:
1. The Draft EIR focuses on the future annexation or
reorganization, prezone and GPA. Several additional
actions may also be required, arid should be included
in the project description and any applicable sec-
tions in the Draft EIR: sphere of influence amend-
ment; annexation to Leucadia County Water District;
detachment from the Encinitas Fire Protection
District; etc.;
2. The Draft EIR is based on three development scenarios.
The Draft EIR could more fully discuss how these
optional plans correspond with the property owners'
preliminary development plans;
3. The Draft EIR specifies that Carlsbad would apply
a Flood Protection overlay zone to a portion of the
reorganization area currently designated FP (flood-
plain) . However, the report, in another section,
specifies that the area would only be considered
for FP designation based on engineering studies.
Perhaps the EIR should be more consistent;
4. The Draft EIR specifies that Carlsbad has not adopted
the Mello Bill LCP and that project development would
require a LC permit. The Draft EIR should clearly
explain what effect annexation (changes in juris-
diction from County to City) of territory covered by
the San Dieguito LCP, which has been incorporated into
the San Dieguito Community Plan, would have on the
current LCP designations;
44
Bill Hoffman
August 24, 1983
Page Two
5. How relevant is the statement that agricultural impacts
could be mitigated through a future master plan if pre-
liminary development plans for the area do not provide
for agricultural preservation?
6. The Draft EIR specifies that the improvement of SA 680 would
be necessary to support project development, and that County
approval would be necessary before the road could be con-
structed. Could the City require approval of a County road
as a condition of development? The Draft EIR should more
fully discuss the status/history and maintenance of SA 680.
The Draft EIR should also more fully discuss the impact of
this road improvement on surrounding unincorporated lands,
particularly the Ecke agricultural preserve to the west
and south of the Green Valley section of the proposed
annexation.
7. The inclusion of the remaining portion of Batiguitos Lagoon
as a potential project alternative should be considered, as
it would help provide the environmental review necessary
should LAFCO decide to modify the reorganization boundaries.
The Draft EIR should also more clearly discuss private pro-
perty north of the Lagoon that may need to be included in the
proposed reorganization to avoid creating a county island,
if LAFCO were to modify the annexation boundaries.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this Draft EIR.
ELLIAM D. DAVIS
Executive Officer
WDD:JC:ABH:dh
45
£taie of California
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
14OO TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95314
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
COVERNOR
August 30, 1983
Mr. Bill Hofman
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: SCH* 83032309, Hunt Properties Annexation (HPI)
Dear Mr. Hofman:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the com-
ments of the individual agency (ies) is (are) attached. If you would like to discuss
their concerns and recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate
agency(ies).
When preparing the-final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified EIR must be considered in the decision-
making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the
connenting agency (ies) cy writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse number or
all correspondence.
A 1981 Appellate Court decision in Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (118 Cal. App. 3d
348) clarified requirements for responding to review cerements. Specifically, the
court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the
specific conroents and suggestions were not accepted. The responses must show factors
of overriding significance which required the suggestion or comment to be rejected.
Responses to Garments must not be conclusory statements but must be supported by em-
pirical or experimental data, scientific authority or explanatory information of any
kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned
analysis.
In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant
effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect and it
must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for
each unmitigated significant effect (CBQA Guidelines Section 15088 and 15089).
If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of
Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the
County Clerk. Please contact Dan Conaty at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
about the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
/Ct^t-srry Roberts
Manager^/
State Clearinghouse 46
cc: Resources Agency
State of California
Memorandum
The Resource* Agency
1. Projects Coordinator
Resources Agency
2. City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
From : Department of Fish and Game
Date : August 18, 1983
Subject:Hunt Properties Annexation, City of Carlsbad, SCH-83032309
We have reviewed the subject document Draft EIR for the subject project and
have the following comments and recommendations.
The proposed prezone and General Plan Amendment for the subject property could
have adverse effects on the biological resources of Batiquitos Lagoon and
riparian habitats by eliminating protection afforded by floodplain designations
and allowing increased urban densities*
We recommend that the following measures be included in the project:
1. All riparian areas should be retained in their natural state. Slopes
over 25* containing coastal sage scrub should also be preserved.
2. Development which includes wetland fill or would cause increased
sedimentation into wetlands should be prohibited.
The project sponsor should be advised that diversion of the natural flow or
changes in the channel, bed, or banks of any river, stream or lake must include
notification to the Department of Pish and Game as called for in Section 1603
of the Fish and Game Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent
agreement must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. We urge
compliance with this code section prior to completion of the specific design
since project features associated with streams or streambeds may require
modifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Fred A. Worthley Jr., Regional Manager,
Region 5, 2U5 West Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach, California 90802; telephone
(213) 590-5113.
Director
47
u~ AUG2MQ83
O'rlCE O? ?:./NM:y;
r- .»-*..*.*
State of California
Mem ora ndu m
Hie Resources Agency of California
Dot* t August 25, 1983
To t Resources Agency
Project Coordinator
From t Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Historic Preservation
Subjech SCH 183032309 - Hunt Properties Annexation (HPI)
My staff has reviewed the above cited document and I would like to offer the
following comments. I was pleased to note the project has been completely
surveyed for archaeological resources. Based on the information provided, it
would appear that*pir the archaeological sites are important to the understand-
ing of prehistory areas. I agree with the conclusion that archaeological testing
is not necessary at this phase (i.e. annexation); however, if it is determined
that the sites will be impacted, a determination of their importance will be
necessary.
However, I disagree with some of the Phase I mitigation measures. If the
archaeological sites can be avoided testing will not be necessary. Avoidance
should include provision as to how the sites will be preserved in the future.
For those sites which cannot be avoided, testing may be necessary. However, I
would appreciate receiving a copy of the survey reports and the testing proposal.
I cannot tell from the information provided whether testing of all the sites is
warranted. £or example, based on the information provided, I doubt whether
testing of the historic sites would provide the types of information necessary to
determine their importance.
In summary, I do not object to the annexation, but before any further development
occur, it will probably be necessary to do some archaeological testing. I am
not able to recommend what level of testing will be appropriate to determine the
importance of the archaeological resources at this time. However, before imple-
menting any Phase 1 mitigation, please forward the testing proposal and the
survey reports to my office for review and comments.
If you have any questions, please contact Dwight Dutschke of my staff at
(91«) 322-8593.
Dr. Knox Mellon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
48
State of California^ _'„.•-_ '
Memo r a n d u mr. i c . » .. v. • -
•• Ron Bass
Director"
State Clearinghouse
; 14fltO -10th Street
Sacramento, CA
t:
Business and Transportation Agency
Tf;i K^.'C:. '..
Dote: August 19, 1983
File : ll-SD-5
R42.7-R47.0
From •. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
"' : District"11 •-"•-- ~"
Subject: SCH t8303_2309., Hunt Properties Annexation
Caltrans District 11 comments on the Draft EIR for this 1730-acre
annexation are as follows:.^ ._ ...!_" 1.. !_-•-. — . TT -::
1^" The EIR has not adequately analyzed the impact"on Interstate
.I"Route 5. Page 3-55 states that no significant adverse impacts
Is 7.4^on9 Interstate 5 are anticipated provided the interchanges
rj.lare built out at the master planned widths. That conclusion
_,_I_-assuines that the freeway itself can accept the great volume
of additional traffic generated through these interchanges
Kou-Jay the-proposed project. . In the foreseeable future, however,
arc.-the main lanes of Interstate 5 will be overloaded. Ramp
sr,Z'_metering will probably be needed and additional on-ramps, if
T--, constructed, would probably be for high-occupancy vehicles.
^-.^/The traffic impacts of the proposed project are, therefore,
i —likely to be more severe than anticipated in the EIR and
^^--less easily mitigated. . - ... _,.- I "...__ JI - ._."_"
2?~-^Mitigation measures such as those proposed "on page 3-56 will
require funding by local government or project sponsors.
ir. ^Improvements to Interstate 5 will require, federal environ-
c.cc.mental documents adequate for approval by the Federal High-
re: way Administration. _..... __ _"., -lll.rl "
user.- i:
ies T. Cheshire, Chief
nvironmental Planning Branch
49
State jf California
Memora nd u m
The Resources Agency
To i 1. Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Bill Hofman
From : Department of Water Resources
Los Angeles, CA 90055
Date :
File No.:
AUG
Subject: Hunt Properties
Annexation (HPI)
SCH 83032309
The Department of Water Resources1 recommendations on the subject document are
attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood
damage prevention.
Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed
water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for benefi-
cial uses requiring high quality water.
Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
(213) 620-4135
Attachments
50
Tr.c T.tiO.Ti;. Ar-:-.
£f m C : ~ T. 1. L Department of Vfeter Resources Recommendations
for Water Conservation and Water Exclamation
To reduce -water demand Y the following water conservation measures should be
implemented: . :r_... ...
Required"by law: - ----- - —;
1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety-Code).
2. ^--Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6,
-Article 1, T20-1406F).
3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy
Commission regulations).
Recommendations to be implemented where applicable;
Interior: --.:.-..-
1. "^Supply line pressure: -recommend water pressure greater "than 50 pounds per
'"^square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less liy means of a" pressure-reducing
-•valve. .
2. Flush valve operated water closets; recommend 3 gallons per flush.
3. - Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves.
4. i'Tipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to •
~. provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from
"heating cold water pipes.
5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms.*
' "Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for bath/shower.
6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers.
7. Restaurants; recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or
« retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request
only.*
• .
Exterior:
1. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing
fields.
*The Department- of Water Resources or local water district, may aid in developing^
these materials.
51
O/rtCE 0? «>;AN!.v^:.
3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil
will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation
and soil compaction.
4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often
adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish
replacement vegetation.
5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation
and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation,
soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of
increasing irrigation efficiency.
6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff
and aid in ground water recharge.
7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff.
8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation.
9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving
created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of
natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water
recharge.
11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground
water recharge should be preserved as open space.
-2-
52
Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention
In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed
development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood.
It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground water
should be mitigated.
2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year
flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental Impact Report.
3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available
during a 100-year flood.
4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed
soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments.
5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible.
6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed
and mitigated as required.
7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with
sediment transport during construction.
53
STATE Of CAI.FORN.A ' GEORGt
.'AIR: RESOURCES BOARD
1102 Q STREET
f.O. BOX 2815 ->r"
"SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 ,
=' Date: : -""August 29, 1983
To: 1) James Roberts, Ph.D., Director 2) Bill Hofman
we ss-.-•--." -' '•'- - state Clearinghouse City of Carlsbad
Office of Resources, Energy 1200 Elm Avenue
and Permit Assistance Carlsbad, CA 92008
.._. . s. _Jl4(XMOth Street .. _-..,.. ::. - ;::•.;.-_.- .-..--..- - - saCramento, CA 95814
IMS.A-8 . : -.::.-. :-_:- ~ :::•---
~~ ' " " Attention: Dan Conati^.. MYwVy - - ------ - ••---'..Thru: .. \y'Corinne Murphy Marshall :•- .
"Denuty Secretary of Environmental Affairs
mes~p. Boy
Executive Officer
Properties Annexation Draft Environmental Impact
No. 83032309 -: -
We have'reviewed your July 13, 1983, draft environmental impact report
TT,_(DEIR) concerning the annexation and prezoning of 1007 acres owned by Hunt
ItProperties. This area is contiguous to the southwesterly boundaries of the
I.City of Carlsbad. Traffic generation for the total 1,730 acre Hunt
I.Properties, including 723 acres already within City jurisdiction, is
^jdQCumented.in Appendix B of the DEIR.
e-Air Qua!ity Analysis . ::.-.,.. ----- ~-i— :- -~--^-
—In^formation concerning California air quality standards included in
^ Table 3-19 needs to be updated. The State Air Resources Board has adopted
'r"new standards for carbon monoxide (Resolution 82-46; September 22, 1982) and
--""inhalable" particulate matter (Resolution 82-63; December 9, 1982). Copies
"lof these resolutions are attached for your convenience.
Trip generation projections for three land use alternatives, "existing
zoning," "most likely" and "worst case" development levels, are included in
the DEIR. A fourth alternative, based on land use assumptions used in
preparing the 1982 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) revision, is
referred to in the Air Quality Section (Page 3-150). We suggest this
Information on RAQS development densities and trip generation totals be
added to Table 3-8, "TRAFFIC GENERATION BY PARCEL" (Page 3-51).
54
Dr. Roberts -2- August 29, 1983
Mr. Hofman SCH No. 83032309
We feel the DEIR overestimates the potential air quality impact of the "most
likely" development alternative. We do not agree with the DEIR's assumption
that trips associated with existing zoning should be added to the total
trips projected for any other alternative (Worksheet 8, Appendix C,
Page C-5). We suggest the final environmental impact report (FEIR) compare
buildout emissions from the RAQS assumptions and the three alternative
levels of development.
Reductions in vehicle trips of any length improve air quality. The first
eight minutes of a vehicle trip cause the most pollution because the engine
does not operate efficiently when cold. Additional emissions occur at the
end of the trip as the engine cools. The attached figure illustrates this
cold start-hot soak evaporative phenomenon.
Mitigation Measures
The traffic analysis in Appendix B of the DEIR contains a recommendation
that transportation systems management (TSM) actions be implemented where
significant acreage is devoted to office and commercial uses (Page B-16).
Air quality, as well as future mobility, would be supported by the
consultant's recommended strategy:
"In general the proposed General Plan Amendment can be accommodated
provided adequate zoning and development controls are included to
assure the mix of land use in the combination zones does not overtax
the circulation system" (emphasis added).
The air quality section in the DEIR does not identify mitigation actions
which would implement this recommendation. Attainment of clean air
standards through the RAQS depends on the inclusion of the regionally-
adopted TSM measures within local plans and projects. This principle is
especially critical when the proposed rezoning would result in generation of
more vehicle trip emissions than assumed in the RAQS.
Emissions generated by short trips from residential areas can be minimized
by encouragement of walking, bicycling, and short-range shuttle services.
Emissions associated with longer distance commute trips can be reduced
through carpool, vanpool, and transit incentives.
TSM provisions committed to by the developer and included in the project's
design should be discussed in the FEIR. We suggest that the following
mitigation measures, as a minimum, be evaluated, and if feasible included in
the conditions of approval and any conditions, covenants and restrictions
(CC+Rs) affecting future development of the Hunt Properties.
o Require employer ridesharing incentive systems and joint support of TSM
projects. A non-profit association similar to the Santa Clara
Manufacturers Group serving office and commercial employers could be
established as development occurs. We suggest contacting Manny Demetre
of Commuter Computer at (619) 237-7665 for technical assistance.
55
Dr. Roberts -3- August 29, 1983
Mr. Hofman SCH No. 83032309
o Include preferential vanpool/carpool and bicycle parking as specified
ratios of all office and commercial parking. (Some jurisdictions allow
reductions in total parking requirements for such actions)
o Provide incentives for employee bicycle use, such as secure bicycle
parking and access to showers and clothing lockers.
o Modify the circulation system to encourage walking, jogging and
bicycling. Addition of off-street bikepaths along the utility
rights-of-way might offer one opportunity. Provision for bikelanes on
collector and arterial streets could encourage commuter bicycling.
Design of more direct routes for walking or bicycling between
destinations can often provide effective motivation for using these
modes of travel.
o Review the design of proposed street system with transit provider for
future bus access, bus turnouts and waiting areas.
o Restrict future truck deliveries to commercial sites to non-peak hoursif future traffic congestion occurs.
o Encourage substitution of telecommunications for employee trips
whenever feasible.
We would appreciate receiving copies of the FEIR, adopted General Plan and
notice of determination when they are available. If you have any questions
or concerns, please contact Donna Lott of my staff at (916) 323-8405.
Attachments
cc: Raymond Weeks, San Diego County APCD
Michael Zdon, SANDAG
Manny Demetre, Commuter Transportation Services, Inc.
Donna Lott, ARB/Regional Programs Division
56
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 Cdflsbdd Joumdl 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 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:
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the City Council of the City of Carls-
bad will hold a public hearing atthe City Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, September
27,1983, to consider certification of
an EIR, an application for a Gener-
al Plan Amendment and a prean-
nexational zone change on 1700
acres on property generally located
north of and including Batiquitos
Lagoon between 1-5 and El Camino
Real, extending north to Palomar
Airport Business Park and more
particularly described as:
The south half of Section 27 and
the southeast quarter of the south-
east quarter of Section 28, and Lots
2 and 3 in Section 33, all in
Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the
County of San Diego, State of Cali-
fornia, according to official plat
thereof;
Together with the northwestquarter of the northwest quarter
and Lots 1, 2. 3, and 4 of Section 34.
!L 3 (J A T i O I\9
W.'A P>
Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, accord-
ing to official plat thereof;
Together with Lots 9,10,11,12,13,
14 and 15 of Section 34, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardi-
no Meridian, according to United
States Government Survey andshown on the Map of said survey as
lying within the Salt Marsh and
Slough.
The south half of the south half of
the southwest quarter of the north-
west quarter of Section 26,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian in the
County of San Diego,' according to
United States Government Survey
approved April 21, 1890.
Portions of the northeast half of
Section 32, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West; Portions of the south
half of Section 33, Township 12
South, Range 4 West; portions of the
northwest quarter of Section 33,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the
County of San Diego, State of Cali-
fornia, according to official platthereof.
Applicant: HPI Development
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
September 17
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 the 17th _
day of Sept einbe y 1 9 8 3 i _ ,
Clerk of the Printer
ZC-2S7
CJ S334: September 17, 1983
HPI DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HERRING
EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267
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, September 27, 1983, to consider certification of an EIR, an application for .
a General Plan Amendment and a preannexational zone change on 1700 acres on property
generally located north of and including Batiguitos Lagoon between 1-5 and El Camino Real,
extending north to Palomar Airport Business Park and more particularly described as:
•The south half of Section 27 and the southeast quarter of
•the southeast quarter of Section 28, and Lots 2 and 3 in
Section 33, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to official plat thereof;
Together with the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter
and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section 34, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to official
plat thereof;
Together with Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Section
34, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to United States Government Survey and
shown on the Map of said survey as lying within the Salt
Marsh and Slough.
The south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernar-
diato Meridian in the County of San Diego, according to United
States Government Survey approved April 21, 1890.
Portions of the northeast half of Section 32, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West; Portions of the south half of Section 33, Township
12 South, Range 4 West; portions of the northwest quarter of Section
33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official
plat thereof.
APPLICANT: HPI Development
PUBLISH: September 17, 1983 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
LOU«VTIOISI
EIR 83-2
GPA/LU 83-15
ZC-267
* \ OUVENHAIN\ IW ROAD
\
HPI DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Canmission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 1983, to consider approval
of a General Plan Amendment and a preannexational zone change on 1700 acres on
property generally located north of and including Batiquitos Lagoon between 1-5
and El Camino Real extending north to Palomar Airport Business Park and more
particularly described as:
The south half of Section 27 -and the southeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 28, and Lots 2 and 3 in
Section 33, all in Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to official plat thereof;
Together with the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter
and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Section 34, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to official
plat thereof;
Together with Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Section
34, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, according to United States Government Survey and
shown on the Map of said survey as lying within the Salt
Marsh and Slough.
The south half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the
northwest, quarter "of Section 26, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego, according to United
States Government Survey approved April 21, 1890.
Portions of the northeast half of Section 32, Township 12 South, Range
4 West; Portions of the south half of Section 33, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West; portions of the northwest quarter of Section 33,
Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat
thereof.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Land Use Planning
Office at 438-5591.
CASE FILE: EIR 83-2/GPA/LU 83-15/ZC-267
APPLICANT: HPI Development
PUBLISH: September 3, 1983
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
\| EXISTING (E-T-A)
PROPOSED PLANNED
COMMUNITY (PC)
EXISTING (E-1-A)
PROPOSED PLANNED
COMMUNITY (PC)EXISTING (S-90)
PROPOSED (C-2)
EXISTING PLANNED
COMMUNITY (PC)
EXISTING R-1
PROPOSED PLANNED
COMMUNITY (PC)T^-TVS-.V Jfeh^fc
_ . J. . -
'^ *V"'-%Si~'J ^-" *T^ XVU1' I
EXISTING (FP.S-90, A-70-3 & C-2)
PROPOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC)
((f?ri
EXISTING (C, FP, A-1 (3), A-70-3. A-72-8)
PROPOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC)
•. '•': -v,»'» \'^^ *•('•' "••'••'•'l^ VA Fi A .•-V.4r..•".-. '\V "^rS5?-:-H Y 3 X-—^im.U%,*?^:4 "..-:.J3Ms. ( ^^v
. v-PARCELS TO BE ANNEXED :
EXISTING (FP& R-S-3)
PROPOSED (C-2)
Existing and Proposed Zoning
2=6
V"-\AW<;. 4£;*;a^^<4^'5fy&-'Jti-i,l /-. rvS^>.\^s3si^P>ss^^^^^•i».-p^*t5^ffe^^.^Mf^ %1%!K*SS»
Pauline Manning
14088' E K'amm Ave.
Kingsburg CA 93631
David Maldonado &
Olivia Maldonado
1668 Freda Lane
Cardiff, CA 92007
Bons, Anthony &
Dicky Bons
1124 Blue Sage
San Marcos, CA 92069
1 & 11
Mary E. Bressi
P.O. Box 1666
Carlsbad, CA 92008
27
La Costa Land Co (Corp)
2101 Costa Del Mar Rd.
Rancho La Costa CA 92008
33 32
35
Charles J Therrien &
Eva C Therrien
926 E Twelfth Street
National City CA 92050
C William Dealy Jr &
Ruth H Dealy
1282 Crest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
34
Leslie V Esposito &
Filomena C Esposito
2934 E. First Street
Longs Beach, CA 90803
Robert G Lucas
28510 Robinview Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
21
Mitsuuchi Koichi, Mitsuuchi
Masako c/o EH Sellmeyer
4335 Chateau De Ville
St. Louis, MO 63129
41
Downey Savings & Loan As sec
P.O. Box 6050
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
23
La Costa Land
2101 Costa Del Mar Blvd.
Rancho La Costa CA 92008
26 & 37
La Costa Land Co. (Corp)
2101 Costa Del Mar Rd.
Rancho La Costa CA 92008
38
W & J Burnett
623 W. 6th St. ;
Los Angeles, CA 90014
71 & 72
Carltas Co. c/o P Ecke
P.O. Box 488
F.ncinitas, CA 92024
1QSteiner
6625 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92003
16 & 17
William C Savage &
Stokesberry
P.O. Box 773
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
76
^Government Property
152
F. Fitzwilson
7309 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
24
Rancho La .Costa
Drawer "A"
Huntington Bch CA 9264:
290
Richard D Vallone &
Patricia A. Vallone
1026 Daisy Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
14
John Lynan
7400 Batequitos
Carlsbad, CA 92008
L. Lux
6723 El Camino RealCarlsbad, CA 92008
8
J & P Sudduth, Et Al
1301 Fortside Drive
Oxon Hill, MD 20022
12
Steinei:
6625 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
293
Anne M. Riegert
, 1,024 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
276
Donald G Trapp &
Betty M Trapp
7219 Daffodil Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
292
Maureen Wanzie
Myrna Vallejo
374 Melba Street
Staten Island NY 10314
275
Larry L. Brunner
7221 Daffodil Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ronald J Rewoldt &
Karen L Rewoldt
1028 Daisy Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
274
Jeffrey R Wenzel
Susa'n J Harranerlind
7222 Daffodil Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
166
Robert T Carterette &
Elizabeth G Carterette
1025 Daisy Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
169
George D Wilson &
Joan B Wilson
1031 Daily Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
306
John N Richardson &
Frances M Richardson
1013 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
303
Anthony L Allos
Doris K Allos
3365 Ocean Front Walk
San Diego, CA 92109
300
Mario Drentea &
Molly M Drentea
1025 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
114
William R Holmes &
Pearl E Holmes
928 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
151
Terrence J Mclnt'osh &
Gloria M Mclntosh
7307 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
154
Frederick B Becker &
Lynelle Becker
7315 Lilv Place
164
Arnold L Sulton Jr
Florence A Sulton
7227 Wisteria Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
167
James Kocontes Jr &
Jean C Kocontes
1027 Daily Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
170
John L Shedd &
Lucille Shedd
4521 Del Moreno Dr.
Woodland Hills CA91364
305
Leroy Patterson &
Frances V Patterson
1015 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
302
Robert C Allen &
Linda J Allen
1021 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
112
Andrew S Davidson &
Betty G Davidson
932 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
149
Phyllis S C St Ledger-
Armstrong
7303 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
152
Roger L Fitzwilson
•,7309 Lily Place
Carlsbad/ CA 92008
155
Arthur C Beard
Eileen M Beard
7317 Lilv Place
168
John B McBride &
Lauren J McBride
1029 Daisy Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
307
Dallas S Smith &
Kathleen M Smith
1011 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
304
John R Faires
Christina M Pope
1017 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
301
Lawrence A Larimer &
Eleanor M Larimer
1023 Iris Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
113
150
Frank D Johnston &
Kathleen Johnston
930 Begonia Court
P.O. Box 84
Carlsbad, CA 92008
)
Robert D Rynearson &
Frances I Rynearson
7305 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
153
Betty J Miller
7311 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
156
Albert L Sutton
Janet L Sutton
7319 Lily Place
157
Richard L Grivner &
Kay F Grivner
731.8 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
158
Casimir J Domaszewicz
Carolyn A Domaszewic:
7316 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
William Nivison &
Betty J Nivison
7314 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
160
Donald 0 Viana &
Collette E Viana
7312 Lily Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
117
Arthur C Rahn &
Kathleen M Rahn
920 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
120
Elias Kattan &
Lida Kattan
914 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
118
Michael A Merkt &
Megan A Merkt
918 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
121
Gordon E Reid &
Doris J Reid
912 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
119
James W Welch
Judy Land
916 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
122
James A Cothran &
Sandra Y Cothran
910 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
123
William F Remrner &
Valerie A Remmer
909 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
127
Merrill K Lyon &
Audrey Lyon
915 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
125
Donald A Wolfe &
Joan K Wolfe
911 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
92
B & K Forrest
921 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
126
Arden R Miller &
Fanny Gutierrez-Miller
913 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
91
D & D Leadingham
919 Poppy Lane .-
Carlsbad, CA 92008
90
H & M Adler
917 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
89
William & M Heede
915 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
88
Rob Hull
913 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
87 .
J & J Strieker
911 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
86
Joan King
909 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
85
William & E Caudill
907 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA, 92008
84
F & G Frey
905 Poppy Lane :
Carlsbad, CA 92008
83
T & M Brown
901 Poppy Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
115
R Phelps &
K Model1
802 Idaho Street
Escondido, CA 92025
116
C & L Long
923 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
128
Henry C Settle Jr &
Linda J Settle
917 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
129
John T Kosko &
Zellena K Kosko
919 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
130
Roland K Phelps
Kimberley A Phelps
802 Idaho Street
131
Carroll W Long &
Laura Long
923 Beaonia Court
132
David Alberstein
Kathryn A.Alberstein925 Begonia Court
133
T K. Johnson &
Maralind T Johnson
927,Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
136
William E Kehret &
Bonnie B Kehret
935 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
139
Robert M Dawber &
Anna M Dawber
941 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
134
William E Clauder &
Dorothy L Clauder
929 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
137
Thomas R Ward &
Cynthia L Ward
937 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
140
Allen J Sims &
Sharon E Sims
943 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
110
Raymond G.. Gomez &
Christianne Gomez
942 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Henry G Clark &
Helen R Clark
931 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
138
James D Okeefe &
Jean L Okeefe
939 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
111
Donovan S White &
Virginia L White
934 Begonia Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
61
Raymond Whitner &
Marj Whitner
4470 Braeburn Road
San Diego, CA 92116
50 & 51
Leucadia Blvd Ltd.
355 Santa Fe Dr.
Encinitas, CA 92024
65
Olivehain Land Co.
c/o K. Hinsvark
441 S. Calle Encilia 12
Palm Springs CA 92262
52
William Lyon Corp.
8340 Clairemont Mesa
Suite 21i
San Diego, CA 92111
56 & 58 & 5
Ecke Paul Ranch (Corp)
P.O. Box 488
Encinitas, CA 92024
53
Byron White
600 B St., Ste. 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
19
McMurphy Corp.
441 S. Beverly Dr.
Beverly Hills" CA 90212
54
Tamala L Swartz &
Gary D. Dewitt
906 Emma Drive
Cardiff, CA 92007
22
Newport Shores Builders
Drawer A [
Huntington Bch CA 92640
28 & 29 & 30 & 31
Community Bank (Corp.)
3124 San Fernando Rd
Los Angeles CA 90065
18 & 15
Wm. Savage &
Betty Samis
Box 773
Rancho Santa fe CA 92067
124
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
43
Ernestine E. Kroblen
P.O. Box 249
Claremont, CA 91712
45 & 44 & 5
Trustee of Central States So/
east & So/west areas pension )
fund8550 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. •
Chicago, Illinois 60631
62,63,67,68,69s 57' 5
Carltas Co. c/o P. Ecke
P.O. Box 488
Encinitas , CA 92024
42
Shapell Industries
of San Diego, Inc.
9787 Aero Dr, Ste B
San Diego, CA 92123
175
Sarkaria, Daljit & Elaine
P.O. Box 5986
Orange, CA 92667
179
Government Property
181
YamairDto, Yujiro & Doris
1201 Via La Jolla
San Clements, CA 92672
25 & 36 & 37
La Costa Land Co.
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
176
Joseph A. Rudvalis
1638 Valleda Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
178
Muroya, Akira & Toshiko
221 Princehouse Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
182 & 183 & 184 & 185
Sugino, Masao & Kuto
2050 S. Del Dios Highway
Escondido, CA 92025
38
Burnett, Williejn & Joyce
523 W. 6th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014
177
Carnation Properd.es (Corp.)
c/o Victoria Fernandez '
P.O. Box 395
Cardiff, CA 92007
180
Tabata, Akira & Joyce
Tabata, Noburch & Evelyn
8201 Legion Place
Midway City, CA 92655
48 & 49
Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Company
610 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA
76
Government Property
46 & 47
Daon Corporation
P.O. Box 1710
Costa Mesa, CA
24
La Costa Hotel
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
DU
Leucadia Blvd. Ltd.
355 Santa Fe Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
20 39 & 40
Koichi Mitsuuchi Masako DSL Servxce Conpany
Mitsuuchi c/o E.H. Selmeyer 3501 Harbor Blvd.
4353 Chateau de Ville Santa Ana, CA 92704
St. Louis, MO 63129
Sanchez> Juan & Christine P.
175 La Costa Avenue
Encinitas-, CA 92024
216-052-03
Cook, Vincent G. & Delores M.
P. 0. Box 824
Encinitas, CA 92024
216-052-27
Buchanan, Hugh R.
163 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-54, 55
Farber, Manny; Patterson, Pat
467 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-04
Texaco, Ine
3350 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90005
216-063-29
Sea Bluff Associates
276 El Camino Real
Oceanside, CA 92054
214-171-15
Cooper, Dan
1960 Seridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-36
Adrian, Donald
287 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-53
DeVoid, Martha
P. O. Box 2175
1997 Sheridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-01
Robledo, Roberto
481 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-28
Anderson, Horace N. & Mary M.
J10 Sheridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-24
Lang, Thomas P Jr & Margaret A
283 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-49
Fry, Susie
P. O. Box 2363
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-56 216-030-57
Bosang, Steve H & Linda S
485 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-25
Brown, Jervis D IV & Candice A
561 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-30
Matteson, Wayne
750 Plato Place
Encinitas, CA 92024
216-052-01
Deem, Kenneth
1980 Sheridan Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
216-052-37
Racine, Rene
279 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-50
Bechtold, Glenn
481 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-24
Purpus, Thomas
579 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-52, 53
Antelline, Frank & End lie A.
1970 Seridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-33
Stiglic Ed G & Teresa J
301 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-52
Barnes, Bruce A & Marie R
P. O. Box 948
Chino, CA 91710
216-063-02, 03
Turk, Don M & Rosalie A
525 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-27
Weidner, Rober E. & Evelyn M
537 Ocean View
Encinitas, CA 92024
216-063-48, 49, 50, 51
Cerutti, Anthony
5225 Hermosa Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90041
216-052-26
Lemaire, Allen
275 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-052-51
Sittner, David G
2808 Luciernaga
La Costa, CA 92008
216-030-55
Garrett, Theodore
489 La Costa Avenue
Leucadia, CA 92024
216-063-26
Raff, Gerald D; Pickett, Eugene
2525 Ocean Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92662
214-140-01
M MK g3 vo nj H-
O ^JH WH- O fl>
3 O
H- 125 fi> «
rt » < (Dpi (D 3
CO H H1 3•• H1 O O
O O 3 K
H-rtvo 3
K) Oo
*. (D
P>
53J
0°>m
s
<o
gr