The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-03-22; City Council; 12637; Poinsettia HillrTY OF CARLSBAD - AG+?DA BILL ,B#w TITLE: ITG. 3 42-94f PO@xmTtA HILL - cr 93-03KP 934x!/ HDP 934WSDP 93-02 IEPT. prJ+I I CITY MGR. $% lECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, CT 93-03, CP 93-02, SDP 93-02 and HDP 93-02 as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION On January 5, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings and recommended approval (5-2, Erwin & Welshons) of the Poinsettia Hill proposal, located in the southwest quadrant of the City, 0.75 miles south of El Camino Real and 0.25 miles west of El Camino Real, in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. The permit request involves a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to subdivide the property into 184 airspace condominiums, a Site Development Plan to develop under a Qualified Development Overlay and to allow additional units for the potential provision of affordable housing, and a Hillside Development Permit to allow grading and construction on the hillside property. The property was annexed into the City in 1984 and designated for multi-family residential uses. The project site is currently under agriculture or covered by mixed chaparral and dirt roadways. The proposed development will preserve and enhance over 11 acres of open space along the northern portion of the site. This open space has the potential of connecting to future adjacent open space areas to form a wildlife corridor, as recommended by the City’s Habitat Management Plan. While the project qualifies to pay the inclusionary housing impact fee of $2,925 per dwelling unit, the applicant has volunteered to attempt to construct 24 affordable units on site. The provision of 24 affordable units would require a withdrawal of 9 units from the unit bank within the southwest quadrant. The withdrawal of 9 units would leave the excess unit count in the southwest quadrant at approximately 500 dwelling units. Should the applicant chose to not build the affordable housing units, no additional units would be needed for the project and the affordable housing site would remain vacant until subsequent discretionary review allowed further development. Several minor revisions to the Planning Commission Resolutions were made at the Planning Commission hearing. These revisions clarified the affordable housing provision options, added or clarified noticing regarding the adjacent park and agricultural uses, and ensured through access for surrounding property owners. The Poinsettia Hill proposal was found to be consistent with the various elements of the General Plan, the applicable segments of the Local Coastal Program, the applicable sections of the Municipal Code, and the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore the Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the Poinsettia Hill proposal. For further information please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes. - - PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. la, b33 , ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration was processed for the Poinsettia Hill proposal, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Mitigation measures in the areas of geologic safety, air quality, archeology, paleontology, and biology have been included to reduce any potentially adverse environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to all responsible agencies for review and only one comment from the California Integrated Waste Management Board was received. The commenting letter and the City’s response are included in the attached staff report. FISCAL IMPACT All public facilities required to serve the additional dwelling units will be constructed prior to or concurrent with development as mandated by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21. Since these improvements will be constructed by the developer, no negative fiscal impact will be incurred by the City. Development of the area will increase land values thus creating a positive fiscal impact in the form of increased property tax revenues. GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS Facilities Zone I - I 21 Local Facilities Management Plan I I - 21 Growth Control Point I - I 6.0 D.U./Acre Net Density I - I 6.0 D.U./Acre* Special Facilities Conditioned to annex into C.F.D. No. 1 * Net density will equal 6.3 du/acre should the affordable housing site be developed. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3606, 3607, 3608, 3609, and 3610 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 5, 1994 4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 5, 1994 J EXHIBIT 1 City of lhbd POINSETTIA HILL CT 93-03&P 93-021 SDP 93=02/HDP 93-02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHlBlT 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE, GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A 184 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL CASE NO: CT 93-03KP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of January, 1994, 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, examinin g the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission ~ as follows: A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated November 11, 1993, and “PIT’, dated October 19, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: ~ Fin-: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously partially cleared for agriculture and contains no sensitive animal or plant species with the exception of one sighting of a threatened bird which has been determined to be transitory in occupance. 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 3. The existing and proposed streets are adequate in size to handle the anticipated traffic. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by the development and implementation of the master plan. Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed grading is in conformance to the recommendations of the “Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, 36 Acre Parcel, Q&bad, California”, prepared by ICG Inc., dated February 16, 1990, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the developer shall do the following: . Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust preventive measures; . Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; . Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown; . Spread soil binders; . Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and .prevent dust pick up by the wind; . Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; . Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; . Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. To mitigate potential archeological impacts, the developer shall perform a data recovery operation, as described in the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, grading or building permit. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit: . A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. . A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the PC MS0 NO. 3606 -2- 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 6. 7. . . . . . ..* . . . . . The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to fkilitate evaluation a& if necessaq, salvage artifacts. . All f& collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution witharesearchinterestinthematerials,suchastheSanDiego Natural History Museum. . Any conflicts regard@ the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director. prior to final map appro* the applicant shall be required to: (1) consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife service (FWS) and California Deptment of Fish & Game (F&G) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and;(2)beissuedaQypennitsrequiredby~FwSandF&G. To mitigate the loss of southem mixed and chamise chaparral habitat, Amtostaphylos gland~osa var. aassifolia (Del Mar Manzanita), Comarostaphylis dieolia (Summer holly) and Ceanotlms verrucmus (Wart-stemmed Ceanothus), the proposed development shall demonstrate conformance to the recommendations of the “A Biological Study of the Poinsettia Hills Development Project...“, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated April, 1992, on file in the City of Carl&ad Planning Departmen& prior to the approval of any final map or issuance of any gradingpermit. Topresenretheconnectivityoftheopenspacealongthenorthernedgeofthe projec&theexktingdktmbedamasoftbeSDG&Eeasementandthemanuf&ured slopes resulting from the access road to the aEotible housing site shall be planted with native species and maintained to prevent invasion by non-native species. A landscaping plan showing this planting and maintenance shall be submitted to and approved by the planning Director prior to approval of final map or issuance of gradingpermit- PC RESO NO. 3606 -3- small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it hay be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing throughfinescreens. The paleontologist shall make periodic repom to the Planning Director during the grading process. G PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble & Hall. NOES: Commissioners Erwin & Welshons. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING- COMMISSION ATTEST: . PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3606 -4- CONDlTIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJEm DESCRIPTION: Tentative tract map, condominium permit, sire development plan and hillside development permit for the subdivision, grading, and construction of 184 multifamily units on a 36.2 acre parcel. 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 Conditional 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 Planning Department. A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499. MICHAEL J~OLZl&LLJZR Planning Director DATED: NOVEMBER 11, 1993 CASE NO: CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 CASE NAME: POINSE’ITLA HILL PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1993 2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 l (619) 436- 1 161 63 % ~ObMENT’AL IMPACT ASSFSSMFNT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 DATE: OCTOBER19.1993 1. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL 2. APPLICANT: POINSETTIA HILL, LIMITED 3. ADDRESSANDPHONENUMBEROFAPPLICANT: 23CORPOFiATEPLbZA SUITE139 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 (619) 438-4090 4. DATE ELAFORM PART1 SUBMITTED: MARCH17.1993 5. PROJECTDESCRIPTION: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SUBDMDING. GRADING. AND CONSTRUCTION OF 184 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON 36.2 ACRES LOCATED 0.75 MILES SOUTHOFPALOMARAIRFORTROADAND0.25MILESWEST OF EL CAMINO REAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sign&ant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings “YES-sig” and ‘YES-insig” respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. < 4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT iVILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR [NDLRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical fearures? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in rhe deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES YES !sigl linsig) x x NO Y L Y I Y I x x x x x x -2- -. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDiRECTLY: YES YES (slg) (insig) 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Affect the diversicy of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including rrees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? [ntroduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN x ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? NO x NO x x -3- HUMANENVlRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2s. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Result in rhe need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? WR) (ins& [ncrease existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? .. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? x Y L x Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Y L x x Generare substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? x Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? x - Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? x tncrease traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? x Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? x - Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? A- -4- \t MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFlCANCE WILL, THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES 33. 34. 3s. 36. NO (SK%) ilnslg) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 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 relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x x -S- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Poinsettia l4.U Proposal (CT’ 93-03KP 93-OZ/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02) consists of the subdivision, grading, and construction of 184 multifamily units on a 36.2 acre parcel near El Camino Real. The project site is comprised of a east-west trending ridgeline, with the northern slope being covered by native chaparral habitat and the southern slope being used for agriculture. A San Diego Gas and Electric power transmission line easement, containing two narrow access roads, transects the site in the eastern and northern portions and an unimproved roadway follows the ridgeline serving the neighboring agricultural uses. To the north of the project site is a developed industrial park, to the east is a parcel proposed for over 300 affordable housing units, to the west is the Phase III portion of the Aviara master plan, and to the south is a sliver of agriculture bordered by an undisturbed area of native habitat. The site is designated for residential uses and is located within an approved local facilities management zone. The property is also covered by the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program and subject to all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code with regard to subdivision, physical development, and land use. In 1984, the property underwent a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Impact Report and Annexation (GPA 83-2, ZC 281, ZC 316, EIR 83-7, and Annex. No. S 1.39). The approval of these requests incorporated the project site into Carlsbad and designated it for medium density residential uses conforming to the RD-M-Q zoning requirements. The certified environmental impact report for these actions accurately surveyed the project site and all conditions remain essentially as reported in that document. The previously approved development condoned removal of large portions of southern mixed and chamise chaparral (potentially 11.5 acres) for high density residential uses. The current proposal has been redesigned to avoid all but 6.32 acres of chaparral habitat and to enhance the existing low quality habitat. Also present in the area are some sensitive plant species. These species have been slated for preservation and enhancement with this proposed development. A California Black tailed gnatcatcher was sighted on one occasion by a representative of the California Department of Fish and Game. After further consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, it was concluded that since there is no coastal sage scrub habitat within the broject site and only one sighting had been made, the bird’s occupation of the area was most likely transitory in nature. A complete biological evaluation is contained in “A Biological Study for the Poinsettia Hills Development Project...“, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated April, 1992. The proposed grading of 311,900 cubic yards will not balance on site, however the adjacent property to the south will be used as a controlled stockpile. This site will most likely contain multifamily residential development in the future and the proposed grading scheme accommodates this ultimate development. The project site will be served by a local collector street, connecting to El Camino Real, approximately 0.25 miles to the east. All public facilities required for development will be installed concurrent with development. Considering the environmental discussions below, along with the proposed mitigation measures, no sign&ant, adverse environmental impact- should occur as a result of the proposed Poinsettia Hill development. -6- . PHYSICAL rWvIRoNMENT: L 1. The area comprismg the Poinsettia Hill proposal consists of a prominent east-west trending ridge with two side slopes, emmiing from approximately 320 feet elevation to approximately 240 feet to the north and south. The underlying geologic composition is predominantly Torrey Sandstone, with a thin cap of Lindavista Formation on the ridgetop and some colluvium and alluvium materials in the southern portion of the site. The only potentially unstable earth condition is due to the alluvial soils that will undergo post-grading settlement. As recommended by the “Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, 36 Acre Parcel, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by KG Inc. and dated February 16, 1990, the settlement can be compensated by recompaction of the fill or by removing the alluvial materials from the fill all together. These alluviums may contain perched groundwater, necessitating surcharging and/or settlement monitoring during grading operations. The evaluations in the geotechnical investigation show that some measures are required to preclude geotechnical hazards within the Poinsettia Hill site. Therefore, the project is conditioned to adhere to the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Based upon this condition, the proposed grading for the Poinsettia Hill tentative map will not result in unstable earth conditions nor increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, either within the project or on adjoining properties. 2. The essential topographic trend of a ridgeline with slopes trailing away to the north and south will remain. No unique physical features are found on the site. The steeper slopes of the northern portion of the project will remain in their existing state and the development on the southern portion will terrace down the slope to preserve the existing topography. Therefore the proposed grading for the Poinsettia Hill tentative map will not appreciably change the topography or any unique physical feature. 3. All projects within the Coastal Zone are required to maintain effective soil erosion controls and restricted from grading during “rainy season” (October 1 through April IS). In addition, erosion control measures such as slope landscaping, protective devices, and desiltation basins are required by Chapter 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, City of Carlsbad Enginee&ng Standards, and the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual. No clearing of vegetation or grading of earth will be allowed until the grading plans for the proposed tentative map show adequate erosion control measures to preclude the erosion of soils either on or off the site. 4. No. beach sands, river or stream channels, oceans, bays, inlets or lakes exist within the Poinsettia Hill development area. No predominant drainage channel has been established on the project slopes, however there is an east-west trending drainage along the southern boundary of the project site. The closest large bodies of water and perennial river are the Pacific Ocean, Batiquitos Lagoon and associated San Marcos Creek, located over a mile to the south and west, well removed from the project’s influence. 5. Grading and construction of the Poinsettia Hill development will cause increased aerosol emissions in the form of dust and engine exhaust. Occupation of the developed project area will result in an increase of approximately 1472 average daily trips, which will incrementally add to the existing mobile source emissions. Construction and occupation of the project area will also increase the gas and electric power consumption, which will also incrementally contribute to air -7- . pollution emissions. In order to reduce the level of air pollution impacts, the project is conditioned with fugitive dust control measures and traffic reduction measures. These measures are listed in detail in the Mitigation Measures section of this environmental impact assessment. Given the regional nature of air quality, and the programs in the San Diego Basin Air Quality Plan, the potential air quality impacts are lessened to the greatest extent possible. 6. The conversion of surfaces within the Poinsettia Hill tentative map from the currently undeveloped, partially cleared state to a developed, partially impermeable state will result in changes in various climatological indices (such as convective and advective air movement, surface moisture and temperature). The level of influence is on the level of microclimatic changes and will not result in significant or substantial changes in the surface and air energy and moisture exchanges. No odor sources are proposed with the Poinsettia Hill development, other than those commonly found in residentially developed areas, therefore no substantial changes to odor levels should result. 7. The closest fresh and marine water sources (Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean) are a mile and further from the project area and no alterations to their normal cycles are expected. The existing flood water course is predominantly expressed as sheet flow and no significantly channelized flow exists. The future flood waters will be artificially channeled and controlled to flow southward into the storm drain system for Aviara Phase III. Therefore, the proposed Poinsettia Hill project will not substantially change the course or flow of marine, fresh, or flood waters. 8. No significant surf&e waters exist within the Poinsettia Hill area, although there is a small area in the southeast portion of the site that receives runoff from adjacent agricultural uses and could potentially pond after flooding. Perched groundwater sources may be present in the alluvials along the southern boundary of the project, however this is not a significant groundwater source. The “Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation...“, dated February 16, 1990, states that groundwater in not expected to adversely affect the development provided the recommendations contained therein are followed. As with item number 1 above, conformance to the recommendations of the geotechnical investigations reduces any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Grading and construction of the Poinsettia Hill project will incrementally reduce the public water supply, mostly for dust prevention. Occupation of the approximately 184 dwelling units will cause a need for approximately 40,480 gallons per day. Both of these water demands can be met by the existing public water supply, which is served through a 1.25 million gallon potable water tank and a 1.25 million gallon reclaimed water tank. In addition, construction of two 8.5 million gallon potable water reservoirs to serve the area will commence in 1994. As an added safety factor, the project will be conditioned such that no building permits be issued unless the Carlsbad Municipal Water District determines that adequate water and service is available at the time of application for water service and will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. If the existing water supply is not sufficient at the time of building permit application, development may be postponed until the additional water reservoirs are operational. Since this condition has been incorporated into the tentative map, the proposed Poinsettia Hill development will not substantially affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply. -8- . 9. No significant natural resources, such as non-renewable energy sources, mineral resources, or prime agricultural lands, exist within the Poinsettia Hill project area. Grading, construction, and occupation of the residential development will incrementally increase the usage of natural resources through gasoline, natural gas, and electrical energy consumption. Using a natural gas usage factor of 219 cubic feet per unit per year and an electric power usage factor of 15 kilowatt hours per unit per year, occupation of the 184 dwelling units should result in less than a two percent increase in energy consumption. This additional demand is not considered a significant increase in the usage of any natural resource or substantial amount of fuel or energy. 10. see nine above. 11. The Poinsettia Hill project site -does not contain any structures of historical significance. A prehistoric site (W-1879) was identified in the central portion of the site, around the existing dirt roadway. This site has not undergone the necessary field evaluation and data recovery programs. Therefore, the project is conditioned to undergo the archeological significance testing, as described in the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines, dated December, 1990, prior to approval of any final map or grading permit. There are potentially significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quatematy Ages within the Poinsettia Hill area and, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by a qualified paleontologist in case of fossil discovery. Considering that no historic sites, structures or objects are on site, and that archeological data recovery and paleontological monitoring are mitigation measures for the project, no significant impacts to historic or prehistoric features will occur. 12. The location and variety of the habitats identified within Poinsettia Hill have remained relatively unchanged since the time of the original environmental impact report (EIR 83-7). The habitats are southern mixed and char&e chaparral, baccharis scrub, disturbed chaparral, and non-native grasslands. These conditions were verified and documented in “A Biological Study for the Poinsettia Hills Development Project...“, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated April, 1992. The original Poinsettia Hill development approved through EIR 83-7 allowed residential development in most of the southern mixed and chamise chaparral areas, with only the SDG&E easement and the future affordable housing site slated for preservation. The proposed Poinsettia Hill development would reduce the encroachment into the southern mixed and chamise chaparral to 6.32 acres on the northern slopes while proposing development in the nor&easternmost portion of the site. As proposed in the above referenced biological study, the proposed encroachment can be mitigated by the enhancement of 3.98 acres of the existing disturbed, low and medium quality habitat within the SDG&E power line easement and the northern slope area. Included in the enhancement program is the planting of several sensitive plant species, such as Ceanothus verzucosus (Wart-stemmed Ceanothus), Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia (Summer Holly), and Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia (De1 Mar Manzanita). To guarantee no disturbance, all preserved and enhanced open space areas will be designated as open space lots on the final map. With the exception of the removal of non-native grasslands and 6.32 acres of varying quality chaparral habitat, the Poinsettia Hill proposal does not significantly affect the diversity of habitats within the project area. As discussed in the project’s biological study, the project will only impact a few individuals of sensitive plants and no populations will be disrupted. The proposed habitat enhancement program -9- will include the planting of these sensitive species and no significant impacts are expected. To insure that the biological impacts are kept to levels below significance, this negative declaration has been conditioned to include conformance with the biological study. Therefore, the proposed development, along with the required mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants. 13. The only new species of plants proposed within Poinsettia Hill are those typical domestic plants found in residential neighborhoods. All open space and habitat enhancement areas will be monitored and undergo weed eradication as needed to allow the normal replenishment of native species. Therefore the proposed introduction of new plant species and configuration of open space areas will not result in significant adverse impacts. 14. While the Poinsettia Hill project area is currently used for agriculture, no significant crop production has taken place. According to the “Soil Survey, San Diego Area”, prepared by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service and dated December, 1973, the project area is covered by Chesterton and HuerHuero Complex loams. These soils are only fair to good for agricultural purposes and do not represent prime farmland. The proposed development will therefore not significantly reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance. 15. The variety of animals species within the Poinsettia Hill project is typical for the area. A complete list of the reptiles, amphibians, birds, and animals sighted or suspected to exist in the project area is contained in EIR 83-7. A single Polioptila melanura California (California Black tailed gnatcatcher) was identified in the northern portion of the SDG&E easement, however due to the lack of coastal sage scrub, it is likely that the bird occupation is transitory. The California Black tailed gnatcatcher has been listed as a federally threatened species and there is a prohibition on the removal of coastal sage scrub habitat where a take of gnatcatchers may be involved. The proposed development plans for Poinsettia Hill avoid the entire area around the location of the gnatcatcher sighting, however to insure that no adverse affect on the gnatcatchers occur, the Poinsettia Hill project has been conditioned to obtain all required approvals and permits from the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to approval of any final map or grading pennit. Given the mandatory review by the responsible agencies, and the maintenance of biodiversity discussed in item number 12 above, no signif?cant adverse affects to the diversity of species, habitat, or numbers of any species of animals should occur. 16. No new species of animals, other than those typically found in developed residential areas, are proposed with the Poinsettia Hill project. Fencing of all open space areas should aide in keeping domestic animals from adversely affecting the existing fauna to a significant degree. The only potential deterrent to the movement of animals through the open space in the northern portion of the site is an access road to the affordable housing development in the extreme northeast comer of the project. The roadway and associated grading is approximately 60 feet wide, however the project is conditioned to replant the manufactured slopes of this roadway to reduce the effective width of the crossing to less than 40 feet. The reduction of the crossing through revegetation will reduce the level of potential deterrence to insignificance, and has been included as a required mitigation measure. -lO- . HUMANEZMRONMENT: -17. The existing land uses within Poinsettia Hill project area consist solely of medium density residential uses. The proposed development contains this uses exclusively. Therefore, no significant alteration of present or planned land uses is proposed. 18. AU public utilities required to support the proposed Poinsettia Hill development have been or will be constructed prior to or concurrent with development, as required by the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program and the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 21. Therefore, no substantial effects on public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services should occur. 19. The sewer infrastructure serving the Poinsettia Hill development area will be installed concurrent with grading and improvement operations, therefore no impacts to sewer systems should occur. The solid waste collection is conducted by Coast Waste Management Inc., through an agreement with the City of Carlsbad, and the service area expands to meet the needs of new development. If any hazardous wastes are detected during soils investigations or construction operations, the County of San Diego requires testing and proper removal of the materials. All potentially hazardous substances that are stored on sire during construction must be maintained in safe containers and are monitored by the Carlsbad Fire Department. Therefore, the Poinsettia Hill project will not result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems. 20. A temporary increase in the ambient noise levels will occur during grading and construction operations for the Poinsettia Hill project. As required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code, no construction activities can occur between the hours of sunset and 7:00 am on weekdays and between sunset and 8:00 am on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays, except by special permission. The prohibition of construction-related noise during the evening and night, and the temporary nature of the construction operations will keep the noise levels below a level of significance. No major arterials are included in, or adjacent to the Poinsettia Hill project, therefore no significant roadway noise sources exist. The proximity of the project site to the McClellan- Palomar Airport increases the potential incidence of aircraft noise. In conformance with the City of Carlsbad Noise Policy, the tentative map is conditioned to place an aircraft noise notice on all properties prior to the recordation of any final map. Given the restriction on and relatively short duration of construction activities and the required aircraft noise notices, the proposed Poinsettia Hill project will not significantly increase existing noise levels. 21. There are no new sources of light or glare proposed with the project other than those typical sources, such as street lights, traffic headlights, and residential lighting. Since construction operations are limited to daylight hours, no signifkant sources or light of glare should occur due to construction operations. Therefore, no significant production of new light or glare should occur as a result of the Poinsettia Hill project. -ll- 22. As discussed in item number 19 above, all hazardous materials are required to be kept in safe containers and their status is monitored throughout construction by the Carlsbad Fire Department. If any hazardous substances are discovered on site, the County of San Diego monitors the safe removal of these substances. The project therefore does not involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. 23. The proposed density for Poinsettia Hill is well within the residential densities associated with the General Plan designation of Residential Medium density (RM) which covers the site. Therefore, the proposal does not represent a significant alteration in the density or human population of the area. 24. No permanent residents occupy the Poinsettia Hill site and the proposed residential uses will provide additional housing supply. To maintain a balance in housing opportunities the Poinsettia Hill project contains its proportionate share of affordable housing. Considering the above, no significant affect to existing housing or creation of housing demand will occur due to the Poinsettia Hill project. 25. The estimated additional traffic generated by the proposed development of Poinsettia Hill would total 1,472 average daily trips (ADT). Since the proposed primary access road will have a maximum traffic capacity of 10,000 ADT, no adverse impacts on the proposed roadways should occur due to the Poinsettia Hill development. The off site effects of the traffic generated by this project have been reviewed in ‘Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Hill Tentative Map...“, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated March 27, 1992 and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The Poinsettia Hill tentative map is conditioned to comply with all provisions of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. Both of these documents require circulation facilities to be ‘improved prior to or concurrent with development. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts due to the additional traffic generation of the Poinsettia Hill development should take place. 26. There are no existing parking facilities within the Poinsettia Hill site. All demand for additional parking will be provided concurrent with development, as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The RV storage requirements for Poinsettia Hill will be accommodated in the northeastern portion of the project. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing parking facilities or create a large demand for new parking. 27. There is an unimproved, undedicated access road traversing the central portion of the Poinsettia Hill site, just south of the chaparral habitat. This access is currently a common ingress and egress route for the agricultural operations on nearby properties. The construction of the local collector serving the Poinsettia Hill project, shall include connection of the new roadway to the existing unimproved access, thereby maintaining access for the neighboring agricultural uses. The Poinsettia Hill proposal will therefore not adversely impact transportation systems or significantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. 28. No waterborne, rail or air traffic use the Poinsettia Hill site directly. Batiquitos Lagoon is restricted from any waterborne traffic and the closest rail line is the At&son Topeka and Santa Fe line west of Interstate 5. The proximity of the project site to the McClellan-Palomar Airport subjects the area to aircraft overflight, however no height restrictions are necessary since the -12- aircraft are flying at sufficient altitude. The Poinsettia Hill proposal will not significantly alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. 29. The grading and construction of the Poinsettia Hill development is confined to the existing undeveloped portions and no significant operations are needed within existing traffic routes. If imported fill is required for geologic reasons, all trucks must follow a haul route approved by the City Engineer. All operations involving any disruption of traffic flow requires a traffic control plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The improvement of the access road to the project on and off site will decrease traffic hazards along this unimproved traffic routes. Therefore, the Poinsettia Hill project will not significantly increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 30. The Poinsettia Hill site is not included as a part of any City-wide or local emergency response or evacuation plans. An all-weather emergency access is required to be maintained throughout grading and construction and all emergency response or evacuation needs are monitored by the Carlsbad Fire Department. The Poinsettia Hill proposal will not adversely interfere wirh emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. 31. The ridgeline topography of the Poinsettia Hill project site makes the north facing slope and ridge visible from public views, such as Palomar Airport Road. Since the southern slope almost constitutes the side of a valley, it is exposed to very few public views. The development has been confined to the south facing slopes therefore the only potential impacts exist along the ridgetop. The project has been designed to incorporate a variety of building orientations, setbacks, and berming and landscaping to soften the rigdetop views of the project. Since the project area is located on relatively high ground, no obstruction of views will occur with development of the site. Therefore, the Poinsettia Hill project will not obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view. 32. Except for illegal motorcycle and bicycle activity, no recreational opportunities currently exist within the Poinsettia Hill development area. The 184 dwelling units proposed within Poinsettia Hill will produce a demand of approximately 1.28 acres of park facilities. The 24.25 acre community park within Aviara Phase III will accommodate this demand along with the remainder of the park demands for the neighboring properties. The Poinsettia Hill project will therefore not adversely affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 33. As discussed in the preceding text, the proposed Poinsettia Hill project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed development is more sensitive to ecological constraints than the previously approved EIR 83-7 and archeological data recovery is required prior to any development. 34. Some short-term impacts will result from the project, as detailed above. The mitigation for several impacts involves enhancement or replanting which will take time to establish. The long term environmental advantage of enhanced and increased native open space justifies potential short-term impacts. All long-term facility impacts are monitored and compensated by the -13- administration of the City Growth Management Program. The Poinsettia Hill proposal does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental,goals. 35. As detailed above, the proposed Poinsettia Hill development is consistent with the City HMP, the applicable Local Facilities Management Plan, and other previously approved planning documents. All potential impacts will be mitigated to an individual level of insignificance and conformance with area-wide planning documents precludes cumulative impacts. The Poinsettia Hill project does not have the possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 36. All human related impacts are either naturally, or through mitigation, insignificant. As discussed in items 17 through 32 above, no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct or indirect, are expected to occur, -14- - ANALYSIS OF v-L&X.E ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a> b) cl d) d f) 8) a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The Poinsettia Hill tentative map and associated grading is necessarily dependent and must be accomplished in one phase. All tiastmcture and improvements are necessary for the eventual development of the project and must be installed prior to the constmction of the multifamily homes. Phasing of the grading or improvements would not offer environmental advantages and would increase the possibility of future facility impacts. The potential site design for Poinsettia Hill has been modified from that currently approved and condoned by EIR 83-07. Alternate site designs would likely increase encroachment into habitat or heavily sloping topography and would produce more environmental impacts. The scale of the development is in keeping with all existing approvals, including the Carlsbad General Plan, the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan, and the applicable Local Coastal Program. A reduction of the scale of development could upset the housing balance. An alternate scale of development would not provide a viable, environmentally preferable project. All related planning documents call for medium density residential development within the Poinsettia Hill area. Alternate uses of the site would be in conflict with all planning documents and would not increase the environmental sensitivity of the project. The postponement of development does not necessarily offer environmental advantages. As job opportunities in the City increases, so does the need for housing. Also, the proposed open space enhancement and replanting programs will take some time to. establish themselves. The potential environmental impacts of the project are not time- dependent and no advantage would be gamed from delaying development. The Poinsettia Hill proposal is specifically designed for the existing constraints and opportunities of the project site and the neighboring properties. Relocation of the project is neither logical nor necessary. Since the Poinsettia Hill project area is planned for development in the Carlsbad General Plan, the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan, and the applicable Local Coastal Programs, the no project alternative would not be in conformance with these documents. The no project alternative would not produce any significant environmental advantages. -15 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) x On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATWE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. / LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLEl 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed grading is in conformance to the recommendations of the “Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, 36 Acre Parcel, Carlsbad, California”, prepared by ICG Inc., dated Febtiary 16, 1990, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the developer shall do the follo,wing: l Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust preventive measures; l Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; l Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown; l Spread soil binders; l Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind; l Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; l Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; l Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the. day; l Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. -16- 3. To mitigate potential archeological impacts, the developer shall perform a data recovery operation, as described in the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, grading or building petmit. 4. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit: l A paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. l A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. l The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. l Au. fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. l Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director. 5. Prior to Enal map approval, the applicant shall be required to: (1) consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and California Department of Fish & Game (F&G) regarding the impact of the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and; (2) be issued any permits required by the FWS and F&G. 6. To mitigate the loss of southern mixed and char&e chaparral habitat, Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia (De1 Mar Manzanita), Comarostaphylis diversifolia (Summer holly) and Ceanothus vermcosus (Wart-stemmed Ceanothus), the proposed development shail demonstrate conformance to the recommendations of the “A Biological Study of the Poinsettia Hills Development Project...“, prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated April, 1992, on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, prior to the approval of any final map or issuance of any grading permit. 7. To preserve the connectivity of the open space along the northern edge of the project, the existing disturbed areas of the SDG&E easement and the manufactured slopes resulting from the access road to the affordable housing site shall be planted with native species and maintained to prevent invasion by non-native species. A landscaping plan showing this planting and maintenance shall be submitted to and approved by the planning Director prior to approval of final map or issuance of grading permit. -17- c4PPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. /O# - 93 Date <l&e Signature -18- 4 APPENDIX P - EN\ .cOk.-.iENTAL MITIGATION MONIT0Rh.G CA-JXLIST Page 1_ of 1 - 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. 3607 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDMDE A 184 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 0.25 MILES WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND 0.75 MILES SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL CASE NO: CT 93-03 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of January, 1994, 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 CT 93-03; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: Al That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CT 93-03, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findinns: 1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 6.3 dus/acre is within the density range of 4 to 8 dus/acre specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: a. b. C. d. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for residential, planned industrial, and community park development on the General Plan. The project has incorporated suffkient additional public facilities for the nine (9) units in excess of the growth conbA point to ensure that the adequacy of the Cit~?s public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. There have been sufficient developments approved in the southwest qua-t at densities below the growth control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit of 12,859 dwelling units. All necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90, the Growth Management Ordinance, will be constructed and are guaranteed to be constructed concxxrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted City Standards. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on November 11, 1993. In recommending approval of this Mitigated Negative Declaration the PC PESO NO. 3607 -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 9. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the signif%mnt effects this project could have on the environment. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements or records of easements established by court judgement, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Conditions: Approval is granted for CT 93-03, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “NN”, dated January 5, 1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the tentative map as approved by the City Council. The tentative map shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The tentative map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. A 500’ scale map of the subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within and adjacent to the project. This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated March 19, 1992, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water and service and sewer facilities is available at the time of application for water service and sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC PESO NO. 3607 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E 9 1c 11 12 12 14 15 1E 11 1E 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2% 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be required as part of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Approval of CI’ 93-03 will be null and void if the property subject to this approGl is not annexed to ,the City of Carl&ad Community Facilities District No. 1 within 60 days from the date of final City Council action. Additionally, annexation must occur prior to the issuance of any grading, building or other permit. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map. “Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39”. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to either provide and deed restrict 24 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life of the dwelling units or pay to the City an inclusionary housing impact fee as an individual fee on a per market-rate dwelling unit basis. Should the applicant choose to pay the inclusionary housing impact fee, the site for the proposed affordable dwelling units shall be redesignated a remainder parcel and shall remain in an undeveloped state, subject to subsequent discretionary approval. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance. Approval of CT 93-03 is granted subject to the approval of CP 93-02, SDP 93-02, and HDP 92-04. CT 93-03 is approved subject to all conditions of approval for CP 93-02, SDP 93-02, and HDP 93-02, Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3608, 3609, and 3610, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. PC RESO NO. 3607 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name policy subject to the Planning Directois approval prior to final map approval. 17. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of grading or building plans, whichever occurs first. 18. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 19. The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of 40-foot intervals along all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad standards. The trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List. 20. All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department. 21. Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants (see Landscape Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote water conservation. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as shown on the approved landscape plans. All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans, improvement plans and grading plans. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. PC RESO NO. 3607 All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements. The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. AU sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks (which could include lighting), and streets. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for ‘residential homeowner-ship purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the -5- - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1c 11 12 121 14 15 If l’i It 19 2c 21 2E 2: 24 25 26 27 22 30. 31. 32. 33. minimum time increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. A condition so stating this shall be placed in the CC&R’s for the project. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map the owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this tentative tract map shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. The applicant shah post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Phtnning Director. Approval of CT 93-03 is ,subject to approval of the California Coastal Commission. Any revisions that may be required by the Coastal Commission must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to approval of any find map, and may necessitate a formal amendment to this approval. CT 93-03 is approved subject to the condition that the construction of the local collector serving the Poinsettia Hill project shah include a connection to the existing, unimproved access, as shown on Exhibits “C” - “D”, dated January 5, 1994. In addition, access for those agriculture uses traveling to and from El Camino Real shah be maintained throughout construction of the Poinsettia Hill project, that allows circulation adequate for vehicles meeting Caltrans Highway Design Manual 407D. Said access shah remain open for access until such time as alternate access has been provided, subject to approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall establish a process to notify, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Attorney, all owners, users and tenants of this project that: 1) this area is adjacent to industrial operations; 2) the area may be subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations; and 3) the owners, users, and tenants occupy this area at their own risk. Enxineerim Conditions: 34. Prior to approval of the first final map a secondary access shall be provided by easements or guaranteed access rights in accordance with City Standards. A reciprocal access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The access may be for emergency use only. 35. Prior to occupancy of any unit within the project the secondary access must be constructed and operational. This access may be for emergency use only. 36. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Street “A” shall be waived on the final map. 37. This project is located within the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. All development design shall comply with the requirements of those plans. PC RESO NO. 3607 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative map. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. This project is approved specifically as five (5) units for the purposes of recording. All public facilities needed to sene each unit and meet City Standards shall be guaranteed for construction prior to recording of a final map for that unit. If the applicant chooses to construct out of phase, the new phasing must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. The applicant shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private: streets, sidewalks, street lights, storm drain facilities and sewer facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. Adequate provision for such maintenance shall be included with the CC&R’s subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to final map approval. A note to the effect of the following shall be placed on a separate sheet of the final map. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: A. Street “A” and the public improvements therein and the water lines beneath the private streets that serve fire hydrants. A note shall be placed on the improvement plans stating which utilities are public and which are private. All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the CC&R’s. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its PC RESO NO. 3607 -7- .- 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 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act. The applicant shah pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the final map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad Standards as required by the City Engineer. Prior to approval of a final map the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits required. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property prior to approval of the final map for this project. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (Prior to final map approval, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City Codes and standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work be completed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.) The project is approved on the condition that exported graded materials will be placed on APN 21542046 in a stockpile and used for completion of grading for Street “A” as a part of the grading permit for this project. The stockpile requires the separate approval of Hillside Development Permit No. 93-12, “Sfiegola Stockpile”, and this project shall conform to the conditions and requirements placed on the approval of HDP 93-12. Prior to issuing a grading permit for this project, approval for a stockpile permit on APN 215-020-06 by City Council shall be obtained. The access ramps shown on the site plans for HDP 93-12 and m 93-03, accessing APN 215-02046, are for temporary access and maintenance of the property and do not represent an approval for future development of the site. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the applicant must either amend the tentative map or change the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the PC BBS0 NO. 3607 -8- , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. . . . City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference Chapter 11.06. The applicant shall construct desiltation/detention/urban pollutant basin(s) of a type and a size and at location(s) as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into a basin maintenance agreement and submit a maintenance bond satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the approval of grading, building permit or final map whichever occurs first for this project. Each basin shall be serviced by an all-weather access/maintenance road. This condition may be met by basin(s) guaranteed for construction by other projects located of%ite and downstream from this project. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. The remainder parcel shown on sheet six (6) of the tentative map shall be offered for dedication as a public street on the final map. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This conditional approval is null and void if title to said property is not obtained, unless the City Engineer and Planning Director make findings of substantial conformance without construction of said improvements. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results prior to (final map approval) issuance of building or grading permits whichever occurs first. PC RESO NO. 3607 -9- 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 64. 65. 66. The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to scharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of final map, issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements: PRIOR TO APPROVING THE FIRST FINAL MAP: A. Street “A” within the subdivision boundaries and adjacent to the south~ subdivision boundary shall be constructed to full width public local street standards. Sidewalks and street lights may be omitted on the south side. A separate right-of-way dedication hm APN 215-020-06 is required in order for this condition to be met. B. Street “A” from El Camino Real to the subdivision boundaries shall be constructed with half street improvements plus 12 feet of paving based on a right-of-way width of 60 feet and a roadway width of 40 feet. C. A fully traffic actuated signal at El Camino real and Street “A” and necessaq median improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If this signal and median improvements are constructed by others then this project shall pay its pro rata share of those improvements. The City may enter into a reimbursement agreement for portions of this signal. In the event this project constructs this signal, other projects shall reimburse their pro rata Share. D. All offsite storm drains, all weather roads and -eIltSaSIllaykrequired by the City Engineer. E. All offsite sewer lines, water lines, all weather access roads and easements as may be required by the Distkt Engineer of the Carl&ad Muuicipal Water District: A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. Prior to approval of a final map for any Unit within the subdivision, the developer shall prepare improvement plans and pay the appropriate plan check fees for all public improvements needed to serve that Unit in accordance wit31 City Standards. PC RESO NO. 3607 -lO- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 1c 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 l!!? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67. Prior to approval of the fist final map, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement with the City to pay an appropriate share of the costs for the construction of Poinsettia Lane as may be determined as being required for this project consistent with the requirements of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments thereto. Fire Conditions: 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved by the Fire Department. Additional onsite public water mains and fire hydrants are required. Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. An all-weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected. All required weather mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval. Water District Conditions: 75. The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject project shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, landscaping and fire flow demands are met. 76. The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. The developer shall pay a San Diego .County Water Authority capacity charge which will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. 77. Sequentially, the Developer% Engineer shall do the following: PC RESO NO. 3607 -ll- 1 2 : 4 c . t I ( 1 ! U 1: 1: 1: 1, 1’ 1’ 1’ 1 1 2' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . 1 I 5 L 5 5 I 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. C. Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D. U.) plan for potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of improvement plans. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Savary & Hall. Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons. None. None. bmw~ J. ~~LZMB!LER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3607 -12- CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 184 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERAUY LOCATED 0.25 MILES WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND 0.75 MILES SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL CASE NO: CP 93-02 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of January, 1994, 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 CP 93-02; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CP 93-02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . 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 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.. 8. Findings: The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with Title 21, the General Plan, and all applicable adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies as demonstrated by the project’s consistency with all provisions of these documents. The proposed condominium use at the site location is necessary and desirable to provide a setice or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well- being of the neighborhood and the community because the area is designated for medium density residential uses in the General Plan and development is necessary to continue the balance of land uses in the City. Such condominium use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity since the project meets all required City standards and ordinances and adequate setbacks and buffers from the neighboring community park and industrial uses have been incorporated into the projects design. The proposed planned development meets all of the minimum development standards and design criteria set forth in Sections 21.45.090 and 21.45.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the design guidelines manual as demonstrated by features such as 32 foot wide private streets, adequate guest and recreational vehicle parking, building orientation and massing related to the topography, spacious and accessible common recreation areas, and clustered development away from the preserved open space. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site by stepping development down the existing slope and providing a variety of building setbacks and orientations, along the ridgeline. The proposed project maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site through the preservation and enhancement of over 11 acres of mixed chaparral habitat. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood because the proposed townhome products and the medium range density are similar to those neighboring areas such as that found in the Aviara Master Plan and the proposed residential uses have been setback from the adjacent community park and industrial uses. The proposed project’s. circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the project and does not dominate the project as demonstrated by PCRESON0.3608 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 its conformance to all City standards and the development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and as shown on the site plan exhibits. Conditions: 1 Approval is granted for CP 93-02, as shown on Exhibits “A” - ‘INN”, dated January 5, 1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. Approval of CP 93-02 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-03, SDP 93-02, and HDP 93-02. CP 93-02 is approved subject to all conditions of approval for CT 93-03, SDP 93-02, and HDP 93-02, Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3607, 3609, and 3610, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. . . . . PC RESO NO. 3608 -3- 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble & Hall. NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: . PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3608 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSlON RESOLUTION NO. 3609 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A 184 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 0.25 MILES WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND 0.75 MILES SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL CASE NO: SDP 93-02 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of January, 1994, 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 SDP 93-02; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of SDP 93-02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The requested residential use is properly related to the site, surroundings, and environmental settings, because the proposed grading scheme follows the existing terrain and the environmentally sensitive areas in the northern portion of the property will be preserved and enhanced; is consistent with the various applicable elements and objectives of the General Plan, since the project proposes medium density residential uses with adequate circulation, public facilities, and open space preservation; will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation, as setbacks have been incorporated along the projects boundaries where adjacent to the community park and industrial area and the other adjacent uses are multifamily residential uses. The site for the intended residential use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use as demonstrated by the ability of the project to conform to all pertinent zoning development standards and open space preservation without need for expansion of the project area. All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested residential use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained as shown on the site plan exhibits and specifically expressed as increased building setbacks from the adjacent community park and industrial uses The street system serving the proposed residential use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed residential use because the project will provide offsite local collector street improvements that meet current City standards and will also provide adequate emergency access through an adjacent property. Should the project provide affordable housing units they will be available to lower income families and the requested units over the growth management control point will not have a detrimental effect on public health safety, or welfare because: a. The project has incorpomted suEcient additional public facilities for the nine (9) units in excess of the growth control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. b. There have been sufficient developments approved in the southwest quadrant at densities below the growth control point so that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit of 12,859 dwelling units. C. All necessary public facilities required by Chapter 21.90, the Growth Management Ordinance, will be constructed and are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this developer and in compliance with the adopted City Standards. PC RESO NO. 3609 -2- Conditions: 1. Approval is granted for SDP 93-02, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “NN”, dated January 5, 1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. Approval of SDP 93-02 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, and HDP 93-02. SDP 93-02 is approved subject to all conditions of approval for CT 93-03, CP 93-02, and HDP 93-02, Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3607, 3608, and 3610, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble & Hall. NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: + ’ -2 -. . /t~l~%d@T ‘) MICHAEL J. HeLZMILtiR PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3609 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO GRADE A 184 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 0.25 MILES WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND 0.75 MILES SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL CASE NO: HDP 93-02 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of January, 1994, 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 HDP 93-02; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of HDP 93-02, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: . 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 Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. That hillside conditions and undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identified because the site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on the constraints exhibits. That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and that the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual. That no development or grading will occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as all developable areas have been identified and no grading will occur in the areas containing slopes with an inclination of 40 percent or greater, with the exception of those small, isolated ravines where there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands because the proposed grading will create multifamily building pads that are terraced and step down the existing slope and the internal street system generally follows the terrain of the site. Planninn Conditions: 5. Approval for HDP 93-02, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “T”, dated January 5, 1994 incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed grading and/or development substantially different from this approval as determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this permit. 6. Approval of HDP 93-02 is granted subject to the approval of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, and SDP 93-02. HDP 93-02 is approved subject to all conditions of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, and SDP 93-02, Planning Commission Resolutions No’s. 3607, 3608, and 3609, incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Planning Department. . . . . PC RESO NO. 3610 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1% 12 14 If 1t 1: l{ l< 2( 23 2: 21 21 2f 2t 2: 2E 1 5 5 7 3 3 > L ? 3 k 5 3 7 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble & Hall. NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILL&R PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3610 -3- EXHCBIT 3 APPLICATION CC,I~PL- iE DATE: CT/CP/SDP/HDP - MARCH 19, 1993 PROJECT PLANNER: MICHAEL GRIM STAFF REPQX 0 2 .DATE: JANUARY 5, 1994 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 - POINSETTIA HILL - Request for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide, grade and construct a 184 unit multifamily air space condominium development on 36.2 acres located approximately 0.25 miles west of El Camino Real and 0.75 miles south of Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3606 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No’s. 3607, 3608, 3609, and 3610 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, SDP 93-02, AND HDP 93-02 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION The applicant, Poinsettia Hill, Limited, is requesting a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to allow the grading and construction of a 184 unit multifamily residential development on a 36.2 acre parcel near El Camino Real. The permit requests involve a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to subdivide the property into 184 airspace condominiums, a Site Development Plan to develop under a Qualified Development Overlay and to allow additional units for the provision of affordable housing, and a Hillside Development Permit to allow grading and construction on the hillside property. The property has previously undergone discretionary review in 1984 through a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Impact Report, and Annexation (GPA 83-2, ZC 281, ZC 316, EIR 83-7, And Annex. No. S 1.39). The approvals of these requests incorporated the project site into Carlsbad, designated it for medium density residential uses and required subsequent development to conform to the RD-M-Q zoning requirements. CT 93-03/CP 93-02/~&P y3-02/HDP 93-02 POINSEITLA HILL, JANUARY 5, 1994 PAGE 2 The project site is comprised of an east-west trending ridgeline, with the northern slope being covered by native chaparral habitat and the southern slope being used for agriculture. A San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) power transmission line easement, containing two narrow access roads transects the site in the eastern and northern portions and an unimproved roadway follows the ridgeline serving the neighboring agricultural uses. To the north of the project site is a developed industrial park, to the east is the Villas of El Camino site proposed for over 300 affordable dwelling units, to the west is the community park and the multifamily residential site of Aviara Phase RI, and to the south is a sliver of agriculture bordered by an undisturbed area of native habitat. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “NN”, dated January 5, 1994, the condominium project will consist of four-plex and tri-plex buildings and involve several passive and active recreation areas. In accordance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the project proposes to deed restrict 24 of the 184 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income families. The affordable units are proposed in the northeast comer of the property, directly adjacent to the Villas of El Camino development. The project will be accessed by a local collector street, connecting to El Camino Real approximately 0.25 miles to the east. Secondary or emergency access for Poinsettia Hill will be gained through the adjacent Villas of El Camino Real, as conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3607. The alignment of the local collector street will straddle the southern property line and, to obtain a complete street upon project implementation, the developer proposes to fill the adjacent site and install all roadway improvements concurrent with the project. The proposed grading of 311,900 cubic yards will not balance onsite, however the fill on the adjacent property to accommodate the collector street and potential stockpile opportunities on the future multifamily site directly south allow the export to be localized. Since there are several permits involved in this application, a breakdown of each permit request follows. Tentative Tract Man/Condominium Permit: The Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide the property into a 34 lot, 184 unit airspace condominium development. Of these 34 lots, 18 are residential with the remainder being divided between private streets, recreation lots, open space lots, and a recreational vehicle storage lot. These lots do not meet the standard lot requirements, that is they do not front on a publicly dedicated street, and airspace condominium products are proposed. with the tentative map, therefore a condominium permit is required along with the subdivision map. The proposed 311,900 cubic yards of grading does not balance on site, however there is an opportunity to use the site directly south of Poinsettia Hill as a controlled stockpile. This allows the full width construction of the local collector street serving the project. Full public improvements, including streets, sewer and water lines, and . CT’ 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP r3-02/HDP 93-02 POINSETTIA HILL JANUARY 5, 1994 - PAGE 3 a storm drain system, will be required within the subdivision boundaries. In addition, the project has been conditioned to ensure adequacy of water and sewer service through to the time of occupancy. Site Develoument Plan: The reasons for the Site Development Plan are two-fold. First, the project site is covered by a Qualified Development Overlay, which requires the processing of a Site Development Plan. The proposed development is subject to the various criteria for compatibility and site sensitivity required by the “Q” overlay. Second, the project proposes to provide lower income affordable housing units which also requires a Site Development Plan. As elaborated below, the project is not required to provide new affordable housing units, 24 of the 184 proposed units are to be deed restricted for availability to lower income families. Hillside Develoument Permit: The Hillside Development Permit is required for grading operations and construction of the units due to the sloping topography of the Poinsettia Hill site. No significant topographical features exist in the area and the severe slope areas over 40 percent inclination are proposed for preservation. As further discussed below, the grading scheme and roadway design is required to follow the natural terrain and proposed slopes are restricted to 30 feet or less in height. ANALYSIS The findings required for the approval of a Tentative Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit are found in Sections 20.12.091, 21.45.072, 21.06.270, and 21.95.030. The detailed findings and justifications for such findings for each permit are listed in the attached resolutions, therefore the following analysis examines the policy and design issues related to these findings. 1. Is the proposal consistent with the goals and objectives of the various elements of the General Plan? 2. Is the proposal consistent with the provisions of the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program? 3. Is the proposal consistent with all applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code? . CT 93-03/CP 93-02/WP r3-02/HDP 93-02 POINSETTIA HILL JANUARY 5, 1994 PAGE 4 4. Is the proposal sensitive to the site and compatible with existing and future surroundings? 5. Does the proposed subdivision conform to the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as contained in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code? DISCUSSION 1. General Plan Consistency The proposed development is consistent with the various goals and objectives of the General Plan. The Circulation Element calls for each addition to the circulation system to be a usable link in the overall system. By improving the entire connector street eastward to El Camino Real and providing emergency access through the adjacent property, the project allows for complete circulation in the area. Also regarding circulation, all private streets within the project are designed to public street standards, providing service levels which will be safe and convenient for anticipated traffic volumes. All public facilities needed for the Poinsettia Hill development would be provided concurrent with development, thereby conforming to the goal of the Public Facilities Element. As stated in the attached environmental impact assessment, the Poinsettia Hill proposal would not interfere with any emergency response plans which may conflict with the Public Safety Element, and any potential geologic hazards would be eliminated or reduced to insignificant levels as required by the Geologic and Seismic Safety Element. A potential source of noise production would be the aircraft traffic associated with the McClellan-Palomar Airport. As a result, and in conformance with the Carlsbad Noise Policy, the project has been conditioned to place an aircraft noise notice on all properties prior to the recordation of any final map. This provision would allow consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan, which seeks an environment free from excessive or harmful noise, by warning potential property owner’s of the potential noise source. The connectivity and species variation of the natural open space system being preserved and enhanced maintains consistency with the goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element and the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. The proposed recreational areas will provide recreational opportunities for all of the residents within the subdivision, consistent with the Parks and Recreation Element. No scenic highways exist within Poinsettia Hill and all areas of archeological or historical significance have been conditioned for further data recovery in accordance with the City’s Cultural Resources Guidelines. With a proposed density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre, the proposed development is consistent with the Residential Medium density designation of the Land Use Element which restricts residential densities to 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. In addition, by providing CT 93-03KP 93-02/SUP ,3-02/HDP 93-02 POINSET’Wi HILL JANUARY 5, 1994 PAGE 5 affordable housing onsite, the proposed development demonstrates consistency with the goals of the Housing Element. 2. . Local Coastal Program Consistency The Poinsettia Hill proposal is regulated by the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program. One of the basic goals of the Local Coastal Program is to assure that coastal resources are maintained through orderly and sensitive development. The Poinsettia Hill area does eventually drain into the Batiquitos Lagoon. With regard to increased siltation of the lagoon from the development, the existing desiltation basins located within the Aviara Golf Course south of the project are capable of accommodating the Poinsettia Hill drainage. There are areas within the project site that contain “dual criteria” land; that is, the areas with slopes over 25 percent inclination containing native habitat. These areas are proposed to be preserved and enhanced and placed in an open space easement to prevent future development. The open space will eventually connect to nearby habitat west and southeast of the project site to provide a viable wildlife corridor. There are no designated coastal agricultural lands within the Poinsettia Hill project area and the topography of the area reduces the potential visual impacts. 3. Municipal Code Consistency There are several parts of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) that apply to this Tentative Map application review, namely Titles 19, 20, and 21. Title 19 contains the legislation regarding environmental review for projects. By undergoing review in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the project has also conformed to the provisions of Title 19 - Environment. As stated in the tentative map description, the proposed subdivision must comply with all provisions of Title 20 - Subdivisions. While some of the proposed lots will not front on a publicly, dedicated street, they will comply to the definition of a PUD lot. The existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate to accommodate the proposed subdivision and the drainage system in the Aviara Golf Course is adequate to accept the Poinsettia Hill drainage. The tentative map is conditioned to provide offsite emergency access through the adjacent property and all other improvements and grading will be reviewed simultaneous with the final map review, therefore the proposed subdivision complies with the provisions of Title 20. The portions of Title 21 applicable to the project are Chapter 21.24 (RD-M Residential Density-Multiple Zone), Chapter 21.06 (Qualified Development Overlay Zone), Chapter 2 1.90 (Growth Management), Chapter 2 1.95 (Hillside Development Regulations) and Chapter 21.45 (Planned Development). The underlying zone of the Poinsettia Hill project site is RD-M which allows for multifamily residential development. CT 93-03/CP 93-02/Sr)P ,.&02/HDP 93-02 POINSETTIA HILL JANUARY 5, 1994 PAGE 6 In conformance with the RD-M development standards, all buildings will be a maximum of 35 feet to the peak of the roof. Despite the fact that the project is being processed as a Planned Unit Development, all buildings have incorporated a 10 foot rear yard setback and a 10 foot street side yard setback, as required by Chapter 21.24. The Qualified Development Overlay Zone requires the project to be site sensitive and compatible with the surroundings. By stepping development down the existing slope and preserving the existing native open space, the Poinsettia Hill proposal is site sensitive. To facilitate compatibility, increased project setbacks have been incorporated along the project’s boundaries with the Aviara Community Park to the west, and the planned industrial uses to the north. By proposing airspace condominium units, the Poinsettia Hill project is subject to all development standards and design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance. In conformance with this ordinance, each unit will contain a two-car garage, a 15 foot by I5 foot usable rear yard, a minimum 5 foot and 20 foot front yard setback off of private driveways and private streets, respectively. More than 55 guest parking spaces are being provided in parking bays and along the major internal street and a recreational vehicle storage area has been designed onsite. All internal private streets and driveways are at least 30 feet wide and the gated entries have been designed in accordance with existing City standards. Also included in the proposal is a centralized, common active and passive recreation area and pedestrian trails have been incorporated throughout the project. The Poinsettia Hill project area is contained within the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 21. This plan was adopted in September, 1991, and the proposed Poinsettia Hill development complies with the plan. To ensure future compliance, the proposed Tentative Map has been conditioned to conform to the existing Zone 21 LFMP, as well as any amendments that may occur to the plan. While the project is proposing a dwelling unit count of nine units over that allowed by the Growth Management Control Point, the Poinsettia Hill proposal does include a Site Development Plan for the provision of affordable housing on site, which requests these additional units and there are still approximately 500 excess dwelling units available in the southwest quadrant. The topography of the Poinsettia Hill project site causes the need for a Hillside Development Permit, which is described in Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As mentioned in the project description, the Poinsettia Hill development was designed to be sensitive to the hillside constraints. All graded slopes will be screened by residences, landscaping, or a combination of both. Contour grading techniques have been indicated on the tentative map grading and no slopes exceed the 30 foot high maximum. Volumes of grading are within the range deemed to be acceptable and the roadways and overall grading scheme are designed to follow the existing terrain. Given the above, the Poinsettia Hill proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. CT 93-03KP 93-02/SDP ,.a-02/HDP 93-02 POINSETTIA HILL JANU‘ZRY 5,1994 PAGE 7 4. Compatibilitv with Site and Surroundings As detailed in several sections above, the proposed Poinsettia Hill development is designed around the existing constraints of the site. The general topographic trend of an east-west trending ridgeline will remain. Almost the entire slope area on the north side of the project site is being presented as native habitat and could serve as a wildlife corridor. The proposed residential land uses are consistent with those designated in the General Plan. The Poinsettia Hill development is also sensitive to the adjacent properties. The existing agricultural access will be maintained through the local collector street and a graded roadway along the western edge of the development. The area to the south is designated for residential development of similar density as Poinsettia Hill and large setbacks. from the industrial uses to the north have been incorporated into the project design. Increased setbacks along the community park boundary to the west have also been included in the plan. In summary, the Poinsettia Hill proposal has been designed to specifically relate to the existing site and surroundings as well as future adjacent development. 5. Inclusionarv Housing Compliance The Poinsettia Hill project was deemed complete prior to May, 1993 and therefore qualifies to meet its affordable housing requirement through the payment of an inclusionary housing impact fee. Instead of merely paying the impact fee, the applicant has volunteered to construct 24 new affordable housing units onsite. In doing so, the project is requesting nine units more than that allowed by the growth management control point (GMCP). According to City Council Policy No. 43, dated February 6, 1990, a development may be allocated “excess” dwelling units if the development provides housing that meets the priorities established in that policy and all findings listed in Section 21.90.045 can be made. The primary priority calls for low or moderate housing, therefore by deed restricting the nine “excess” units the Poinsettia Hill project satisfies this priority. The findings required by the Growth Management Ordinance are detailed in the attached resolutions. Essentially, the findings require that adequate facilities will be in place to accommodate the “excess” and sufficient “excess” units exist in the quadrant such that the quadrant buildout cap will not be exceeded. Adequate facility improvements have been incorporated into the project to accommodate the requested nine additional units. The Aviara Master Plan has underbuilt by approximately 800 units and the adjacent Villas at El Camino Real affordable housing project has been allocated 500 dwelling units. A conservative estimate places the “excess” unit balance at approximately 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the Poinsettia Hill project meets the necessary criteria to be allocated “excess” dwelling units. To ensure that these additional units will be affordable, a condition has been included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3607, controlling development of the affordable housing site. CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP /3-02/HDP 93-02 POINSEITIA HILL JANUARY 5, 1994 PAGE 8 Considering that the project is only required to pay the $2,925.00 per dwelling unit impact fee (which would generate approximately $468,000.00) the projects provision of 24 new affordable housing units is a vastly greater asset to the goal of creating affordable housing in Carlsbad. Iv. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Poinsettia Hill proposal is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 21 in the southwest quadrant of the City. The entire project, including the affordable housing units, totals 184 dwelling units. As conditioned, all public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposal will be provided concurrent with development. The impacts on various public facilities created by the construction and occupation of the dwelling units within the Poinsettia Hill development, and compliance with adopted performance standards are summarized below and also contained in the attached Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form. FACILITY STANDARD IMPACTS City Administration 426.5 sq. ft. Library 341.1 sq. ft. Wastewater 184 EDUs Parks 1.28 acres Drainage N/A Circulation 1,472 ADT Fire Station #5 Schools N/A Sewer Collection 184 EDUs Water Distribution 40,480 GPD Open Space 4.38 acres COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SuP z&O2/HDP 93-02 POINSElTIA HILL JANUARY 5,1994 PAGE 9 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVTEW Although the Poinsettia Hill site was reviewed in a certified environmental impact report for previous discretionary actions (EIR 83-7) and current site conditions are substantially the same as in 1983, the new project design and the changing environmental regulations since 1984 necessitated another look at potential impacts. After review of detailed studies, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Hill condominium proposal on November 11, 1993. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and applicable environmental impact assessment are attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3606. Mitigation measures in the areas of geologic safety, air quality, archeology, paleontology, and biology have been included to reduce any potential adverse environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to all responsible agencies for review and only one comment was received, that being from the California Integrated Waste Management Board. A copy of this comment and staffs response are attached to this staff report. VI. SUMMARY The Poinsettia Hill proposal is consistent with all applicable legislation and ordinance and is compatible with both the project site and surrounding properties. Based upon the required mitigation measures, no significant adverse environmental impact will occur due to implementation of the project. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, SDP 93-02, and HDP 93-02. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. ;: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Planning Commission. Resolution No. 3606 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3607 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3608 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3609 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3610 Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Form Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Letter from the California Integrated Waste Management Board/City’s responses Exhibits “A” - ‘INN”, dateii January 5, 1994. MG:vd:lh December 8, 1993 ,- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET- CASE NO: CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 CASE NAME: Poinsettia Hill APPLICANT: Poinsettia Hill Limited REQUEST AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit subdivide, grade and construct a 184 unit multifamily air space condominium development on 36.2 acres located approximately 0.25 miles west of El Camino Real and 0.75 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The northwest Quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. APN: 215-020-01 Acres 36.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 34 lots/184 units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RM - Residential Medium Density Density Allowed 4-6 du/ac Density Proposed 6.3 du/ac Existing Zone RD-M-0 Proposed Zone RD-M-Q Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Site RD-M-Q Vacant Land Use North P-M Planned industrial development South East L-C P-C West L-C & E-A PUBLIC FACILITIES Vacant & agriculture Vacant Vacant & agriculture School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 184 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated March 19. 1992 &VIR~NMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT X Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued November 11, 1993 - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, MG:vd DISCLOSURE STATEMENT , r?olJCrM’S S~A’EWEfl 3F ?SCL2SURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APOLlCATlONS WHICH @ILL QEQC;,CIE DSCFIflIONAPY ACTION CN :hE PART OF TME Cm COQNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED SOARO. COMMlSSlON On CCM,.,,mEE .,/Tease Prrtr) The followlng information must be disclosed: 2. Aoollcrnt List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. POINSETTIA HILL LIMITED (see attached Exhibit “A”) Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. CARLBAD 1 (see attached Exhibit “9”) 3. if any person identifled pursuant to (1) or (2) abovo is 8 corporrtion or partnorrhip, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 1096 of tha shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. (see attached Exhibit “A” & “B”) 4. If any person IdontMd puraurnt to (1) or (2) abovo i8 8 non-profft orgmkrtlon or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person sowing 8s offkor or director of the non-prom orgurization or as trustee or cenefictary of the trust. DWIGHT w. SPIERS TRUSTEE OF THE DWIGHT W. SPIERS TRUST 2075 La, Palmar Drlvo l Carlsb8d. California 9200948SQ l (619) 438-l 161 DiscloSurO Stat0marvt IOver) Page 2 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, gcar=s CornmIssions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - No -x, If yes, please indicate person(s) r , Orrson is d&nod u: ‘Any mhwdual. firm. coowtnorshlo. joint vonturo. UIoCitiOn. social club. fmtomal orgu~tUion. CorDorstcoo. l st.1.. trust. I ~~c~,v.,. syndicate. tha and my othof county. city l d county. cfty mun~e~pabty. dirtnet w 0th~ polittcti suMiwrton. or my etkw grobo cl, combmuton cctmg co c unR’ ! (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Owner/date CARLSBAD 1 ARGENERALHIP Pm or typo name 04 owner Signature 04 applicanudate POINSETTIA HILL LIMITED --TFn PMINERSHIP Print or fypa name OlrpW~ DWIGHT W. SPIERS TRUST GENERAL PARTNER Exhibit “A” Poinsettia Hill Limited A California Limited Partnership LIMITED PARTNERS ADDRESSES PHONE PARTNERS Babbush, Randy ’ Breun, Robert C. CUrruth, Joseph P. crockurd, Bruce Cumutt, Richard A. Dallas, Vicki Forsyth, Marcia A &able, Roger Kinsmen, Cheryl Lee, Patricia - 23 Emerald Ifw¶8 !a2714 (714) 552-5283 22202 Rico Road So. Laguna 92677 (714) 499-3005 H (714) 641-5100 0 25466 Nellie Gail Rd. Laguna Hills 92653 (714) 643-0638 H (714) 641-5100 0 1035 Canyon View Dr. .Laguna Beach 92651 (714) 494-0011 H (714) 760-3365 0 (714) 3626112 H ’ (714) 641-3457 0 (714) 589-1678 H (714) 641-5100 0 23411 Summerfield #9E Aliso Viejo 92656 611 Anton Blvd. #1400 Costa Mesa 92628 202 Seanard Rd. Corona De1 Mar 92625 (714) 640-0147 H (714) 641-3453 0 525 Allview Terrace Laguna Beach 92651 (714) 497-3320 1500 N. Coast Hwy Laguna Beach 92651 (714) 494-4900 0 (714) 644-2145 H 1901 Yacht Enchantress Newport Beach 92660 McKee, Ford 0. Box 82128 Phoenix, AZ 85071 (602) 375-9309 H RIIVCCB, Robert Sybesms, Ed Toland, Christopher J. 709 Marigold Ave. Corona De1 Mar 92625 (714) 640-0245 H (714) 644-0598 0 789 Bay View Laguna Beach 92651 (7 14) 497-5055 17591 Rainglen Lane Huntington Bch 92649 (714) 846-7689 H (714) 841-1015 0 EXHIBIT "B" Carlsbad I A California General Partnership 1. Center Associates Partnership (#4) Robert Y. Nagata 12324 Evensong Drive Los Angeles, Ca., 90064 Craig Ota 9431 Villa Isle Circle Villa Park, Ca., 92667 Shig Kishi 16151 Brookhurst St. "A" Fountain Valley, Ca., 92708 Jerry Mitani 1006 Ridgsdale Monterey Park, Ca., 91754 2. Noso Investments Partnership (P4) Trent & Chad Sakamoto c/o Minnie Sakamoto 3015 Calle Juarez San Clemente, Ca., 92672 Al Kaino 4810 White Court Torrance, Ca., 90503 Donald Kitajima 1811 St. Norbet Street Danville, Ca., 94526 3. Quinvestors Partnership (#5) Dan Fujimoto 340 E. 2nd Street #301 Los Angeles, Ca., 90012 Tom Furukawa c/o Fishking Processors, Inc. 1320 Newton Street Los Angeles;Ca., 90021 Yosh Shibayama 250 E. 1st Street #1207 Los Angeles, Ca., 90012' Trent C Chad Sakamoto c/o Minnie Sakamoto 3015 Calle Juarez San Clemente, Ca., 92672 Fumi Karasawa 738 Panorama Road Fullerton, Ca., 92631 Bob Miyakusu 240.7 Golf Link Circle Santa Clara, Ca., 95050 EXHIBIT "B" Con't 4. Maysak Investment Corporation (#2) Roy Mayemura 10921 Limetree Santa Ana, Ca., 92705 Kiyoshi Sakaeda 9225 Molino Circle Fountain Valley, Ca., 92708 S.N. INVESTMENTS c/o Steve Nishimura 2255 India Street Los Angeles, Ca., 90039 Craig Ota Individual (4) 9431 Villa Isle Circle Villa Park, Ca., 92667 Roy Mayemura, Individual (4) 10921 Limetree Santa Ana, Ca., 92705 Kioshi Sakaeda, Individual (4) 9225 Molino Circle Fountain.Valley, Ca., 92708 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 426.5 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 341.1 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 184 Park: Demand in Acreage = 1.28 Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identify Drainage Basin = N/A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1.472 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = NO. 5 Open Space: Acreage Provided - 4.3% schools: N/A (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 184 Identify Sub Basin - N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on’site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - 40.480 The project is 9 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. CXIYOFCARSBAD . GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAfa FAcIIJTES IMFAt3-S ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) FILE NAME AND NO: Poinsettia Hill - CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 93-02 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:2 GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: RD-M-O DEVELOPER’S NAME: Poinsettia Hill Limited ADDRESS: 23 Cornorate Plaza. Suite 139. Newnort Beach. CA 92660 PHONE NO.: (619) 4384090 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 215-020-01 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 36.2 Gross Acres/l84 DUs State of California California Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum To : Mark Goss Date: November 4, 1993 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 From : J@a.. n Loane, Associate Waste Management Specialist Environmental Review Section Permitting and Enforcement Division California Integrated Waste Management Board Subject: SCH # 93111002 - Negative Declaration (Neg. Dec.) for the Poinsettia Hill development, San Diego County. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have reviewed the Neg. Dec. for the proposed project cited above. In consideration of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15205(c) CIWMB staff will focus the following comments on specific issues involving waste generation and disposal. In order to help decision-makers I) identify potential impacts from construction/demolition projects, 2) determine whether any such impacts are significant, and 3) ascertain whether significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, CIWMB staff request that the following information be considered by the decision-making body of the Lead Agency prior to adoption of the Neg. Dec.: A-1 Identification of the final disposal site(s) for the proposed project’s anticipated waste generation, both during construction phases and after project implementation, including, potential alternative methods for disposal (i.e. shredding of wood for hog fuel, composting of wood waste for beneficial reuse, agricultural amendment of sludge to land, etc.). 3 Mr. Grim Page 2 B-1 Identification of the anticipated types of solid waste (i.e. wood waste, concrete, metal, municipal solid waste, etc.) and estimated quantities of solid wastes to be disposed; both during construction phases and at project completion, including additional sludge from the wastewater treatment plant servicing the project, and mitigation(s) in the event that some of the waste generated by the project are determined to be hazardous. C-1 DJ ll/OV% Identification of the potential impacts of these quantities on the permitted average and peak daily tonnages of the intended disposal site(s). Including the calculated impact upon the landfill’s remaining capacity and associated site-life if quantities are determined to be si gf 9 ni icant Identify any past or present areas of permitted or unpermitted landfilling and/or dumping at the proposed project’s site location and how these areas will be remediated/mitigated. Developments of new residential units increase the amount of waste being sent to landfills. To minim& the amount of solid waste going into landfills, recycling and reduction efforts should be incorporated into the City’s and/or County’s Solid/Integrated Waste Management Plans. This will help to preserve the finite landfill space within the waste management jurisdiction, as well as to help achieve the mandates of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) of 1989. CIWMB staff suggest that the following measures be incorporated into the project by the project proponent to help to achieve these mandates: A.1 B-1 Implementation of a recycling program at the proposed construction site and development complex. Provide information to incoming residents about the recycling services in the project area (i.e. curbside recycling, neighborhood cornposting, etc.). Identify buy-back/recycling centers and possible markets for recyclables in the area. Inform construction workers and future tenants of the need to recycle aluminum, glass, metal, paper, cardboard, plastic, tin cans, and other materials to the maximum extent feasible. CJ D-1 Utilize products (i.e. insulation) made from recycled materials in construction of project structures. Include a recycle storage area(s) into the design of the project’s structures (i.e. storage receptacles for recyclable materials). A Mr. Grim Page 3 ll&W% E-J Develop a neighborhood cornposting area/program at the site to recycle grass clippings and greenwaste from the development’s landscapes to be used as soil amendments and mulches for neighborhood landscape maintenance and water conservation. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. CIWMB staff ask that you keep the Board apprised of solid waste generation, disposal, and source reduction/recycling issues associated with the planned development. For assistance with local planning issues concerning compliance with AB 939 requirements, please contact Judith Friedman at (916) 255-2302 of the CIWMB’s Office of Local Assistance; or if you have any questions regarding these comments or would like additional assistance from CIWMB staff, please contact me at (916) 255-2654. . December 2, 1993 Mr. John Loane Associate Waste Management Specialist Environmental Review Section Permitting and Enforcement Division California Integrated Waste Management Board 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 9.5826 suBJEcr: SCH #93111002 - POINSETTIA HILL (CT 93-03) Thank you for .your comments regarding the proposed Poinsecria Hill multifamily development. [t is anticipated that construction waste will be generated during rhe construction phase and residential waste will be generated upon occupancy. All waste generated from this project will be disposed of in the manner detailed in the City of Carlsbad’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, adopted June 9, 1992. Currently all refuse is disposed of at the San Marcos Landfill, owned by the County of San Diego and the impact of this project on landfill capacity is anticipated to be minimal. Construction waste is recycled through the City’s authorized refuse and recyclables hauler, Coast Waste Management, in accordance with the City’s Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 6.09.093-094, adopted October 22, 1991, copy attached). The City of Carlsbad also has an extensive Solid Waste Public Education Program consisting of the following: . A Newsletter, named “Wastelines”, delivered to all mailing addresses within the City. . A video entitled “Let’s Cut Our Trash Problem Down to Size”. . Periodic announcements on utility bills (e.g. bulky item pick-up days) and brochures delivered to all parties potentially affected by any new programs. In addition, the City has implemented a Recycled Product Procurement Policy which provides for a 15 percent price preference, up to $1,000 per contract, for the purchasing of recycled products. 2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-1161 dad . . Mr. John Loane Associate Waste Management Specialist December 2, 1993 The project applicant has been informed of your suggestions regarding waste management measures within the proposed development. A copy of the City correspondence to the applicant is attached far your reference. Please feel free to contact me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499, if you have any questions. MKHAEL GRIM Attachment c: Don Neu Julie Ross File Copy llG Ih CIW!.l?c L1.H December 2, 1993 Mr. Jack Henthom Jack Henthom & Associates 5431 Avenida En&as, Suite G Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECX . CT 93-03 - POINSETTIA HILL - WASTE MANAGEMENT The Planning Department has received comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Poinsettia Hill from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). As detailed in the attached correspondence, the CIWMB staff is suggesting that the following measures be incorporated into the project: 1. Implementation of a recycling program at the proposed construction site and development complex. 2. Provide information to incoming residents about recycling services in the project area, identify buy-back/recycling centers and possible markets for recyclables in the area, and inform construction workers and future tenants of the need to recycle materials to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Utilize products made from recycled materials in construction of project structures. 4. Include recycle storage areas into the design of the project’s structures. 5. Develop a neighborhood composting area/program at the site to recycle grass clippings and greenwaste from the development’s landscapes to be used as soil amendments and mulches for neighborhood landscape maintenance and water conservation. In addition, all areas of landfilling and/or dumping must be remediated prior to completion of grading for the project. Please feel free to contact me at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499, if you have any questions. MICHAEL GRIM / / Assistant Planner- Attachments c: Don Neu MG:vd CT933wmb.h 2075 Las Palmas Driv& - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 436-l 161 @ fd EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION January 51994 PAGE 2 There being no persons>esiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3595 approving a ten year extension of CUP 88-6 allowing the continued operation of Fire Station No. 5 at 2560 Orion Way in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. VOTE: 7-O AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Noble, Schlehuber and Welshons NOES: / None ABST& None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. CT 93-03KP 93-02/SDP 93-02/HDP 92-02 - POINSETTIA HILL - Request for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide, grade and construct a 184 unit multi-family air space condominium development on 36.2 acres located approximately 0.25 miles west of El Camino Real and 0.75 miles south of Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. Michael Grim, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting various approvals to allow grading and construction of a 184 multi-family residential development on a 36.2 acre parcel approximately l/4 mile west of El Camino Real. The request involves a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to subdivide the property into 184 airspace condominiums, a Site Development Plan to develop under the Qualified Development Overlay and allow additional units for the provision of affordable housing, and a Hillside Development Permit to allow grading and construction on the hillside property, The site has undergone previous discretionary approval in 1984 which involved a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Impact Report, and an Annexation. All of those actions incorporated the site into the City of Carlsbad, designated it for medium density residential uses, and required any subsequent development to conform to the RD-M-Q zoning requirements. He described the project site and its surroundings using the illustrations on the west wall. Mr. Grim stated that the topography is an east-west trending ridgeline, with the northern slope being covered by native chaparral habitat. There is also a southern slope being used for agriculture. Current uses are agriculture and an SDG&E easement which includes two narrow access roadways. Adjacent to the site directly to the east is the previous approved Villas at El Camino Real affordable housing site and the Bans’ property with some greenhouses and agricultural uses, to the south are agricultural uses and undeveloped ground with native habitat, and to the west is the Aviara Phase III proposal with a community park and multi-family residential. The Poinsettia Hill development will contain both townhomes and flat units. Each have private yards and balconies. All units are two-story and meet the building height requirements. There is a centralized recreation area with a swimming pool, spa, and cabana. There are a number of pedestrian trails and circulation through the area and the applicant has stated that he can direct a portion of the circulation towards the future community park. The units nearest the park will have a larger setback of 50 ft. to buffer them from the park. There is also a large area which will be enhanced and preserved as open space even though the EIR stated that the area could be developed into high density residential. The developer, however, has chosen to maintain this area in native chaparral and it will provide an open space corridor which can be connected to future park slopes which will be revegetated. The project was planned under the PUD Ordinance which requires passive and active recreation sites as well as an RV storage site. In addition, sidewalks and a pedestrian system have been provided. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 3 The site will gain acces<from El Camino Real along Street “A.” Since this is the only access proposed, a secondary emergency access was included which traverses the easement and connects with the Villas of El Camino Real. Although affordable housing is not required onsite, the developer has voluntarily proposed to include 24 affordable units in the northeast corner of the property, directly adjacent to the Villas project. If, for financial or other reasons, the affordable units cannot be built, the project has been conditioned to pay inclusionary housing impact fees. Should project redesign be required for any reason, the RV storage and emergency access will be retained in its present location or the map will be amended. The project has undergone environmental review and the developer was proactive in seeking discussions with Fish & Wildlife Service and Fish & Game. Both agencies have sent representatives to the site and, based upon the site visits and the environmental review, there were no adverse comments received. Commissioner Erwin referred to the letter from Guy S. Moore dated January 5, 1994 and asked Mr. Grim to show the location of the La Costa Boulevard dirt road. Mr. Grim stated that the road runs along the ridgeline and is not a dedicated access. Commissioner Erwin inquired how the property owners would be able to maintain their existing access to El Camino Real. Mr. Grim replied that Street “A” will provide paved, all weather access from El Camino Real, which is an improvement over the existing dirt road. At the cul-de-sac, the project applicant will grade a roadway along the western portion of the site to loop up to the existing dirt roadway. Commissioner Hall asked Mr. Grim to repeat the information about the access which he did. Mr. Grim stated that when the community park is developed, Poinsettia Lane will be completed which will replace the dirt road. Commissioner Welshons inquired why Street “A” cannot connect with Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Grim deferred response to the Assistant City Engineer. Mr. Grim concluded his presentation and stated that the project complies with the General Plan, the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program, all applicable sections of the Municipal Code, and is compatible with its site and surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends approval with a minor typographical correction to Resolution No. 3608, Finding #4, line 14, to change the word “missing” to “massing.” Commissioner Savary requested Mr. Hauser to reply to Commissioner Welshons’ question. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, stated that one of the first things staff did in evaluating the project was to require the applicant to sit down with the adjacent property owners and work out an overall circulation access plan. When the overall picture was evaluated, staff concluded that the proposed access is the best available to serve all of the property owners and still maintain the 1,200 ft. intersection standard on Poinsettia Lane. Commissioner Welshons inquired if Street “A” could be curved downward and connected to Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Hauser replied that doing this would violate the intersection spacing along Poinsettia Lane with Ambrosia Lane which accesses the community park. Commissioner Welshons inquired about the extent of the violation. Mr. Hauser replied that he recalls the violation would be approximately 600 ft., which is half of the 1,200 ft. requirement. Commissioner Welshons inquired if there is any guarantee that the other street which intersects at the remnant parcel will be put in. Mr. Hauser replied that there is no guarantee. Commissioner Welshons inquired if all the people from this development, as well as the Villas, will have to exit via Street “A” and drive down El Camino in order to take their kids to school at Aviara Oaks. Mr. Hauser replied that this access procedure would be necessary until the Poinsettia Lane connection is built, which will occur as adjacent properties develop. There is no guarantee because there is an environmental MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5,1994 PAGE 4 . area which may prohibit The connection. Although the environmental issue is not significant at this time, Mr. Hauser stated that environmental matters do change with time. Commissioner Welshons inquired how many units will be in the Villas development. Mr. Hauser replied there will be 384 units. Commissioner Welshons inquired about the emergency access which will go through a parking lot and be restricted to emergency vehicles. Mr. Hauser replied that the project has been conditioned for emergency . access only, which means that it can be gated. However, there is no requirement as yet for a gate. Since the affordable units in this project will abut to the Villas affordable project, there may be some agreement to open that up. Commissioner Erwin referred to the letter from Anthony Bons which again refers to a right to farm ordinance and asked the attorney if she could comment on adding a condition to notice tenants. Ms. Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that she is unsure what Mr. Bons means by a right to farm ordinance. She has not heard of this ordinance. She believes that Mr. Wayne has a policy statement on what staff would prefer to do. Commissioner Erwin inquired if a notice to tenants is included as one of the conditions in this project. Mr. Grim replied that such a condition is not currently included but could be added. Mr. Wayne suggested the condition be worded the same as the one for the Villas. Commissioner Schlehuber advised staff to make sure the applicant is notified. Commissioner Welshons has a problem with the affordable housing. As she reads Resolution No. 3607, Condition #ll, seems to imply an either/or option for building the affordable housing units or paying the inclusionary housing impact fee. It also mentions that the land would revert back to its natural state and nothing would be built there except the RV storage lot and the emergency road. She is worried that if we take away this piece of the puzzle, it appears to be an entirely different project. Mr. Grim replied that since the condition contains an either/or option, staff felt it was important to show the Commission the complete package. If the applicant decides not to build the affordable housing units, or if the grading were to change significantly, it becomes an issue of substantial conformance during final map review. There is a potential of the project returning to the Commission if things were to change drastically. Commissioner Welshons is concerned that the Commission is approving the project with the affordable housing and that after it is approved, the affordable housing could be taken away. She would feel cheated if that happened. Mr. Grim replied that if the affordable housing units are not built, the applicant would have to pay the inclusionary housing impact fees. The applicant is going the extra mile by stating that he will try to build the units, which are over and above his requirement. Commissioner Welshons inquired that if the applicant decided not to build the affordable housing if the RV storage lot and roadway could be brought back to the main area, leaving that entire area in open space. Mr. Grim replied that moving the RV storage lot to the main area would necessitate redesign nor could the secondary access be removed without a major redesign of this project and the Villas project. There are grading issues involved. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that the 24 units does involve exceeding the growth control point and it does involve utilizing excess units from the bank. If he understands correctly, and the applicant pays the impact fees and do not develop the affordable units, then there is no entitlement for 24 units in that corner. That is not clear from this condition. If the Commission wants that to be clear, then the condition needs to be amended to clarify it. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the applicant pays the impact fee if it would be based on 160 units or 184 units. Mr. Wayne replied that it would be based on 160 units, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 5 . Commissioner Welshon; would like to see that condition amended. Mr. Wayne stated that staff could not recommend approval of the excess units unless they were designated for affordable housing. Commissioner Welshons inquired about the SDG&E easement and what happens to their access roads. Mr. Grim replied that the SDG&E access roads would remain as they now are, however the trash and debris would be removed as part of the open space enhancement. Commissioner Erwin asked Commissioner Welshons about the change she would like made to Condition #l 1 of Resolution No. 3607, and if eliminating the final five words would solve the problem. Commissioner Welshons replied that she would defer to Mr. Wayne. Mr. Wayne stated that he would recommend that Condition #Ill be changed, starting in the bold type, as follows: Should the applicant choose to pay the inclusionary housing impact fee, the site for the proposed affordable dwelling units shall be redesianated a remainder parcel and shall remain in an undeveloped state subject to subsequent discretionary approval. Commissioner Erwin inquired how many units over the growth control point are being proposed. Mr. Wayne replied that there would be 9 units over the growth control point, leaving a balance of 15 units. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the change to Condition #11 means that the developer could come back in at a later date and add 15 units, or increase that by putting in some subsidized units. Mr. Wayne replied that they could ask for a density bonus or could ask for 24 units, Commissioner Erwin inquired if this means that the applicant has 15 units in the bank. Mr. Wayne replied that there would be no units in the bank because the condition reads that it is a remainder parcel. If the Commission wants that parcel to remain in open space, the condition would have to be worded differently. Mr. Wayne doesn’t think he heard that, What he thinks he heard is that the existing condition is unclear and that Commissioner Welshons would like to wipe off the entitlement if the applicant chooses to pay the impact fee. With the condition as presently worded, it is unclear whether the project would still have the 24 units, if they paid the fee. With his proposed correction to Condition #l 1, the 24 units would go away and it would become a remainder parcel. Commissioner Erwin inquired if this means that the applicant can come forward at a later date and build the 24 units. Mr. Wayne replied that staff is, recommending that the remainder parcel retain future development potential. If the Commission wishes to change that, they can do so. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, suggested that the revision to Condition #1 1 should probably mention that the road needs to be retained. Mr. Wayne replied that this project is subject to subsequent discretionary approvals by outside agencies. Those outside agencies can say that no road whatsoever shall be allowed in that area. If that happens, the applicant would have to redesign and put the emergency access and RV storage somewhere else. He revised the condition to satisfy Commissioner Welshons’ concern to strip the entitlement away. Commissioner Hall requested staff to confirm that the project cannot be built without a secondary access, regardless of what the condition states. Mr. Wayne replied that this is correct. Commissioner Betz does not understand the term “stripping entitlements.” What she would like to see happen is that the project be conditioned so that if the affordable housing doesn’t go in, the applicant would still have the opportunity and right to develop that at a future date in some acceptable manner. She wouldn’t want to see that right taken away. Mr. Wayne stated that as he proposed the wording to Condition #l 1, it would do exactly that. Any development would be subject to future discretionary action but it would be different than what Commissioner Erwin has suggested. It would still have development potential. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 6 Commissioner Schlehub& inquired about the condition which requires the secondary access. Mr. Grim replied that Condition #34, Resolution No. 3607, establishes the secondary access. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if that condition should read “the” secondary access or “a” secondary access. Mr. Grim replied that it could read “a” secondary access. Mr. Hauser commented that since Condition #33 states “a” secondary access, Condition #34 is probably okay the way it is written. Commissioner Welshons commented that Finding #5 of Resolution No. 3609 states that the project “will” provide affordable housing units. She inquired if that needs to be modified. Mr. Wayne replied that, one way or another, the project will provide affordable units because it is subject to the impact fee. Mr. Grim replied that Finding #5 was worded that way because the project proposes to exceed the growth control point. He stated that Finding #5 could be reworded to state “Should the project provide affordable units to be available to lower income families,“. Commissioner Welshons stated that this would make more sense to her. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired what the current impact fee is. Mr. Wayne replied that it is approximately $3,000 per unit. Commissioner Welshons stated that one of the exhibits shows a median on El Camino Real with no left turn into A Street or out of A Street. She inquired if that was in error. Mr. Hauser replied that the exhibit may be incorrect. However, the condition states that there will be a traffic signal installed at that location. That would imply that there is left and right turns. Commissioner Welshons would like the applicant to describe the swimming pool. Chairman Savary invited the applicant to speak. Dwight Spires, General Partner of Poinsettia Hill, Ltd., applicant, 5431 Avenida Encinas #G, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has worked on this project for four years and is happy to see it finally come before the Commission. Throughout the project he has used a very competent consulting team and is pleased with the results which they have achieved. The team has tried to work with all of the adjacent property owners to facilitate their needs as well as their own. It is a project which is responsive to growth management, affordable housing, and the marketplace. Through cooperation with Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife, the project presences a significant amount of open space to preserve sensitive habitat to ensure compatibility with the City’s emerging habitat management plan. Approximately 48% of the site will be maintained in open space or landscaped areas. He supports the staff recommendation and will be happy to answer questions. He requested time for rebuttal to public testimony. Commissioner Erwin requested Mr. Spires to comment on the “dedicated” road situation which Mr. Guy Moore spoke of in his letter. Mr. Spires requested Jack Henthorne to respond to that issue. Jack Henthorne, 5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite H, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has had title reports done and there is no dedicated street as Mr. Moore suggests. There is, however, a water line easement which has, over the years, become the main access. Commissioner Erwin inquired if he could accept the same condition which was applied to the Villas regard notification to property owners and tenants regarding agricultural uses. Mr. Spires replied that he is in favor of disclosing as much as possible to potential buyers of property because it precludes problems at a later date. He would have no problem with the concept. Staff has a copy of the condition and suggested that a member of his team review and approve it. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the use of the recreational facilities. There was no condition restricting the use of all recreational facilities to subsidized units. He inquired if the recreational facilities would be restricted. Mr. Spires stated that he had not considered that policy as yet. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5,1994 PAGE 7 Commissioner Erwin iniuired if he could accept a condition that all recreational facilities shall be accessible to every project homeowner, tenant, and their guests. Mr. Spires replied that he would not have a problem with that. Commissioner Hall inquir_ed if any consideration has been given to homeowner and recreation facility fees. He stated that this was addressed in length at last nights City Council meeting and there are monetary costs involved. Mr. Spires replied that this is a problem. He would like to see everyone be able to use the facilities but the one problem that always arises is that homeowners are very cost conscious when it comes to homeowner associations. There used to be many amenities in the past, but not so much any more because people don’t want to pay for them. In an affordable housing situation, the question arises as to who will pay their pro rata share of.the costs, i.e. is it 184 units or is it 160 units. It is a real concern about the use of the facilities. Mr. Spires stated that although Commissioner Erwin wants equal access to the recreational facilities, it may be that those residents of the affordable housing units will not want to pay their pro rata fees. Commissioner Hall stated that Mr. Wayne had done an excellent job of explaining that at the City Council meeting and perhaps it is something he should explain to the Planning Commission as well. Commissioner Welshons stated that in Condition #42, Resolution No. 3607, there is a provision for only one set of CC&R’s for the entire development. She would accept Commissioner Erwin’s recommendation since it is already stated in the resolution. Commissioner Welshons inquired if one of the swimming pools will be at least 75 ft. Mr. Spires stated that he would prefer to put in two lap lanes, if she would accept that compromise. Commissioner Welshons could accept that. Commissioner Welshons referred to Condition #28 and inquired if he could accept additional wording which states that the park might be a lighted park. She reviewed the problem the City had when the lights were installed at the Calavera Park; many homeowners didn’t know the park would be lighted and they were unhappy. Mr. Spires stated that he could accept the wording active park because it would include everything. Commissioner Welshons asked staff if they remember the condition which was placed on the project east of the new Poinsettia Park. Mr. Wayne replied that he doesn’t recall the exact wording. On this project the standard wording is used. If there will be lighted fields, the condition should reflect that. Since it is not known yet whether or not there will be lighted fields, the wording should be subject to Planning Director approval. Mr. Spires believes that the notification should be in consonance with what is actually designed, rather than speculating now what may or may not be adjacent to the site. Commissioner Welshons could accept Mr. Wayne’s suggestion. Commissioner Noble thinks we are getting the cart before the horse. He thinks we should wait until the site plan comes in. Commissioner Schlehuber states that perhaps the condition should state that the park “could” include lights. Commissioner Welshons inquired if, during the planning process, any consideration was given to connecting A Street with Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Spires replied that this is a very long story. He looked at numerous alternatives and this solution seems to work and staff accepts it. Unfortunately, we don’t have the whole map to look at tonight so everyone could see how it meshes together. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 8 Commissioner Erwin staled that in the Costa Do Sol project a few months ago, there was a condition which stated that the recreation facilities would be open to all residents. Mr. Henthorne replied that this will all be worked out during negotiations of the affordable housing agreement. The costs for providing the recreational facilities will be looked at closely at that time. Commissioner Erwin stated that he is not a big fan of subsidized housing because of the segregation issue. Commissioner Hall thinks this issue should be addressed at a later date. When you ask future homeowners to start subsidizing other homeowners, you are asking for disaster. He thinks we need to be careful about what we mandate at this level. Sometimes $25 a month can make or break a project; most homeowner fees start at $150 a month. Commissioner Schlehuber supports Commissioner Hall on that point. He wants to encourage affordable housing and this condition would discourage it because it makes it too costly. Commissioner Betz agrees with Commissioner Hall and Schlehuber. Commissioner Welshons inquired if there will be any picnic benches or basketball hoops in the open space areas. Mr. Spires replied that he is not at that point yet. At the time the affordable housing agreement is negotiated, he will have more information. Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. John Sfregola, 342 Playa Blanca, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is representing one of the partners who owns land directly south of the project. They are in general consensus and in favor of the development to proceed. Commissioner Welshons inquired if he has any idea or plans for his property. Mr. Sfregola replied that if the cul-de-sac were connected to Poinsettia Lane he might be able to come up with some ideas. Ronald McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has a nursery way out by the water towers. He is concerned about the road extension that the developer will be putting in. He would like to know if it will be wide enough to accommodate trucks who deliver materials or if it will be a 90 degree turn. Commissioner Hall inquired if trucks using this access service his business. Mr. McKinney replied that they have in the past but not at the present time. There are other businesses near him that they do service. They must access from El Camino Real because there is no access from the west. Commissioner Hall inquired if he uses the access all year or just during the dry times of the year. Mr. McKinney replied that he uses it all year. Commissioner Hall stated that trucks of that size require a pretty decent road. Mr. McKinney replied that they have been able to negotiate that road throughout the year in the past. Evelyn McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that everyone will be happy to hear about the new road but is concerned about access during the construction period. If there will be no access during the construction period, she needs to know now so shecan make plans for her business. Floyd Best, Palomar Airport, 2198 Palomar Airport Road, addressed the Commission and stated that the project is very close to the airport. He would like to request that potential homeowners receive notice that they are in close proximity of an airport. Chairman Savary advised Mr. Best that there is already a condition for this purpose. -4 -. PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 9 Paul Klukas, Planner for Aviara, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is very much in favor of this project. He has met with the developer on numerous occasions and he has been very cooperative. He liked the project and thinks it will be an asset to Carlsbad. He urged the Commission to support it. The applicant was given an opportunity for rebuttal. Jack Henthorne, 5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite H, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is not sure of the turning radius of an 18 wheeler but he certainly plans to provide full and adequate access to those businesses who are served by that access. As far as the road alignment, he has looked at many different alignments and he thinks they have exhausted all of the alternatives. Commissioner Erwin inquired if he can accept the condition to notify homeowners and tenants of the industrial and agricultural impacts which was applied to the Villas. Mr. Henthorne replied that he has read the condition and it is reasonable. He can accept it. Commissioner Erwin stated that he can count the votes so he won’t pursue adding the other condition regarding use of the recreational facilities. However, he won’t be able to support the project because of it. Commissioner Betz inquired about Mrs. McKinney’s question regarding timing. Mr. Henthorne replied that the condition requires maintaining access throughout any construction activity. It is their intention to have no days of interrupted access in and out of there. Commissioner Hall inquired if he understands there will be a standard park condition which states that there will be an active park which may have lights in order to preclude problems when the light poles are installed. Mr. Henthorne replied that he understands. Commissioner Welshons inquired if any consideration has been given to connecting with the Citywide trail system. Mr. Henthorne replied that he has looked at the City’s open space and trails plan. The links seem to go to the south of the site and up to the park site. He is not sure that the fish and wildlife agencies would accept humans in a habitat area. For the record, Chairman Savary disclosed that she had received three letters. One letter from Mr. Anthony Bons at 1565 Mulberry Drive, San Marcos; one letter from Mr. Guy S. Moore, Jr., 6503 El Camino Real, Carlsbad; and one letter from Stephen J. Ghysels, Vice President of Bank of America on behalf of the Whitney Family Trust. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Grim confirmed that the road access will be 30 ft. wide and the Assistant City Engineer has advised him that a semi tractor-trailer could navigate that width. In addition, Condition #32 states that access will be maintained throughout construction of the project. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if 30 ft. will be wide enough. Mr. Hauser replied that the condition could be reworded to state that the width must meet Caltrans 407D standards. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to see that added. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to know who will maintain the easement and how long it is maintained. After some discussion, Mr. Henthorne returned to the podium and stated that it was ,his understanding that they will construct the road and allow people to pass. It has not been their intent to maintain a dirt road. He thinks they will be providing a superior surface than what is there now. He plans to construct the road of all weather material (compacted DG) and intends to leave the easement open. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 5,1994 PAGE 10 Commissioner Schlehubir stated that some outside authority needs to determine when the easement may be closed. He thinks there needs to be some clarification. Mr. Henthorne has no problem with that. He plans to keep the access open until alternative access is provided. Commissioner Welshons would like to know what is going to happen to the access for people to the west when Aviara Area 19 and the park get built. Mr. Wayne replied that Aviara Phase III proposed the Blackrail connection to Alga. That completes the circulation. Commissioner Schlehuber understood that at all times. He just wants to clarify when the easement can be closed. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, replied that it is a legal issue. A temporary easement needs to have closure, i.e. it will be open until a certain time. It is better not to complicate things down the road. It should be made clear right now. Chairman Savary asked the applicant if they can accept keeping the easement open until other access is provided. Both Mr. Henthorne and Mr. Spires replied that they could. Commissioner Schlehuber can accept this. Commissioner Betz has no comment. She agrees with what Commissioner Schlehuber was trying to get across. She will support the project. Commissioner Hall would like to see a presentation from staff sometime soon on how inclusionary housing works. He agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber that we need a drop dead date. He can support the project. Commissioner Welshons requested staff to review the revisions which have been recommended. Mr. Grim gave the following summary: Resolution No. 3608, Finding #4, change the word missing to massing. Add a new condition to Resolution No. 3607 regarding noticing about adjacent agricultural uses which the applicant read and agreed to. Add a statement in Condition #ll, Resolution No. 3607 which adds the words “shall be redesignated a remainder parcel and”. Revise Finding #5, Resolution No. 3609, to read “Should the project provide affordable units to be available to lower income families,“. Amend Condition #/28, Resolution No. 3607, to state noticing of the parks and a parenthetical phrase “which could include lighting”. Amend Condition #32, Resolution No. 3607, to add a statement at the end of the first sentence which reads, “that allows circulation adequate for vehicles meeting Caltrans Highway Design Manual 407D.“. Amend Condition #32, Resolution No. 3607, to add a third sentence which states that, “Said access shall remain open for public access until such time as alternate access has been provided, subject to approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director.“. Commissioner Welshons stated that they left out the statement by the applicant regarding the lap lanes in the pool. Mr. Grim replied that he would pay specific attention to that during plan check. Commissioner Hall inquired if there is a condition regarding the airport. Mr. Grim replied that it is already there, Condition #30. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff remembers how many multi-family units Aviara plans to put in. Mr. Grim doesn’t remember exactly but it is higher density than this project. Commissioner Schlehuber will PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1994 PAGE 11 support this project but ie has some concern about the amount of density in a small area. He hopes it doesn’t come back to haunt us. Commissioner Welshons has real strong reservations about Street “A” without some definite plans for another connection. She would like to see Street “A” connect to Poinsettia Lane. There will be three projects exiting on Streef”A” and she doesn’t like it. She thinks it is inadequate because many people will have to take this road in order to get their kids to school. She is concerned that the other road may never get built. Commissioner Noble stated that if a road is never built it is because there is no development. He thinks we are trying to add restrictions on one developer that really applies to another developer. He agrees about the light. He agrees that something is needed on affordable housing. He agrees with the notification to homeowners regarding noise but he thinks we are trying to solidify a utopia when we have other plans coming in later. He can support the project. Commissioner Erwin thinks Commissioner Schlehuber’s proposal is a fair compromise. He could vote for this but he has a major problem with the recreational facilities issue. When we have a moral issue, we can always justify it with economics. He thinks it is a long term issue that the City needs to address. He will vote no for that reason. Mr. Hauser responded to Commissioner Welshons’ comment. He thinks there was a misunderstanding. She had asked him about the intersection spacing of the future Poinsettia Lane. From Ambrosia Lane to where this road would come out if it were to be connected would be about 600 ft. Normal intersection spacing is 1,200 ft. for a major arterial road, which is what Poinsettia is classified as. The end of the Street “A” cul-de-sac is 350 ft. shy of the future Poinsettia Lane. In other words, it would have to be extended an additional 350 ft. to touch Poinsettia Lane. Commissioner Welshons replied that the number she had received before was that the connection would be 60 ft. shy of the intersection policy. She would like to have seen Ambrosia laid out better. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3606 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3607, 3608, 3609, and 3610 recommending approval of CT 93-03, CP 93-02, SDP 93-02, and HDP 93-02 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following additions: (1) In Resolution No. 3608, Finding #4, change the word missing to massing; (2) Add a new condition to Resolution No. 3607 regarding noticing about adjacent agricultural uses which the applicant read and agreed to; (3) Add a statement in Condition #l 1, Resolution No. 3607 which adds the words “shall be redesignated a remainder parcel and”; (4) Revise Finding #5, Resolution No. 3609, to read “Should the project provide affordable units to be available to lower income families,“; (5) Amend Condition #28, Resolution No. 3607, to state noticing of the parks and a parenthetical phrase “which could include lighting”; (6) Amend Condition #32, Resolution No. 3607, to add a statement at the end of the first sentence which reads, “that allows circulation adequate for vehicles meeting Caltrans Highway Design Manual 407D.“; and (7) Amend Condition #32, Resolution No. 3607, to add a third sentence which states that, “Said access shall remain open for public access until such time as alternate access has been provided, subject to approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director.“. VOTE: 5-2 . AYES: Chairman Savary, Commissioners Betz, Hall, Noble, and Schlehuber NOES: Commissioners Erwin and Welshons ABSTAIN: None MINUTES 0’ ; 2 :‘- 2 ‘, : 3 : I, 4, ‘: : ; ‘j =_; 1 : _ d-1 - ’ ;,;7,31 ’ 1: * ““‘1 * _ _- .-. Bmk of Amerioa kn Dbge Thai Rul Crtata March22,1994 Honorabla Mayor and City Council City of Carlrbad 1200 CarlBad~ViIlagr Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Poinsettia Hill Project This letter ia in follow up to my letter of support addressed to the Carlsbad Planning Commission dated January 4,1994. Bank of America is the trustee owner for the Whitney Family Trust, pat? owners of the property to the immsdiata south of the subject project. The applicant has taken a very proactive approach to involving surrounding property owners in the planning of his project. He and his consultantt have worked directly with us to insure that grading, access and aesthetic concems have been addressed. We endorse the approval of his project. cc: Dwight Spires ,,’ Bank of Amerioa Natlonal Trust and Savings AssatIatIon 0333Qenesee Avenue Sub 220 San Dlsga, Callfornla 82121 81 Q/468-2400 SENT BY:CITV OF CQRLSBCID : 3-22-g4 10!55QM : 4341987: ti 3 TO: CrrY MANAaER FROM: City llnglnnr CT 034s: POINSETTIA HlLUACCE66 TO AWARA SCHOOL AND FUTURE PARK The Polnsettla Mill projwt is located betwean 7hs Villas” end Ada Phase Ill. Slnw Uw Poltwetti~ Hill approvul by thr Pbnning CommWorr on January S, 18011, ti City Council haa expressed cwcwn about UGGOWJ ta Avlarr Oaks Schwl and Avlara Park, Thou WncerM were voloed by the Cky Council at it8 Jwuuy 26,l OM hewlng of the Avlan Phase Ill project In approving Avlara Phesa Ill, tns City Council added a condltian nqulrlng a 30’ temporuy ewment. Thb ewmwt I$ for pededrlur UIcl vehiarlot wcw to the park and 8ctwol until I permanent access Ir bedWed. City staN hu been meeting wtth nprewWlves of Avlara, PolnwUia HIII, Md othu knpwted property owners In un attempt to develop an attomativr to Improve woe88 to the whorl tvlcl puk, The propored rpluUon (see attached Exhibit 2) will &nd ‘AM Streat to PcWettla Lana for pedmtrlm md vehlculw accew to the park and school, The Intent la to have each of the ptaperty awnera partlclpate In the right-of-way dedlcatlon and improvement reMed W, The propowd Intwsactfon tpaclng for “An gtreet would nti meet oumnt qwelng standards. However, becawe of the relatily low projected traffic volumes and the beneftb of enhanced pedeartan aooes~, tho Engineering Department finds the crpacing eweptabls and would grant a varlance~ A second pedestrian WCBBSS may be provided along the northerly propcrrty llno of Polnsmltk Hlll a$ shown on Exhibit 2, Hwever, an enviwnmental rwvlw hao not bwn done for thlr WI, Also, the Police Depwtmwlt hu axpseecred w?Ie ConceIn about nlcb loc&lon of the ball, Therelore, it k recxwwnunded thet addttlonal rwiew of thlr proposed WI be clone CL8 part of the Citywide frallr System. In order to r8taln tha aptI of lncorporatlng WI trail into the CItywide system, a wndition ha8 been added to require Thor Uewlbpw to offer a dedication for the trail. Thlr offer could be accepted once II Is determlnsd that the WI would be Incorporated into the system. Wllh the con8tructlon of “A” &wet to P&Mtio lane and Pdnmettla Lane to Ambraatr, the 30’ temporary eassmwt on the Avlara Phase Ill project would no longer be nroded and m be quttolalmrd by the Ctty. lf the City CwnolJ flnck thk propwad pemwent rdutlan aooeptabls, lt Is reoommendwi that the following conditlone be uided to the Rwolutlon ol Approval kr or a3=03, Poinwttlr Hill: CNalNEERINO CC)NblllC)N 78. Prier to approval af the final map the owner shall make an Irrwocabim offer of dedlcatlan to the City of Carisbad, Open Qpwe Dlstrlct, or ottw slmllw ontlty deolgntid by the City of Carlsbad, kt a perpehd eBeement for publlo Wle ovec, upon, Md wwsa the nwtherty portbn of Lot I, If the City of Carl&ad wcepts dedioatlon of the Ml8 oasemsnt, the City ahell aaaum~ reqmmlbllity, maintanarwe, and IklMty of the tmlls, SENT BV: CITY OF CQRLSBCID : 3-22-94 10:56QM : WA3808PAh A341987: ti A . Mu&ho, 1894 CT’W43i POINW’lTlA HtWACC%SS To AVIARA SCHOQL AND FUTURE PARK Pagm 2 78. Plane, trpeMceUons, and suppwting ciocurnenta for the improve- mentioned bhvv 8hall k prepued to tha 8atwwbn tithacityEnglnoec. Prlcwtuapprwrlofthefind mapInmordancewiU’iCIty~, the applmll rhail h8tall, of ape to mtau and 8ecure with appropriate 8wlrlty m prclvided by law, the fdwng Improvementb: "A' Street rhall ba extMdedfrom tba pmgmded~~~ori~ t4WWWmap‘tO~lubl~8hhrrr)ction extenhn rhaJl ba gradad la M-width nnd cautrwM wlth’@l Off- idto 32’ w&h paved roadway, cub, gut&, and ddmrrlk on the riorthq sldm, ruMdent dmhqa eontral faeMth u may be raquhd and ail mwer, w&w, and utlllty Ihem that would bo underneath the paving, A mlnlmum 42 dgt$&way width rhdl ba ~~~dadJWcWci~iot/ City for the improve- to b0 . lnrtrllatim of ttmm Improvww~ hall 4y k f@quhd at much thauPobatUaL8nsimprowwvb uo Imtalbd and fundlonlrbg #mInleg~putotrrrr- eptem IlnkkrQ Polmeta Hlil wnhAviuaoak8schd* Theqmayreque8tr relrnbur8ement.rgroement IW dedgn, ww-v&a~~~~~ co8t8,gr8dk1o~~-- Stmtadmkn,wlththerPocp(lanot-anddmInageMl~ nquhd ta WV4 PoJnaettla Hill. cr~krrpprowd8ubjo8llQthecondftionthatihrcen~ ~~~~~~lPdrmetllaHln~ect~l~ude mo0m8,~ahwmorr 5ch&it8~-‘~drtedJrnuary6,1QOJ,thrd8lbw8drwrbdlon uqualekrvehldsrmnting-Hlghway~~ual 4070*ThlaMmpede8tfianandvetlldeaun88llallbeprov(ded vla~~wldetemporuy- eawmenttok~mth8 PohttkHlUlhlmrgthatwUl~~tlwWwick Grnponry- -~dorro~-w- cd Aulata Fhaee Ill, Lo5 3. All tampwuy - Mnmwa &ha WtYM~plrac,Untll~~~t~~ drrcrlbedln t2atWbn No. 79. -SENT BV:CITV OF CQRLSBQD : 3-22-94 10: 57laM : 43A1~87: # 5 . . ‘) I I ‘. * I i -’ ‘ . ‘. b, I ’ I E %a ? E ! i 3 i I .- -.,-- .- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLKATION County of San Diego ss. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PROOF OF PUBLICATION ------c----------------------- I have been duly sworn as the Legal Advertising Representative of the Blade-Citizen, a newspaper of general circulation, publtshed tgr8nimes a week in the city of Beach and Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, with circulatron in Cardiff, g;;;?d, Del Mar, Encrnitas, La Leucadia, Olivenhain, Ran&o Santa Fe & Solana Beach and that the notice of which the annexed is a true copy, was pub- lished in said newspaper on the following dates: March 11, 1994 f certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated April 1 1994 Notice of Public Hearing 9 ‘U b h -i& .a 1. 9 4‘ i)H, &xi ’ I ICC. , , ’ ;; _ ,,!’ <’ 1 -I) .- ii :,i .hw., '. Qn,..' 2zm ,-I. ;'f$+‘ :n. Leg; Blat development on 36.2 acres 9eneratty located approximately 0.25 m’Ies west of El Camino Real and 0.75 miles south of Pabmar Akpotl Road, In Local Facilities Management Zone 21, and more paRkUlally deSCfibed as: The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, TownshfplP south, Range 4 West, in the City of Carkbad, County of San Diego. If you have any @estbns regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim, tn the Ptannirg Department, at 43611161, extensbn 4499. If you challenge the MitQated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, CondomMum Permit, Site Development plan, and/or Site Devebprhent Plan in cowt, you may be tlmtted to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing descrtbed in this notice, or in written ocw&pondence dettwred4o the Ctty of Cartsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prbr to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: Potnwttia Hi Limited CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Legal 4506 March 11,1994 . PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALlFORNlA 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 the principal clerk of the printer of Blade-Citizen a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for the City of Oceanside and the North County Judicial district with substantial circulation in Bonsall, Fallbrook, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Vista and Carlsbad, County of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of June 30,1989, case number 171349; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 11,1994 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ifated at Oceacpiii$z$fgig$his Is tday This space is for the County Clerk Filing Stamp - P roof of Publication of Notice of Public Heark -. t . Paste Clipping qf Not ;: i SECURELY In This Space. (1 ---------w-------- e I .: i ,’ . . Q “\‘i& / IL , -Vllf&’ ill t, , *kg 5 ‘I ., -*. a 1 --A-__ _ ‘t 4 ,. .c T Nljfii%i@-ijiiiiiiiii-t~ijijiijN ~ CT 83-WCP B3-USlIP 83-2hlDP 83-2 - POINSETTIA Hllk %~nCrl Chambers, 1206 Cartsbad Village Drive, Cartshad California at 6.00 p m NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Carlshad will hold a publb heating at the on Tuesda Permit to SubdIvide, grade and construct a 164 unit multi-family air bpace condominium Tentatrws Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Devebpment Plan and Hillside Development krch.22,1994, to WnSlder approval of a Mitigated Negatke Declar&n & an &plibn 11 and 0.76 miles south of Pabmar Airport Road, in Local Faciliti’es Management zone 21, and m development on 36.2 acres generally located approximatefy 0 25 miles west of El Camino Real particularly described as: The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South Range 4 West, in the City of Cartsbad, County of San Diego. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim, in the Planning Department, at 436-l 161, extension 4499. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, &d/or Site Development Plan in court, you may he limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone eke at the public hearing described in this notice or in witten correspondence delivered to the Cit; Of Carkbad City Clerk’s Cffbe at, or prior to, the public hearfng. APPLICANT: Poinsettia Hill Limited CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Legal 38904 March 11, 1994 . . . . . ^ _ -. - __ _ _ _I-- y- --. -- - -. . - A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CT 93-3&P 93-2/SDP 93-2/HDP 93-2 - POINSETTIA HILL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 1994, to consider approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and an application for a Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide, grade and construct a 184 unit multi-family air space condominium development on 36.2 acres generally located approximately 0.25 miles west of El Camino Real and 0.75 miles south of Palomar Airport Road, in Local Facilities Management Zone 21, and more particularly described as: The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 West, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mike Grim, in the Planning Department, at 438-1161, extension 4499. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and/or Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: Poinsettia Hill Limited PUBLISH: March 11, 1994 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL PO(NSETllA IikL CT e3-OWCP 9%021 SOP xi-02/HOP 03-02 - 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 5, 1994, to consider a request for the recommendation of approval of a Mitigated Negativ Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, an subdivide, grade and construct a 184 unit multifamily on 36.2 acres on property generally located approxim Real and 0.75 miles south of Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 21 and more particularly described as: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 south, Range 4 west, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 30, 1993. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (619) 438- 1161, ext. 4499. If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, Condominium Permit, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 93-03/CP 93-02/SDP 93-02/m CASE NAME: POINSETTIA HILL mr,nr rcl T --“r-n1 I--- ne. a -A,. (Form A) TO: FROM: RE: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice CT 93-03/CP 93-02/ HDP 93-02/SDP 93-02 - POINSETTIA HILL for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the Council meeting of Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK FEBRUARY 4, 1994 Assistant City Manager Attachments Date . ,’ - 1, .a .a I. ” :,’ ‘.‘:.., . I. 5. ,., .* ,. ;‘. ‘* . . 4 j / ’ . , - . .: : I t 1 1 i I 1 f I i I ! i .’ ! , I I . i )...,.. . . -\., -... : .--.- - .._. t. .~ ,- . l Pacific Bell California State Assesment Board Sacramento, Ca., 87120 Suunto Inc. 2151 Las Palmas Drive Car lsbad, Ca. , 92009 Palomar Industrial Properties LTD 1801 Avenue of the Stars #936 Los Angeles, Ca., 90067 Pleta Trust Philip L. Gildred Jr. 550 West C. Street #1820 San Diego, Ca., 92101 Virgil & Patricia Anglin Trust 6432 Seabyrn Drive Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca., 9027L Mission West Properties 6815 Flanders Drive #250 San Diego, Ca., 92121 . 6815 Flanders. Dw 1 7 92121 Creekside Business Park 16672 Millikan Avenue Irvine, Ca., 92714 Jack & Ellyn Williams Trust c/o Pacific Recorders & Engineer - 2070 Las Palmas Drive,, Car lsbad, Ca. , 92009 Sierra Land Group Inc. 620 N. Brand Blvd. Glendale, Ca., 91203 Danny & Carolyn R. Ashcraft 1543 Sapphire Lane Vista, ca., 92083 t . Elliott Silverstein Trust * P-0. Box 8372 Ranch0 Santa Fe., Ca., 92067 - 8, Hawthorne Family Trust 03-10-89 P.O. Box 708 San Diego, Ca., 92112 3 Mar-gate Associates 6349 Palomar Oaks Court Car lsbad, Ca . , 92009 * . . j Raymond P. & Carmen- R. Daily 2270 Camino Vida Roble #l ?a 9 Car lsbad, Ca . , 92009 *:* dv --------*-’ . . .._. ~-_- ~.__. . ..- ..---. . . . . I A Palomar Oaks Buswss Center 10960 Wilshire B- d. #1225 AssoT?: .I ._ -- Los Angeles, Ca.. 90024 / \ Carlsbad One 1 2255 India Street Los Angles, Ca., yoo3 9 -9 _ Terry & Margaret Reiter \ 6 Saddleback road Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca., 9027L, . Michael F. Sfregola Trust 1052 Hyde Park Drive Santa Ana, Ca., 92705 Security Pacifi’c National Bank Trust Department P.O. Box 54029 Los Angeles, Ca., 90054 William P. & Marjorie Bowen 14088 E. Kamm Avenue .- Kingsburg, Ca., 93631 1 Anthony & Dicky K. Bons, Trust 1565 Mulberry Drive 0 San Marcos, Ca., 92069 0 Carlsbad Partners LTD 1601 Elm Street #3900 0 Dallas, Texas 75201 t 0 Security Pacific National Bank Trust Department P.O. Box 90610 I . i .+‘&.b.,” . . :$+yp,,; ,: .- -. .A_-_---.A E . Aviara Land Associates Limited Pt. 9 450 Newport Center Drive #304 Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 0 Q 1 l ^1*I d . ‘,L,.. ; _ - . FACIIJTY&INI'PAR~+ APPLICANT POINSETI'IA HILL e cT93-03/cP93-owHDP93-02 SANDIEGOCOUNTY: DEPTOFPLANNMW 5201 RUFFIN RD,STiYB" SANDIEGO CA 92123 ENGINEERING 60026 V3 clWS1M13 -IEIlI ONIIhIVTI~OS6~ aMI CARLSMDUNlF!X%KX&WSf 8OlPINEAVENUE 59SOELCAMINOREAL CARLSBADCA92008 CAlQSBADCA92009 .JACKHENTHORN%ASSOC ISABELDESASKA 5431AVENIDAENCINAS STE G 6721ELCAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92009 UTILTIIES&h&UNTENANCE ZO-E6 daH/ZO-E6 da/SO-E6m TIIHVLI.L3SNIOd JNVXlddV + S3IJXVd .LNI % kLI'I13Vd