HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-13; City Council; 13177; Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-1-> OFCARLSBAD - AGEPA BILL
POINSElllA SHORES PLANNING AREA “B-1 q
CT 94-08/CP 94-01
3ECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council ADOPT Resolution No. 9 5 - 1.5 / APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map and
Condominium Permit for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l - CT 94-08/CP 94-01.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 5, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval with a 6-l vote (Erwin) of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit (CT 94
08/CP 94-01) to develop 158 detached, clustered single family homes within Planning Area B-l,
which is located at the northwest corner of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan site, east of the
railroad right of way in Local Facilities Management Zone 9. No persons other than the
applicant gave public testimony during the hearing. The site is located in the Planned
Community (PC) Zone and is subject to the development standards and design guidelines of
the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
The proposed project involves 158 single family units. The master plan allows 161 units. Both
numbers, the proposed and allowed unit count, exceed the growth management control point
for the planning area’s acreage (20.1 acres). The growth control point (density) for the site
(given the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation) is 6.0 du/ac. The proposed
density is 7.9 du/ac. With the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, individual planning
areas were allotted a maximum number of dwelling units. Being able to achieve the maximum
allowable number of ,units would be dependent upon compliance with all applicable
development standards. Some planning areas were assigned a maximum unit count that is
below the growth control point while other planning areas (like B-l) were assigned a maximum
unit count that exceeds the growth control point. Overall, however, the RM range of 4-8 du/ac
is not exceeded; and the overall density allowed for the master plan, as determined by the
amount of units left over from the previous master plan on the site (Batiquitos Lagoon
Educational Park), is not exceeded.
On a master plan level, the growth control point is not exceeded. No impacts will result in the
unavailability or inadequacy of public facilities and/or services; or to the southwest quadrant
dwelling unit cap. Nevertheless, the fact that the project exceeded the growth control point (as
allowed by the master plan) was the reason for a no vote on the project at the Planning
Commission.
In addition to complying with all applicable development standards, including an 80 foot
structural setback from the existing Lakeshore Gardens Moblie Home Park to the north, the
project features an innovative product type as allowed by the master plan. The primary
elements of this product type include: detached, clustered air space ownership single family
units, a 24 foot wide courtyard serving 4 units or less, private passive recreation area for each
unit, no individual garages facing directly onto the internal private street system, a 36 foot wide
internal private street system allowing guest parking on both sides and an emphasis on
pedestrian circulation throughout the planning area.
The proposed project provides required trail segments and meets all of the applicable standards
of the Planned Development Ordinance, the West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9, and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. \
PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO. /3, I31
ENVlRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through
completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Assessment concluded that (1)
previous environmental review has already been conducted (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan [MP
175(D)] with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and master tentative map [CT 94-011 with a
Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the site, (2) the required mitigations per the Mitigated
Negative Declarations have been completed (cultural resource monitoring during mass grading)
or are designed into the project (noise policy compliance), and (3) the proposed project will not
create additional environmental impacts beyond those already assessed. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance was issued on March 2, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACTS
All public facilities required to serve the proposed project will be available prior to or concurrent
with development as mandated by the facilities plan and finance plan for Local Facilities
Management Zone 9. No negative fiscal impacts will be incurred by the City since the developer
is responsible for all costs of ensuring the availability and construction of all public facilities.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 9 5 - 15 1
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3757 and 3759
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 5, 1995
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 5, 1995.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 95-151
A RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT TO DEVELOP 158 DETACHED, CLUSTERED
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS WITHIN
PLANNING AREA “B-l” OF THE POINSETTIA SHORES
MASTER PLAN LOCATED NORTH OF BATIQUITOS
LAGOON, WEST OF THE I-5 FREEWAY, IN THE
COASTAL ZONE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 9.
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA B-l
CASE NO.: CT 94-08/CP 94-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on April 5, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 13th day
of JUNE , 1995, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider said Tentative
Tract Map and Condominium Permit and at that time received the recommendations,
objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to CT 94-08/CP 94-
01; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No.
95-l 51 , and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3757 and 3758, on file in the Planning
Department and made a part hereof by reference are the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
I/ . . . .
r
;
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
COUNCIL of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the JUNE 13 t h day of J 1995, by.
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AITESTZ
ALETHA L.
-2-
EXHBIT 2
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
F?A. B-l --CT 94-08/CP.94-01
5
LOCATION MAP
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
1 ExHBK3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3757
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP, CT 94-08, FOR 158 CLUSTERED SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON
WITHIN PLANNING AREA “B-l” OF THE POINSETTIA
SHORES MASTER PLAN.
CASENAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA “B-l”
CASE NO: cr 94-08
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative
Tract Map as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did on the 5th day of April, 1995, hold a public hearing on property described
aS:
Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13181,
filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder.
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 94-08.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tract CT 94-08, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
. . . .
. . . .
1
5
:
4
K k
c
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
Tentative MOD
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision
as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan,
the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health
problems, in that ail required public improvements will be provided, ail necessary
facilities and services will be available, and ail applicable City standaids will be
applied and enforced to promote public health, safety and welfare.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for residential development on the General
Plan, in that the subject planning area and surrounding planning areas are
designated for Residential-Medium (RM) development which allows 4-8> dwelling
units per acre. Planning Area “B-l” proposes an allowable density of 7.9 du/ac.
3. That 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, in that ail applicable City and Master Plan standards and design
guidelines are accommodated by the subject planning area site and proposed project.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision,
in that the Master Plan and buiidout of individual planning areas has been designed
and structured so that no conflicts with any easements will occur.
5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), in that no such contract pertains to or
exists for the subject master plan property or planning area site.
6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that primary
building orientation and placement, in combination with the variety of floor plan
types proposed and dominant wind and solar radiation patterns, will allow
utiiization of natural heating or cooling opportunities.
7. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those
housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and
environmental resources, in that the project compiles with ail applicable facilities and
financing plans to assure the balance of housing needs in the region against public
services availability without impacting environmental resources.
8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or I PC RESO NO. 3757 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wildlife or their habitat, in that previous environmental analysis and review
associated with the Master Plan and master tentative.map have documented the laci
of any significant impacts to fish, wildlife or their respective habitats created by the
buildout of the Master Plan.
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation o
existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the
drainage requirements of the Master Plan at buildout have been considered ant
appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In addition to CiQ
Engineering standards and compliance with the City’s Master Drainage Plan
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards will bc
satisfied to prevent any discharge violations.
Growth Manaeement
10. The Project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies ant
ordinances since:
al
b)
Cl
d)
e)
The Project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not bc
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve
the Project. In addition, the Project is conditioned such that a note shall bc
placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the
Project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available
and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remain!
available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of tht
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as the]
apply to sewer service for this project.
Statutory School fees will be paid, or the obligations of the existing Schoolr
Agreement will be satisfied, to ensure the availability of school facilities in the
Carlsbad Unified School District. The Carlsbad Unified School District ant
the project applicant, Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation, have signed a School
Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement dated August 29, 1994, stating
that school facilities will be available to this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required a! conditions of approval.
The developer 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.
Park in lieu fees have already been provided, allowing the approval and
development of this planning area.
PC RESO NO. 3757 -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
11. The Project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant
to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued
availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the
Project.
12. This Project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9.
Proiects exceeding the Growth Control Point-(Section 21.90.045’1:
13.
14.
15.
That the Project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility
plans will not be adversely impacted, in that all infrastructure required to service the
buildout of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, including Area B-l has been secured.
Consistent with the facilities and financing plans for Local Facilities Management
Zone 9, all necessary services and facilities will be, or currently are, available to
serve the proposed development.
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities
below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so
that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit; the approval of the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan considered the southwest quadrant and corresponding
availabiiity of dwelling units for development. Since the proposed project is
consistent with the allowed density assigned to the subject planning area per the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, the southwest quadrant limit will not be exceeded.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance
will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need
for them created by this Project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in
that the proposed project is in full compliance with the Zone 9 Locai Facilities
Management Pian documents and Finance Plan which consider public facilities
requirements for the buildout of the master plan. Major infrastructure has been
provided and/or secured by the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative
Map (CT 94-01).
T,andscaning
16. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by the City
Council on November 13, 1990.
Coastal Zone
17. That the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies of the West
Batiquitos segment of Carisbad’s Local Coastai Program.
PC PESO NO. 3757
ci
4
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
Environmental
-
18. The Planning Commission finds that:
a> the project is a Residential Project consistent with a Community Plan (the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan) as described in Section 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines;
9 the project is consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan;
4 there were Mitigated Negative Declarations approved in connection with the
prior approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan;
d) the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior Mitigated Negative Declarations; and
e) none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist.
19. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Mitigated Negative Declarations which are appropriate
to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
20. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the
Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the
project, and the extent and degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the
impacts caused by the project.
Planniw Conditions:
AJDroval
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract
Map for the Poinsettia Shores Project entitled “Planning Area B-l”, dated April 5,
1995, (Exhibits “A” - “O”, dated April 5,1995, incorporated by this reference), subject
to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or
require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the project’s
exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval. Architectural amendments may be processed according to the
architectural amendment process outlined in the master plan (p. 75).
2. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
\O
PC RESO NO. 3757 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
MaDs and Exhibits
4. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
5. The Developer shall provide the Planning Director with a 500’ scale mylar of the
subdivision prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots
and streets within and adjacent to the Project.
6. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline
drawing. Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal
Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Facilities & Services
7. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of
such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
8. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
9. The Developer shall 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 fulfil1 the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated December 9, 1994, 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.
\’
PC RESO NO. 3757 -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
-
10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall provide to the City
proof of satisfaction of the school facilities mitigation obligation.
11. This Project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including,
but not limited to the Zone 9 LPMP Amendment (LPMP 87-09(A)) that was related
to the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the Zone 9 Pinance Plan
as approved on September 6,1994.
General Conditions
12.
13.
14.
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 residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as
provided in Government Code Section 66020. 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 CI’ 94-08 is granted subject to the approval of CP 94-01.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding
covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&Rs shall,
incorporate the following items:
(4
(B)
(0
@I
W
(H)
. . . .
No private development shall be permitted within open space areas, easement
areas or recreational areas.
Ail open space and landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
A provision stating the City’s right but not obligation to enforce the CC&Rs.
Any amendments to the CC&Rs shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Planning Director and City Attorney.
Guest parking only is allowed on both sides of the 36 foot wide private street.
Maintenance and liability of all recreation areas, common areas including
trail segment; and common facilities including drainage facilities and devices.
Minimum rental time increment of 26 days.
The provisions required by Condition Nos. 36, 38, and 58 of this resolution.
PC RESO NO. 3757 -7-
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
28
27
28
-
Specific Onsite Conditions
15. All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident
parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning
Director.
16. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval prior to the approval of the final map. All lighting shall be
designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
17. Prior to occupancy of the dwelling units within the subject planning area, the master
plan recreation center (Area M) and recreational vehicle storage area (Area E) shall
be completed subject to the provisions contained in Condition #14 of Planning
Commission Resolution Number 3747 for SDP 94-03.
Landscane
18. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plans (Exhibits “L” - “0” dated April 5,
1995), the landscape guidelines of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the
Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building
permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
19. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied
by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
Slrms and Identiikation
20. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Miscellaneous Piannine Conditions
21. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and
with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District, the Planning Director and City Engineer. Said facilities, if required, shall at a minimum
include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench
and pole shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with the basic architectural
theme of the Project.
22. This Project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential
homeownership purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum
PC RESO NO. 3757
i-3
-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
time increment for such rental shall be not less than 26 days. The CC&&s for the
Project shall include this requirement.
23. 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.
24. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but
not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
Outside APencv Permits
25. Prior to approval of the final map for CT 94-08, the Developer shall receive approval
of a Coastal Development Permit issued‘by the California Coastal Commission that
substantially conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development
Permit must be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially
different, an amendment to Tentative Tract Map CT 94-08 shall be required.
Affordable Housing
26. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this Project, the Developer
shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed
restrict 90 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life
of the dwelling units either in Planning Area D of the Master Plan (CT 94-10) or an
offsite location to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, in
accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The recorded
Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors
in interest.
Onen Snace and Trails
27.
28.
29.
. . . .
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall dedicate as permanent open
space for pedestrian access purposes a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the
Tentative Map witbin Open Space Lot 2) in conformance with Exhibits “C” - “D” and
the Poinsettia Shores Trails System as described in the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan pages 24-33. Trail maintenance and liability provisions are outlined on the
project’s landscape exhibit cover sheet, Exhibit ‘IL”.
Per the master plan, occupancy of residential units will be granted only after the
adjacent trail segment (within Area B-l) is constructed and landscaped to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Ail open space areas, slopes, trail segments and landscaped areas shall be
maintained, and liability assigned, as outlined on the Landscape Exhibits (“L” - “0”) dated April 5,1995.
PC RFSO NO. 3757 -9-
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
Eneineerine Conditions:
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39. Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the
date of City Council 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.
PC RESO NO. 3757 -lo-
This project is located within the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program.
All development design shall comply with the requirements of that LCP.
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 1 (single) unit for recordation.
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&Rs subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the
final map.
A note to the effect of the following shall be placed on a non-mapping data sheet of
the final map.
“Improvements designated as private on the improvement plans for this subdivision
are to be privately maintained”.
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&Rs.
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
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
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
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.
Prior to approval of the final map, the owner of the subject property shall execute
an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent
Property.
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 modify the plans
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
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.
Rain gutters must be provided to convey roof drainage to an approved drainage
course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any 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. Ail 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.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall underground all existing
overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary. The underground@ may be
phased in accordance with construction phasing as approved by the City Engineer
and the Planning Director.
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, as referenced in the “California Storm Water Rest
Management Practice Handbook”, to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved
PC RESO NO. 3757 -ll-
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
20
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map, issuance of grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
Prior to approval of the final map, the design of all private streets and drainage
systems shall be approved by the City Engineer. The structural section of all private
streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All
private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. The standard
improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid prior to approval of the
final map for this project.
Prior to occupancy of any unit within this project, the public improvements of
Avenida Encinas shown on D-337-9 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
The emergency access to Lot 8 shown on sheet 4 of 5 of the tentative map shall have
an all weather surface to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
Fire Conditions:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted
to and approved by the Fire Department.
Additional onsite public hydrants may be required.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing hydrants.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval of access,
driveways and general traffic circulation.
An all-weather access road shall serve the project during construction.
All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances shall be operational prior
to combustible building materials being located on the project site.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times, and shall
have posted “No Parking/Fire Lane” pursuant to Section 17.04.020, Carlsbad
Municipal Code. This provision shall be incorporated into the project’s CC&Rs.
Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
Prior to submittal of water improvement plans, the applicant shall submit to the Fire
Department a map, showing the street network, conforming to the following criteria:
+ 400’ scale * Photo reduction on mylar \q
PC RESO NO. 3757 -12-
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
l At least two existing streets and/or intersections shall be referenced on the map (not
a separate vicinity map) * Maps shall include the following information:
Street centerlines
Street names
Fire hydrant locations
Carlsbad MuniciDal Water District Conditions:
61.
62.
63.
64.
The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge which will be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
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 service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to
be available until tune of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
The developer shall adhere to all conditions as set forth in the Water District’s
approved potable water, sewer and reclaimed systems analysis dated March 21,1994.
Any revisions to the above referenced and approved water systems analysis shall be
reviewed and approved by the Water District.
Code Reminders:
The Project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements:
Fees
65. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Final MaD Notes
66. 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 Developer shall pay a one-
time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-
39”.
. . . .
PC RJZSO NO. 3757 -13-
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
General
67. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provide herein.
68. The project shah comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
69. The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
J.andscaDe
70. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape
Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the
Planning Department.
Eneineering
71.
72.
73.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay all current fees and
deposits required.
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 approval of
the final map, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in
accordance with City codes and standards.
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.
PC RFSO NO. 3757 -14-
II ’ I
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
2 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of April, 1995, by the
3 following vote, to wit:
4 AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
5 Nielsen, Noble and Savary.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
WiI210~s, Chairperson
CARLSBADP LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST
Planning Director
II PC RESO NO. 3757 -1s
-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3758
2
,3
4
5
6
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE P LANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT, CP 94-01, FOR 158 CLUSTERED SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF THE BATIQUlTOS LAGOON
WlTHIN PLANNING AREA “B-l” OF THE POINSETTIA
SHORES MASTER PLAN
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES - AREA “B-l”
CASE NO: C-P 94-01
a WHEREAS, a verified. application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad
9
10 and referred to the Planning Commission; and
11 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
12 Development as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
13 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
14 Commission did on 5th day of April, 1995, hold a public hearing on property described as:
15 II
16
17
18
Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13181
filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
19 . and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
20
21 factors relating to CP 94-01.
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Phuming
23 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
24 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
25 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
26 Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVALof Condominium Permit, CP 94-01, 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
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FindinPs:
1. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans,
and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the
proposed project implements the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Pian, is
consistent with the provisions, standards and design criteria of the Planned
Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Municipal Code), the Zone 9 Locai
Facilities Management Pian documents including the Zone 9 Finance Plan, and the
West Batiquitos Locai Coastai Program as certified by the Coastal Commission.
2. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the
neighborhood and the community, in that buiidout of the Master Plan will contribute
to the long term generai welfare of the area by providing development consistent with
the City’s General Pian. The project represents a diversified element of the
Poinsettia Shores community. The location for this use is refkted in the existing
General Plan and Master Plan for the site, which was amended and approved by
appropriate action of the City Council in 1994 at a duly noticed public hearings.
The Plan is divided into residential planning areas and open space areas. This
Condominium Permit for Pianning Area ‘B-l” accurately and properly implements
the approved Master Pian.
3. That’such 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 is partial buiidout of a comprehensive master plan
which will provide ma)or infrastructure and public improvements that will enhance
the generai welf;rre of the City. In addition, the project is designed to function to ail
applicable City standards and will be consistent with the City’s Generai Plan.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section
21.45.080, and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the
Design Guidelines Manual, in that no deviations or modifications from the
deveiopment standa& of Chapter 21AS are involved and ail design criteria have
been satisfied including: (a) a fimctioual reiationship m structures,
iandseaping and open space amag (II) the provision of adequate usable open space,
street systems, recreational opportunities and adequate resident and guest parking
m (c) compatibility with existing and future permitted land uses while not
creating a disruptive element to the communi@, (d) the provision of an internai
street system that does not dominate the project’s design or eodiiet with any
rec.reatSonal amq trail areaq parking locations or other common areas of the
project; (e) the provision of adequate recre&ion facilities; and (f) structures that will
promote architectuml harmony.
5. That the pr-d project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on
2 PC FkESO NO. 3758 -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
the site, in that the site of the subject planning area has been recently mass graded
so that no significant natural resources or sensitive topographic considerations are
involved.
6. That 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, in that all appiicable provisions are
compiled with so that no disruptive elements will be created by the buiidout of the
Master Plan.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated
with the project and does not dominate the project, in that the proposed circulation
system meets ail standards while not dominating the project or adversely impacting
any of the pro)ect’s features or amenities.
Planninn Condltiong:
1.
2.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Condominium
Permit for the Poinsettia Shores Project entitled “Planning Area B-l”, dated April
5, 1995, (Exhibits “A” - “On, dated April 5,1995, incorporated by this reference),
subjezt to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is author&d and directed to make
or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the project’s
exhibits and/or documents, as necessary to malt? them internally consistent and
conform to City Council’s final action on the Project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval.
Approval of CP 94-01 is granted subject to the approval of CT 94-08. CP !M-Ol is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3757 for
the Tentative Tract Map, CT 94-O&
PC RESON0.3758 -3- 3
,-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 5th day of April, 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble and Savary.
NOES: Commissioner Erwin.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3758 -4-
A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
h
APPLICATIL. u OMPLJXE DATE: EXm 4
DECEMBER 20.1994
STAFF PLANNER: ERIC MUNOZ
STAFF ENGINEER: JIM DAVIS
STAFF REPORT 0 2
APRIL 5, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CT 94-08KP 94-Ol- POINSE’ITIA SHORES PLANNING AREA “B-1” - A request
for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for 158
clustered single family homes within the 20.1 acre P-C (Planned Community)
zoned parcel of Planning Area “B-l” in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way,
in the Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3757 and
3758, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 94-08 and CP 94-01, respectively, based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This project is proposing a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to develop
Planning Area “B-l” in conformance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan with 158
clustered single family homes. Area “B-l” has been recently mass graded per the approval
of master tentative map CT 94-01 (“B-l” is Lot 5 of CT 94-01) for the Poinsettia Shores
project. A Tentative Tract Map is required per the Subdivision Map Act to subdivide into
air space condominium units. A Condominium Permit (CP) is required since the project
addresses several components of the intent and purpose of the Planned Development
Ordinance as listed in Section 21.45.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically involved are:
separate ownership of units upon a parcel of land containing more than one unit (air space
ownership), development in accordance with the General Plan and applicable master plan,
the allowance of flexibility in project design while providing for essential development
standards and the provision of development which will be compatible with existing and
permitted future surrounding developments.
- -
cr 9448/cP 94-01
POINS- SHORES P IANNING AREA “B-l”
AFWL 5, 1995
PAGE 2
The Master Plan designates a specific clustered single family product for Area “B-l” as
conceptually depicted on Attachment “X”, an excerpt from the Master Plan. The primary
components of this product type are as follows: (1) air space building ownership and
corresponding exclusive use area which total less than 3,500 square feet in area (average is
2,500 square feet); (2) a 15 x 15’ minimum (225 square feet) or 10 x 30 minimum (300
square feet) area of exclusive use area private passive recreation for each unit, and; (3) a
24 foot wide courtyard serving a maximum of 4 units. These design standards are allowed
via the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan which is the implementing zoning
document for the site and therefore may contain development regulations that are either
not part of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 21), or are acceptable modifications from Title 21
standards. This innovative product type is one component of the residential product type
diversity incorporated into the Master Plan. The primary design benefits of this product
type are: the lack of long rows of garages facing onto and dominating a streetscape; and the
ability to achieve the allowed density while providing all required master plan amenities and
promoting an emphasis on pedestrian circulation. A typical 4-unit cluster layout (consistent
with the Master Plan) is depicted on Exhibit “B”.
The site has a General Plan land use designation of RM (Residential-Medium). Per the
Master Plan and RM designation, Area “B-l” is allowed a density range of 4-8 dwelling units
per acre (du/ac). The proposed project with 158 units and a density of 7.9 du/ac, therefore,
is consistent with the Master Plan which designates 161 dwelling units for Area “B-l”. The
site layout and overall project design is depicted on Exhibits “CO-“E”.
The location of Planning Area “B-l” within the Master Plan is depicted on the attached
Location Map. The shape of this planning area is somewhat complex as it is bordered on
several edges by a variety of existing and future permitted land uses (potential affordable
housing site of PA “D”, the detached single family homes of PA “A-l”, the master plan
recreation center PA “M”, Avenida En&as, the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park and
the railroad right of way).
The site itself is essentially flat and has no unique topographic features or significant
environmental resources. North of the site is the Lakeshore Gardens mobile home park.
East and south of the site is the future Avenida Encinas roadway alignment. West of the
site is the vacant land associated with Planning Area “D’ and also the railroad right of way;
to the east of the site is the vacant land of Planning Area “A-l”.
The master tentative map for Poinsettia Shores (CT 94-01) approved in August 1994 allowed
the mass grading of the master plan property, the construction of the Avenida Bncinas
roadway and related infrastructure to allow the development of,individual planning areas.
Only finish grading is required to the mass graded site for the development of Area “B-l”.
The project’s finish grading involves 21,300 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 17,000 CY of fill with
4,300 CY of export to another. location on the master plan property.
Cr 94-08/CP 94-01
POINSETITA SHORES PLANNIN G AREA “B-l”
APRIL 5, 1995
The clustered single family homes will feature three floor plan types as shown on Exhibits “F” s “H”: Plan type 1 has approximately 1,665 square feet (proposed height 26 feet); Plan
type 2: 1,827 square feet (proposed height 26 feet), and; Plan type C: 2,130 square feet
(proposed height 27 feet). Elevations are depicted on Exhibits “I” - “K”. No plan type
exceeds two stories. The proposed architecture is contemporary with roof tile, stucco
accented with wood trim and a variety of roof planes and articulation so that in combination
with the typical 4-unit cluster (Exhibit “B”) a streetscape is created that is not dominated by
long rows of .garages facing onto the internal street system. All garages face onto the
internal 24 foot wide courtyard. Every unit is served by a two car garage.
As shown on Exhibits “C”-“E”, an internal 36 foot wide private street will serve the project
with guest parking allowed on both sides. The project is designed to meet the City’s Noise
Policy that applies to new residential development (over 5 units) within the City. Noise
barrier wall heights and details (consistent with the project’s noise study) are shown on
Exhibits “C”-“E” and “I”-“O”. A substantial portion of the Master Plan trail system will be
developed with the Area B-l trail segment as shown on Exhibits “C”- “D” and “I” - “M”.
As also shown on these exhibits, the B-l trail segment borders the eastern, northern and
western perimeters of the site. Avenida Encinas is adjacent to the southern perimeter with
two street access points from Area “B-l” in addition to a pedestrian link to Avenida Encinas
along the border of the recreation center (PA “M”) and Area “B-l” as indicated on Exhibits
“D” and “M”.
The project will take access from Avenida Encinas via two private streets. Gated entries are
proposed and designed into the project consistent with Engineering Department and Master
Plan standards. Signage is proposed for the subject planning area near the project entrance
in the form of the Village Identity Sign which meets pertinent Master Plan criteria (Exhibits
“D”, “M” and “0”). The proposed landscape concept (Exhibits “I”-“0”) is designed to
screen the development along the perimeter and from Avenida En&as; and to promote
land use compatibility with adjacent future planning areas.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and regulations:
A. Carlsbad General Plan
B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - MP 175(D)
C.
D.
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance)
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including:
1. Chapter 21.45 Planned Development
Cl” 94-08/CP 94-01
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNIN G AREA ‘B-1”
APRIL 5,1995
2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing
3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management
E. West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program (LCP)
A. GENERAL PLAN
The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan involved several findings of consistency
with the City’s General Plan. All development consistent with the master plan is therefore
inherently consistent with the General Plan. By providing a product type at or below the
approved density for the subject planning area, the master plan’s implementation maintains
consistency with the General Plan.
By supplying residential market rate units per the master plan, the project is consistent with
the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The master plan was not
required to provide any additional open space beyond natural open space areas previously
dedicated by the master plan property. Since natural open space dedications are not
required of this planning area, this project is consistent with the Open Space Element of the
General Plan. By conducting a noise study and designing the project to comply with the
City’s noise policy for new residential development, the project is consistent with the Noise
Element of the General Plan.
B. POINSETI’IA SHORES MASTER PLAN - MP 175(D)
The proposal for Area “B-l” is in conformance with the governing master plan. The master
plan allows 161 units of the clustered single family/courtyard product type (158 units are
proposed). The master plan provides certain development standards and design criteria
which are complied with and summarized as follows: (1) an 80 foot structural setback is
maintained between the homes of Area “B-l” and the mobile home property line boundary
to the north. Improvements within this buffer area are consistent with the Master Plan
(underground utilities, parking, landscaping and a private trail segment); (2) the Lakeshore
Gardens mobile home park has been consulted and approves of the proposed landscaping
in the 80 foot buffer; (3) an average setback of 25 feet for all homes within the planning
area from Avenida Encinas is maintained; (4) the proposed clustered single family product
type is consistent with the product type designated for Area “B-l” by the Master Plan; (5)
no structures will exceed the 30 feet/two story height limit associated with this planning area;
and, (6) the proposed trail improvements are consistent with Master Plan requirements. In
addition, the Master Plan refers to the PD Ordinance (since a Condominium Permit is
involved). Compliance with the PD Ordinance development standards is discussed in
Section D.l of this report.
Cl’ 94-08/CP 94-01
POINSETTJA SHORES PLANNING AREA “B-l”
APRIL 5, 1995
PAGE 5
C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 20
Since air space ownership and a condominium project is proposed, this project must comply
with the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). As reviewed
and conditioned by the Engineering Department, the proposed project meets all applicable
requirements relating to condominium projects in the City. No serious public health
problems will be created by the proposed project. All necessary public facilities and
infrastructure improvements, including circulation, drainage, sewer, water and utilities have either already been provided through the master tentative map (Cl” 94-01) or are conditions
of approval for this project.
D. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 21
D.l. Chanter 21.45. Planned Develonment
In addition to the specific development standards established by the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan (as discussed above) the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance is designated
as the implementing ordinance for Planning Area “B-l”. All of the required findings for
the granting of a Condominium Permit (governed by the PD Ordinance) are contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3758 for CP 94-01. Below is an overview of the PD
standards compared against the proposed project.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
DENSlTY
LOT SIZE
REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED
4-8 DU/AC - 161 units 7.9 DU/AC - 158 units
N/A; Master Plan allows air space Clustered single family product units w/exclusive use areas type w/exclusive use private areas
FRONT YARD SETBACK I
10 feet from back of sidewalk off 10 feet from back of sidewalk off private streets I private streets
BUILDING SEPARATION I
10 foot min. w/allowable 10 foot min. w/allowable
up to 2 feet each unit protrusions up to 2 feet each unit
BUILDING HEIGHT I 30 feet max/2 stories I 26 and 27 feet for three different plan types/2 stories max
PRIVATE STREET WIDTH
PARKING RESIDENT
GUEST
RV STORAGE
30 feet - no parking on street 36 foot internal private street 32 feet - parking on one side system with parking allowed on 36 feet - parking on both sides both sides for visitors
316 covered spaces 316 covered spaces (garages) 42 spaces 147 on-street spaces
Provided for w/PA “E”-SDP 94-03 Provided for w/PA ‘E”-SDP 94-03
C
cr 94-08/CP 94-01
POINSETTIA SHORES P LAIUNING AREA “B-l”
APRIL 5,1995
PAGE6 -
STORAGE SPACE
RECREATION SPACE COMMON ACIWE
PRIVATE PASSIVE
Provided for w/PA ‘MN-SDP 94-03. Provided for w/PA ‘M”-SDP 94-03
PA ‘M” plus exclusive use private PA ‘M” plus 15 x 15 ft min (225 sq
passive area with each unit ft) or 10 x 30 ft min (300 sq ft) for
each unit per the Master Plan
The project also is consistent with the design criteria outlined in the PD Ordinance.
Findings relating to the project’s conformance to these design criteria are contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3758 for CP 94-01. In summary, the plan is
comprehensive and innovative in that it accounts for the location, constraints (noise) and
shape of the site. Adequate usable open space and recreation areas are provided. Buildings
are well integrated and the provision for required parking areas and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation is made. Being a part of an approved master plan, there will be no
disruptive elements introduced into the community by the proposed project. The internal
street system is functional while not dominating the site and all common areas are accessible
to the future residents and well related to each other. Finally, architectural harmony will
be obtained within the area through appropriate building height limitations, perimeter
screening/buffering and proper planning of adjacent planning areas.
D.2. Chanter 21.85, Inclusionarv Housing
This project’s inclusionary affordable housing requirement is satisfied by the approval and
development of Planning Area “D” within the Master Plan (CT 94-lO/CP 94-03/SDP 94-08)
or the approval of an oflkite Affordable Housing Agreement. Either case will result in the
provision of 90 affordable housing units, consistent with the Master Plan. A detailed
summary of master plan affordable housing provisions is contained in the staff report for
Area “D” (CT 94-10). While no units in the subject subdivision are required to be restricted
as affordable housing units, the project will be conditioned so that no final map approval
will be granted until the on-site project for Area “D” (CT 94-10) receives final map
approval; or an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement is approved by the Planning Director
and Community Development Director.
D.3. Chanter 21.90. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 in the
Southwest Quadrant of the City. Zone 9 has an approved Finance Plan which outlines the
provision of facilities and services for the buildout of the master plan, including the
allowable density of the proposed project. The impacts created by the development on
CT 94-OWCP 94-01
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNIN GAREA”B-1”
APRIL 5, 1995
PAGE 7
public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized
as follows:
FACILITY
CITY ADMINISTRATION
IMPACT!3 COMPLIANCE
586 sauare feet Yes
LIBRARY 313 square feet Yes
WASTE WATER TREATMENT 158 EDUs Yes
PARKS
DRAINAGE
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
CIRCULATION
FIRE
OPEN SPACE
SCHOOLS
SEWER COLLECI’ION SYSTEM
WATER
1580 ADT
Station No. 4
N/A
CUSD
158 EDUs
34,760 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project is 3 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance, and
38 units above the Growth Management Control Point, for the property as permitted by the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This project can be approved above the growth control point
since the quadrant cap for the southwest quadrant of the City will not be exceeded and
facilities serving the density in excess of the growth control point will be provided. The
proposed density, while exceeding the growth control point, is within the 4-8 du/ac range
allowed by RM designation and the master plan. All required facilities and services will be
available to serve the project and the anticipated buildout of the master plan. All required
Growth Management findings are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3757
for CP 94-08.
E. WEST BATIQUlTOS LCP
The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in January 1994 included a Local Coastal
Program (LCP) Amendment (LCPA 91-02) for the West Batiquitos LCP which was
approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 12, 1994. Coastal Commission’s
certification of LCPA 91-02 established the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance/document for the West Batiquitos LCP. All development consistent
with the master plan, such as the proposal for this planning area, is therefore in
conformance with the West Batiquitos LCP and all applicable coastal regulations. A Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission will be required prior to
final map approval.
-
Cl- 94-08/CP 94-01
POINSETTIA SHORES P LANNING AREA “B-l”
APRIL 5,1995
PAGE 8
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the Initial Study for this project (Environmental Impact Assessment Form,
Part II), all potential environmental impacts associated with the development of this
planning area have already been identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Environmental analysis and documentation for the master plan and subsequent planning
areas was conducted for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(D)) and the master
tentative map (CT 94-01) resulting in the issuance and approval of Mitigated Negative
Declarations. Since all applicable mitigation measures have either been completed (i.e.
archeological and paleontological monitoring during the mass grading) or designed into the
project (i.e. noise attenuation and noise policy compliance), no environmental impacts will
result from the proposed development of this planning area. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 2, 1995.
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project is in compliance with the Carlsbad General Plan, Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan, West Batiquitos LCP, Zone 9 Finance Plan and Local Facilities Management
Plan documents and Carlsbad Municipal Code, Titles 20 and 21 as described in this report.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 94-04 and PUD 94-03, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained within their respective resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3757
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3758
Location Map
Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II dated February 22, 1995
Notice of Prior Compliance dated March 2, 1995
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Attachment “x”, dated April 5, 1995 (excerpt of Exhibit 37 from Master Plan)
Reduced Exhibits “A” - “0”
Exhibits ‘A” - “O”, dated April 5, 1995.
\ u BATIQUITOS LAGOON I \ \
POINSETTIA SHORES
FA. B-l--CT 94-08/CP 94-01
LOCATION MAP
ENVIRON$fENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 94-081CP 94-01 and CP 9442
DATE: Februarv 22. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Plannine Areas B-l and B-2
2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Coruoration
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida En&as. Suite 200
Carlsbad. CA 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Amil25. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two planning areas within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan: (1) Area “B-l u
involves a Tentative Tract Man (to subdivide into air snace ownershin units) and a Condominium Permit
pursuant to the Citv’s Planned Develonment Ordinance and consists of 158 clustered single family units
on 20.1 acres. and (2) Area “B-2” involves a Condominium Permit uursuant to the Citv’s Planned
Develonment Ordinance and consists of 16 clustered single familv units on 2.4 acres. Both nlannine areas
are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FAmORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Sign&ant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water -- - Cultural Resources
X Air Quality x Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1
23
Rev. 1/3ops
-.
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the t(ed Agency).
On the basis of this it&I evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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 ~8s~ because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
i find that the proposed projeci MAY have sign&ant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPGRT/MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
mustanalyzeonlytheeffectsthatremaintobcaddrcwd.
u
cl
cl
cl
I find that although the proposed project could have a s&n&ant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION purwant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propod project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. a
E-L ‘M b&T
Planner Signature -
\ \ ba*ffi Planning Director S$natureJ
$2 . . .-
-4 ,- ,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI’S
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 significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact A ssessment appears in the following Pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 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 (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the Parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the imPact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No ImPact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the Potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoPted general standards and Policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant ImPact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“potentially Significant ImPact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an WA-Fart II”, if a proposad Project could have a Potentially significant effect on the
environment, but a Potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures thatare
imposed upon the proposed Project, and (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document
is required (prior Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be pmpared if the City Perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one or more Potentially significant effects, the City may avoid PmParing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce @acts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer Prior to Public review. In this case, the appropriate “potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
Prepared*
3 Rcv.1/3ops +
. When “Potentially Sign&ant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier ER pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
. An EIR mu@ be prepamd if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than’significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the E&Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
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.
h
ls5ue3 (and supming lnfamaw k3ounxs):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
W
cl
4
e>
-fly signifii
FUCIltilll~ Ullleg LeaTIm Signifii Mitigation Significant
mJ=t Incorparatal hpcrct l&t
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #l)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source #s: 1,3)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #l)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source #‘s: 1,2)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source t 1)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source %l)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infmstmcture)? (Source #l)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source %l)
J!L
x
x
x
JL
-
hala md suppat@ lnfcmn#icm sames):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
a)
W
d)
4
0
g)
h)
0
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source #‘s: 2,4)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Landslides or mudflows? (Source Iys: 2,4)
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Source Iys: 2,4)
Subsidence of the land? (Source #‘s: 2,4)
Expansive soils? (Source #‘s: 2,4)
Unique geologic or physical fw? (Source #‘s:
2,4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
W
Changes in absorption raw drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surf& runofV (Source
ws: 23)
Exposure of people or propew to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source Ws: 2J)
-w siii
RJtClltidly Unless Leunmn siinifii Mi*tioa Significant
Impect IIicapmtsd Impact llgct
x
x
KL
x
x
JL
x
, -
d Discharge into surf& waters or other
alteration of surf&e water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source Ws: 25)
4 .
4
Changes in the amount of surf&e water
in any water body? (Source #I%: 23)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #2)
fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source XI)
0 Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source X2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality star&d or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
Ws: 1,2,8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source Is:
12)
c) Alter air movement, mokture or tempemture,
or cause any change in c&&e? (Source Ws: 12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source Ws: 1,2)
b-Y SigllifhDt
m=t
Pbklltilily
sinifii
Unlesr LesThlll Mitigation Sipificant
Inaxpxated Impact b&t
x -
x
1L
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
.-
Issues (and !zuppming Iafamaim LTawces):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
d
4
d
fl
g)
FUtCIltidl~ E=J!!f Lullma
Sigdii . . sigilificmt
Jw=t ,“““, lmpwt gzct
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
ws: 1,6,8) JL
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp cums or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. f&n equipment)? (Source
44%: 12)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Insufkient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #s: 12)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source iys: 1,2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #s: 1,2)
Rail, waterborne or air traf%
impacts? (source ws: 12)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the pmposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare‘species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animalq and birds? (Source Ws: 122)
b) My designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #s: 12)
x
x
JL
x
x
8 Rev. lpcy95 4’
,
l!sllr (and sqpcrtiIlg lllfmtim sour#s):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #‘s:
123)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #s: lJ,3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #‘s: 1,2,3)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
a)
W
cl
Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source ws: 12)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source Ws: 12)
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
ws: 12)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
4
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source Ws:
122)
Possible intexfemce with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
KS: 12)
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of uotential health hazards? (Source Ws: 122)
POWidly
Sigdfii
Impct
9
POtfddly
Signirrpnt
Unleg
Mi~tiofl
Incarporad
I.esTkl
Significant
Impct llgct
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
issue (and supporting lrlfam8tial2Axuc4s):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source Ws: 1,2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source Ws: 12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source iys: 1,7)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
Potentially
SigllifihUlt
PWltidly U&Y88 LessThul
siinifhnt hwigation Siguifiamt
w=t lllaxpmted lmpct hgct
x
a)
b)
d
4
d
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Police protection? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Schools? (Source #s: 1,9)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (source ws: 1,9)
Other governmental services? (Source #V’s: 1,9)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE!3 SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substmtkl alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #s: 1,9)
b) Communications systems? (Source %l)
2?L
x
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. l/30/95 JJ
lsales (ad suppating Mxnlatia soutccs):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #‘s: 1,9)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source Iys: 1,9)
e) Stotm water drainage? (Source #s: 1.9)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source Ws: 1,9)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source Ws: 1,9)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #l)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source %l)
c) Create light or glare? (Source tl)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
4
4
d
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #I’s: 12)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source Ws: 12)
Affect historical rt?aurces? (source #s: 12)
Have the potentd to cause a physical change
which would tiect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #s: 12)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source Ws: 12)
POtddiy
Siillifii
m=t
PCWUidly
Sigllifii
Unlas rbuigatian
Inmpar-d
Lx!ssTllall
Significant
Impct lo&t
x
x
JL
x
11
x
x
x
x
JL
x
x
11
kales (ad swing lnf- sxucesl:
POtdally
Sigtii
POWtidy Udeps LesTban
SigIlifii wig&xl Signifiant
m=t lamparad m=t lgct
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
w
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#l)
XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fsh 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 endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a 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)
c) Does the project have envhonmentaI effects which
will cause subsbmtkl adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or Mrectly?
x’
x
x
x
2L
12
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, p ursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)@) of
the CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Ail pertinent
earlier analyses have been identified at the beghing of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and euviroumental
discussion.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
1. Air Oualitv and Circulation Imnacts: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the City’s
General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #8).
2. Archeological and Paleontolokal Imnacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Documents Wl
and 2.
3. Noise Irnnacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #l.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which
was carried out during the mass grading of the site in accordance with the approval of CT 94-01, and (2)
noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the proposed
proj=t.
13 Rev. 1pops kb
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161)
1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact
Assessment Form Part II dated July 26, 1993.
2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment Form Part II dated April 1, 1994.
3.
4.
West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994
Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants dated June 4, 1986.
5.
6.
7.
Hydrology Study prepared by O’Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993.
Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associates dated May 17, 1993.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994.
8. City of Carl&ad General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
9. Zone 9 LocaI Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved
January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994)
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Planning Areas B-l and B-2 are proposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these
planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area B-l proposes 158 clustered single family units (161 allowed) and Area B-2 proposes 16 clustered single family units (16 allowed). The clustered
single family product is a specific product type allowed by the master plan that features a 24 fad wide driveway
to serve four detached single family units. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied
with. Areas B-l and B-2 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map.
The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (SourCe Document #l) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan
contains enviromental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas
have either completed applicable mitigation measures 6r incorporated them into their project design. Subsequent
to the master plan approval, the Poiiia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 9441) was approved in August 1994
and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document #2) to allow mass grading of the master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements
on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval
14 Rev. 1/3cy!a Q
of CT 94-01. All necessary infrastructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already
been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need.
Section 2 1080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed
consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined in prior compliance with existing
environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City’s General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #8) certified in September 1994. This document
is referenced in addressing the Air Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summa&e and/or
supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist).
1. LandUseandPlanning
a)-c), e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in conformance
with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the
coastal regulations of the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP).
d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the
approval of CT 94-01 have been paid or secured to the City’s satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near
completion at this time.
2. Population and Housing
a)c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas
roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan in
accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance.
3. Geologic Problems
a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas B-l and B-2 have recently been mass graded per the approval CT 94-01.
Refined finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. B-l requires
approximately 21,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 17,000 cy of fill and 4,300 cy yards of export. B-2 requires
approximately 1,900 cy of cut, 1,100 cy of Bll and 800 cy yards of export. Standard grading permit
procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master plan
site including the subject planning area sites.
4. Water
a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and
change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildout of the master plans residential
planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage infrastructure has been
provided by approval of CT 9441. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject
planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities in drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater
resources will be created by buildout of the master plan.
15 Rev. wps 4%
5. Air Quality
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 and will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or rninimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommended in the Fii Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through
the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient
building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a
“non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Gf
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Gf Overriding Considerations” applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Fii Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
b)d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known signiticantly
adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan and will result in increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial
intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional
control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carl&ad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected
to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
16
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Pii Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision
of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such
as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of
the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation
impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas,
create no conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various
master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails
and linkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas.
l
7. Biological Resources
a)-e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open
space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan. The Batiquitos
Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas B-l
and B-2.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
a)c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the
subject planning areas.
9. Hazards
a)-e): No hazards will be associated with the construction and development of the subject residential planning
areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas B-l and B-2. Phunmable hazards or explosion potential will not created by the project.
10. Noise
a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels.
b): As required by previous environmental revievir and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas B-l and B-2
have been designed p ursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies so that compliance with the City4 Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will
result.
17 Rev.1/30/95 $0
11. Public Services
a)+: Both subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the’requkments and
standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary
public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including
Areas B-l and B-2.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have
been secured and/or accounted for via the mfmstructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the
Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that
adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided.
13. Aesthetics
a)-c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic
impacts will result from development of Areas B-l and B-2.
14. Cultural Resources
a)+: No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required
archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been
satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cultural or religious resources will be impacted by
the development of Areas B-l and B-2.
15. Recreation
a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas
are provided throughout the site designs of Areas B-l and B-2 usually near the interface with the master plan’s
trail system. Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use
active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas B-l
and B-2. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result from the development of the subject
planning areas.
18 Rev. wm 42
A
LIST MITIGATMG MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Sqpature
19 Rev. 1/30/9s 9
,
POINSETTIA SHORES
F?A. B-I-CT 94008/CP 94-01
\
\ \ B-1
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
l?A. B-2--CP 94-02
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMFLLWCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: POINSETTIA SHORES - PLANNING AREA’S “B-l” AND “B-2”
Project Location: Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, north of Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the
railroad right-of-way.
Project Description: “B-1” consists of 158 clustered single family units on 20.1 acres and
“B-2” consists of 16 clustered single family units on 2.4 acres. Both
planning areas are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (1.0) days
of date of publication.
DATED: MARCH 2,1995
CASE NO: CT 94-08KP 94-01 - PA “B-l”
CP 94-02 - PA “B-2”
Planning Director
APPLICANT: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREAS “B-1” AND “B-2”
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 2, 1995
-
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 - (6 19) 436-l 161
.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEEl
CASE NO: CT 94-o&P 94-01
CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l
APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Cornoration
REQUEST AND LOCATION: One hundred fiftveight (158) clustered single familv homes
within Planning Area B-l consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San
Diego according to MaD No. 13 18 1 filed in the office of the San Diego Recorder on Januarv 26,
1995.
APN: 216-140-32. 33 Acres: 20.1
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
Proposed No. of Lots/Units 158 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Medium (RM)
Density Allowed 4-8 du/ac Density Proposed 7.9 du/ac
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC
North RMHP
south PC
PC
West PCandTC
Vacant (PA B-l)
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Avenida Encinas
PA’s A-l and M
PA D and Railroad-right-of-way
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carl&ad Water District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 158
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, &ted December 9. 1994
Sewer District Carlsbad
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Notice of Prior Comnliance issued March 2. 1995
DECLOSUEE ‘3AmEiH-T
APWSWS STATEMENT CF DISCLOSURE OF CEWAW OWNEXSW IHT~E~ ON AU APPLUTlCNS WHICH WIT EauIF;E
OISCPET;CNARY AmON CN %E ?Am u WE cf?f au?dC% OR ANY APPQW 80ARO. CQMMISSION OR COMM~L
(Please Pm)
The Mlcwing information must be disc!osed:
7 . . Apolicant ..- --
kst the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Kaiza Poinsettia Co-ration
7220 Avenida Encinas Suite LOO Urlswa, cA Y~uuy
2. - Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the prcpeq involved. Kaiza Poinsettia Co-ration
1220 Avenida Encinas
buxe 100 MlsDaa, CA YLOJY
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names anC
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any parmersC:s
interest in the partnership.
SaCa California, Inc.
7220 Awnida 91cinas Suit5 200
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organizatian or a trust. list the names ant
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-prafrt organization or as trustee or benefiC;aV of Ihe trust. .
FFLMoo013 am
2075 Las Palmas Orwe l Cartaoad. Cahfornta 92009-459 * (6 19) 438-l 16 1
DisclosurO Statsmwt
:Cver)
Page 2
5. Have you had mcfe than $250 woflh of business transacted with any member of City staff. 3car:z
CornmIssIons, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No - If yes, please indicate person(s)
%non IS dofinod u: ‘Any mdwduU. firm. eoputnorsR~p. ~o~ntvw?t~~rr. Woel*On. SOCIJ club. hatomd organuab~n. corporr:~on. l at~to. :r’,st.
WCOIVO~. ryndtcato. thr MO any otfw county, cfty and couny. cq muntswMy, dWnct W otkw pormcal wbdivwon. w any ofnor 3’0~0 v I
comomt10n rcrmg u 8 mn’
I
(NOE: Attach additional pages as t%%sSq.)
A\& &a
Signture ot Owner/date ’
tiw +% ‘.’ 2\*
Print or type name of owner
Signature d applicantldpo
PfintWtypOMITWdcgpliWlt
.
.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l - CT 94-08/CP 9441
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:~ GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC - Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Kaiza Poinsettia Cornoration
ADDRESS: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. Carlsbad. CA 92009
PHONE NO.: (619) 931-9100 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 216-140-32. 33
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FI., DU): 20.1 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 586
Library: Demand in Square Footage - 313
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
Park Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = -!!?f!L
Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided -
Schools:
1.580
4
N/A
N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -.
158
N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 34.760
The project is 3 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
. mw “X” APRk5,199f
SAL = 2.4 .- Z-E. 0.Z” - ,,wa -s- :: ~“~C ne2 > ‘Oa ‘<i& .%s=
+,,u ta” t 2 e Eo a*= ‘I)&
‘oh0 2 L., &‘-a&
aa = i-s::
0
5 L f 1 *% .
./I P
a ‘.\~i..
*. .I . ,
‘:j (i
II ‘I
* gml
%
I Ill 5 1 i
1 ..-L.
II
i: 1: ! I
I; , I 1 iHi
jj;i ,p
/ i
; ; 1 4: I (1 1 , i 3; 1
I ’ I!‘... ,, I i I !g; 1 1 !
/ I ;‘/
\ !/ i ;
:, i i\ 1 /a : 1 fTlf
!’ j !DSl
,;, d % 8% s II __
I,
1: II
ad n 00 I I
3 $2
w eti VL;
P
?
: .-. I
.’ ii
!
llyl I-! c
i
;- 2.1. I .S.\IyTJII FI:Eil~J:bW a*~vWi WC3 : 1 '.J '.;_y-:" _. ; : ..:. , * . -.. - I
I i ;‘,: ,- \Ji. ;’ ’ ‘. !‘I.. , -. I ,! lb c f I 1’ et@ .- : /’ -, ‘.: $2 .“*, ” . . .‘(.. : ,‘,’ I:. s ‘d 1 ‘I- kl
! F ’ -/ 1 - 4 $j F;J
-g f
.’ *’ 4J ‘c’ . . 4 ; ?b
’ ! r-
Q . 2 --- 4 7: I i.
~~~.r w +Z i! ,‘, s . t I
--
‘1 - - - .- 1. - - -- >- -7 ---- _ > - + -
\ ‘\ \\’
LI--__-----’ ,_ .-_ - T - - - - -Gx*+ i-q’ \
I I ./ I-=
. =I \; /
I ,A I’ l 0,
I .’ I I _----* ..& L- - j- -
, .I’ .- I I
I _ -- - .- -- - - ,- - - -. -*
i ‘: ,.
* P
. .’ 1 . -.--- .r ;- . ‘& ‘SC .-A \ ‘, i k---
I I : ._'... v,J; - \; ',- \h , k \
Y----?-“-~l;\.W.~.“. OVOYllVk! NU3tUllON GtXCj W:G' ( '. --~- \ ‘, ! \
‘, 7 \
q ‘I. \
F$
t m
z
! xw
i
! F
: . : I
i i
. . _. .
- k - -
1
. . . . . . .; . .‘. ,’
I.
% tt!f 1 ?ii it
131
I.I.III.I. 2 “...‘::$~
.-. c ; <.z ’ ,.I :,”
;: ” .I
.I c -+ ... .-a . %, .* - , -*
-ji, _’ , Y .‘>A r . > 1
e . . ’ 7 , ..a ‘4
I IT _ . -
/T II
II++ gg- $ I , I-
0 5 &A~ f tr I II.I,I*,I, 4 ..,...,.g, . . . i
NOLLVXOdXO3 VLL.USNIOd VZW'A
S3lIOHS VLLL3SNIOd
3
.’ P
‘.
‘.
4 : m8 e s
L
b 4 Ii11 1 1 I Ihi FJ fi .,.. ,.,.,.I... d.,.....<, _ - ----. Piz
0 .;: ’ .
@g y.;;
= ‘- .:
“Z
6. :
C 3
3. -J
Y ‘,
2 -.; .-
” ,.. ,
.z ‘1
‘$2
. .
. . In
f3 ‘. c .
I
NOLL~CkiH~ -0dyP
S3XOHS VILL3SNIOd
I
. f 4
K * i il I - 109 . 4 4 3 J
I If;, t
1 Ill I I
QQQQ Ea / #W-II_ IMI
--
I
1
(o i
B
(0 ‘ %
/ lit-l-3 ImiT II cc3 :,
0 ,_’ : c’ 1.
rB -y .; .-
;.* .
-I. L2.l f 4
. l
3 a
.
cl
‘r 1
-7 -s
..*.a
i t
‘_
g
c
_
. .
- ci sv
ii
\zy-flLT .-k-,7 _-__- -_-_ _-“------
:L. f-
‘i .l
:.. -? L ’ 16 ---<.
I3 ‘. .- 1 ..-4
;.! .
3: .f . I \.
1 1
, -
---_
1:eg / .Ki,8; i.’
\ \L z mei I’! ‘IN4 L - ’ k: ‘, ‘\ v -
7cn
wo B
-\ \ \ 1 \ \ -. \ \ \’
KI?v
\ \ \ \ -t;
\ \ \ \ 0 .\ \ l-3 \ \ e( 5 \ \ \ \ \J \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ .‘t. \ \ \ -/ //
4’
WI-I \ I I . \
l--------
l : J
I- . I
i; 1 i 2.: P f
i ; i .z .z J
iI
t3 ;
I iii ---------, _ _--.
L a-..
’ - :- !.L!-gz-I I
\ . .-L-. 1. : ‘-L--- _ 1 --ye;, ,c:
:~
,.., - -_._
.- _*d ,_ _. . . I.’ .:; ,.
r,--j L . .
I_’
. : ‘2
m .; C-J co :’
PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995
another year and described what had been done with the trailer. He mentioned tha
ncreased after the trailer was placed on the site and that it was ni
nd served a good function, staff was recommending approval of P
lsen wanted to know how many lots were still availabl
ximately 25% of the lots were sold and the appli
more specific inf
Chairman Welshons in e applicant to speak.
Pam Whitcomb, 2011 Palom ort Road, Carlsbad, on behalf of the applicant.
She stated that there was a s the trailer was placed on the
site. She added that approxim and that there were a total of
70 lots.
Commissioner Savary inquired as to wh
trailer on site, and Ms. Whitcomb repli
difference. ’
rmation center was not as effective as a
people on the site made a great
There being no other persons to address the on on this topic, Chairman
imony closed and ope item for discussion among
the Commission memb re were no further discussio
contained therein.
Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Noble, Monroy,
Nielsen and Erwin
2. CT 94-08lCP 94-01 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING ARFA “B-l a - A request for
approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for 158 clustered single
family homes within the 20.1 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of
Planning Area “B-1” in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located north of the
Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal Zone, within
Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
Eric Mui7oz, Associate Planner, gave the staff presentation on this Item. He described the
site location and summarized the main elements of the project which included the tentative
map and condominium permit, the proposal of 158 units, guest parking requirements being
exceeded, noise policy compliance, provision of trail segments, and innovative product
type as allowed by the Master Plan. He discussed the primary elements of the B-l/B-2
Architectural Product Type.
‘7 \D MlNl JTES
PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 3
Commissioner Erwin stated that the project exceeded the Growth Management Control
Point by 38 units and indicated that traditionally and historically, projects have not
exceeded the Growth Management Control Point unless the project was doing something
very special. Mr. Mufioz told the Commission that the project was in compliance with the
Master Plan and that it was under the maximum amount of dwelling units allowed.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, concurred with Mr. Mufioz in that there was
nothing extraordinary or extra special with the project. He explained that the original
Master Plan allowed for a certain amount of units with an educational park and dedication
of huge amounts of open space. He further explained that what had occurred would result
in taking the remaining allowed number of units and fitting them into the planning areas.
He mentioned that this was not a growth management issue and that the Master Plan
complied with growth management.
Commissioner Monroy referred to Resolution #3757, page 9 regarding affordable housing
and stated that the Commission had voted on affordable housing in Planning Area D. He
mentioned that he was concerned how this was written since he did not feel the
Ordinance was clear and wanted to know whether an amendment would be required.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that Commissioner Monroy was correct. He
stated that the critical language in the condition was that prior to the approval of the final
map, the developer had to provide 90 dwelling units, either in Planning Area D of the
Master Plan or in an offsite location to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85. He
said that staff informs him the Master Plan was adopted after the Ordinance became
effective, requiring the Master Plan to include an lnclusionary Housing Plan that showed
the number of required inclusionary units, the designated sites for the location of the
inclusionary units and a phasing schedule for the production of those units. Mr. Rudolf
further stated that an amendment could be made to the Master Plan, and explained the
procedure, depending on whether it was a minor or major amendment.
Commissioner Monroy mentioned that if that was the case, the applicant could come back
with whatever he wanted to put in Area D.
Commissioner Savary brought up the subject of exceeding dwelling unit numbers and
referred to condition #14, Resolution No. 3757, last sentence. She wanted to know how it
would affect future builders in the area, and the Southwest Quadrant.
Mr. MufIoz repkd that the Master Plan &as reviewed and approved by the City Council.
He indicated that the approved amount of dwelling units does not exceed the allowable
number of units on a Master Plan level. He added that pre-assessed amounts could be
taken and transferred to this project and mentioned that it would not impact future
developers of the Southwest Quadrant. He stated that the Sammis Plan set the limit on
dwelling units on the Poinsettia Master Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 4
Commissioner Savary asked how it would affect future development in the quadrant, and
Chairman Welshons asked if it would transfer the numbers approved in the Sammis Plan,
thereby not increasing the numbers. Mr. MuRoz responded that she was correct. He
mentioned that some plans would exceed the Growth Management Control Point and
others would be under the Growth Management Control Point.
Commissioner Erwin referred to the minutes of October 20, 1993 where he asked staff
about the setbacks and questioned the 5’ setbacks. Mr. Wayne indicated that the Master
Plan provided the dimension diagrams and that there was a possibility of a
misunderstanding from the minutes.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 6:30 p.m. and reconvened at 6:33 p.m.
Mr. Mufioz clarified the issue raised by Commissioner Erwin and stated that the confusion
was due to terminology used. He explained that the setback requirement in question did
not apply to setback off the courtyard, but rather was referenced against the private
street.
Chairman Welshons opened the public testimony and invited the applicant to speak.
Doug Avis, 2300 Alga Road, Carlsbad, discussed two issues that surfaced during the last
few days. He referred to the issue of exceeding the Growth Management Control Point
and described the history of the property. He explained that the Master Plan’s dwelling
units had been traded down, and based upon a marketing decision, some of the units were
traded out to different planning areas. He further indicated that the property was approved
under one Master Plan but was now being processed in planning area pieces. He
emphasized that they were not taking any additional units from other builders in the
Southwest Quadrant.
Mr. Avis also referred to the requirement of a Master Plan amendment and said that
interpretation would have to be worked out. He discussed the preference by the public for
single family homes rather than town homes or condominiums and admitted that this
project belonged closer to a transportation center. He mentioned that they worked closely
with staff, and asked that he be allowed to respond to any issues brought up during the
meeting by the public.
Commissioner Compas asked for an update on Area 0, and Mr. Avis replied that it was
75/25 and they were fully committed to offsite mitigation at this point. He mentioned that
they were scheduled for appearance at the City Council the previous evening but there
were some questions that needed to be resolved so it may go to the City Council on April
18th instead.
Commissioner Erwin asked whether or not the developer could construct 161 units if they
chose. Mr. Rudolf advised that the developer would not have vested rights until the
developer received the proper approvals and actually made significant expenditures on
construction relying on a building permit.
4
MINUTES
,-
PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 5
Commissioner Erwin discussed the previous Master Plan requirements and the current
Master Plan requirements and asked if the difference could be rolled over. Mr. Wayne
responded that they could not and explained why.
Commissioner Erwin referred to the Growth Management Control Point and the fact that
the project was exceeding the Growth Management Control Point. Commissioner Monroy
requested additional clarification regarding the sequence of the voting on the affordable
housing issue. He referred specifically to the condition on page 9 of Resolution No. 3757.
Mr. Rudolf mentioned that staff wrote the condition to allow for flexibility. He explained
that it honored the requirement of the Code because if they opted to make a change as
presently planned, it would have to come back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Monroy asked if the City Council approved affordable housing at any
location besides Area D, wouldn’t the Planning Commission be locked into a “done deal?”
He expressed concern about the sequence of events.
Commission Noble indicated that this was already voted on previously and that the
developer would have the option to go to the City Council.
Chairman Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf to respond. Mr. Rudolf explained that it depended on
what was considered a done deal. He stated that it could be treated as a minor
amendment and approved by the Planning Commission or the Planning Commission could
make the recommendation. He said that regardless of whether it was considered a minor
or major amendment it would require a public hearing and could go to the City Council.
Commissioner Noble reiterated that he did not understand why the issue was being
discussed again.
Commissioner Monroy again clarified that he was not concerned about the options but
was concerned about the order in which the events took place.
Mr. Wayne stated that if one option was a minor amendment, they could submit a letter to
the Planning Commission and put the amendment on the next Planning Commission
meeting agenda where it could be processed as a non-public hearing item on the 19th and
before City Council action on a Housing Agreement providing the inclusionary housing
off-site.
A motion was tnada by Commissioner Noble to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions
#3757 and X3758 recommending approval of CT 94-08 and CP 94-01 respectively based
on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Mr. Mufioz mentioned that the finding on the Errata Sheet dated April 5th should be
added.
Mr. Avis indicated that he concurred with the amendment.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman
Welshons declared the public testimony closed.
4
(-- I
PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 6
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Amended Motion was made by Commissioner Noble to adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3757 and 3758 recommend-
ing approval of CT 9408 and CP 94-01 respectively based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and including
a new finding to Resolution No. 3757 to read as follows: “The
Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on
the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this
case, that the exactions are imposed. to mitigate impacts caused by
or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and degree of the
exaction is in rough proportionality to the impacts caused by the
project.”
6-1
Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Noble, Monroy, Savary,
and Nielsen
Erwin
None
Commissioner Erwin explained that he thought this was a bad precedent by exceeding the
Growth Management Control Point in this area.
CP 94-02 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING ARFA “B-2” - A request for app
of a Condominium Permit for 16 clustered single family homes within the 2.4
lanned Community) zoned parcel of Planning “B-2” in the Poinsett
r Plan located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railro
he Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
Eric Muiioz gave taff report on this Item. He showed two slides
location of the pr ained that it was a 16 unit proj
structural setback lng Rosalena homes, and thut it
innovative product type al the Master Plan. He indic hat the project
exceeded the Growth Mana ontrol Point and t ter Plan allowed for a
maximum of 16 dwelling units In
development standards could be why the proposed project
should not be allowed. He also r dated April 5, 1995, and stated
that the following should be added:
“1. Add a new finding Y18 t 9 to read as follows:
Ion has reviewed the exactions imposed on
ed in this resolution, ds, in this case,
imposed to mitigate d by or reasonably
reject, and the extent and degree of action is in rough
o the impacts caused by the project.
5 of Resolution 3759, Approval Condition #l, the
final action will be changed to Planning Commissi
since the City Council will not review the B-2 project (less than 50
unless appealed.
May l&1994
of City Carlsbad
Brian Murphy
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
7220 Avenida En&as, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUELIECP AREA’D” AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT - PRE 94-14 PRELJM COMMENTS
PlarmingZ
1. No letter accompanied this prelim submittal outlining requests for financial
assistance, standards modifications or other City granted incentives. You should
note that the 90 units attributed to area “D” are the result of applying a density
bonus to the Master Plan. Also, the design concessions and standards modifications
allowed in areas “B-l”, “B-2”, and “C” were considered the additional incentive
permitted by the City’s density bonus ordinance. Therefore, this prelim review
assumes that no other standards modifications are involved for this air space
ownership affordable housing project. None of the individual nlanninn -area
tentative mans can be deemed complete until (1) a Site Development Plan is
submitted and deemed complete for either the on-site affordable housing project or
an off-site affordable housing project without existing units, or (2) an Affordable
Housing Agreement is submitted for an off-site affordable housing project with
existing units.
2. Overall, it appears that the site lacks adequate pedestrian connection/circulation
between structures and parking areas. Parking areas are far from units; no
sidewalks are shown and the three story structures adjacent to the railroad tracks
do not appear to be adequately served by the proposed parking layout.
3. The parking requirement of 1.5 spaces/unit (one covered) only applies to studio
units. No studio units are proposed with this project (one, two and three bedroom
units are proposed). 135 spaces are shown, however, the project (with 90 uniis)
requires 209 uarkinn snaces (74 spaces more than what is shown). This includes
guest parking and applying the requirement of 2 spaces/unit (one covered) for all
floor plans. No covered spaces are shown; this project would require 90 spaces to
be covered. One area near the project entrance needs to be labelled as a 2 car space
parking bay. Standard parking space dimensions are 8.5 x 20’. Several areas show
parking overhang (where the linear dimension is not 20’ but 18.5 or 19’ leaving
some overhang). This overhang extends into roadways, over property lines and up
to buildings. Parking overhang up to two feet can be allowed by the Planning
Director or decision making body, however, those instances are typically in
industrial office areas where extensive landscaped setback areas (25-50 feet) are
involved and a two foot parking overhang can be supported. There is not enough
space with the site design proposed to support wholesale parking overhangs as
shown.
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-l 161
Girth-\ 'Tu C?xCItiClL r3y a OUG flVl.5 .ildl?/AD ?UGLIC t-rLC&?,r.JC or3
ZJX-EW d 13 - c 94-&Pw+
C
Brian Murphy
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
May 18,1994
Page 2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Plan l/2/3: 90 du’s @ 2 spaces/unit = 180 spaces (90 covered) plus 29 guest
spaces for a project total of 209 spaces.
Need to show existing contours (can assume master tentative grades) and proposed
contours to reflect site grading.
Show access from public street to planning area; show connection with access from
Avenida En&as.
Archeo and paleo monitoring will be completed with the master tentative map’s
mass grading.
A noise study will be required to make the formal application complete and
appropriate mitigation must be shown to show compliance with the City’s noise
policy per the master plan. Show berms and walls per the study as well as
landscaping.
Provide standard site plan/tentative map info on exhibits.
Building height is unknown; no scale was provided on the elevations exhibit. Staff
would like to review the 3 story elevation as well as a scaled 2 story elevation.
Regarding the 20 foot setback on the west side of the planning area; it is
dimensioned 20 feet but does not scale to be 20 feet. This area needs to show
existing and proposed grades (like the rest of the site) as well as accommodate any
noise attenuation components and the private pedestrian trail per the master plan.
Storage area requirements per the Planned Development ordinance need to be
verified against floor plan exhibits.
Compatibility between area “D” and adjacent “B-l” needs to be designed into both
projects.
No on-site recreation facilities are shown as required by the master plan.
Provide conceptual landscape plans.
Compliance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan shall be maintained. The
exhibits incorrectly spell “Poinsettia” (“Pointsettia” is shown).
Brian Murphy
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
May 18, 1994
Pane 3
16. A Coastal Development Permit and Affordable Housing Agreement shall be obtained
prior to final map approval.
17. It is staffs opinion that the area “D” affordable housing proposal needs to be
significantly redesigned, complying with all applicable standards, before support will
be given to the project. If the developer seriously intends to pursue development
of an affordable housing project on area “D”, a Site Development Plan (SDP)
application must be deemed complete before individual planning area tentative maps
can be deemed complete. The SDP must be approved prior to, or concurrent with,
the first planning area tentative map. In addition, an Affordable Housing Agreement
nt with, the first final map.
On May 11, 1994, the City’s Affordable Housing Team discussed your Area “D”
proposal. The team concluded that an off-site affordable housing project may be
much more desirable to the City as a means for satisfying the inclusionary housing
requirement for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Therefore, the developer is
strongly encouraged to contact the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Evan
Becker, at 434-2815 as soon as possible to discuss participation in an off-site,
combined affordable housing project. The Master Plan outlines the process for
approving an off-site affordable housing project based on whether or not there are
existing units. With existing units, an AHA must be submitted to make the planning
area tentative map application complete. Without existing units, an SDP must be
submitted to make the planning area map application complete.
1. It is recommended that some parking spaces (a minimum of two) be eliminated
from east side of the main traffic aisle going north from the entry. Otherwise too
many conflicts exist for cars backing out of the 5% degree parking on both sides of
the aisle and into most of the project’s entering traffic making a 90 degree turn.
This elimination may remove a possible sight distance problem at the corner.
2. No sidewalks are shown. Pedestrian travel paths are needed from parking spaces
to the units. Having the parking some distance away from the units will generate
additional need for these paths.
3. No onsite recreation area is shown, as is required by the .master plan. When such
an area is shown, additional pedestrian circulation may need to be provided.
.-
Brian Murphy
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
May 18, 1994
Pane 4
4. It appears that the length of overland drainage will exceed the City maximum of
1000 feet unless a storm drain is used. We are unable to comment further on
drainage since no elevations are shown.
5. When a review is made from a more detailed site plan with dimensions, additional
issues may be identified.
6. The full project entry is not shown. We need to review the entrance as far as
Avenida Encinas and the relationship with Planning Areas “E” and “B-l”.
Please contact Eric Munoz (619) 438-1161, extension 4441 to discuss this project further.
c: Don Neu, Senior Planner
Eric Mtmoz, Associate Planner
Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Debbie Fountain, H & R Senior Management Analyst
Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer
Jim Davis, Associate Engineer GEW%M:lh
K-D.PRE
1533 SOUTH HILL ST., SUITE D OCEANSID CA 92054 CITY%OUNCIL
2iifLdFA 1 p ,f I pr”f-~-r” ‘,y-n : ?
AlTORNEY AT LAW .”
JUNE 6, 1995 OFFICE: (619) 722-4470 RES.: (619) 722-2336
CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: 6/13/95 Hearing POINSETTIA SHORES-AREA "B-1 CT 94-8 ISSUE OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE
Dear Councilmembers:
I represent Ponto Storage Inc. and Dale Schreiber.
Please add a condition that prior to any more grading of area B-l, that "the Public Drainage Facility from the Northwest corner of area B-l tp the Batiquitos Lagoon shall be completed". Please add a condition that "the subdivision shall be responsible for maintenance of'the Western Desiltation Basin located at the Northwest corner of Batiquitos Lagoon and identified as a public improvement on D-337."
The issue of public drainage from area B-l was adequately heard during the original approval of the Master Plan by the City and the Coastal Commission. The resolution of the issue of drainage was.that prior to or concurrent with the original grading of the area, a pipeline would be installed from the Northwest corner of area B-l, under the railroad tracks, and thence Southwesterly to a desiltation basin at .Batiquitos Lagoon.
During the original grading which is still ongoing, an interim holding pond was constructed on area B-l which accommodates the drainage water from approximately 26 acres of the mobile home park northerly of area B-l as well as the drainage water from area B-l. This drainage water is currently pumped during a rainstorm from the holding pond into the drainage line that flows into the Eastern desiltation basin. Upon completion of the Public Drainage Facility as shown on D-337, the drainage water from this area will flow into the Western Desiltation Basin at Batiquitos Lagoon.
On behalf of Mr. Schreiber, I would like to thank staff and Kaiza for the professional manner in which the difficult issue of drainage for the Ponto Basin has been resolved.
Please include the above conditions to avoid any chance of misunderstanding. Area B-l cannot drain westerly without the Public Drainage Facility being in place. Area'B-1 will be part of development that will be responsible for the maintenance of the Western Desiltation Basin.
RztTx.
LOUIS TASCHNER
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CT 9408/CP 94-1
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-l"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, to consider an application for a Tentative Tract Map and a Condominium Permit for 158 clustered single family homes within the 20.1 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of Planning Area @IB-ltt, in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan on property generally located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon, east of the railroad right-of-way, in the Coastal Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 9, and more particularly described as:
Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract No. 94-1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 13181, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4441.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and/or Condominium Permit 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: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation PUBLISH: June 1, 1995
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
POINSETTIA SHORES
PA. B-l-Cl’ 94-08/CP 94-01
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, April $1995, to consider a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and
Condominium Permit for 158 clustered single family homes within the 20.1 acre P-C (Planned
Community) zoned parcel of Planning Area “B-l” in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan on property
generally located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal
Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9 and more particularly described as:
Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map No. 13181, filed in the office of the San Diego
County Recorder.
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 March 30,199s. If you have any questions,
please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4441.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and/or Condominium 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: CI’ 9408/CP 94-01
CASE NAME: POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA “B-l”
PUBLISH: MARCH 24,1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
EUGENE C CHAPPEE
654 N HIGHWAY 101
uAKLsI3AD CA 92009-6507 ENCINITAS CA 92024-2044
GARDENS PROP LAKESHORE KAIZA POINSEm CORP
C/O MORGAN & MARTINDALE 7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS #200
10780 SANTA MONICA BLVD CARLSBAD CA 920094661
LOS ANGELES CA 90025
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 SO VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633
PONTO STORAGE INC
POBOX23
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0023
CARLSBAD SCHOOL DIST
DR GEORGE MAN-NON SUP-I’
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A’-ITNz ERIC M.UNOZ
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notide
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA “B-1” - CT 94-08/CP 94-01
.-
for a public hearing before the City Council.
/3 &~
Please notice the item for the council meetlng of &zus--&~?~~ % 4
.
Thank you.
Assistant City IIan--
April 28, 1995
Date
PCdlSETTIA SHORG . .I PLANNING AREA B-1
600’ RADIUS MAP ~WAILING LABELS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APN: 214-160-25-00 Situs: 7290 PONTO DR CARLSBAD 92009 Owner: SC BERDALE L Legal: LA COSTA DOWNS UNIT # 1, POR SEC 29-12-
ARGONAUTA WAY;CARLSBAD CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619)753-4131
PROCESSING/STGone: 3 Asd : $282,908 Imp: 74% 01/27/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt: Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 1.519 Sqft: _-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APN* 214-160-28-00 &r: Situs: 7200 PONTO DR CARLSBAD 92009
CHAPPEE EUGENE C Legal: LA COSTA DOWNS UNIT # 1, PM04383, BEING
Mail: 654 N HIGHWAY 101;ENCINITAS CA 92024-2044 Phone: Use: 39-MISC.,RADIO STA., BANK, ETC.one: 1 Asd: $42,363 Imp: 16% Sale Date: -10/18/89 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt:
Blt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: 40075 Sqft:
APN: 214-171-11-00 &F&k: Situs: 7294 PONTO DR CARLSBAD 92009 PONTO STORAGE INC Legal: LA COSTA DOWNS UNIT X 1, DOC100072REC70 Mail: PO BOX 23;CARLSBAD CA 92018-0023 Phone: Use: 49-INDUSTRIAL - SPECIAL, MISC.Zone: 1 Asd: $146,181 Imp: 26% Sale Date: 08/16/77 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt: Blt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 2.239 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x:14-171-27-00 Situs : 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD 92009 : LAKESHORE GARDENS PROPERTY Legal: T 7954 B Mail: C/O-MORGANGMARTINDALE 10780 SANTA Use: 32-TRAILER PARK Zone: 5 $3,615,755 Imp: 53% Sale Date: 10/20/89 Sale Amt: Exempt: Blt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 28.689 Sqft: -------------------------------------------------------------------~------------
Situs: 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD 92009 GARDENS PROPERTY Legal: T 7955 B L 1u 10780 SANTA MONTICA BLVD;LOS A Phone: Zone: 5 Asd: $2,772,928 Imp: 50% Loan Amt: Exempt:
Units: Lotsqft: A 23.179 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITUS PENDING CARLSBAD
Legal: CARLSBAD TCTX85-34, (EX RD)DOC74-10498 CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619) 753-4131 Zone: 1 Asd: $8,521 Imp: 0% 01/27/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: 14810 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SITUS PENDING CARLSBAD Legal: CARLSBAD TCTf85-34, POR SEC 32-12-4W CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619)753-4131 - RESIDENTIAL Zone: 1 Asd: $26,648 Imp: 0% 03/12/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt:
Units: Lotsqft: 21780 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APN: 216-010-03-00 Situs: SITUS PENDING CARLSBAD Owner: SC 'BERDALEL Legal: CARLSBAD TCT#85-34, POR SEC 32-12-4W ARGONAUTA WAY;CARLSBAD CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619)753-4131
- RESIDENTIAL Zone: 1 Asd: $6,658 Imp: 0% 03/12/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt: Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: 6098 Sqft:
,,,,--a.L- ,,*. ---"""'-~-'-""'-""'-""""' --~-"L---'----""""""""
-AP: 2 216-010-04-00 ‘us: SITUS PENDING CARLSL wner : SCBRBIBER DALE L Legal: CARLSBAD Tk#85-3.4, POR SEC 32-12-4W . Mail: 7163 ARGONAUTA WAY;CARLSBAD CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619)753-4131 -- Use: lo-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone: 1 Asd: $6,658 Imp: 0% Sale Date: 03/12/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt: Blt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: 6098 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APN: 216-01
Owner: S&~“~ALE citus' S1TU~e$!~1?~~B~T#85-34, POR SEC 32-12-4W
ARGONAUTA WAY;CARLSBAD CA 92009-6507 Phone: (619)753-4131
- RESIDENTIAL Zone: 1 Asd: $6,658 Imp: 0%
03/12/86 Sale Amt: Loan Amt: Exempt:
Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: .6969 Sqft:
- APN: 216-140-17-00 Situs: AVBNIDA ENCINAS CARLSBG 92008 &er: KAIZA POINSETTIA CORP Legal: T 11290 B L 1u Mail: 7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS /ZOO;CARLSBAD CA 92009-4661 Phone: Use: 20:VACANT - COMMERCIAL Zone: 6 Asd: $1,200,000 Imp: 0% Sale Date: 11/08/90 Sale Amt: $26,7OO,OOOP Loan Amt: $30,000,000 Exempt: Blt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 6.229 Sqft:
Situs: WINDROSE CI CARLSBAD 92008 CARLSBAD TCT #82-18, 16.53 AC M/L IN Php CA 92009-4661 Phone: Zone: 1 Asd: $3,700,000 Imp: 0% $26,7OO,OOOP Loan Amt: $30,000,000 Exempt: Lotsqft: A 16.529 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situs: WINDROSE CI CARLSBAD 92008 Legal: T 11616 B L 80 U 220 AVENIDA ENCINAS #2OO;CZUUSBAD CA 92009-4661 Phone: Zone: 6 Asd: $3,800,000 Imp: 0% 11/08/90 Sale Amt: $26,7OO,OOOP Loan Amt: $30,000,000 Exempt: Units: Lotsqft: A 17.739 Sqft: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situs: WINDROSE CI CARLSBAD 92008 POINSETTIA CORP Legal: CARLSBAD TCT #85-14 PHASE Xl, 34168 Ak-
ENCINAS #'ZOO;CARLSBAD CA 92009-4661 Phone:
Zone: 6 Asd: $4,900,000 Imp: 0%
11/08/90 Sale Amt: $26,7OO,OOOP Loan Amt: $30,000,000 Exempt:
Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 34.679 Sqft: i---------------------------------------------------------------
Situs: WINDROSE CI CARLSBAD 92008
CARLSBAD TCT #85-14 PHASE #I, DOC87-631 CA 92009-4661 Phone: COMMERCIAL Zone: 6 Asd: $200,000 Imp: 0% 11/08/90 Sale Amt: $26,7OO,OOOP Loan Amt: $30,000,000 Exempt: Rms:Bd Bth Tot Units: Lotsqft: A 1.150 Sqft: ___________________-------------------------------------------------------------