HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-26; City Council; 10272; AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE MAP CT 84-32/PUD 73| MODIFY ROADWAY ALIGNMENTS PROJECT DESIGN CT 84-32A/PUD 73A (CITY OF CARLSBAD)b
4 cd
$4 a
w 0
U [r) g
g
a (d
5 rJ 0 a
a, $4
cd a a,
a
a
U a, CJ
a
m cd 3
h $
0
M
0 U
aJ M -4
M
U 2
h
-4 u U
a,
H &
m m --.
a hl
1 rn
.. 5 F 0 4 i5 2 2 0
Clw OF CARLSBAD - AGENO BILL
AB#- TITLE: AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE MAP (CT 84-32/PUD-73) Di
CI MTG. 9/26/89
DEPT. PLN CI
MODIFY ROADWAY ALIGNMENTS PROJECT DESIGN *
CT 84-32(A)/PUD-73(A) - CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Citl
direct the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING the Mitigated Declaration and Tentative Tract Map/P1 anned Development CT 89-32(A)/PUD
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is a City initiated amendment to an approved tentative tract ma 32/PUD-73 - Cobbl estone Sea Vi 11 age) 1 ocated south of Pal omar Airport east of the future alignment of College Boulevard in Local Facilities M, Zone 20.
The Engineering Department initiated this amendment in order to m( a1 ignment of Coll ege Boul evard between Pal omar Airport Road and Poi nset Subsequent to the map’s original approval in 1985, several alignments o Boulevard have been investigated. The recommended alignment has a horizontal aspect, more closely foll ows the natural terrain, and wi 11 a1 1 access to properties in the area.
All changes required to accommodate the new alignment of College Boule been made to the revised tentative map, including the realignment of Co Road and the addition of Golden Road.
During the amendment process, the property owner proposed mi nor modi f i c
the subdivision including: 1) the widening of building pads causing th ten (10) units, 2) the widening of the approved interior streets to 36 cul-de-sac streets to 30’ and 3) the lowering of the overall site by th allow for a balanced grading operation. The City Engineer determined Planning Commission concurred, that these onsite changes are a benef design and in substantial conformance with the original subdivision api
The conditions of the original tentative map have been amended to re revised tentative map and additional conditions were imposed to ensure project. The amended conditions are contained in Planning Commission F
No. 2849 which is attached as an exhibit. The property owner has agrc amended and added conditions.
The project complies with all the requirements of the Zoning Ordir Subdivision Map Act, and the Hillside Ordinance. As proposed and condi also complies with the adopted performance standards required by t Management Ordinance. The proposed density of 2.65 du’s/acre is consi the site’s General Plan designation of RLM (0-4 du/ac) and is below control point of 3.2 du/ac.
On June 4, 1989, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended apprl 84-32(A)/PUD-73(A) and added two conditions: 1) the limitation of grad
#218 to the construction of the temporary desiltation basin to the sa of the City Engineer, and 2) the widening of cul-de-sac streets to 32 f
possible, to allow for additional parking at the discretion of thc
FACILITIES ZONE
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
GROWTH CONTROL POINT
NET DENSITY
SPECIAL FACILITY FEES
20
AP PROV ED
3.2
2.65
REQU I RED
I
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2848
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARL
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEG, DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PL,
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AI'
APPLICANT: COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE ROAD AND EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD,
CASE NO.: CT 84-32(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of
and on the 7th day of June, 1989 hold a duly noticed public
prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, 1
Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigate
Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cc
foll ows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public t Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibits "ND" dated August 10, 1988, Ext dated August 8, 1988 and Exhibit "PII", dated Janua
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on th
f i ndi ngs :
B)
Findinqs:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidei
Through condition of approval of Minor Subdivision No. 7E
Col 1 ege Boul evard has been re1 i nqui shed thus el imi nat i ng a traffic problem.
2. The site has been previously disturbed by agricultural i
operations.
3. College Avenue and the surrounding street system will be adec to handle any traffic that would be generated by the site.
project may have a significant unmitigated impact on the
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1Q
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
4. A1 1 potent i a1 adverse envi ronmental impacts have been reduced
program (Exhibit "X1') has been incorporated into the project, of insignificance because mitigation as noted on the attached
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th d
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sct
NOES : None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Erwin, McFadden, Marcus & Holmes.
/P% A - MATTHEW HALL, CARLSBAD PLANNING (
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO'lZbIILLEw
PLANNING DIRECTOR
!
I
I
PC RES0 NO. 2848 2
I1
Lxhi bi t " NU' e e
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. CA 92009-4859
situ uf anrlt3ttnb
PLANNING DE PAR TME N T
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Palomar Airp
across the street from existing College Boulevard inters
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Realignment of College Boule1
Palomar Airport Road south to future extension of E Lane.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental revi above described project pursuant to the Guide1 Implementation of the California Environmental Qualit] the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (dc that the project will not have a significant impac environment) is hereby issued for the subject
Justification for this action is on file in the Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive doc
Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the p~
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palm
DATED: August 10, 1988 I%UU&GM 7 /I 3-\
MICHAEL J. HOI~ZMILL~~ CASE NO: EIA 88-2 Planning Director
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH DATE: August 10, 1988
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1 .<nth Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, 5bs- -- 916/645-0613
r -- __- -e
NOTICE OF COHPLETIOW AND EYVIRONNENTAL DOCUMEYT FORM I See MI
I
\ scn #
1. Project Title College Boulevard Realignment
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad
3a. Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive 3b. City:
3. Contact Person: Nancv Rollman
Car lsbad
IC- County? San Dieso 3d. Zip: 92024 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: 4a. City/Community: Car L sbad
4c. Section: --- Tup. --- Range 4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. ---
Sa. Cross Streets: Palomar Airport/Collese Bl. 5b. Nearest Community: --- For Rural,
6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. - 1-5 b. Airports Palomar c. Waterways Pac
7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
- CEaA
01 - MOP 02 - New Element 02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
02 - Early Cons 03 _. General Plan Amendment Acres
03 X Meg Dec
04 - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/ 06 - Specific Plan 04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
(if so, prior SCH #
01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units - Ac
Employees
04 - Master Plan 03 - Shopping/Commerciel: Sq.Ft
Acres Employees - 05 - Annexation
Subsequent EIR
07 - Redevelopment Acres Employees -
08 - 05 - Sewer: MGD Rezone
E 09 - Land Division 06 - Uater: MGD
06 - Notice of Intent Tract Map, etc.) 07 - Transportation: Type
)
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Mineral Extraction: Mineral
Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Pouer Generation: Wattage .
07 - Envir. Assessment/ '0 - Use Permit 08 -
08 - Draft EIS '1 - FONSI
OTHER 12 - Other Type :
09 - Information Only 10 X Other: Road realignment
10 - Final Document 9 TOTAL ACRES: n/a
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geotogic/Seismic 15 - Sewer Capacity 22 - Wa
02 - Agricuttural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - We
Vi
Gr 04 X Archaeological/Mistorical/ 11 X Woise
03 X Air Quality 10 - Mi neral s 17 - Solid Uaste 24 -
'8 - ToxicIHazardous 25 -
05 x Coastal 13 - Schools 20 X Vegetation 27 -
04 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Uater Quality 28 -
Pa I eon t olog i cat 12 __ Public Services 10 1 Traffic/Circulation 26 - In
c UI
Otl
07 - Flooding/Orainagc
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal I State L Total S
13 PRESENT LAND USE AM0 ZONING: Undeveloped area - lou density, residential zoning
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reatignment of College Blvd. from south of Patomar Airport Rd. to future
realignment is proposed approximately 900 feet to the uest of the alignment that uas approved as p;
subdivision map (CT 84-32/PUD-73). The realignment follows a canyon, instead of crossing a canyon
less grading. From an engineering standard, the realignment would reduce the number of curves and
and would allow improved intersection spacing. The realignment also provides for the intersection
Alga at Poinsettia, which previously was offset 500 feet.
15. SICMATURE OF LEAD AGEMCY REPRESEMIATIVE: YhAC LA 'c' e&€ rt\a .- Date: ?A -? -r
“I - e TI e 3tF . &i..ornia .- e-
- Memorandum
To : 1. Projects Coordinator DateJ<\ @ f - /.*yf-pjiq -2
‘b
/ Resources Agency
2. City of Xarlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92024
’0‘ - .JZ3 \ r&-:L>”--
6 \@ ’
I r *\{&E
\ /
Conditional Negative Declaration: College Boeea: San Diego County - SCH 88081005
We have reviewed the Conditional Negative Declaration foi realignment of College Boulevard from Palomar Airport Ro: future extension of Poinsettia Lane in the City of Carlsll
The proposed alignment crosses a narrow drainage course 1 parallel to and south of Palomar Airport Road (page 8, D: of Environmental Evaluation) and the floodplain of Encini Creek. The drainage course contains wetlands. It is the Department of Fish and Game‘s policy to oppose projects h result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland values. We recommend against certification of the Negati Declaration until impacts to wetlands are quantified and wetland compensation plan is formulated. This wetland compensation plan should be designed to create wetland by conversion of non-sensitive uplands in such a manner as t eliminate any net loss of wetland acreage and any net 10s wetland habitat values. Department personnel are availab assist the City of Carlsbad in formulating an acceptable compensation plan.
Diversion or obstruction of the natural-flow or changes i bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will notification to the Department as called for in the Fish Code. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent ag must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved lead agency.
In summary, the project would result in a net loss of wet acreage and wetland habitat values. We consider these im be significant adverse impacts associated with project implementation. Consequently we find that the use of a N Declaration of project impact is contrary to the reqcirem the California Environmental Quality Act reyarding proper environmental documentation. Given quantification of wet: impacts, and incorporation of a wetland compensation plan previously described, the Department would remove its objc the use of a Negative Declaration.
(L /
From : Department of Fish and Gams
Iv subid:
en * a e
-2 -
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on tl project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Regional Manager of Region 5, at 330 Golden Shore, Suite Beach, CA 90802 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113.
Pm-@ Pete Bontadelli
D i r ectp r
&NVIRONMENTAL IMPW AaSESSMENT FORM - PART @
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PUNNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIA 88-2
DATE : January 29
-
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad - Ensineerins Deuartment
2, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad. California 92009 (619) 438-1161
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: July 11, 1983
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be writte
under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluatic
MAY BE - YES
1. Earth - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures?
compaction or overcovering of the soil?
e. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or
off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
b. Disruptions, displacements,
- 0, 0
YES MAYB
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration - of ambient air quality?
odors?
b. The creation of objectionable
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow
d. Change in the amount of surface
e. Discharge into surface waters,
of flood waters?
water in any water body?
or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
0, 0 .
MAY - YES -
4. Plant tif e - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in k-he diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
Animal Life - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noisg - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels?
Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare?
Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an
area?
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? -
-
-
5.
-
into an area, or result in a barrier
6. X
7.
8.
X
-3-
c 0 @
YES MAYB
c 9. Natural Reso urces - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Increaae in the rate of use of any
natural resources? -
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal
natural resource?
involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
substances (including, but not limited
or upset conditions? -
11. Powlation - Will the proposal signif-
icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? -
12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have significant results in:
movement? a. Generation of additional vehicular
b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation -
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
air traffic? -- e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
f. Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? -
-4-
- 0
YES MAY E
e, -
14. Public Sen ices - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant reSUlts in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
- a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
f. Other governmental services?
15. EnerQV - Will the proposal have
-
-
- facilities?
- including roads?
-
significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities :
-
16.
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
-5-
0
MAYBl y3-s
e
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view?
19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Archeolouical/Historical/Paleontolo~ical - Will the proposal have significant
archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or
building?
Analyze viable alternatives to the Drotmsed Project such
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site c c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for e) development at some future time rather than now, f) a1 nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternatiT
a) Future construction will be phased.
b) Three alignments were studied; the preferred proposal h least amount of grading and higher engineering standards.
c) Not applicable.
d) Not applicable.
e) Not applicable.
f) See clBlc above.
g) The presently approved alignment is not environmc sensitive and does not allow for better engineering sta to be met. overall circulation system.
-
results in the alteration of a significant
21.
The roadway is a necessary component of the
-6-
- YES - MAY I
e 0
22. Mandatorv f indinus of sianificance -
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? -
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
time while long-term impacts will
relatively brief, definitive period of
endure well into the future.) -
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The numbered items below refer to the initial study checklist
1. Earth - A preliminary grading plan for the realignment reduced grading when compared to the earlier a] alignment. The approved grading required 791,500 cubic
of earthwork. The proposed grading would entail 388,50C
yards. Instead of crossing a canyon, the realignment follow a canyon. In terms of the impact in and of j without the comparison, the road is a circulation elemer and the amount of earthwork involved is not significant
mile-long segment of major arterial roadway.
The entire road will not be constructed now, but will IC
as development projects in the vicinity are approved. Tt as each phase of development occurs, detailed soils repc be required to ensure that no unstable geologic conditio when grading begins.
-7-
1$ e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO ..&TAL EVALUATION (Continued)
2. & - The realignment will not cause significant impacts quality. The number of vehicle trips from this arterial roadway has been included in regional traffic
Since there would be less grading involved, the shc
construction impacts would be reduced.
3. Water - The proposed alignment crosses a narrow drainage running parallel to and about 450 feet south of Palomar Road will include drainage improvements that will
beneficial effect on local stream flow,
4. Plant Life - Impacts by the construction of realigned Boulevard would occur to one-half acre of good coast, scrub, one and one-half acres of disturbed coastal sage
and less than 0.1 acre of willow scrub. These habitat as patches surrounded by disturbed weedy areas and cul fields. The impacts are not considered significant. Th
I1 Local Coastal Program (Policy 4 - 3B) which covers th exempts circulation element roads from mitigation. A report is on file with the Planning Department.
5. Animal Life - No sensitive species would be directly in although foraging area for raptors would be lost. This considered a significant impact because the foraging a no nesting habitat in it, and there are other ope] nearby. - Noise - The proposal to realign the road will not impac
levels. When construction begins, there will be shc
construction impacts; however, the road improvements made generally in concert with or before resj development occurs in the vicinity. There will be IC unavoidable noise impacts related to increased arterial volumes. However, since no residential developme occurred yet as mitigation of potential future noise j future projects will be conditioned to do project- noise studies to determine appropriate- setbacks so tha impacts will be avoided.
7. Liaht and Glare - Street lighting will be a part of construction phases of the road. The street lighting safety purposes and will not produce adverse glare.
8. Land Use - The proposed realignment divides several prc and creates small slivers of land with separate owner: mitigate potential impacts. Land swaps or condemnati occur as a condition of this negative declaration so t City is not obligated to provide access for a small par(
a major arterial roadway, in conflict with intersection requirements.
6.
-8-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO 0 TAL EVALUATION (Continue,,
The planned land use of the area is primarily residentia
Some office- Since the area is not yet built, the real can be coordinated into future development project appropriate landscaping, buffers, setbacks, etc.
Natural Re SOUrCeS = Not applicable. 9.
10. Risk of UDset - Not applicable.
11. PoDulation - The realignment will allow developers to
with planning more specific projects. However, a facilities plan, per the City's Growth Management Orc
must be approved prior to any building occurring in thi
Since at lease three development proposals have been SL before the alignment was changed, this proposal considered significant to population growth.
12. Housinq - See number 11 above.
13. TransDortation/Circulation - The realignment o Circulation Element Road would have a positive effect or traffic circulation. Engineering standards would be bet
with the realignment, in that it would reduce the nu
curves and vertical grades, and would improve inter
spacing. The realignment also provides for the intersec
College and Alga at Poinsettia, which previously was off
feet. Existing transportation will not be affected beca
road is not constructed yet. Future construction of
Boulevard and subsequent vehicular use will imprc Citywide circulation system because traffic will be c
off of Palomar Airport Road, onto College and Poir
parking will not be allowed on the future road; sidewa
bike lanes will be provided.
14. Public Services - Road maintenance will be required af
roadway is constructed. This is not considered a sigr
impact on city services.
15. Enemy - Future construction of College Boulevard w require substantial amounts of energy, i.e., fuel, and c
by itself create a significant demand on energy sources,
16. utilitieg - New standard utilities will be installed wil
4
roadway, as is appropriate and necessary.
to future drivers. 17. Human Healm - The realignment would ultimately be ber
18. Aesthetics - The realignment of College will basically 1 roadway in or following a canyon, rather than crossi The result is less graded slopes and a less obtrusive 1
The proposal will not create an aesthetically of fensivt
view since the alignment will follow the topography.
-9-
a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALluATIo~ (Continued)
19. Recreation - New bike lanes will be provided when
20. Archaeolouical/Historical - An archaeological survey b
on the realignment, covering 200 feet on both sides center line of College -- no historic or prehistoric I resources will be impacted by construction of the 1
realignment.
Boulevard is constructed.
21. Mandatory Findinas of Sianificance -
A. The realignment of College Boulevard will improve
quality of the environment by ensuring a safer, bet engineered roadway.
B. The project implements one of the City's General E long-term goals of providing a safe and efficj circulation system.
C. The project would improve the design of a Circulat
Element Road and would reduce future impacts on grac and standards.
D. The project should have both direct and indir positive effects on humans by achieving part of City's long-term circulation goals.
-10-
e 0 IV. DETERMINATION (‘-.1 Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ef the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepare(
I find that although the proposed project could have a sign
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant t this case because the mitigation measures described on an ai
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negatil
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect or environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
Declaration will be proposed.
2LLfil& 5. /?i$&vl% --Z-&Gr- 7- 3-m
Date
/hO* Plannind Director
qqG@
Date
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
1. To avoid creating small, landlocked parcels that could obA the City to provide direct access onto College Boulevard, swaps and/or condemnation shall be undertaken and complet the property owners and/or the City before any constrl
begins on College Boulevard.
2. Detailed soils reports shall be prepared for each pha College Boulevard per the new alignment, to be approved b City Engineer. Any mitigation identified in the soils x shall be incorporated into the roadway design.
3. Future development projects along the proposed realiq shall prepare detailed noise studies which address approF setback for the development from College Boulevard.
-11-
e
VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION 0
-
p -fi4fi
Date City Engineer
-12-
IRONMENTAL MI TI GAT ION MONI TOR^ CHEC KL I ST
EbaJ J doc 49 c1 Cu * 03 N *
0 z - 5: a e
0 c1
x
n .s x w
c1 .- .-
h
Y
.^ CI < -----------
I
-- --. -- -- --
- .
$-
4'
UlM -I
c 41 Cl
4 L c, Q 4 14
0 4
wa ala 1 ;;
ac
OI
-4 k( e, 04- I
" ;
A &: fi e;
***x*
2 VI
w u
B u z ;
U, a
t- -
= 0 Ec
2 ra g mi .- s5 allbm 2 bVI J33 gz .-
a-t -13m V1 u ZQ 2 q zgk
bp g:f >a Q)m L
0: &: .om'. ULQ)
ZFt ;g+ Lal
Q4& % .- m
-0 u 1- * uVI 5Q)VI aLlr Q)VI
,E; Y 0 s+ 003 aP)E 3- +u0 n.c1.- LL~
0
tl
LL za E nu 0 bL L.
N m z2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I.g
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0, 0
- PLANNING COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2849
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARL CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TENT
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULE
TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY La
APPLICANT: COBRLESTONE SEA VILLAGE CASE NO.: CT 84-32(A)
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit.
All that parcel of land designated as "description No. 5, 1
acres" as shown and delineated on record of Survey Map No.
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego Co
December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot "G" of the Rancho Hedionda in the County of San Diego, State of California, acco to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of County Record San Diego County, November 16, 1896.,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to tl
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 14th day of Au
the 3rd day of May, 1989, and the 7th day of June, 1989 hold a d
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons.
1 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring .to be
Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tr;
P1 anned Unit Development .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Co
follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hc
Commission recoinmends APPROVAL of CT 84-32 (A), based on th findings and subject to the following conditions:
I,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
./ e
Fi ndi nas:
1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since . density of 2.65 du's/acre is within the density range of 0- specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Elei General P1 an.
2) The site is physically suitable for the type and dens development since the site is adequate in size and shape to residential development at the density proposed.
3) The project is consistent with all City public facility I ordinances since:
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an condition to this project, ensured that the final map approved unless the City Council finds that sewer available to serve the project. In addition, tl Commission has added a condition that a note shall be p
unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service i and building cannot occur within the project unless st remains available, and the Public Facilities Element of Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer serv. project.
The Carlsbad School District has written a letter, date 1984, stating that school facilities will be availa project.
c) Park-in-lieu fees or parks dedication is required as a approval.
d) The applicant has agreed and is required by the incl appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. of that contract and payment of the fee will enable 1 find that public facilities will be available concurre
as required by the General Plan.
4) The proposed project is consistent with the City's Planned Ordinance and also complies with the Design Guidelines Manu
5) This project will not cause any significant environmental im applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 83-8 and t the City Council on June 4, 1984 and by Negative Declarati( incorporated into the project.
final map that building permits may not be issued for
b)
Conditions :
1) Approval is granted for CT 84-32, as shown on Exhibits "A' June 7, 1985 and by Exhibits "A" dated May 31, 1989 and "Bll dated May 3, 1989, incorporated by reference and on file in
PC RES0 NO. 2849 -2-
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
@/ @
Department. Development shall occur substantially as st otherwise noted in these conditions. Building elevation exh be submitted for approval by the Planning Director prior to any building permits.
This subdivision is approved subject to the conditions l contained in City Council Resolution No. 8201, unless 5 modi f i ed by thi s amendment.
3) Modifications to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2425: Cc 10 is amended to read:
(10) The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to an(
approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuancr of grading permits.
2)
4) Condition No. 24 is amended to read;
(24) shall be approved by the Planning Director. Prior to approval of the Final Map a Parking Plai
After Condition No. 27 the following Condition shall be add
(27) Prior. to final map approval, a wetland compensatioi plan must be approved by the Planning Director. Thi
plan shall include the planting of a maximum of thirt,
(30) trees.
5)
6) Condition No. 33 is amended to read;
(33) All Islopes within this project shall be no steepe
than 2:l. Terrace ditches shall be required on a1 slopes where existing terrain 5:l or steeper.
7) Condition No. 43 is amended to read;
I (43) P1 ans , speci f i cat i ons, and support i ng docume improvemenits shall be prepared to the satisfaction Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the Subc install, or agree to install and secure with appropri as provide!d by law, improvements shown on the tentativc following improvements to City Standards to the satisfi City Engineer:
a) Full width street improvements of College Boulev center1 ine of Palomar Airport Road to the souther1 of Cobbl estone Road.
b) Street improvements on Cobblestone Road from Colli
to Cobblestone Drive and Cobblestone Drive fron Road to Sapphire Drive shall be designed and c(
PC. RES0 NO. 2849 -3-
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
I'
12
13
14
15
16
I"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
./ 0
collec.tor standards, with the addition of an 8' \ median. Necessary right-of-way for this road is 7 improvements on the remaining portions of Cobblc
shall be designed and constructed as 68' wid€ streets.
c) Golden Road shall be designed and constructed as local street. A standard cul-de-sac shall be uti
to proposed entry gate.
The westerly extension of Sapphire Drive shall be c constructed as a 40' wide local street to the bounc subd i vi si on.
Street barricades at the end of paved improvements Boulevard and all public streets. Barricades sh lighted by permanent street lights.
f) Sewer and water service in Cobblestone Road and B1 vd.
d)
e)
8) Condition No. 4'9 is amended to read;
(49) The design of all private streets and drainage systems be in accordance with current standards for public streets the exception of width) and shall be approved by the City En( prior to approval of the final map for this project. structural section of all private streets shall conform to C Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private stree drainage systems shall be inspected by the City, and the st improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid pr approval of the final map for this project.
9) Condition No. 52 is amended to read;
(52) Street iniprovements shall be installed to the satisf of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of any units with
A. PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO:
I phased development as follows:
1) 2)
3)
4) 5)
College Boulevard full width as noted in Conditic Cobblestone Road and Cobblestone Drive full widtt
Extension of Sapphire Drive as noted in conditio1 Golden Road full width as noted in Condition No. Extension of Turquoise Drive full width to the in. Go1 den Road.
Condition No. 43.
B. ALL SUBSEQUENT PHASES:
1) All frontage improvements within that Phase.
PC RES0 NO. 2849 -4-
I
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
.,, 0
10) Condition No. 58 is amended to read;
(58) Prior to recordation of the final map, a detailed site 217, the proposed recreation/RV storage and open space are submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and the Ci Any uses proposed that are inconsistent with recreation/RV open space shall be required to be approved by the Planning
11) Condition No. 62 shall be deleted.
12) The sewer and drainage systems onsite shall be conside utilities constructed to public standards. A note to this t be placed on the final map and improvements plans for this
13. Prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel nap or building permits, whichever is first, the Owner shall prepar a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from . or existing Transportation Corridor in a manner meeting the the Planning Director and City Attorney (See form Noise 1).
14. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel issuance of residential building permits, whichever is firs1 of record of the property within the boundaries of thi tract/parcel map shall prepare and record a notice (Form Nc this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound operating from IPalmar Airport in a manner meeting the appr Planning Director and the City Attorney.
15. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel issuance of residential building permits, whichever is avigation easement over this property shall be offered for dc the County of San Diego in a manner meeting the approval of . Director and City Attorney (See fom Noise 3).
16. The applicant slhall post aircraft noise notification signs and/or rental offices associated with the new development. and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Plann
17. The grading of Lot 218 shall be limited to that requir temporary desiltation basin as approved by the City Engineel
18. All cul-de-sac streets shall be widened to 32 feet sub; approval of the Planning Director.
I (See form Noise 4).
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 2849 -5-
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a- 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
Commission of the Cit:y of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th d
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN : None.
Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramn
McFadden & Marcus.
-6- PC RES0 NO. 2849
APPLICATION COM
)I
I
None - City 1 0
STAFF REPORT
/r;l- -_
JUNE 7, 1989 J DATE:
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
SUBJECT: CT 84-32(A)/PUD-73(A) - COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE - A City Amendment to Tentative Map (CT 84-32/PUD-73) to modif alignments and project design on property located south c Airport Road and east of College Boulevard. The project I in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2848 Recommending AP the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 10, 1988 issued by the Director (State Clearinghouse # SCH 88081005); and adopt resolution recommending APPROVAL of CT 84-32(A)/PUO-73(A) based on the findings I therein.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This Project is a City initiated amendment to a previously approved 1 Tract Map (CT 84-32) located as described above. The Tentative Tract Planned Development Permit for this project was reviewed and approve1 Planning Commission on August 14, 1985. As part of that appro\ subdivision was conditioned to improve College Boulevard to Palomar AirC to serve as its primary access. The alignment of College Boulevard as or approved as shown on attached Exhibit "6". During review of the imp plans for this subdivision, the alignment of College Boulevard from Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane was investigated and additional alignme developed. Exhibit "C" shows the alignment preferred by staff. This a
is favored because it has a straight horizontal aspect and it more follows the natural terrain. Also, this alignment follows a north/sout from Poinsettia Lane to Palomar Airport Road and will allow easier ac properties in this area. Affected property owners have been notif additional environmental review has been performed.
Two onsite changes will be required of CT 84-32 because of the College Bc realignment. First, the realignment of Cobblestone Road and second, the q
of Golden Road. The Cobblestone Road realignment closely follows the c College Boulevard a1 ignment and meets a1 1 Engineering Department stand2 a collector street. Golden Road is proposed to provide secondary accesi project and will require substantially less grading onsite and offsite 1
COBBLESTONE SEA (ILLAGE 0
DATE: JUNE 7, 1989
PAGE 2
8. ---i .1 , __
orig@ally approved secondary access. Other minor modification
i) a loss of ten (10) units to create wider pads
widening of the approved cul-de-sac streets from 24’ to 30’ to pr(
openness to the‘project and iii) the lowering of the overall site b, to al’lOW for a balanced grading plan These modifications are not c substantial and result in an improved project.
*‘ &WRision include:
111. ANALYSIS
1. Do the proposed alignments conform to City Standards?
2. Are the proposed changes consistent with the adopted Local F
Management Plan for Zone 20?
3. Are the proposed changes consistent with the City’s General Plan Coastal Program?
4. Are there adverse environmental consequences of the proposed am1
DISCUSSION
The approved project contains a7 ignments for College Boulevard, Cobblest,
and a secondary access which are less sensitive to terrain and requ grading to construct than the proposed amendment. Specifically, the
quantities for the secondary access and Cobblestone Road were appro
600,000 cubic yards. The proposed grading quantities for College Bo
Cobblestone Road and Golden Road are approximately 337,000 cubic yard. Cobblestone Sea Village was approved, the intersection of Alga Road/Po Lane was not established. Subsequently the Pacific Rim subdivision was p
which fixed this intersection approximately 500 feet west of the Boulevard/Poinsettia Lane Intersection. The proposed modification will e
this offset, reduce grading quantities, and provide better access to
parcel s.
In addition to the alignment changes initiated by the City, the properi
of CT 84-32 has proposed to delete 10 lots, widen the cul-de-sac stret
24’ to 30’ and to lower the overall site 2’ to balance the grading opc
comply with current City Standards. The City Engineer has determined thai
changes proposed are a benefit to the design and in substantial conformar the original subdivision approval.
The City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) contain polici require development to not adversely impact sensitive resources. The alignment conforms to the General Location of College Boulevard, as depi
both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Maps. The amended a1 reduces potential impacts to sensitive Coastal Resources. Therefore the p
amendment is consistent with both the City’s General Plan and Local (
Program.
Staff believes the proposed amendments improve the design of this proj
COBBLESTONE SEA $LAGE 0 DATE: JUNE 7, 19 PAGE 3
8 IY. ENVIRONMENTAL REV I EW
The Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for th on August 10, 1988. That Negative Declaration was sent to the Clearing
30 days of Public review (SCH #88081005). One comment was rece
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (letter attached).
recommends against certification of the Negative Declaration until thl
to wetlands are quantified and a compensation plan has been formulate1
requirements have been satisfied. (See discussion below as well as a
to Exhibit No. 2).
The Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed,d
of College Boulevard would affect an existing biological habitat by eli
0.02 acres of riparian woodland habitat. A conceptual habitat compensai
has been proposed that would reduce the potential riparian impacts to
of insignificance. A Condition has been added to the project that woulc the precise compensation to be approved by the Planning Direct,or prio final map approval Staff has investigated the area and consulted biologist and has 'found that suitable sites exist adjacent to the
project to reestablish the habitat affected by the new alignment of
Boulevard. Therefore, as conditioned, all environmental impacts can be m and the proposed project will not cause any significant environmental
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2848 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2849
3. Location Map 4. Exhibit "A" revised Tentative Map, dated May 31, 1989 5.
6. Exhibit "C" revised College Blvd. alignment, dated May 3, 1989
CW:lh
Exhibit ''8" previously approved Tentative Map
March 20, 1989
\
@ LWLMIIUIY M@,r
I/
0 //
A // P Q)@J
SITE
COBBLESTONE
L
PUD
CT ai
,
-/
Date of Meeting: June 7. 1989
COMMlSSlONEf Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Hall called the Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Holmes.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman Hall, Commissioners Erwin, Holmes, Marcus, McFadden, Schlehuber, and Schramm
Staff Members Present:
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director .
Mike Howes, Principal Planner
Gary Wayne, Principal Planner
Bobbie Hodei:, Senior Management Analyst
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney David Hauseir, Assistant City Engineer
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Martin Orenyak. Community Development Director
Raymond Patchett, City Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES:
Chairman Hall reviewed the Planning Comission procedures on
the overhead for the benefit of the audience.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN TRE AGEM)A:
There were no co.ments from the audience.
Chairman Hall announced that there would be a minor change in
the agenda and that item 3), MP-l77(A) Aviara Pacific, would
be heard between items 6) and 7). The Commissioners all agreed to the agenda change.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1) CT 84-32(A)/PUD-73(A) COBBLESTONE - A City initiated
Amendment to Tentative Map (CT 84-32/PUD-73) to modify
roadway alignments and project design on property
located sou.th of Palomar Airport Road and east of
College Boulevard located within Local Facilities
Management Zone 20.
Gary Wayne, Principal Planner, reviewed the background of the
request and staced that this project is a City-initiated
request to amend a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (CT 84-32) and Planned Development Permit (PUD 73) to modify
roadway alignments. The original map/pemit was approved in
1985 and was conditioned to improve College Boulevard to
Palomar Airport Road. During review of the improvement plans
for the Cobblestone subdivision, the alignment of College
Boulevard from I'alornar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane was
investigated and additional alignments were developed to
eliminate a 500 ft. intersection offset created by the Aviara
Master Plan. The proposed modification will also reduce
grading quantities and provide better access to adjacent
parcels.
In addition to ,the alignment, the property owner has proposed
to delete ten lots from his subdivision and to widen the
interior street.s to 36 ft. and the cul-de-sacs to 30 ft. and
CO M M ISSIC June 7, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2
I
lower the overall site by approximately two feet.
some concerns regarding the grading of the open space lot
(Lot 218) and the applicant has agreed to minimize grading on
this lot to only that amount required for the desiltation
bas in.
During the environmental review, it was found that the
proposed alignment would eliminate approximately two one
hundredths (.02) of an acre of riparian woodland along
Encinas Creek. Staff has investigated the area and upon
consultation with a local biologist, has determined that
there are suitable sites adjacent to the roadway to effect a mitigation. A condition has been added to require a wetland
compensation plan approved by the Planning Director prior to recordation of any final map.
more restrictive conditions to ensure a better project, and
the applicant has agreed to the conditions.
A copy of Bill Hofman's letter dated June 6, 1989 is filed
with these minutes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if there would be a parking
restriction 011 the 30 ft. roads. Mr. Wojcik replied that the
road must be at least 32 ft. wide in order to accommodate
parking. Parking will be provided on the 36 ft. streets.
Conmissioner Erwin noted that the map shows Ruby Way as a 30
ft. vide cul-de-sac and, therefore, Lots 137-142 and 150-155
would not have on-street parking. Mr. Wayne replied that this is correct.
Commissioner McFadden noted that Condition 111 on page two of Resolution No. 2849 requires building elevations to be
approved by the Planning Director. what type of product will be built.
elevations have not yet been provided by the applicant.
Commissioner I4cFadden noted that construction will be in two
phases and inquired if the grading would also be in separate
phases. Mr. ldayne replied that the applicant could address
that item.
Staff had
Staff has also added other
She would like to know
Mr. Wayne replied that
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday, Suite
120, Carlsbad, representing the property owner, addressed the
Commission and stated that his client, Davidson Communities,
has agreed to the conditions and the staff recommendation.
He stated that grading would be done in one phase due to the
construction of College Boulevard.
Commissioner IkFadden's inquiry about the product, he stated that the product is currently being developed and floor plans
should be subinitted to staff within one month. He reiterated
his letter of intent regarding a reduction of grading on the
open space lot.
Chairman Hall inquired how many builders would be involved.
Mr. Hofman replied that there would be two builders: Davidson Conmimities and California Communities.
Commissioner :%win inquired about the logic of the 30 ft.
roads. Mr. Hisfman replied that the roads were originally
approved at 2A ft. and staff requested they be widened to a
In response to
minimum of 30 ft, He will attempt to increase the width of
I
June 7, 1989 HA,N”NG COMMISSION Page 3
I
the cul-de-sacs to 32 ft. to accommodate some parking,
especially on the longer street.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman Hall declared the public
testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the
Commission members.
Commissioner Erwin would like all roads to be a minimum of 32
ft. to accommodatie parking.
Commissioner Schlehuber thinks that is a goad idea but
project. Mr. Wayne replied that a condition could be added
to leave the road widths to the discretion of the Planning
Director, and staff will work with the applicant during the
final map stage to increase the widths.
Commissioner McFadden stated that she is happy to see the
added conditions regarding abrogation of easements and
notification to future buyers. She feels the amendment is an
improvement over the original approval and can support the project with the two added conditions.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 28.48 recommending approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration dated August 10, 1988 issued by the
Planning Director (State Clearinghouse HSCH 88081005) ; and adopt Resolution No. 2849 recornending approval of
CT 84-32(A)/PUD i‘3(A) based on the findings contained
therein, including two new conditions to: (1) limit the
grading on Lot K!18 to construction of the temporary
desiltation basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and (2) widening of the cul-de-sac streets to 32 ft. at
doesn’t feel the Commission should force redesign of the
the discretion OF-‘ the Planning Director.
Commissioner Schiehuber requested a comment from Mr. Hofman regarding the road width condition. Mr. Hofman can accept
the condition on the premise that it is left to the
discretion of the Planning Director.
2) SP-144 SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY - Request to
replace six uncovered wastewater collection ponds with
six collection tanks at the Encina Power Plant, 4600
Carlsbad Boulevard, located in the PU Zone and Local
Facilities Yanagement Zone 3.
Charles Grirmn, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff
has received an inquiry from a XKXE attorney questioning the
city’s ability to place certain conditions on this project.
Our City attorney feels that additional time is needed in order to respond to the questions which have been raised.
Staff is recommending a continuance at the request of the
City attorney.
Chairman Hall reported that he has three persons who wished
to speak to this item.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that persons who
are unable to return at a later date could be permitted to
speak.
COMMISSIONER!
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Marcus McFadden
Schlehub
Schramm