HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-23; City Council; 13492; Green Valley Master PlanCr" " OF CARLSBAD - AGE)""
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
MTG. I -A3 -96 EIR 93-02/MP 92-01 /LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23
DEPT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 96 -37 CERTIFYING EIR 93-02, and
APPROVING MP 92-01 , LCPA 93-06 and LFMP 87-23 and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. N$F 3q8 APPROVING MP 92-01.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 13, 1995 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
Green Valley Master Plan. With a vote of 6-1 (Erwin), the Planning Commission
recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of the
Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Local Facilities Management Plan
with no changes. On December 20, 1995 at a continued public hearing, the Planning
Commission approved the Tentative Map as amended: to construct the trails as shown
on the Tentative Map as private if the City does not accept liability as a public trail; to
implement El Camino Real median improvements as designed for the Plaza de La Costa
Real; and to provide a signal interconnect for signals on El Camino Real south of La
Costa Avenue. The Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit and Special Use Permit
were approved by the Planning Commission subject to City Council approval of the
Master Plan.
Commissioner Erwin voted to deny the proposal because although the Master Plan
includes development standards which are more restrictive than the Zoning Ordinance,
he disagreed that for the sake of design flexibility it may also include standards which
are less restrictive. He also felt that it was inappropriate to vote on this project since
there is an initiative pending regarding the property.
The master plan has been revised since Council last considered it. The revised master
plan is referred to as the "Reduced Project Alternative" as reviewed and analyzed in the
updated EIR for the project. The Reduced Project Alternative is composed of five
Planning Areas, three of which are Open Space (Planning Areas 1, 4, and 5). Planning
Area 2 limits commercial development to 300,000 square feet on 18.3 acres and
Planning Area 4 is limited to 400 single family homes, detached and/or attached, on 55.8
acres (7.2 dulac). The overall Master Plan is 281.2 acres. Approximately 88.1 acres
(32%) will be used for commercial, residential and roadway development. The Master
Plan Land uses were determined through community forums and discussion with staff.
The proposed actions are in compliance with all applicable plans, ordinances, standards
and policies. The attached Planning Commission staff report dated December 13, 1995
provides further detail.
A number of persons spoke during the public testimony. Concerns raised included
adequate mitigation for urban runoff (pollutants), habitat mitigation ratios, the effect of
the Carlsbad Ranch on cumulative traffic impacts, and a general dissatisfaction with the
possibility of development on the property. Staff responded to the comments raised at
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. / 3; 3 5 L
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
the public hearing. A full record of comments and the response to questions and
comments from the public can be found in the Green Valley Final Program
Environmental Impact Report dated December 1995 and the Planning Commission
minutes dated December 13, 1995.
23
87-23
11.5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report was processed addressing all of the discretionary
approvals necessary for project approvals. The EIR was supplemented to include
additional traffic analysis for the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and to discuss the
Reduced Project Alternative. The report was found by the Planning Commission to be
completed in compliance with City and State regulations. The project would result in
significant cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated.
However, certification of the Final Master EIR 93-01, for the General Plan, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a statement of overriding consideration for both air
quality and circulation impacts which applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is included because it is consistent with
the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is anticipated that the project would generate a positive net annual cash flow. Surplus
could range from approximately $170,000 in the first year of project operation to
approximately $421,000 by the fourth year and thereafter. There is the potential of a
cumulative net cash surplus to the City over a ten year period of $3.7 million.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
IFt density I 400
Special Facilities I C.F.D. No.1
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 96 -3 3 (EIR 93-02, MP 92-01, LCPA 93-06,
LFMP 87-23)
2. City Council Ordinance No. h(s 348 (MP 92-01)
3. Location Map
4.
5.
6.
7.
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3855, 3856, 3857, 3858
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 13, 1995
Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 13, 1995
Correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission
d
A h
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /3,35 5
8. *Green Valley Master Plan Final Program EIR, dated-f%zember 1995. (previously
distributed)
9. Green Valley Master Plan, dated November 29, 1995 (previously distributed)
10. *Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated December 1995 (on file with the
City Clerk).
*These documents are filed on the shelf in the Vault.
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. 96-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A PR,OGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVING
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PIAN
FOR ZONE 23, AND GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN FOR
281.2 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND EL
CAMINO REAL.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO. EIR 93-02/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP .
WHEREAS, on November 29 and December 13, 1995 the Carlsbad Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 93-02), Green Valley Master Plan (MP 92-Ol), Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 93-06), Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 23 (LFMP 87-23),
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 92-15) and Special Use Permit (SUP 92-05) and
adopted Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3855, 3856, 3857, 3858 respectively
recommending to the City Council that EIR 93-02 be certified and MP 92-01, LCPA
93-06 and LFMP 87-23 be approved and adopted Planning Commission Resolutions
Nos. 3860 and 3861 approving HDP 92-15 and SUP 92-05 subject to City Council
approval of MP 92-01; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, December 13, and December 20, 1995 the
Carlsbad Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider
Carlsbad Tract (CT 92-08) and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 3859
approving CT 92-08 subject to City Council approval of MP 92-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on January 23, 1996 held
a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested
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
in or opposed to EIR 93-02, MP 92-01, LCPA 93-06, and LFMP 87-23; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted to
the State Clearing House and a Notice of Completion filed, published, and mailed to
responsible agencies and interested parties providing a 45 day review period.
Responses were prepared and incorporated into the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for all comments received from that review period; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures are fully incorporated into the conditions of
approval and these conditions will be reviewed through a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program set up for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-02) on the above
referenced project is certified and that the Candidate Findings of Fact
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are approved and
that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained
in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855, on file with the City Clerk
and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City
Council.
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Green Valley Master Plan is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3856, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference are the findings and conditions of the
City Council Resolution No. 96-37 and Ordinance No. NS-348
shall be contemporaneously adopted.
4. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 93-06) is approved
and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3857, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.
5. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP 87-23) is approved and
-2-
3”
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.a..
-
that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3858, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
Council. The provision of Chapter 1,16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time limit within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1.094.6, which
has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the
ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final;
however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request
for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit
in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of the preparation
of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in the
court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on
which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or
his attorney or record, if he has one. A written request for the
preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008.”
-3- &
1
2
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad on the 23rd day of JANUARY 1996, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST
ALETHA L. RAU
(SEAL)
-4
1
;1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
ORDINANCE NO. NS-348
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GREEN
VALLEY MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF THE
CITY OF ENCINITAS, SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE,
AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MP 92-01
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Partners Limited has reviewed and considered a Master
Plan as provided by Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, after procedures in accordance with the requirements of law, the
City Council has determined that the public interest indicates that said plan be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City’ Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the Green Valley Master Plan, MP 92-01 on file in the
Planning Department is incorporated by reference herein, is approved.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
in Planning Commission Resolution No 3856 shall also constitute the findings and conditions
of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to
be published at least once in the newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after
its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council on the 23rd day of JANUARY , 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
1 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on
the the day of day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: , 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: AYES:
NOES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST: ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL) (SEAL)
1
CITY 01 CNCJNJTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COUNTY 01 s*N DJrOa
EXHIBIT 3
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
EIR 93002/MP 92-01/ LCPA 93-06/ LFMP 87-23
IO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3855
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINAL EIR 93-02,
FOR THE GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ON 281.2
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA COSTAAVENUE AND EL
CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: EIR 93-02
WHEREAS, Carisbad Partners Limited has filed a verified application for
certain property, to wit:
A portion of Section 2. Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a
portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
with the City of Carlsbad, which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the Green
Valley Master Plan as is more fully described in the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report as the Reduced Project Alternative, EIR 93-02 as provided in Chapter 19.04 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th of January, and the
2nd day of February, 1994, and the 13th day of December, 1995, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, a Reduced Project Alternative has been proposed by the applicant
which reduces the project’s proposed commercial square footage by half to 300,000 square
feet and increases the residential portion to 55.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the project; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4
B)
C>
D)
E)
Findinps:
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 will be amended
to include the comments and documents of those testifying at the public
hearing and responses thereto ihereby found to be in good faith and reason
by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearings into the report.
That the program Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 as so amended
and evaluated is recommended for acceptance and certification as the final
Program Environmental Impact Report and that the final Program
Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides
reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible
alternatives thereto, including no project.
That among the alternatives evaluated, it is recommended that the Reduced
Project Aiternativewhich incorporates mitigation measures as discussed below,
be approved for implementation.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report, EIR 93-02, APPROVAL of the Candidate Findings of Fact
(“CEQA Findings”) Dated December 13, 1995, and attached hereto marked
Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference; and APPROVAL of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) Dated December
13, 1995, attached hereto marked Exhibit “B” and incorporated by this
reference; and based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions.
1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that Final Program EIR 93-02, the
CEQA Findings, and the Program have been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines,
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Final Program EIR 93-02, the environmental impacts therein identified
for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings” or “CEQA Findings”)
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (“Program”) attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, which is incorporated herein by
this reference, prior to recommending approval of the project.
PC RESO NO. 3855 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
3. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 93-02 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval, accept as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the “Candidate Findings of Fact” Exhibit”A”.
5. As is more fully identified and set forth in Final Program EIR 93-02 and in the
Candidate Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends
that the City Council find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as feasible
in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the
entity assigned thereby to implement same.
6. As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in the
above finding number 4, some of the alternatives to the project which were identified
as potentially feasible in Final Program EIR 94-01 are found not to be feasible since
they could not meet both the objectives of the project and avoid the identified
significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation
measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact.
7. As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (“Program”) (Exhibit “B”). The Planning Commission hereby
finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the
developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings of
Fact and the Program.
8. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the following:
a) The Draft and Pinai Program EIR for the Project, including appendices and technical reports, comments and response to comments;
b) Ail reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning
documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the
environmental consultant, and the City of Carisbad that are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
d Ail documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on the project;
d) Minutes and verbatim transcripts of ali workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
e) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carisbad which they consider,
including but not limited to, the Carisbad General Plan, Carisbad Zoning
PC RESO NO. 3855 -3- /3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
Ordinance, and Local Facilities Management Plan, which may be found at
City Hall located at 1240 Carl&ad Village Drive and the Community
Development ORice located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in the custody of the
City Clerk and Director of Planning.
Conditions:
1. R&er to Exhibit “B”, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the
mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to development of the
Green Valley Master Plan Project.
2. The attached errata sheet dated December 13, 1995 shall be incorporated into the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report.
3. Within 30 days of a California Coastal Commission approval of the project, the
applicant shall provide an agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the
City Manager that the applicant will indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs of defense including any
judgements, attorney fees, costs and expenses arising out of an action attacking the
adequacy of the environmental documents pertaining to this pmject.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of December,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Eti
ABSENT: None
ABSTm None
KIM’WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G coMMISSION
AT-I-ES-F
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3855 -4-
r
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-9859
December 6, 1995
GREEN VALLEY MAST&r, PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Section
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
T’BLE OF CON:TENTS I
Paae
INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 1
PROGRAMEIR ........................................... ...5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .................................... 6
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA ............. 7
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS ................................... 8
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................ 8
IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT ...................... 9
DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........... 9
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
LandUse.............................................lO
Visual Quality/Landform Alteration ........................... 10
Agriculture ............................................ 11
Biological Resources ..................................... 12
Cultural Resources ...................................... 15
Paleontological Resources ................................. 16
Geology Soils .......................................... 16
HydrologyMlater Quality .................................. 18
Circulation ............................................ 19
Noise ............................................. ..2 3
Air Quality .......................................... ..2 6
Public Facilities and Services ............................... 28
December I995 Table of Contents
Page i
A.
GREEN VALLEY MAST& PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
-4
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . 29
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Land Use ............................................. 29
Visual Quality/Landform Alteration ........................... 29
Agriculture ............................................ 30
Biological Resources ..................................... 30
Cultural Resources ...................................... 32
Paleontological Resources ................................. 33
Geology Soils .......................................... 33
Hydrology/Water Quality .................................. 34
Circulation ............................................ 35
Noise .............................................. .37
AirQuality............................................39
Public Facilities and Services ............................... 41
December 1995 Table of Contents Page ii t2
-. -
GREEN VALLEY MASTE,. PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
BEFORE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPDEIR) prepared on this project addressed
the potential environmental effects of developing 281.2 acres of land and associated
supporting public facilities and infrastructure. The Green Valley Master Plan submitted by
Carlsbad Partners, Ltd. contained both a land use plan and policy language to guide the long-
term development of approximately 86.4 acres. The Master Plan, also referred to as the
Reduced Project Alternative, proposes residential and commercial development. Additionally
the applicant’s preferred project involves designation of approximately 194.8 acres as natural
or revegetated open space.
In addition to the Green Valley Reduce Project Alternative the FPDEIR evaluated four
alternatives to the proposed project. These included the No Project Alternative, the
development using the combination of three land uses allowed under existing General Plan
Designations, an Environmentally Preferred Alternative, and an Off-Site Project Alternative.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Green Valley Master area contains a total of 281.2 acres. The purpose of the Green
Valley Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and
implementation programs for guiding and ensuring the orderly development of the property in
accordance with the City’s General Plan. The Master Plan defines the allowable type and
intensity of land use, provides detailed development and design standards and criteria, and
describes the method by which the Green Valley Master Plan will be implemented.
City Council adoption of the Master Plan will establish the zoning and development standards
for this property. The Green Valley Master Plan will ensure that the subject property is
developed in full accordance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program,
Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, Noise Policy (Noise 171, Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan, El Camino Real Corridor Standards and Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan.
December 1995 Page 1
GREEN VALLEY MASTkrr PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The proposed land uses for the Master Plan are residential, community commercial, and open
space. These are described as follows:
Planning Ares I - Encinitas Creek Conservation and Buffer Corridor
Encinitas Creek traverses the project site in a south to north direction and is adjacent to El
Camino Real. This corridor, approximately 400 to 600 feet wide (including proposed
revegetation areas) and 5900 feet long is comprised largely of riparian woodland. This area
is an important biological area not only for the plant communities associated with the habitat,
but also for the birds and wildlife which live in such an environment. As such, it is necessary
to maintain this habitat in permanent open space and to ensure that the area is not
significantly impacted by any development which occurs in the vicinity. Therefore, the entire
existing riparian woodland area has been placed in an open space easement.
The Encinitas Creek Conservation and Buffer Corridor, Planning Area 1, contains approximately
79 gross acres. Two roadways over the creek provide access to the project site. These
crossing points are at Levante Street and the future Calle Barcelona, located approximately 0.5
miles and 0.9 miles, respectively, south of La Costa Avenue. There will be as little
disturbance as possible from this construction and, to mitigate for the loss of habitat,
appropriate adjacent area will be planted with new native vegetation in accordance with the
requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
In addition to preserving sensitive biological resources, the Encinitas Creek Conservation and
Buffer Corridor acts as a visual buffer between El Camino Real and planned on-site
development to the west of Encinitas Creek in Planning Areas 2 and 3. It enables the site to
retain much of its present character when viewed from El Camino Real.
Planning Area 2 - Retail Center
The approximately 18.3-NDA (Net Development Acres) Planning Area 2 is located in the south
part of the disturbed portion of Green Valley, west of Planning Area 1. The planning area
extends from the residential area north of Calle Barcelona to the southerly property boundary.
Planning Area 2 consists of a retail center. A total of up to 294,000 square feet of
commercial development may be allowed in Planning Area 2, subject to approval of a Precise
Development Plan or PUD by the City Council.
Planning Ares 3 - Single-Family Residential
The approximately 55.8-NDA Planning Area 3 is located in the central-northern disturbed
portion of Green Valley. A total of up to 400 single-family .dwelling units, 15% of which must
December 1995 Page 2
h -
GREEN VALLEY MASTt/r PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
be made available to low income households (Chapter 21.85 Carlsbad Municipal Code), may
be approved in this area subject to a Site Development Plan or PUD. The single-family
residential may be comprised of detached units, townhomes, garden or patio homes.
Planning Area 4 - Upland Bluff Ares
Planning Area 4 includes the hillside area on the western side of the property that is
characterized by relatively steep slopes. This area contains approximately 124.1 acres. The
highest elevations are on the western boundary, with slopes descending to the east. The bluff
area, containing several slopes greater than 25% and a few slopes greater than 40%, is
generally overlain by southern maritime chaparral, a vegetation community which is declining
in the area primarily due to development. Southern maritime chaparral is considered an
important plant community on-site in that it is the habitat for sensitive plant species. The
upland bluff sensitive habitat area has been permanently preserved with an open space
easement and acts as a dramatic backdrop to retail and residential development in Planning
Areas 2 and 3. The Upland Bluff Area is a potential mitigation area under the provisions of
Carlsbad ordinances related to the approval of such mitigation areas.
Planning Area 5 - Convenience Commercial
The approximately 1.7-NDA Planning Area 5 is located at the corner of El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue. It is currently the site of the building known locally as the “Red Barn.” A
maximum of 6,000 square feet of commercial development may be allowed in Planning Area
5, subject to approval of a Site Development Plan. The permitted land uses are limited to an
art store, gallery, bank/savings and loan, florist, offices or restaurant.
The discretionary actions taken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project are:
1. Master Plan, MP 92-01. The Green Valley property is zoned Planned
Community (P-C) (Chapter 21.38). According to the Zoning Ordinance, “The
Planned Community Zone is applied to properties in excess of 100 acres in
Carlsbad to ensure for the orderly, coordinated development of the site through
coordinated planning between the City and applicant.” The Planned Community
Zone requires the approval of a master plan prior to the approval of any permits
for development.
2. Environmental Impact Report, EIR 93-02 - The Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), identifies
all issues of environmental concern as a result of the proposed on-site
development. After a thorough analysis of each issue, the level of impact is
December 1995 Page 3
h
GREEN VALLEY MASTt,f PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
3.
assessed. If an issue is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation
measures and monitoring programs are established.
Local Facilities Management Plan - In 1986 the City of Carlsbad initiated a
growth management program which defined 25 Local Facilities Management
Plan (LFMP) zones. Each zone corresponds to a specific geographic area within
the Carlsbad community. A LFMP plan must be prepared for each zone prior to
development. Green Valley is designated by the growth management plan as
LFMP Zone 23, which is located in the Southwest Quadrant of the City. This
zone plan has been created in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Growth
Management Program to address the adequacy of existing and projected
project-related public facilities. This analysis includes the zone’s relationship
with the eleven identified public facilities: City administration facilities, library,
wastewater treatment capacity, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space,
schools, sewer collection system, and water distribution system.
4. Master Tentative Tract Map, CT 92-08 -The subdivision provides for the initial
development of the backbone infrastructure, grading, and environmental
protection measures on a tract of land in the central portion of the property. CT
92-08 is intended to be followed by individual tract maps, Planned Unit
Developments or Site Development Plans for the development of Planning Areas
2, 3 and 5.
5. Special Use Permit, SUP 92-05 - This permit was required for work within the
Encinitas Creek loo-year floodplain which is located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area as indicated on the Carlsbad Zoning Map. Work within the floodplain
consists of the construction of two access roads; Levante Street and Calle
Barcelona. Development within the Special Flood Hazard Zone is subject to all
regulations of the Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 2 1.1 10 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
6. Hillside Development Permit, HDP 92-l 5 - A Hillside Development Permit is
required prior to development of all property with a slope of fifteen percent or
greater and an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet pursuant to Chapter
21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. These conditions exist in Green Valley
and a Hillside Development Permit was therefore required.
December 1995 Page 4
-
GREEN VALLEY MAST& PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Subsequent discretionary approvals that will be required prior to development in the Master
Plan area will include one or more of the following:
Site Development Plan
Coastal Development Permit
Non-Residential Planned Development
Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Map
Planned Unit Development
Special Use Permit
Local Coastal Program Amendment
Ill. PROGRAM EIR
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as “one large project” and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical
parts in the chain of contemplated actions: (3) in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
(4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar
ways (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15 168, subd. (a).)
Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can: (1)
provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would
be practical in an EIR on an individual action; (2) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts
that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (3) avoid duplicate reconsideration of basic
policy considerations; and (4) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and
program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to
deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (5) allow reduction in paperwork. (CEQA
Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg. 5 15168, subd. lb).)
“Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as
the Project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activities
within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individual
activities whether their effects were fully analyzed in the Program EIR. If the activities would
have no effects beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR, the agency could assert that the
activities are merely part of the program which had been approved earlier, and no further
CEQA compliance would be required. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to
December 1995 Page 5
GREEN VALLEY MASTtti PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
reduce their costs of CEGA compliance and still achieve high levels of environmental
protection.” (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Reg., discussion following 4 15 168).
The CEQA Guidelines provide that the “degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond
to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity.” (Guidelines Section 15 146).
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the
following:
l The Draft and Final Program EIR for the Project, including appendices and
technical reports;
l All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning
documents prepared by the Planning Consultant, the Project Applicant, and
Environmental Consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
l All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the EIR on the Project;
l Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings held by the City of Cartsbad, or video tapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
l Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings
and public hearings; and
l Matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they consider,
including but not limited to, the following:
Carlsbad General Plan
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
Local Facilities Management Plan
December I995 Page 6 23
GREEN VALLEY MASTt, I PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect
identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching
one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that “[clhanges or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantiallv lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (emphasis added.) The second
potential finding is that “[sluch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.” The third permissible conclusion is that “[slpecific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.”
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the
difference between “avoiding” a significant environmental effect and merely “substantially
lessening” such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from other
contexts in which they are used. Public Resource Code Section 2108 1, on which CEQA
Guidelines section 1509 1 is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than “substantially lessen.”
The CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate “mitigating” with “substantially lessening.” Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21001,
which declares the Legislature’s policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant
environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could
“avoid or substantially lessen” such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” shall refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-siqnificant level.
In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” shall refer to the ability of such measurers to
substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level
of insignificance. Although CEGA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving
agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoidfed] g substantially lessen[edl,”
these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in questions has been
fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened
(and thus remains significant).
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Project
on the environment identified in the Final Program EIR, and determine the feasibility of
mitigation measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR which would
avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has adopted sufficient
December ? 995 Page 7
GREEN VALLEY MAST& PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
measures to avoid a significant impact,t the City does not need to adopt every mitigation
measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final Program EIR.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Carlsbad to not approve a Project if
there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which would
substantially lessen that Project’s significant environmental effects. Only when such
mitigation measures or Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific
economic, social or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Project
in spite of its significant effects.
Another purpose of these findings is to bring focus on Project alternative in the ultimate
decisionmaker’s decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application
of all feasible mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Project
alternatives identified in the FPDEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible or
infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record,
that the decisionmakers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further
discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section).
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Carlsbad (“City” or “decisionmakers”) hereby finds itself and any other responsible parties,
including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”),
to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational
or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the
City adopts the resolution(s) approving the Reduced Project Alternative.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and
will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Reduced Project Alternative.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Carlsbad, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by the
environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure
that during project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties comply
December 1995 Page 8
GREEN VALLEY MASTtH PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the
document entitled “Green Valley Mitigation Monitoring Program.”
VIII. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes impacts determined to be insignificant in the
preparation of the EIR.
Section 4.0 of the Green Valley Master Plan Program EIR addresses a total of 12 issues for
the Green Valley Master Plan project that may cause significant environmental impacts. CEQA
requires that an EIR also identify and briefly explain why various effects of the project were
found not to be significant, and therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Several issues
were found not to have potentially significant impacts. These are described below.
Light and Glare: The proposed project will incrementally contribute to new light and glare
sources both within the project site and the surrounding area.
Natural Resources: The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources or substantially deplete any nonrenewable natural resources.
Risk of Upset of Hazardous Substances: The proposed project will not increase the risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances into the environment.
Population and Housing: The proposed project will not substantially alter the planned
distribution or balance of population or housing in the area. The project would provide a
approximately 400 dwelling units, some of which will be made available to lower income
households.
Energy: The proposed project will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy, or substantially increase the demand upon existing energy sources.
Human Health: The proposed project would not crease any potential health hazards.
IX. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AiUD MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final Program EIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or
“impacts”) that the Reduced Project Alternative will cause, all of which can be fully avoided
through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
December 1995 Page 9
ab
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
A. LAND USE
Significant Effect
With the reduction of the retail area under the Reduced Project Alternative to accommodate
less than 300,000 square feet, each of the land uses will be in conformance with the General
Plan land use descriptions. However,
1. Development, as proposed, of Planning Area 5 as a commercial site would conflict with
some of the primary and secondary priorities of the Open Space Conservation Resource
Management Plan, and development standards of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor
Overlay.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1.
2.
3.
B.
Designate Planning Area 5 as open space within the Master Plan.
A physical and visual buffer should be provided between the commercial PA2
and the residential PA3. The requirement for buffering shall be included in the
Master Plan.
As a procedural follow-up recommended in the OSCRMP, all areas designated
as open space in the Master Plan will be designated as such on the General Plan
Land Use Map and Zoning Map. This action, although not mitigation,
strengthens the preservation of lands designated as open space.
VISUAL QUALITY/LANDFORM ALTERATION
Significant Effect
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
December 1995 Page 10
GREEN VALLEY MASTtr, PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
3. Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
4. Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and
La Costa Avenue.
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad,
will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These standards include
the following:
1. Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material
guidelines, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with
the bluff topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the
continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity
lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff
silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Encinitas Creek through
landscaping/revegetation and lower pads.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed
subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards
including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
C. AGRICULTURE
Significant Effect
Since there is no prime farmland existing onsite, there are no significant impacts to agriculture.
December 1995 Page I I
GREEN VALLEY MASTha PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
finding
No mitigation measures are required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SigniZicant Effect
1. Approximately 1 .O acres (4.2 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly
impacted by the Reduced Project Alternative. Other potentially occurring sensitive
sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are mitigated by the
Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub.
2.
3.
Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodland will be directly
impacted by the Reduced Project Alternative. All of these impacts would occur along
Encinitas Creek from the proposed crossings for access to the site and the widening
of El Camino Real. These impacts are considered potentially significant because of the
sensitivity of this community and species observed in it, such as the least Bell’s vireo,
southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. The
proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by
incorporating 11.75 acresof riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement
into the plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts.
Traffic generated noise represents the most significant indirect impact of this project.
The project will increase the amount of area impacted by noise by approximately 2.5
percent in the southern part of the riparian woodland, 3.8 percent in the northern part
of the woodland, and not at all in the central portion (Endo Engineering 1993). The
area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less
than 0.75 acre. This impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance by the 15.25
acres of riparian enhancement proposed by the Master Plan. Because the most
preferred mitigation is avoidance, the No Project Alternative would eliminate the
impacts and no riparian restoration or enhancements would be required.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative are
not mitigated by the proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master
Plan. However, they can be mitigated by the measures discussed below under Mitigation
Measures.
December 1995 Page 12
a9
-.
GREEN VALLEY MASTtrr PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Approximately 1 .O acre (13 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly
impacted by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street. This impact is
considered a potentially significant cumulative impact because of the sensitivity of this
community.
2. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with
the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a
wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The potential impact
to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek would be considered significant.
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration
of riparian and upland habitats, potentially significant impacts may still occur from
implementation of the project.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and
natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The
planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource
agencies.
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site
location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Open Space and Biological
Habitat Enhancement Plan.
3. The Proposed Project shall be modified to avoid the 0.6 acres of coastal sage in the
south central portion of the site at the foot of the bluffs in order to alleviate any
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat and potentially occurring
sensitive plants.
(This measure is not required for the Reduced Project Alternative because it does not
impact the 0.6 acres of coastal sage.)
December 1995 Page 13
30
GREEN VALLEY MASTbt PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
4. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space
and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be
prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading
permit.
5. Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most
preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle
Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian
areas/wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also
reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings
is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one
crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer
impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating
Levante Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also
eliminate direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance
to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through crossing(s)
design. Using either the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992)’ as a model or
other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game,
adequate opportunity for north-south wildlife movement can be created thereby
mitigating impacts to wildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less
than significant.
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be
mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional
mitigation could further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation
structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek
crossings.
1 Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length of the underpass should be no more than
twice its width, a 2 to 1 ratio.
Underpasses should be no less than 12 feet in height from grade to ceiling at any given point.
If the minimum height is 30 feet or greater, deviation from the 2 to 1 ratio may be considered.
December 1995 Page 14
3J
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Implementation of the Proposed Project and the Reduced Project Alternative would result in
a potentially significant impact (i.e., total removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological
site GV-4.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
One of the following is required.
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to
grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains
little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed
upon analyzing the fauna1 remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among
the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical
means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn
1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The
reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of
conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled
mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger
sample for substantially less cost.
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative
work shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgment, there is nothing
to be gained by continuing.
December 1995 Page 15
3a
- -\
GREEN VALLEY MASTEI-I PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effiwt
Although the walkover survey and inspection did not result in the discovery of any fossils
onsite, the subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene
sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the
Proposed Project. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and
collections of the fossil assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this
area.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified
Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a
grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further
evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant
concentrations of fossils are encountered.
G. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Significant Effect
The potentially significant geology/soils impacts associated with the project are as follows:
1. The alluvium and slopewash/colluvium that underlies much of the proposed
development area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced
settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials
would be susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium
underlying the area proposed for development. is compressible and considered
December 1995 Page 16
33
GREEN VALLEY MASTkn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
3.
4.
5.
unsuitable, in their present state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much
as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench
excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cutslope
excavations.
Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary
where the Delmar Formation underlies the site.
The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water.
Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas
proposed for development.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and
laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts
and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The
evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and
engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive
soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate
geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability,
surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement
structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at
the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected
by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall
December 1995 Page 77
34
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability.
Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the
geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
H. HYDROLOGYMATER QUALITY
Significant Effect
1. The Reduced Project Alternative will increase the 10 year peak runoff on-site less than
the 24 percent anticipated for the originally proposed project due to a reduction in
impermeable area associated with the commercial land area and the lower density
residential development. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site
if the storm drain system is built as proposed; see Mitigation Measures.)
2. The Reduced Project Alternative will result in the covering of less than approximately
30 percent of the site with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Therefore
fewer airborne pollutants will collect and become concentrated during the long dry
season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports
them offsite. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further
pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located directly adjacent to the
biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Without proper mitigation,
the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
3. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils onsite. These
materials can come into contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact
on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in
the Master Plan.
2. Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared.. The project facilities plans shall
December 1995 Page 18
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTL~I PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
-
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The traffic study analyzed traffic factors related to the Local Facility Management Plan and the
Green Valley project in Zone 23, as well as, the adjacent Encinitas Ranch project located in
the City of Encinitas, as referenced in Appendix G [Study (8/23/95)]. Existing conditions have
been quantified and projections made for the Years 1998, 2000, and 2010 (Buildout). The
SANDAG computer model was utilized in peak hour intersection and road segment analyses
to determine future improvement requirements. The originally proposed project access plan
assumes project driveways at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona. Alternatives have been
analyzed showing impacts of a development that could occur under the General Plan and
utilizing various project access alternatives. These alternatives are described in the reports
3. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards
detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March
1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be
prepared and approved at the final design stage.
5. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other
approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
6. Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
7. A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the
existence of hazardous/toxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any
remediation procedures.
8. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal
Commission.
9.
I.
Detention Basin “C” (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall
be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means
utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project
access and El Camino Real.
CIRCULATION
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be
reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation
measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
December 1995 Page 19
GREEN VALLEY MASTtH PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
entitled “Circulation Facilities, Local Facilities Management Zone 23” and addendum to same,
and are included in Appendix G of the EIR.
In addition, subsequent to the preparation of the traffic study, some analyses were completed
for the Reduced Project Alternative under three potential access configurations. These entire
analyses are contained in Appendix G of the EIR [Study Addendum (8/25/95)1 and serve to
document the project related traffic impacts of these development scenarios and any needed
mitigation measures.
Significant Effect
Existing Conditions
1. Improvements are required at the La Costa Avenue Ramps (Northbound and
Southbound) at the l-5 interchange. Improvements at this interchange are scheduled
to begin in late 1995 and be completed by Year 1996-l 997.
2. Improvements are required at the intersection of El Camino Real with Olivenhain
Road/Leucadia Boulevard. Improvements at this intersection are currently in work.
1998 lmpac ts
1. La Costa Avenue between l-5 and El Camino Real will require four lanes. However, it
can be noted that the critical intersections at each end of this section are/will be
improved to the required geometries, which should be considered in the overall
evaluation of this issue.
2. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will an added westbound right turn
lane. This improvement may not be required for future conditions.
3. The El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard intersection will require a
northbound through lane. \
2000 lmpac ts
For the Year 2000 conditions, “With” and “Without” the Leucadia Boulevard connection, from
I5 to El Camino Real, were analyzed. Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Ranch0
Santa Fe was not assumed to be constructed. The proposed Green Valley project was
assumed to be completed and Encinitas Ranch is expected to still be at Phase 1.
December 1995 Page 20
37
GREEN VALLEY MASTEra PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. “Without Leucadia Boulevard”, an interim impact at El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
still remains. The project related impact can be mitigated by the added westbound
right turn, but the intersection operations remain at LOS E. In other words, there is still
an impact due to background traffic, but the project related impacts are mitigated.
With the Leucadia Boulevard connection from the l-5 to El Camino Real assumed in
place, the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is no longer over capacity and
the westbound right turn lane is no longer required.
2. Either “With” or “Without” Leucadia Boulevard, from I5 to El Camino Real, the El
Camino Real/Leucadia-Olivenhain intersection requires improvement under the three
potential alternatives. However, if Alternative 3 (“With” Leucadia) is provided, which
includes no site access at Leucadia Boulevard, then LOS E remains even with the
mitigation at El Camino Real/Leucadia-Olivenhain.
3. The northbound side of El Camino Real from Leucadia-Olivenhain to Calle Barcelona
needs to be widened from two to three lanes (under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard
connection from I5 to El Camino Real) and only for Alternative 3.
20 10 lmpac ts
For Buildout conditions, the “With” Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real,
is assumed to be provided and Calle Barcelona, from El Camino Real to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
is expected to be constructed as well. The Green Valley and Encinitas Ranch projects are
assumed to be fully built out.
1. For reduced development Alternatives 1 and 2 no added intersection mitigation is
required. The project access connection configurations serve as mitigation measures
in conjunction with the planned road system. If Alternative 3 is provided then
mitigation measures are required at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
La Costa A venue and El Camino Real lntersec tion
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. However, the intersection of La Costa
Avenue and El Camino Real will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which
the City has no jurisdictional control. Even with the implementation of roadway
improvements, the intersection is projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management
performance standards at buildout.
December I995 Page 2 1
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTEri PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
but are not limited to 1) 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 recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts
created by projects which are consistent with the General Plan and cumulatively contribute
to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real
intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is
therefore included within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City
Council for the Genera Plan.
To lessen or minimize the impacts specific to the Proposed Project mitigation measures as set
forth in Chapter 4.0 and as supplemented or modified by the Reduced Project Alternative as
set forth in Chapter 5.0 have been recommended.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative circulation impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan.
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between I5 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through
lanes.
2. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
December 1995 Page 22
39
GREEN VALLEY MAST&+ PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FA CT
3. El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard -Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is
connected from I5 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required.)
2. El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection. However, under the “with” Leucadia
Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still
operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be
mitigated with the addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to
a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
3. El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona -Add
a northbound travel lane, only for Alternative 3, under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard
connection, from I5 to El Camino Real.
4. Leucadia Boulevard -Connection from I5 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates
the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
intersection.
20 IO Mitigation
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no
added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and
2. Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts
at year 2010. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still required.
J. NOISE
Biolooical impacts associated with noise are found under the section headino of Biolooical
Resources.
December 1995 Page 23
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Significant Elect
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent
to site access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic
impact in the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle
Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on
six links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links
analyzed in 1995.
Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible
(between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the
remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic
impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1 .O and 3.0 dBA) on six
links, and inaudible (less than 1 .O dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under
year 20 10 conditions.
Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona
east of El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real,
depending upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in
the project.
finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEGA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation
measures should be implemented:
l Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours
specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive
time periods.
December 1995 Page 24
GREEN VALLEY MAST& PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FiNAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
l All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
l Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
l Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors.
l Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise
sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-sit&noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to
the proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to
determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design
measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term
should include:
l Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic
berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those
building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to
master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
l Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas
may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor
windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
l Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses
should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures
wherever possible.
l Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations,
building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be
evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has
been provided.
l Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration
units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at
more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts
to adjacent residential development.
December 1995 Page 25
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
K. AIR QUALITY
SigniGcant Effect
1. The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust
during soil movement.
2. The Reduced Project Alternative would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, NOx, particulates, and SOx daily upon build-out in the year 2000 due to the use
of natural gas, electricity and vehicular activity, however, in lesser quantities than the
Project. This conclusion is based on an estimated reduction in project ADT of 8,400
and a reduction in the amount of commercial square footage by 300,000 square feet.
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 General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
General Plan 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.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR.
These include but are not limited to: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements
prior to or concurrent with development, such as improvements to La Costa Avenue and El
Camino Real; 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, such as the inclusion of bus stops and bicycle
and pedestrian trail systems within the project design; 4) promote energy efficient building and
site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The
Reduced Project Alternative will be conditioned to comply with the recommended mitigation
measures as described in the General Plan and in Section 4.11 (AIR QUALITY) of this EIR.
Finding
Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality
December 1995 Page 26
h -
GREEN VALLEY MASTtn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. The Reduced Project Alternative is
consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered
by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of
Overriding Consideration.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the
measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible
to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significant
short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of
significance by implementing the following measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments
affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site,
it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
l seed and water until ground cover is established;
l water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
l time activities to avoid windy periods;
l conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from .
the project site has been deposited by the wind.
Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are
under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed
on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible
to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems
needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the
ground cover.
Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
December I995 Page 27
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTEh PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
L.
Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than
gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and
crankcase HC emission reductions.
Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a
diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust
emissions.
Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after
each work day.
Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of
California Administrative Code.
Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trim
products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials
wherever feasible.
The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant
serving the site.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Significant Effect
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided
that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of
public facilities fees.
finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final Program EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
December 1995 Page 28
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FtNAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the Project
Applicant, including payment of public facilities fees.
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
Signifhnt Effect
Mitigation and adherence to adopted plans will reduce each individual project included within
the cumulative scenario land use impacts to less than significant.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Program EIR.
1. Any future site development permit associated with the master plan shall be reviewed
for consistency with the master plan and related discretionary actions including the
general plan and local coastal plan amendment, local facilities management plan,
special use permit, and hillside development permit. The Planning Department shall
make a determination that the site development plan is consistent with these plans,
prior to approval of the permit.
B. VISUAL QUALITY/LANDFORM ALTERATION
Significant Effect
The cumulative visual quality/landform alteration impact is less than significant.
finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 ) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
December 1995 Page 29
4b
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTiin PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed
subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards
including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
C. AGRICULTURE
Significant Effect
The project contains no prime farmland and therefore the buildout pursuant to Series 8 growth
projections and the Carlsbad General Plan will not result in a significant cumulative decline in
prime agricultural land.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
At the time of development and agricultural mitigation fee will be paid pursuant to the Coastal
Act section 30171.5 (Public Resources Code).
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Signiikant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in a significant
impact to biological resources.
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and
natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The
planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource
agencies.
December 1995 Page 30
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
2.
3.
4.
5.
Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site
location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish
and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Open Space and Biological
Ha bit at Enhancement Plan.
The Proposed Project shall be modified to avoid the 0.6 acres of coastal sage in the
south central portion of the site at the foot of the bluffs in order to alleviate any
impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat and potentially occurring
sensitive plants.
(This measure is not required for the Reduced Project Alternative because it does not
impact the 0.6 acres of coastal sage.)
Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space
and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be
prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading
permit.
Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most
preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle
Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian
areas/wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also
reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings
is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one
crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer
impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating
Levante Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also
eliminate direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance
to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through crossing(s)
design. Using either the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992)' as a model or
other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game,
' Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length of the underpass should be no more than
twice its width, a 2 to 1 ratio.
Underpasses should be no less than 12 feet in height from grade to ceiling at any given point.
If the minimum height is 30 feet or greater, deviation hm the 2 to 1 ratio may be considered.
December 1995 Page 31
48
GREEN VALLEY MASTEn PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
adequate opportunity for north-south wildlife movement can be created thereby
mitigating impacts to wildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less
than significant.
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be
mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional
mitigation could further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation
structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek
crossings.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to
grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains
little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed
upon analyzing the fauna1 remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among
the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical
means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn
1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The
reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of
conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled
mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger
sample for substantially less cost.
December 1995 Page 32
49
_- -.
GREEN VALLEY MASTE~I PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative
work shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgement, there is nothing
to be gained by continuing.
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
cumulative impact to paleontological resources.
Ending
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified
Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a
grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further
evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant
concentrations of fossils are encountered.
G. GEOLOGY/SOILS
SigniWcant Effect
The proposed project
cumulative impact to
njunction with cumulative projects, will not result in significant
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (al{1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
December 1995 Page 33
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTr.. PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and
laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts
and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The
evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and
engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive
soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate
geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability,
surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement
structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at
the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided
in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected
by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall
be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability.
Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the
geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
H. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
signifkant Effect
Mitigation measures, including compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board
regulations and implementation of best management practices, will reduce impacts from
cumulative projects to a level of less than significant.
finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (aI(l-1 of the State CEDA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in
the Master Plan.
December 7 995 Page 34
GREEN VALLEY MASTt,, PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I.
Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be
reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation
measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards
detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March
1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be
prepared and approved at the final design stage.
Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other
approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the
existence of hazardous/toxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any
remediation procedures.
No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal
Commission.
Detention Basin “C” (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall
be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means
utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project
access and El Camino Real.
CIRCULATION
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative, in conjunction with cumulative buildout forecasts, will result
in a significant cumulative impact to traffic and circulation. Mitigation measures including
compliance with the Carlsbad Growth Management Program will reduce impacts from
cumulative projects to a level of less than significant.
December 1995 Page 35
GREEN VALLEY MASTh PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Mding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
The recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, including a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts
created by projects which are consistent with the General Plan and cumulatively contribute
to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the Las Costa Avenue/El Camino Real
intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is
therefore included within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City
Council for the General Plan.
The required street improvements and their phasing, based on ultimate buildout conditions,
are as follows:
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between I5 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through
lanes.
2. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
3. El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is
connected from I5 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required.)
2. El Camino ReaUOlivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with
a transition lane north of the intersection. However, under the “with” Leucadia
Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still
operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be
mitigated with the addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to
a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
December 1995 Page 36
-
GREEN VALLEY MAST& PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
3. El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona -Add
a northbound travel lane, only-for Alternative 3, under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard
connection, from I5 to El Camino Real.
4. Leucadia Boulevard -Connection from I5 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates
the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue
intersection.
20 10 Mitigation
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no
added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and
2. Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts
at year 2010. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still requiidd.
J. NOISE
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative will result in an increase in ambient noise levels, which
together with projected Series 8 development, will result in a cumulative impact on noise
levels. Implementing local noise ordinances, constructing buildings according to state
acoustical standards, and proper land use planning can mitigate noise impacts to noise
sensitive land uses and habitat areas to less than significant levels.
Ending
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation
measures should be implemented:
0 Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours
specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive
time periods.
December I995 Page 37
-
GREEN VALLEY MAST&n PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
l All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
l Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
a Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors.
a Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise
sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to
the proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to
determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design
measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term
should include:
0 Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic
berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those
building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to
master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
a Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas
may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor
windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
0 Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses
should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures
wherever possible.
a Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations,
building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be
evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has
been provided.
0 Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration
units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at
more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts
to adjacent residential development. .
December 1995 Page 38
- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTkti PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
K. AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative will contribute to the emissions in the area.
Cumulative air quality impacts are anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246 includes a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for air quality
impacts. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. The Reduced Project Alternative is
consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered.
by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
For the Reduced Project Alternative those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master
Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the
measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible
to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significant
short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of
significance by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments
affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site,
it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
l seed and water until ground cover is established;
l water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
l time activities to avoid windy periods; *
December 1995 Page 39
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTEH PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
h
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are
under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed
on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible
to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems
needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the
ground cover.
5. Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than
gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and
crankcase HC emission reductions.
7. Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a
diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust
emissions.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after
each work day.
Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of
California Administrative Code.
Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trim
products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials
wherever feasible.
The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant
serving the site.
l conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from
the project site has been deposited by the wind.
December 7995 Page 40
57
_- -
GREEN VALLEY MASTEh PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
L. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Significant Effect
The Reduced Project Alternative contributes to the cumulative impact on Public Facilities and
Services.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1 I of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are
required in, or incorporated into, the Reduced Project Alternative which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in this Final Program EIR.
1. All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the Project
Applicant including payment of public facilities fees.
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Reduced Project Alternative will cause some unavoidable significant
environmental effects, as outlined above (see Section XI, the City must consider the feasibility
of any environmentally superior alternative to the Reduced Project Alternative, as finally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for Qualitv
Growth v. Citv of Mount Shasta (19881 198 Cal. App.3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 7271; see also
Pub. Resources Code section 2 100 1. Because it is a judgment call whether an alternative is
environmentally superior these findings contrast and compare all of the alternatives analyzed
in the FPEIR.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily address the
feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when
contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant
impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of
mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severed
than those of the Project as mitigated. Laurel Heiahts lmorovement Association v. Reaents
of the University of California (19881 47 Cal.3d 376 I253 Cal Rptr. 4261; Laurel Hills
Homeowners Association v. Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App. 3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 8421 see
also Kinas Countv Farm Bureau v. Citv of Handford (1990) 221 (Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.
Rptr. 6501. Accordingly, for this Reduced Project Alternative, in adopting the findings
December 1995 Page 4 1
_- -4.
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts,
that for the finally approved project, are significant.
Other than the cumulative impacts discussed below, there are no impacts that are not
mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Where, as in this Reduced Project Alternative, significant cumulative environmental effects
remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Program
EIR, the decisionmakers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final Project
EIR. For this project the only significant cumulative impacts which are not mitigated are air
quality and traffic. However, these effects have been previously considered in the 1994
General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01. The certification of EIR 93-01 by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for air quality
impacts and traffic impacts at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for
projects that are consistent with the General Plan.
Under these circumstances the decisionmakers may still choose to evaluate the project
alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR and make findings on the feasibility of Project
alternatives. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decisionmakers must decide
whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered
must be ones which “could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project.” However, the
Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives “capable of eliminating” environmental
effects even if these alternatives “would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives” [CEQA Guidelines section 15 126 subd. (d)]
CEQA provides the following definition of the term “feasible” as it applies to the findings
requirement: “Feasible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors.” Pub. Resources Code 5 21061 .l The CEQA Guidelines provide a
broader definition of “feasibility” that also encompasses “legal” factors. CEQA Guidelines, §
15364 (“The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation
measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological
factor.“).
Accordingly, “feasibility” is a term of art under CEClA and thus is afforded a different meaning
under CEQA than may be found in Webster’s Dictionary or other traditional sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the “findings” requirement under
CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. This provision was recently amended by
SB 919. It states in relevant part:
December 1995 Pege 42
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
11 . . . [Nlo public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the
environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public
agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report.”
The concept of “feasibility,” therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various
economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See Pub. Resources Code
§ 2106 I.1 ; CEGA Guidelines, 4 15364; Pub. Resources Code, 5 2 108 1.; see also Citv of Del
Mar v. Citv of San Dieao (1992) 1.33 Cal.App.3rd 401, 414-417.
In Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San Dieao (1992) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 415-417, the Court of
Appeal found that the City of San Diego had “. . . considered and reasonably rejected . . .
[certain] project alternatives . . . as infeasible in view of the social and economic realities in
the region.” Id. at 417. The court determined that San Diego had attempted to accommodate
the feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan which included the proposed
development project. Accordingly, the court concluded:
“Assuming this accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San Diego is
entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis
which led to the accommodation is of course subject to review, but it need not be
mechanically stated at each stage of the approval process. In this sense, ‘feasibilitv’
under CEQA encomoasses ‘desirabilitv’ to the extent that desirabilitv is based on a
reasonable balancina of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technoloaical
factors. We accordingly conclude that San Diego dod not abuse its discretion under
CEQA in rejecting various project alternatives as infeasible.”
M. (emphasis added).
These Findings determine that there are some environmental impacts from the Reduced Project
Alternative but they are mitigated to below a level of significance. The findings below
compare and contrast the alternatives. In rejecting all of the other alternatives, the
decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability
of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the
Reduced Project Alternatives best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least
environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are:
December 1995 Page 43
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1.1 To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
1.2 To create a visual form for the community that is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety,
highly identifiable, reflecting cultural and environmental values of the residents.
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
1.4 To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
1.5 To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
1.6 To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.
1.7 To offer safe, attractive residential areas with a wide range of housing types, styles
and price levels in a variety of locations.
1.8 To ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans
contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate
areas to meet some social/human service needs such as sites for worship, daycare,
youth and senior citizen activities, etc.
1.9
1.10
1.11
To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a
desirable residential, open space community.
To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
To establish and maintain commercial development standards to address landscaping,
parking, signs, and site and building design, to ensure that all existing and future
commercial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses.
December 1995 Page 44
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTttf PLAN
h
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
PROJECT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Maintain the viability of the riparian woodland corridor of Encinitas Creek and the
topographic and habitat features of the upland bluff area.
Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
Utilite the linear form of the property to organize the elements of the project and create
the maximum feasible buffer and setback from the riparian woodland corridor.
Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltation/depollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
Create an on-site circulation system that provides clear, coherent access to the
development areas on-site and includes connections into the adjacent jurisdiction.
.
Provide sufficient direction for the design of the retail center so that it will respond well
to the natural landform and use landscaping to organize and define the main elements
of the center.
Provide a proportionate fair share of affordable housing opportunities.
Guide the visual transition from undeveloped to developed lands through the use of
building form, color, and materials.
The final program EIR for the Reduced Project Alternative examined a broad range of
reasonable on-site and off-site alternatives to the project to determine whether it could meet
the project’s objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project’s
significant, unavoidable impacts. The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected
the other project alternatives as “infeasible” pursuant to CEQA.
December I995 Page 45
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
-
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Descnjltion of Alternative
CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Section
15126).
This alternative assumes that the site would not be developed with the Reduced Project
Alternative, and the site would remain in its existing condition. The existing uses of the site
for agricultural production would continue indefinitely as market conditions, and constraints
on agriculture (i.e. water costs) dictate.
Finding
Finding 3-Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The project alternative would not
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the project.
Facts in Support of Finding
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established for the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
General Objectives
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
December 1995 Page 46
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1.7 To offer safe, attractive residential areas with a wide range of housing types, styles
and price levels in a variety of locations.
1.8 To ensure that new master planned communities and residential specific plans
contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate
areas to meet some social/human service needs such as sites for worship, daycare,
youth and senior citizen activities, etc.
1.10 To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
Project Specific Objectives
2.2 Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
2.3 Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
2.5 Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltation/depollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
2.6 Create an on-site circulation system that provides clear, coherent access to the
development areas on-site and includes connections into the adjacent jurisdiction.
2.8 Provide a proportionate fair share of affordable housing opportunities.
DEVELOPMENT UNDER ALL OF THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Descn’ption of Ah!wnative
The General Plan Land Use Alternative would propose a Master Plan based on the existing
General Plan land use designations of C/O/RMHlOS and use the same development area and
road circulation system as the Reduced Project Alternative. This would allow for development
with a combination of Commercial, Office and Residential Medium High Density, 8-l 5 dwelling
units per acre. This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment. Land uses
would be as follows:
December 1995 Page 47
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
l 400 multi-family dwelling units
l 335,000 sq. ft. of retail
a 350,000 sq. ft. office
In addition to the General Plan land uses, the same Master Plan proposed open space uses
would apply. As with the Reduced Project Alternative, each of the identified potentially
significant impacts associated with the project are expected to be reduced to less than
significant levels by mitigation measures described for the proposed project. The same
mitigation measures are expected to be applied similarly to the General Plan Land Use
Alternative. Both the originally proposed project and the General Plan Alternative would have
the same impacts to biology. No other potential impacts identified as insignificant for the
proposed project would be potentially significant under this alternative, due to the similarity
of use with the proposed project. Because this alternative only shifts some of the land uses
for individual lots, swapping commercial uses of office use, the impacts would remain the
same as those expected from the proposed project.
Ending
Finding 3-Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. This project alternative would not
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the project.
Facts in Support of finding
The review process for the project and the alternatives has included an extensive public
participation process and an analysis of specific conditions which effect the property which
included market studies and evaluation of the surrounding community. This process has
progressed beyond what the General Plan land use designations anticipated for the property.
This alternative, when compared with the Reduced Project Alternative, has a greater amount
of development and more impacts. The key factors can be compared and contrasted to the
Reduced Project Alternative in Exhibit 1.
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established for the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
1.3 To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
December 1995 Page 48
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
1.5 To achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic ranges throughout the
City.
1.6 To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.
1.9 To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the City as a desirable
residential and open space community.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Descn~tion of A/temi#tive
The “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” is a modified development program and site design
which would reduce or eliminate potential impacts of the project. This alternative was
identified for comparison to the originally proposed project. In the context of the range of
alternatives currently under consideration a more accurate description would be a biologically
preferred alternative. This is because the most significant change represented by the
alternative is a change to biological impacts. Other key factors between four alternatives can
be compared and contrasted in Exhibit 1.
The land use designation under this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Alternative (previously described) which utilizes all four potential land uses contained in
the combination district designation (C/O/RMH/OS). A modified site design would eliminate
the 0.6 acre impact to coastal sage shrub adjacent to the upland bluff. Total daily traffic
would be further reduced but total peak hour trips would be increased as compared to the
Proposed Project. The proposed creek crossing at Levante Street is eliminated by the
Environmentally Preferred Alternative to further reduce the impacts to biological resources.
Access to the site would be from future Leucadia Boulevard to the south in the City of
Encinitas and from El Camino Real to the east via an extension of future Calle Barcelona.
Finding
The alternative described as the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” was identified and
analyzed as part of the planning review process in 1993-94 prior to the preparation and
analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative came about as
a result of additional planning review in 1995. A comprehensive comparison of the two
alternatives (see Exhibit 1) finds that while the alternative originally described as the
December 1995 Page 49
-
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
-
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
“Environmentally Preferred Alternative” does reduce biological impacts the Reduced Project
Alternative overall produces the environmentally superior project.
Facts in Support of Finding
The key facts of comparison between the Proposed Project, “Environmentally Preferred
Alternative” and Reduced Project Alternative are shown in Exhibit 1 and discussed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The total development program of the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” of
685,000 s.f. of commercial development and 400 multi-family dwelling units is more
intense than the total development program of the Reduced Project Alternative which
is comprised of 300,000 s.f. of commercial development and 400 single-family
dwelling units. The development area remains the same for both alternatives.
The daily trip generation and combined A.M./P.M. peak hour trip generation is greater
for the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” than the Reduced Project Alternative.
The elimination of the project entrance at Levante Street does reduce the impacts to
biology, however, the Reduced Project Alternative contains mitigation measures that
reduce the biological impacts to below a level of significance.
The impact to 0.6 acres of. coastal sage shrub adjacent to the upland bluffs is
eliminated from the Reduced Project Alternative as well as the “Environmentally
Preferred Alternative”.
The second crossing provides benefits over one crossing as noted in the comparison
of the three alternatives below.
December 1995 Page 50
- ,I
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Exhibit 1
COMPARISON OF KEY FACTORS
General Plan Environmentally Reduced
Proposed Land Use Preferred Project
Project Alternative Alternative Alternative
Description (1992) (1993-1994) (1993-94) (1995)
Total 400 Multi-Family 400 Multi-Family 400 Multi-Family 400 Single-
Development D.U. D.U. D.U. Family D.U.
Program 600,000 S.F. 335,000 S.F. Retail 335,000 S.F. 300,000 S.F.
Retail 350,000 S.F. Office Retail Retail
12,000 S.F. 350,000 S.F.
Neigh. Retail Office
Daily Trip 34,600 26,950 26,950 25,300
Generation
Peak Hour
Trip
Generation
Crossings of
Encinitas
Creek
910 A.M. 1571 A.M.
3180 P.M. 2929 P.M.
4090 Total 4500 Total
2 2
1571 A.M.
2929 P.M.
4500 Total
1’
960 A.M.
2540 P.M.
2500 Total
2’
Impacts to 0.6 Acres 0.6 Acres 0 Acres 0 Acres
Upland Bluffs
Coastal Sage
Shrub Habitat
6. The facts noted and illustrated in Exhibit 1 also allow additional comparisons of the
environmental impacts of the alternatives.
a. The elimination of the point of access at Levante Street would cause the multi-
family residents of a project designed in accordance with the “Environmentally
Preferred Alternative” to drive significant additional distances thereby creating
a further impact to air quality. This is a result of residential trips to or from
destinations north of the site having to travel an additional distance to the
south, out of the way, before being able to travel in the desired northerly
(1) In accordance with the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study
(Ogden 1992).
December I995 Page 51
4
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
direction. Based on an estimated 30 percent distribution of trips from the site
to the north and the master plan maximum of up to 400 multi-family dwelling
units, the additional travel could total approximately 160,000 miles per year.
The Reduced Project Alternative retains this access point and therefore
eliminates this need for this additional travel distance for the maximum of up to
400 single-family dwelling units.
b. The orientation of all residential access to the south to Calle Barcelona may not
achieve the public health, safety and welfare requirements of the City of
Carlsbad. This includes cul-de-sac standards and multiple points of egress for
the fire safety. If the specific technical standards were met, there would remain
a situation where a brush fire or other incident could block egress at that
narrow southern point and residents of the neighborhood would have no
alternative evacuation route to the north, west or east.
In this respect, the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative” may not be able to
meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives as expressed in the
Public Safety Element. Disaster Preparedness as follows:
8.2 to establish and maintain safe and effective evacuation routes.
The Reduced Project Alternative retains the Levante Crossing as a second point
of access and would be able to meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design
objectives.
OFFSITE ALTERNATIVE
D8SCniptiOrI of Attemative
In consultation with the Carlsbad Planning Department, the Robertson Ranch property was
chosen for evaluation as an alternative site (off-site alternative) for the proposed Green Valley
Master Plan project.
The Robertson Ranch property is located on the east side of El Camino Real south of Tamarack
Avenue and north of the future Cannon Road in the northern portion of Carlsbad. This site is
currently being used for agricultural purposes, with native vegetation on some of the steeper
slopes. A single residence and several agricultural buildings are currently located on this site.
Most of this site is designated as RML, Residential Medium-Low, O-4 dwelling units per acre
by Carlsbad’s General Plan. A small portion of the site adjacent to the intersection of El
December 1995
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue is designated as RM, Residential Medium, 4-8 dwelling
units per acre.
This property is currently zoned Limited Control, L-C. The Limited Control Zone in Carlsbad
is a holding zone which is placed on large properties to allow them to continue in agricultural
or open space use until a detailed master or specific plan can be completed. At the present
time there are no development plans in process with the City for this property.
Approximately 1,122 units were allocated to the Robertson Ranch by the Zone 14 Local
Facilities plan. More detailed planning studies could reduce the potential number of units
allowed based on a more accurate slope determination and more detailed environmental review
of this site.
Although approximately 300 acres of the Robertson Ranch is shown as an alternative site, the
alternative site design is located on approximately 75 acres of the property located adjacent
to the future intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road. This portion of the Robertson
Ranch was chosen for an alternative analysis because of its comparable size, location near the
intersection of El Camino Real and a future Arterial (Cannon Road), single ownership,
agricultural use and similar topography to the Green Valley Master Plan.
This alternative site is comparable in size to the actual amount of area that will be developed
by the Green Valley Master Plan. Although the Green Valley Master Plan covers 281.2 acres
194.8 of these acres will remain in open space while another 10.6 acres will be in public
street right-of-way. After subtracting this acreage only 75.8 acres of land remain for the
proposed development.
finding
Finding 3Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in SupptW of findiing
This alternative would not meet the City of Carlsbad planning and design objectives
established by the City and objectives established specifically for the project as expressed in
the Master Plan and Final EIR. These objectives include:
December 1995 Page 53
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT
General Objectives
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.9
1.10
To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and
neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use
components.
To provide for the social and economic needs of the community in conjunction with
permitted land uses.
To develop programs which would correlate the ultimate density and projected
population with the service capabilities of the City.
To limit the amount of new commercial land use designations to that which can
feasibly be supported by the current growth rate of the trade area and the City, and to
those which are consistent with the prime concept and image of the community as a
desirable residential, open space community.
To ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms
of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food, and personal services.
Project specific obj8CtiV8S
2.2 Provide for the creation of new riparian woodland and habitat areas contiguous to the
existing riparian woodland.
2.3 Provide an open space network containing pedestrian and bicycle trails to buffer the
riparian woodland corridor from development and connect to the future citywide trail
system.
2.5 Incorporate as an integral part of the site design and landscape plan appropriate debris
removal areas and desiltationldepollutant basins to protect Encinitas Creek and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
This alternative would place community commercial land use in an area where it has not been
planned and not place it in an area where it has been planned for and supported by the growth
and trade area.
December 1995 Page 54
CL- h
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
SUMMARY
The examination of the alternatives has determined on balance that the Reduced Project
Alternative represents the approach which best meets the objectives established for the City
and the project. There are no impacts that can not be mitigated to below a level of
significance and the Reduced Project Alternative, compared to the alternatives, will produce
the environmentally superior project.
December 1995 Page 55
.- - ExkurT
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN -a- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MONlTORlNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LAND USE
Potential Impacts
With the reduction of the retail area to accommodate less than 300,000 square feet, each of the land uses will be in conformance with the General Plan land use descriptions. However,
1. Development, as proposed, of Planning Area 5 as a commercial site would conflict with primary and secondary priorities of the Open Space Conservation Resource Management Plan and result in a significant land use effect.
Mitigation Measures
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or unplanned area within the Master Plan.
2. A physical and visual buffer should be provided between the commercial PA2 and the residential PA3. The requirement for buffering shall be included in the Master Plan.
3. As a procedural follow-up recommended in the OSCRMP, all areas designated as open space in the Master Plan will be designated as such on the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. This action, although not mitigation, strengthens the preservation of lands designated as open space.
Checkpoints
1. Approval of the Master Plan
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
Sanctions
1. No approval of the Master Plan without designating Planning Area 5 as Open Space or Unplanned Area.
VISUAL QUALlWLANDFORM ALTERATION
Potential Impacts
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
3.
4.
Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad, will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These standards include the following:
1. Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material guidelines, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with the
-
bluff topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff silhouette line or adjacent to native vegetation and Encinitas Creek through landscaping/revegetation and lower pads.
These development standards will provide sufficient control to negate the potential visual quality and land form alteration impacts of individual development projects approved and implemented consistent with the Master Plan. In conjunction with the Master Plan, the mitigation measures listed
below, will mitigate any remaining visual quality impacts to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures
1. If Planning Area 5 is approved for commercial development, it shall be developed subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards including the approval of a Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.
Checkpoints
1. Approval of the Master Plan and subsequent discretionary approvals.
Responsible Parties
1. Decision making body
2. Planning Department
Sanctions
1. No approval of commercial or residential development within the El Camino Real Corridor without a Special Use Permit consistent with Section 21.95080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. No approval of the Master Plan without the establishment of development standards consistent with the above criteria.
BIOLOGICAL RE!SOURCES
Potential Imptzds
1. Approximately 1.0 acres (4.2 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly impacted by the Project Other potentially occurring sensitive sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are mitigated by the Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub.
2. Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodlandwill be directly impacted by the Reduced Project Alternative. All of these impacts would occur along Encinitas Creek from the proposed crossings for access to the site and the widening of El Camino Real. These impacts are considered potentially significant because of the sensitivity of this community and species observed in it, such as the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. The proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by incorporating 11.75 acres of riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement into the plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts.
73
3. Traffic generated noise represents the most significant indirect impact of this project. The project will increase the amount of area im the southern part of the riparian woodland, !i acted by noise by approximately 2.5 percent in .8 percent in the northern part of the woodland, and not at all in the central portion (Endo Engineering 1993). The area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less than 0.75 acre. This
impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance by the 15.25 acres of riparian enhancement proposed by the Master Plan. Because the most preferred mitigation is avoidance, the No Project Alternative would eliminate the impacts and no riparian restoration or enhancements would be required.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the Project are not mitigated by the proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master Plan. However, they can be mitigated by the measures discussed below under Mitigation Measures.
1. Approximately 1.0 acre (13 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly impacted by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street. This impact is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact because of the sensitivity of this plant community.
2. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The potential impact to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek would be considered significant.
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration of riparian and upland habitats, potentially significant impacts may still occur from implementation of the project.
Mitigation Memures
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and natural areas shall be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The planting of the buffer areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the resource agencies.
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site. The on-site location of the restoration shall require approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and shall be incorporated into the Master Plan Gpen Space and Biological Habitat Enhancement Plan.
3. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading permit.
4. Regarding impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek; Because the most preferable mitigation is avoidance, the first approach is to eliminate both the Calle Barcelona and Levante Street crossings of the creek to reduce impacts to riparian areas/wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. Elimination of the crossings will also reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. However, elimination of both crossings is not feasible based on project circulation and access requirements.
Since eliminating both crossings renders the project infeasible, the elimination of one crossing is the preferred mitigation. One crossing has the potential to create fewer impacts than two and the greatest biological benefit would be attained from eliminating Levante
Street. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also eliminate. direct impacts from the Levante Street crossing which includes disturbance to 0.4 acres of southern coastal salt marsh.
However, impacts to wildlife movement can also be mitigated through the design of one or two crossings. Using either ‘the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992) as a model or other specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game, adequate
-
opportunity for north-southwildlife movement can be created thereby also mitigating impacts to wildlife movement along the Encinitas Creek to a level of less than significant.
6. Traffic noise and other noise impacts to the riparian corridor are considered to be mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented in the Master Plan. Additional mitigation could
further reduce noise impacts in the form of noise attenuation structures adjacent to the riparian corridor and/or elimination of one of the creek crossings.
Checkpoints
~ 1. Grading Permit
2. Mitigation report by consulting biologist submitted to the City Planning Department prior to any grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. California Department of Fish and Game
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5. Consulting Biologist
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permits without acceptable mitigation reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game for creek crossing.
2. No approval of grading permits without satisfactory landscaping and revegetation plans.
3. No issuance of building or occupancy permits without properly accomplished mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Project would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., total removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological site GV-4.
Potential impacts to the archaeological resources onsite shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance
by excavation and analysis of a representative sample. This shall include one of the following:
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to grading. Only Stratum II shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains no significant cultural material. Special emphasis shall be placed upon analyzing the fauna1 remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn 1988. The other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The reason for the larger sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of conventional archaeological excavation conducted by hand. Alternately, controlled mechanized excavation offers the potential for acquisition of a significantly larger sample for substantially less cost.
4
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative work
shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgment, there is nothing to be gained by continuing.
Checkpoints
Report by consulting archeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work
. and prior to grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. Consulting Archeologist
Sanctions
No building permits or grading permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archeologist is submitted and approved by the City Planning Department.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Although the walkover survey and inspection did not result in the discovery of any fossils onsite, the subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and collections of the fossil assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this area.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate to a level of insignificance the potential impacts of the project on any significant paleontologic resources that may be present on the site:
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant concentrations of fossils are encountered.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to issuance of grading permit.
2. Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of grading.
Responsible Patties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
3. Consulting Paleontologist
Sanctions
No approval of grading permit without mitigation plan.
No building permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is submitted to City Planning Department.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potential Impacts
The potentially significant geology/soils impacts associated with the project are as follows:
1. The alluvium and slopewasbkolluvium that underlies much of the proposed development area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials would be susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium underlying the area proposed for development is compressible and considered unsuitable, in their present
state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
3. Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cut slope excavations.
4. Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary where the- Delmar Formation underlies the site.
5. The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water. Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas proposed for development.
Mitigution Maasuns
The following measures will mitigate to a level of insignificance the potential geologic impacts of the project:
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The evaluation(s) shall include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and engineering analysis to
evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement structural sections, and other design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall be performed at the time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability. Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Responsible Parties
1. Engineering Department
Sanctions
1. No grading permit until mitigation measures are completed.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The project will increase the 10 year peak runoff on-site less than the 24% anticipated for the project due to a reduction in impermeable area associated with the commercial land area and the lower density residential development. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site if the storm drain system is built as proposed; see Mitigation Measures.)
2. The project will result in the covering of less than approximately 30% of the site with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Therefore fewer airborne pollutants will collect and become concentrated during the long dry season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports them offsite. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located directly adjacent to the biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon: Without proper mitigation, the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
3. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils onsite. These materials can cOme into contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Miti”on Measuw
Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in the Master Plan, in addition to the following measures, will mitigate the potentially significant hydrology/ water quality impacts of the project to below a level of significance.
1. Upon submittal of. the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall
incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
2. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March 1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be prepared and approved at the final design stage.
4. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
5.
6.
Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the existence of hazardous/toxic materials onsite, and to make recommendations for any remediation
procedures.
7. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal Commission.
8. Detention Basin “C” (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means utilized to provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project access and El Camino Real.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to final map recordation
2. Prior to grading and/or building permit
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
Sanctions
1. No recordation of final map or issuance of building and/or grading permits without Financing Plan guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
2. No approval of grading permit without necessary conditions and proper drainage and- depollutant system shown.
CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
Existing Conditions
1. Improvements are required at the La Costa Avenue Ramps (Northbound and Southbound) at the I-5 interchange. Improvements at this interchange are scheduled to begin in late 1995 and be completed by Year 1996-1997.
2. Improvements are required at the intersection of El Camino Real with Olivenhain Road/Leucadia Boulevard. Improvements at this intersection are currently in work.
1998 Impacts
1. La Costa Avenue between I-5 and El Camino Real wiU require four lanes. However, it can be noted that the critical intersections at each end of this section are/will be improved to the
required geometries, which should be considered in the overall evaluation of this issue.
2. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will an added westbound right turn lane. This improvement may not be required for future conditions.
3. The El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard intersection will require a northbound through lane.
2000 Impact3
For the Year 2000 conditions, “With” and “Without” the Leucadia Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real, were analyzed. Calle Barcelona between El Camino Real and Ranch0 Santa Fe was not assumed to be constructed. The proposed Green Valley project was assumed to be
-
C
completed and Encinitas Ranch is expected to still be at Phase 1.
1.
2.
3.
“Without Leucadia Boulevard”, an interim impact at El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue still remains. The project related impact can be mitigated by the added westbound right turn, but
the intersection operations remain at LOS E. In other words, there is still an impact due to background traffic, but the project related impacts are mitigated. With the Leucadia Boulevard connection from the I-5 to El Camino Real assumed in place, the El Camino
Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is no longer over capacity and the westbound right turn lane is no longer required.
Either “With” or “Without” Leucadia Boulevard, from 15 to El Camino Real, the El Camino Real/Leucadia-Olivenhain intersection requires improvement under the three potential alternatives. However, if Alternative 3 (“With” Leucadia) is provided, which includes no site access at Leucadia Boulevard, then LOS E remains even with the mitigation at El Camino Real/L.eucadia-Olivenhain.
The northbound side of El Camino Real from Leucadia-Olivenhain to CaUe Barcelona needs to be widened from two to three lanes (under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard connection from 15 to El Camino Real) and only for Alternative 3.
2010 Impacts
For Buildout conditions, the “With” Leucadia Boulevard connection, from I5 to El Camino Real, is assumed to be provided and Calle Barcelona, from El Camino Real to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, is expected to be constructed as well. The Green Valley and Encinitas Ranch projects are assumed to be fully built out.
1. For reduced development Alternatives 1 and 2 no added intersection mitigation is required.. The project access connection configurations serve as mitigation measures in conjunctionwith the planned road system. If Alternative 3 is provided then mitigation measures are required at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real Intersection
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. However, the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El
Camino Real will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, the intersection is
projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include but are not limited to 1) 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 recent certification of the General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts created by projects which are consistent with the General Plan and cumulatively contribute to the failure of intersections at buildout, including the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. The Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and is therefore includedwithin the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council for the General Plan. The Proposed Project, however, is not consistent with the General Plan because of the inclusion of the Regional Commercial land use designation. Approval of the Proposed Project would therefore require the issuance of a separate Statement of Overriding Consideration.
To lessen or minimize the impacts specific to the Proposed Project mitigation measures as set forth in Chapter 4.0 and as supplemented or modified by the Reduced Project Alternative as set forth in
Chapter 5.0 have been recommended.
Mitigation
Those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative circulation impacts shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible to the reduction of cumulative circulation impacts.
1998 Mitigation
1. La Costa Avenue between 15 and El Camino Real - Add two (2) additional through lanes.
2. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right.
3. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with a transition lane north of the intersection.
2000 Mitigation
1.
2.
3.
4.
El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue - Add a westbound right. (If Leucadia Boulevard is
connected from 15 to El Camino Real, then this mitigation measure is not required.)
El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard - Add a northbound through with a transition lane north of the intersection. However, under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real, for Alternative 3, the intersection still operates at an unacceptable level of service. Even though project impacts will be mitigated with the
addition of this traffic lane, the intersection cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance for Alternative 3.
El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard and Calle Barcelona - Add a northbound travel lane, only for Alternative 3, under the “with” Leucadia Boulevard connection, from 15 to El Camino Real.
Leucadia Boulevard - Connection from 15 to El Camino Real. This connection eliminates the requirement for mitigation measures at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
2010 Mitigation
1. Given the reduced development proposal and the planned future roadway system no added mitigation measures are required for future conditions under Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, providing these reduced alternative access plans will mitigate all impacts at year 2010. However if Alternative 3 is provided, the added westbound right at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection is still required.
Checkpoints
1. Construction of improvements
2. Approval of tentative map
3. Recordation of final map
4. Building occupancy
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
Sanctions
1. No issuance of building permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of service are not met.
2. No approval of tentative map without applicable conditions.
NOISE
Potential Impacts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
Project-related traffic noise increases wiU represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under year 2010 conditions.
Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona east of El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real, depending upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in the project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts below significant and insure compliance with applicable noise standards:
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation measures should be implemented:
0 Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours specified by the City of Carisbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods.
0 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
0 Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
l Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors.
l Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to the
83
proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to determine specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design measures to reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term should include:
l
l
l
l
l
Checkpoints
Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures wherever possible.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations, building design, acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations should be evaluated by an acoustic consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has been provided.
Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts to adjacent
residential development.
1. Discretionary approval of residential units.
2. Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department
2. Engineering Department
Sanctions
1. No approval of discretionary development permits until noise report submitted and appropriate mitigation implemented.
2. No issuance of subsequent permits.
AIR QUALlTY
Potential Impacts
1. The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as weU as fugitive dust during soil movement.
2. The project would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, NOx, particulates, and SOx daily upon build-out in the year 2000 due to the use of natural gas, electricity and vehicular activity.
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 General Plan wiU have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
-
/c-
The implementation of suusequent projects that are consistent with and included in the General Plan wiU 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.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR. These include but are not limited to: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development, such as improvements to La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real; 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, such as the inclusion of bus stops and bicycle and pedestrian trail systems within the project design; 4) promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The Project or the Reduced Project Alternative wiU be conditioned to comply with the recommended mitigation measures as described in the General Plan and in Section 4.11 (AIR QUALITY) of this EIR.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”. Certification of the 1994 General Plan Update Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a ‘Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR. However, because the Project includes the request for a General Plan Amendment, development of the Project cannot be considered consistent with the General Plan and would therefore require an individual Statement Of Overriding Consideration. Conversely, the Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan and would be considered a later development project covered by the General Plan Update Final Master EIR and would not require an individual Statement of Overriding- Consideration.
Mitigation Memums
Those mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Final Master EIR to reduce cumulative air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Incorporation of those mitigation measures and subsequent implementation of the measures on an individual development basis will contribute to the greatest extent possible to the reduction of cumulative air quality impacts.
Although the cumulative long-term impacts can not be fully mitigated, potentially significant short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments affecting roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site, it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
l seed and water until ground cover is established;
l water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening;
l time activities to avoid windy periods;
l conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from the project site has been deposited by the wind.
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are under-going
earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground mer to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover.
5. Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than
gasoline-powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions.
7. Construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after each work day.
10. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of California Administrative Code.
The mitigation outlined below and in the traffic section wiU partially reduce traffiorelated air emissions and secondary source emissions. However, due to the cumulative incremental nature of these impacts, mitigation to a level of insignificance cannot be fully achieved.
11. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood molding and trim products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials wherever feasible.
12. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site.-
Checkpoints
1. Grading Permit.
Responsible Parties
1. Planning Department.
2. Engineering Department.
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permits without applicable conditions.
PUBLIC FACILlTIES AND SERVICES
The following is applicable for both the Project and the Reduced Project Alternative:
Potential Impacts
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided that all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public facilities fees.
Mitigation Measures
All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the project applicant, including payment of public facilities fees.
CheckpointsiSanctions 1. None are required
ERRATA SHEET
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
Ekecutive Summary
Page l-3
Mitigation Measures
The Reduced Project Alternative
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or unulanned area within the
Master Plan.
Land Use
Page 4.1-26
Mitigation Measures
1 . . . . designated as open space and incorporated into Planning Area 1 ok
desimated as umlanned area.
Altema tives
Page 5-16
1. Designate Planning Area 5 as open space or umlanned area within the Master
Plan.
Public Facilities and Srevices
Page 4.12-6 fi 5, second sentence strike and replace
* *t . S The nroiect is withiin the Olivenhain .
Municipal Water District service area and both potable and reclaimed water will
be nrovided bv the district to the nroiect.
Page 4.12-6 fl 6, first line strike and replace
OMWD has indicated currently there is sufficient exist&g storage capacity in the . district system to maa+ serve its needs as
determined bv the OMWD Board of Directors.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3856
A RESOLUTION OF THE P LANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA
COSTA AVENUE, NORTH AND EAST OF THE CITY OF
ENCINITAS, AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MP 92-01
WHEREAS, Carisbad Partners Limited has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
as provided by Section 2138.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 19th day of January, and the 2nd day of February, 1994, and the
13th day of December, 1995, consider said request for a Master Plan on property described
aS:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and
a portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, City of Carisbad, County of San Diego,
State of Caiifornia
WHEREAS, a Reduced project Alternative has been proposed by the
applicant which reduces the project’s proposed commercial square footage by half to
300,000 square f& and increases the residential portion to SSS acres; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to MP 92-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
h
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Master Plan, MP 92-01, according to Exhibit
“C”, and MP 92-01 dated November 29,1995, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findlnps:
1. That the proposed development as described by Master Plan MP 92-01 is consistent
with the provisions of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans, in that the
proposed land uses and location of proposed land uses are consistent with those
identified on the Generai Plan Land Use map and inclusion of those land uses in the
Master Plan implements the goals and policies of the Cenerai Plan.
2. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and
adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital
Improvement Program applicable to the subject property, in that the Master Plan
includes conditions requiring the completion of infrastructure identified in the Locai
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 23 and will be guaranteed per a
financing plan approved by the City Council for LPMP Zone 23.
3. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with
or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the
sites proposed for facilities such as parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated
population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof,
in that the public authorities having jurisdiction have reviewed the project and have
not rcquircd any facilities over and above those provided within the Master Plan.
4. That the proposed commercial uses will be appropriate in area, location, and overall
design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to
create an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such
development will meet performance standards established by Title 21, in that ail
future development shall be reviewed for consistency with the Master Pian and that
all standards for development found within the Master Plan are equal to or more
restrictive than or comparable to Title 21.
5. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that; the anticipated ADT and distribution created by
the implementation of the Master Plan has been evaluated and the street system has
been designed to accepted standards to meet the demand. Specificaily Levante Street
has been designed as a collector with a 68 feet wide right-of-was Calle Barcelona has
been designed as a collector street with an 84 and 96 feet wide right-of-way, and
street “A” has been designed as a collector with a 60 feet wide right+f-way.
6. That the proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the
location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed
PC PESO NO. 3856 -2- 89
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
at such location proposed, in that; the proposed Community Commercial is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use map and that the Market Analysis
prepared by P&D Technologies dated January 11, 1993 and reviewed by Douglas
Ford and Associates December 14, 1993 identified adequate market absorption for
the proposed use at buildout.
7. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in
coordination and substantial compatibility with the development, in that; buffers are
provided through the Master Plan designation of land uses, the uses proposed are
consistent with the General Plan, and the surrounding uses are similarly zoned and
or developed with uses that are found in the Master Plan.
8. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental
impact as noted in the adopted Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR
92-03) for the project, in that the mitigation identified in the EIR has been included
as conditions of approval or incorporated into the project and will be monitored
according to an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The following language shall be incorporated into the Master Plan to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director prior to Final Map issuance and/or any City of Carlsbad
administrative or discretionary permit:
Approval is granted for the Green Valley Master Plan, MP 92-01, as described in
Ordinance No. (Exhibit 7’) which has been amended to reflect the Reduced
Project Alternative as described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report,
EIR 93-02.
A reproducible copy minus redlines and strikeouts of the Master Plan as amended
to reflect any modifications required by the Planning Commission and City Council
shall be provided to the City within thirty (30) days of adoption.
PC RESO NO. 3856 -3- 90
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of December, 1995,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: Commissioner ENvin
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I~IM wELSHONS, chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATIESTZ
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3856 -4-
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GREEN
VALLEY MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF THE
CITY OF ENCINITAS, SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE,
AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PUN
CASE NO: MP 92-01
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Partners Limited has reviewed and considered a Master
Plan as provided by Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, after procedures in accordance with the requirements of law, the
City Council has determined that the public interest indicates that said plan be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the Green Valley Master Plan, MP 92-01 on file in the
Planning Department is incorporated by reference herein, is approved.
SECDON II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
in Planning Commission Resolution No 3856 shall also constitute the findings and conditions
of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to
be published at least once in the Carlsbad Sun within fifteen days after its adoption.
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on -
2 day of , 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES:
4 NOES:
5 ABSENT:
6
ABSTAIN: 7
a
9
10
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST: 11
12
13
14
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
15 (s-1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 3856 -2- 93
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
h
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3857
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO
THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO
ADOPT AN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE FOR THE
GREEN VALLEY PORTION OF THE EAST BATIQUITOS
LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENT, TO AMEND
THE LAND USE PLAN TEXT, AND TO ACCEPT
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA
COSTA AVENUE, EAST AND NORTH OF THE CITY OF
ENCINITAS AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: LCPA 93-06
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in
conformance;
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Partners Limited has filed a verified application for
certain property, to wit:
A portion of Section 2. Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a
portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment Land Use Plan Amendment (text) for the East Batiquitos Lagoon/
Hunt Properties segment dated December 13, 1995, attached hereto marked Exhibit “Dl”;
and implementation amendment (Green Valley Master Plan dated November 29, 1995
referenced in the draft City Council Ordinance, Exhibit “C” attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3856 and incorporated by this reference, as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of
94
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
C A
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
Administrative Regulations; and
/ WHEREAS, in 1988 the California Coastal Commission adopted suggested
modifications in approving Local Coastal Program Amendment 3-87; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends acceptance of the
suggested modifications dated December 13, 1995, attached hereto marked Exhibit “DT
Local Coastal Program Amendment Land Use Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of January, the
2nd day of February, 1994, and the 13th day of December, 1995, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
shown on Exhibit “C” and “Dl” and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a sixweek public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
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.
W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on
November 2,1995, and ending on December 14,1995, staff shall present to the
City Council a summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE of the suggested modifications as shown on
Exhibit “D2” and RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 93-06 as shown on
Exhibit “Dl”, dated December 13, 1995, attached hereto and made a part
hereof based on the following findings:
PC RBSO NO. 3857 -2- 6
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
20
FindinPs:
1.
2.
That the proposed amendment to the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties
segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring the Locai
Coastai Program segment into conformance with the Carisbad Generai Plan adopted
in September of 1994. .
That the proposed Green Valley Master Plan is consistent with all applicable policies
of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Proper&s segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, in that the specified riparian corridor is designated as open space,
a greater than 50 foot buffer is provided on the west side of the riparian corridor,
no more than two crossing of the riparian corridor are proposed, onsite mitigation
is provided at a ratio of 3 to 1, no slopes greater than 25% with significant habitat
will be effected by the implementation of the Master Plan, and the Batiquitos lagoon
viewshed has been maintained.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 13th day of December, 1995, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Erwin
ABSENT: l None
ABSTAINz None
Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
AlTESTZ
Planning Director
PC RESO NO.3857 -3-
EAST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENT
CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
A. Land Use Categories
3. Green Valley
b. . ..Development of the entire 280 acres of Green Valley shall be
pursuant to a Master Plan which is consistent with the uses allowed
by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted as of Ma&&#% , September,
1994.
97
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE
EAST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES
SEGMENT LAND USE PLAN
WHICH RELATE TO GREEN VALLEY
Dated April 1% 1988
SECTION A-3: GREEN VALLEY
The ar8a south of La Costa Avenue and w8st of El Camino Real is designated for a
combination of USBS as follows:
a. Riparian Corridor of Encinitas Creek (approximately 40 acres) designated
Open Space (OS) with a Special Treatment Overlay.
1. Steep Slopes - Slopes 40% or greater area designated Open Space
(OS) and constrained from d8V8lOpm8fIt. Slopes 25% to 40% may
also be constrained from development (See Grading Section).
b. Upland (approximately 240 acres) is designated for a combination of
Residential (Medium High Density - RMH - 9-15 du/ac), Commercial (C),
is consistent with the us8s allo&d ,...>:<.q..y :. ($#jg@ by th6 Carlsbad General Plan @@#j@#@ ~..:v.w,.. .x <.$X&, . . . . . ,A.. .d.X<.X~~.<~.... , .
SECTION C-3: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE HABITATS
3. Green Valley Riparian Conidor:
The riparian conidor (approximately 40 acres) shall be constrained from all
_.1..~_.. , shall require Carlsbad approval, a Coastal Development Permit, Stream Alt8ratiOn
Agreement, and COE permit:
shall require Carlsbad approval, a Coastal Development Permit, Stream Alt8ratiOn
Agreement, and COE permit:
h A
a. Access - A maximum of two (2) crossings shall be permitted to provide
access to the developable portions of Green Valley. The access crossing
shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the habitat value of the
b.
lagoon is found to-be a mutually exclusive higher priority.
SECTION C: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITATS
The above environmentally sensitive areas shall be protected from any significant
disruptive impacts through fee dedication of the wetlands and recordation of open space
easements over the lagoon buffer m riparian corridor and
SECTION D-3 a.5: GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
5. All areas disturbed by grading, but not completed during the construction period,
including graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized prior to
1st with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control
measures and native vegetation. The use of temporary erosion control measures,
such as berms, interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered inlets, debris basin, and
silt traps shall be utilized in conjunction with planting to minimize soil loss from the
construction site.. . .
SECTION G: PUBLIC ACCESS
La Costa Avenue is designated a major arterial providing coastal access from inland
areas to the east. Construction of La Costa Avenue to major arterial standards shall be
d&and ~0 a to limit mvimnmen&l imDac& ff@‘@&
1 ~.~ ~ .,....,.. .~~ _ _ ~~~~~~~~. Any road construction that involves wetlands impacts shall require a .,.~..~.~~_~.~.~~.~.;,~ . . . . . <.:<.7:s* . . . . . . :..<.:.;<<.;*, coastal development permit issued by the Coastal Commission: Wetlands impacts
mitigation shall be a condition of the permit.
SECTION H:
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
I
I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3858
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 23 ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA
COSTA AVENUE, EAST AND NORTH OF THE CITY OF
ENCINITAS, AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: LFMP 87-23
WHEREAS, Carisbad Partners Limited has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad and which has been referred to the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for adoption of a Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 (Dated December, 1995 on file with the Planning
Department) and incorporated by this reference as provided in Section 21.90.125 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January, the
2nd day of February, 1994, and the 13th day of December 1995, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 , LFMP
87-23.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 23,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
. . . .
101
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
h
FIndin=
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 is consistent with the Land
Use Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained in
Carlsbad’s General Plan.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 is consistent with Chapter
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), [as amended by
Ordinance No. 8110 and Ordinance No. 98291 and with the adopted 1986 Citywide
Facilities and Improvement Plan.
That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 and the conditions contained
therein will promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities
will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards.
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 will control the timing and
locations of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public
facilities and improvements.
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 will ensure public facilities and
services are available in conformance with the adopted performance standards prior
to development occurring.
Conditions:
1. Approval of LFMP 87-23 is granted as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 23 dated December 1995 incorporated herein by reference.
2. Approval of LFMP 87-23 is subject to the approval of EIR 93-02 and MP 92-01.
. . . .
PC RI30 NO. 3858 -2- roa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 13th day of December,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:’ Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy,
Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: Commissioner E&n
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM WEhHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPIANNlN G COMMISSION
ATIESTZ
MICHAEL ~OL%IILLER
PLANNING DIREflOR
PC RESO NO. 3858 -3- 103
EXIWT 5
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 13, 1995
Application complete date: March 12,1993
Project Planner: Chdster Westman
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECF EIR 93-02/MP 92=Ol/LCPA 93WIPMP ZONE 87-23KT 92-OS/HDP 92-15[
SUP 92-05 - GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for a recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
recommendation of approval for a Master Plan, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan, and approval of a Tentative
Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to allow for
the future development of 300,000 square feet of community commercial retail
and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or attached residential units
on property generally located on 281 acres at the southwest corner of La
Costa Avenue and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission A) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
recommending CERTIPICATION of the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02;
ADOPTION of the CEQA Findings of Fact,(Exhibit A);and ADOPTION of the Mitigation Monitoring Report, (Exhibit B); and B) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856,
3857, and 3858 recommending APPROVAL of Master Plan MP 92-01, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 93-06, and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 87-23 and
C) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3859, 3860, and 3861 APPROVING
Tentative Tract Map CT 92-08, Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-15, and Special Use
Permit: Floodplain SUP 92-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Green Valley Master Plan was submitted to the City in November 1992 and was first
reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The Planning Commission received
public testimony regarding the project environmental impact report and the Master Plan and
deliberated regarding the merits and detriments of the proposal. The Planning Commission
subsequently recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Master
Plan with modifications. One such modification was the designation of the proposed retail
planning area at the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue as Unplanned. The Planning Commission, under their own authority approved the associated tentative map,
hillside development permit and special use permit subject to City Council approval of the
Master Plan and related legislative actions.
EIR 93-02/MP 92-Ol/LGkti 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CTX+&IDP 92-lS/!WP 92-05
GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
D&EMBER 13,199s
City Council was dissatisfied with the scope of analysis in the EIR as it related to the
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and therefore took no action on certification of the EIR or
the master plan. The City Council referred the EIR back to staff for expanded
environmental analysis and the master plan for reconsideration of the master plan
development program.
The Environmental Impact Report has been supplemented and recirculated for public
review and the master plan has been modified to reflect a Reduced Project Alternative to
the original proposal. The applicant has proposed the Reduced Project Alternative as their
preferred project in response to community and City Council issues. The focus of staff’s
review has been on the Reduced Project Alternative and staffs recommendation to the
Planning Commission is for action on the Reduced Project Alternative.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project is a Master Plan as required by the Planned Community Zone and East
Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the Local Coastal Program. The Master Plan
is divided into five subareas and will serve as the zoning for a 281 acre parcel of land
southwest of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue and as the
implementing ordinance for the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment of the
Local Coastal Program. Approximately 184 acres of the total land area is considered to be
developable as illustrated in the following TABLE I.
PLANNINGAREA
I
GROSS
I
CONSTRAINED
and LAND USE ACREAGE ACREAGE I
NET DEVELOPABLE
ACREAGE
PA 2 Community
I
18.3
I
0.0
I
18.3
Commercial
PA 3 Residential I 55.8 I 0.0 I 55.8
PAS 1,4 &s Open Space
TOTAL I 281.2 I 97.4 I 183.8
The project proposes preservation and restoration of significant constrained natural open
space areas as well as the inclusion of developable areas as open space. Nearly 73% of the
total land area is within the three open space planning areas.
Per the Zone 23 Local Facilities Management Plan, 15% of the total unconstrained land
area within the zone must be set aside as open space. As shown in the following TABLE
II the project will provide nearly three (3) times the minimum open space requirement.
-
EIR 93-02,MP 92-Ol/LCkfi 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI’9i-uo/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
The actual Gpen Space area within the Master Plan is approximately 194 acres (281.2 acres
less planning areas and road improvements) which includes the upland bluf&, riparian
corridor, and mitigation areas. All of these acres are within Planning Areas 1, 4 and 5.
OPEN SPACE
AREA DESCRIPI’ION:
LFMP 15%
required
2757
ACRES
proposed
76s
II SUMMARY OF OPEN SPACE CALCULATION II
TOTAL Gross Acreage I I 281.2 II
Less Required Mitigation Acreage
Less Development Constrained Acreage
Less Development Acreage + 88.1
Public Street Right-of-Way
TOTAL Remaining Unconstrained Open Space
The open space planning areas provide a substantial north-south habitat link through the
riparian corridor and upland bluffs. A significant connection between the upland bluff and
the riparian corridor is located at the northerly end of the master plan which parallels La
Costa Avenue. The majority of the open space planning areas will be habitat conservation,
however, a portion of Planning Area 1 will be used for trails consistent with the Gpen Space
Resource Conservation Management Plan.
Development within each of the planning areas will be subject to the development standards
of the Zoning Ordinance except for the modifications as described in the master plan. As
stated in the Master Plan text, “It is the intent of the Master Plan to serve as the
development and preservation policy and design guideline for the Green Valley property.
A Master Plan is an instrument under which development occurs in an orderly and positive
manner without creating significant impacts to the existing and projected infrastructure and
setting. A Master Plan document establishes land uses, delineates development areas,
assigns density, considers differing land use interrelationships, delineates specific design
criteria, outlines phasing, and provides implementation methodology. It is also the basis for
future, more detailed, project reviews, such as individual tentative maps, and Site
Development Plans.”
The project site can be characterixed by three different land forms. The western portion
is vegetated upland hillside with slopes generally greater than 15%, the central portion is
vacant gently sloping land previously used for agriculture and the eastern portion is a
h
EIR 93-02/MP 92-Ol/LLkw 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-~/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
densely vegetated riparian corridor. Near the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue is the Red Barn which is currently being used by San Diego Cellular as an
administrative servicing center. No other commercial or residential uses exist on the
property.
Associated with the Master Plan and necessary for the creation of the Master Plan are:
A. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report addressing all of the
potential impacts to the environment created by the implementation of the
Master Plan;
B. A Local Coastal Program Amendment to the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segment identifying the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and a text amendment requiring
that the master plan be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994;
C. A Tentative Map which will subdivide the property into 11 parcels;
D. A Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 23 which assesses and identifies
all of the infrastructural needs associated with development within the zone;
E. A Hillside Development Permit required by Title 21 because the subject
property has an overall slope greater than 15% and an elevation differential
greater than 15 feet; and
F. A Special Use Permit which allows the alteration to land form within a
flOOdplain.
IV. ANALYSIS
To a great degree, the Reduced Project Alternative master plan text is similar to the master
plan which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The most significant
differences between the two are the reductions in allowable commercial square footage within Planning Area 2 from 600,000 to 300,000 and land area from 56.2 acres to 18.3 acres,
the increase of land area dedicated to single family residential uses in Planning Area 3 from
17.9 acres to 55.8 acres while maintaining the same number of residential units (400), and
additions to the development standards for the residential Planning Area 3. Although the
residential planning area has been increased by more than 200%, the maximum number of
units allowed has been set at 400. The restriction on the number of dwelling units allowed
within the planning area translates to an average density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre.
Figure 1 illustrates the Reduced Project Alternative land use distribution.
FIGURE 1
, ~ ., y::--. . ‘,. :... , _ ..
UPLAND BLUFFS.- --
‘OPEN SPA& I “. , ‘, P.A. 4
.::
I; /.
+k ! I.- -45.. T.,
IEN SPACE
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/L&A 93-06/ LPMP ZONE 87-23/CTL-68/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The General Plan land use designations for the project site are a combination district of
Community Commercial/Office/Residential Medium-High and Open Space (C/O/RMH and
OS). The property is zoned Planned Community (PC). Uses proposed within the master
plan (community commercial, single family residential and open space) are consistent with
those General Plan designations. Zoning consistency is created through the master plan
which is in conformance with the Planned Community Zone standards and the identification
of compatible zoning designations for each of the planning areas.
Planning Areas 1,4 & 5
These planning areas are designated as Open Space and C/O/RMH in the General Plan and
as Open Space, for the purposes of Zoning, within the Master Plan. The Master Plan does
not grant any development rights within any of these planning areas. However, within
Planning Area 5, the “Red Barn” will remain as a legal non-conforming use, which means
that it may not be expanded or modified.
The open space zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan designation of Open
Space and is broadly consistent with the other General Plan land uses because open space is typically a part of any use.
These planning areas play a significant role in shaping the character of the master plan because they create a natural buffer which surrounds the developable planning areas of the
ph
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 2 (PA2) is designated as General Commercial (C2), for the purposes of
zoning in the master plan and is completely within lands designated as combination district
C/O/RMH in the General Plan. Community Commercial (CT) is described in the General
Plan as:
“...centers that offer a greater depth and range of merchandise in shopping
and specialty goods than the neighborhood center although this category may
include some of the uses also found in a neighborhood center. Often a supermarket, large variety store, cinema, or discount department store
functions as the anchor tenant. The emergence of new anchor tenants( i.e., high volume specialty or warehouse stores) has resulted in new, special forms
of community commercial centers. As an example, this type of center may
have a grouping of special tenants, who operate a retail/wholesale business
dealing with home improvement items.
Sometimes a community commercial center is located next to or across the
road from a regional center because the two types of centers offer different
ranges of merchandise . . . ”
EIR 93-02,MP 92-ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI’92WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
The General Plan also describes Community Commercial centers as being on approximately
10 to 30 acres with a range of 100,000 to 300,000 square feet of building. The Reduced
Project Alternative is a maximum of 300,000 square feet of building on 18.3 acres.
Planning Area 2 is adjacent to the City of Encinitas at the south end of the project site.
Because of the development of commercial uses to the south and the natural buffers of the
bluffs to the west and the riparian corridor to the east, PA2 has a great degree of
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Permitted uses are per Chapter 21.28, the General Commercial zone, and Chapter 21.42,
Conditional Uses, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Development within PA2 is subject to the standards of 21.28, General Commercial zone,
plus the additional standards and design guidelines required by the master plan.
Planning Area 3
Typical of land designated as Residential Medium-High in the General Plan, Planning Area 3 (PA3) has been designated for zoning purposes as Residential Density-Multiple @D-M).
The General Plan describes Residential Medium-High as:
“Urban multiple residential areas characterized by two and three story
condominium and apartment developments - 8-15 dwelling units per acre.”
However, the General Plan continues to state that in order to meet goals and objectives,
including population and environmental considerations, the actual yield of approved
development within each land use category may be less than the density range (8-15 units
per acre) and it will still be considered to be consistent with the General Plan. The intent
of the RD-M zone, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, is to provide means of development
in the low-medium density range as well as the high density range.
The master plan implements the General Plan clause regarding development less than the
density range and addresses a community interest to maintain a single family residential
character within PA3 by restricting development to a maximum of 400 units over 55.8 acres
which is equal to 7.2 units per acre. In addition the master plan limits structures to two
stories (30 feet) which is typical of single family development.
The community forums identified a strong desire to retain this area as a single family,
ownership residential neighborhood. Restricting the density and building height helps to
achieve that goal.
Development of PA3 will be subject to the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
except as modified in the Master Plan (see later discussion).
- h
EIR 93-02JMP 92-Ol/LCPfi 93-06/ LPMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,199s
B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY:
EAST BATIOUlTOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENT
Text Amendment
The land uses designated for the Green Valley portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)
segment are identified as . . “a combination of uses as follows:
1. Riparian Corridor of Encinitas Creek (approximately 40 acres designated as
Open Space (OS) with a Special Treatment Overlay.
a) Steep Slopes - Slopes 40% or greater are designated as Open Space
(OS) and constrained from development. Slopes 25% to 40% may also
be constrained from development. (See Grading Section.)
2. Upland (approximately 240 acres) is designated for a combination of
Residential (Medium High Density - RMH-9-15 du/ac), Commercial (C), and
Office (0) uses. The maximum height of new development shall be limited
to 35 feet consistent with the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Additionally, the
intensity of development shall be compatible with the currently planned road
capacities of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Approval of these land
uses shall not be considered precedent for increasing the road capacity of
these two corridors. Development of the entire 280 acres of Green Valley
shall be pursuant to a Master Plan which is consistent with the uses allowed
by the Carlsbad General Plan adopted as of March 1, 1988.”
A Local Coastal Program Amendment is required for the adoption of the Green Valley
Master Plan as the implementing ordinance for the Green Valley and includes an update
to the language regarding consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan. The updated
language requires a master plan to be consistent with the General Plan adopted in
September 1994 versus March 1988. The land uses have not changed. They are Community
Commercial, Office, Residential Medium High and Open Space (C/O/RMH/OS), however,
for the sake of clarity the amended language is being pursued.
Master Plan Consistency with the LCP
Local Coastal Program (LCP) requirements included in the segment follow along with a
description of how the master plan complies with the requirement:
1. Development of the Green Valley shall be pursuant to a Master Plan that
complies with the policies of the LCP - The project is a Master Plan which
has been designed in compliance with the LCP.
2. Twenty-five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) slopes may be constrained
from development - The intent of the LCP is to preserve and enhance slopes
EIR 93-02,&Q 92-01/LcI'A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-OWHDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,199s
3.
with significant native vegetation that are greater than 25% (Dual criteria
slopes). Planning areas proposed for development within the Green Valley
Master Plan are primarily confined to disturbed areas with slopes less than
15% and will therefore not affect such slopes.
A 50 foot wide buffer area shall be preserved in open space upland of the
boundaries of the riparian corridor. Development within the buffer area shall
be limited to the construction of a pedestrian path with fencing and other
improvements necessary to protect the riparian habitat in the upper (upland)
half of the buffer area - A minimum 50 foot varying width buffer is proposed
along the western upland side of the riparian corridor which will include a
pedestrian path and basins for the protection of the riparian corridor and the
Batiquitos Lagoon from urban runoff.
4. The maximum height of new development shall be limited to thirty-five (35)
feet - Commercial buildings are limited to a height of 35 feet or less, with an
allowance for the encroachment of non-habitable architectural elements and
residential development is limited to a maximum height of 30 feet.
5. Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands to urban uses pursuant to the
approved master plan shall be consistent with the Coastal Act (Section
30171.5 Public Resources Code) which requires a mitigation fee - At the time
of discretionary development approvals, the conversion mitigation fee will be
required.
6. Alteration of the riparian corridor shall be limited to access and flood and
sediment control projects and shall require Carlsbad approval, a Coastal
Development Permit, Stream Alteration Agreement, and COE permit:
a. A maximum of two crossings shall be permitted to provide access to
the developable portions of the Green Valley - Access was designed
with the inclusion of a minimum 36 foot bridge structure over the
centerline of the creek. The creation and maintenance of new riparian
habitat onsite at a ratio of 3:l has been proposed as mitigation for the
impacts to the riparian habitat in association with the construction of
the accessways.
b. Flood and sediment control projects shall be allowed adjacent to the
riparian corridor - Flood control has been proposed adjacent to the riparian corridor which does not involve removal of riparian habitat or
diversion of non-flood water flows upon which the habitat is
dependant.
7. The viewshed to the lagoon and from the lagoon shoreline are important
resources - Development within the master plan is restricted to an area that
EIR 93-02MP 92-01/L&A 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT%-WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
is set at the base of the bluffs at the western edge of the property and east
and south of an extensive riparian corridor with mature riparian vegetation.
Development within the identified areas of the master plan will not affect
views of the lagoon nor will it significantly alter the views from the lagoon
shoreline.
8. A Coastal Development Permit will be required for any development with the
Green Valley Master Plan.
The Master Plan incorporates the specific criteria listed above. The amendment to the
Local Coastal Program segment designates the Green Valley Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance and the land uses described therein as the approved land uses for
the Green Valley.
C. PLANNING AREA 5
As the master plan was originally submitted, there were four (4) planning areas proposed.
Land uses within those planning areas were designated as: Riparian Corridor, Retail Center,
Multi-Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. During early staff review the
applicant was directed to separate the upland bluffk from the retail and residential planning
areas into a separate open space planning area thereby creating five (5) planning areas.
Planning Area 5 was thereby created as a commercial site at the southwest comer of La
Costa and El Camino Real.
However, after further review of the applicant’s proposal staff directed the master plan to
designate Planning Area 5 as open space. Staffs reasons for an open space designation at
the comer include:
Intersection Spacing - The standards for City improvements require a minimum intersection
spacing distance of 1200 feet for a major arterial and 2600 feet for a prime arterial unless
no other access to the site can be obtained. In such a case, driveways can be established at
one-half the distance of the required intersection spacing provided that acceptable levels of
service can be maintained. PA5 cannot be designed for commercial uses per the required
vehicular access standards.
Intersection Congestion - Intensification of the commercial nature of the site will
significantly increase the turning movements and thereby reduce the capacity of the
intersection. This, along with inadequate intersection spacing will negatively impact the
traffic movement at the intersection.
Visual Impact - Development at this comer would lessen the sense of the natural setting
created by the adjacent riparian corridor and Batiquitos Lagoon to the north.
Open Space Resource Conservation Management Plan (OSCRMP) - A primary action
priority of the OSCRMP is the protection of open space alongside El Camino Real.
EIR 93-02,MP 92-ol~~A 93-06/ LPMP ZONE 87-23/CI’924u/HDP 92-15/!XJP 92-05
GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13.1995
Preservation of the comer as open space would achieve that action priority. In addition to
the previously stated reason, development of the 1.7 acre site requires the approval of .6
acres of fill within the floodplain through the Special Use Permit. Approval of the SUP to
increase the area of developable land east of the riparian corridor would also be inconsistent
with the primary action priority.
The site is also constrained by the development standards of the El Camino Real Corridor
Overlay and the proposed Green Valley Master Plan as well as the 100 year floodway. Per
the El Camino Real Corridor Overlay and the master plan, a thirty (30) foot setback is
required for buildings along El Camino Real. This setback along with the floodway
constraint further reduces the viability of the site for the requested extent of commercial
development.
The applicant’s proposed Reduced Project Alternative proposal included a maximum
commercial square footage of 6,000 versus the originally proposed 12,000 and a limited
number of commercial uses. Those uses are:
. Art Store and Gallery e Bank (with or without drive up windows) . Florist . OffiCe * Restaurant
The applicant has prepared a letter to the Planning Commission, see attached, outlining
their reasons why the Planning Commission should recommend approval of Planning Area
5 as commercial.
However, there are three options regarding action on Planning Area 5 that the Planning
Commission may wish to consider. The first 1) is to approve the planning area as proposed
by the applicant. The second 2) is to designate the Planning area as open space as
presented by staff. And the third 3) is to designate the planning area as Unplanned Area.
Each of the options is discussed below.
As discussed above, designation of this comer property as commercial (Option 1) is
inconsistent with priorities of the Gpen Space Resource Conservation Management Plan.
A primary action priority is to retain all constrained lands and to designate constrained land
and unconstrained strips of land east of the riparian corridor and west of El Camino Real
as open space. This inconsistency has been identified in the EIR as a significant impact.
In addition, development of the comer with commercial uses as proposed by the applicant
will increase friction at the intersection because the uses proposed are higher traffic
generators than the existing use and it will require .6 acres of fill within the floodway.
Mitigation of the inconsistency with the OSCRMP and avoidance of the impacts to the
intersection and floodway is to either designate the property as open space (Option 2) or
as an alternative as unplanned (Option 3). An unplanned designation satisfies the goal of
- -4
EIR 9%02/MP !&ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 8723/CI924u/HDP 9245/SUP 92-05
GREENVALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 11
the OSCRMP in the short term of maintaining strips of land between El Camino Real and
the riparian corridor as undeveloped and also defers impact to the floodway and
intersection. However, designation of the PA as Unplanned will require a subsequent
General Plan Amendment.
For these reasons staff recommends that the Planning Area be designated as open space.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 23
The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) does not designate land uses as a General
Plan or Master Plan, but makes land use assumptions for the sake of facilities planning.
Because the LFMP analysis assumes a greater scope of development than the Reduced
Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative is considered to be consistent with the
analysis within the LFMP.
As indicated in Table III, all Public Facilities will comply with the adopted performance
standards through buildout for either the original master plan or the Reduced Project
Alternative. A summary of the Zone 23 facilities needs analysis follows:
. .
:-:: .:.:..: .::.... :,:;.:.::j.. :::: y.::..: ,,: ,:,.::. j.:.+ :.
:: i.:‘;‘: .::.. ;., .. : .‘:. ::::..c . . . . +: ..:. :.. : : :.e: : . :., :,: ..; ,: : ,: ..j : j . . . .: . . . . . ,, ; 1,: i j j: :.;.: :. .: :,. .y...:.:: ., - ~~ : . . ,:..:..::: ,.,.. - 4
LFMP IMPACIS ASSESSMENT
h
EIR 93-02,MP g%ol/LLkA 93-06/ LF’MP ZONE 87-23/CIW-ki/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
1. See Community Facilities District discussion under following heading.
2. See Traffic/Circulation discussion under following heading.
The LFMP analyxes the public facility impacts of a project and recommends appropriate
mitigation, including a financing plan for the construction of required infrastructure. The
land uses used for determining Zone 23 facilities impacts are reflective of the originally
submitted Master Plan; i.e. Extensive Regional Retail, Open Space, Residential Medium
High and Neighborhood Commercial. Although the LFMP analysis assumed the
development program outlined in the original master plan, the findings of the analysis are
still valid for use with the Reduced Project Alternative. As seen in TABLE III above
several of the facilities impacts, those based exclusively on population, remain the same.
Those facilities which are affected by commercial type and building size have been reduced.
As a condition of approval, the project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation
measures which are required as part of the Zone 23 LFMP and any amendments made to
that plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Significant conditions required of the Local Facilities Management Plan are improvements
to El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue along the project frontage as well as improvements
to the El Camino Real and Olivenhain intersection and the El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue intersection.
The maximum number of units allowed within the master plan, 400, is proposed by the
applicant as a carry over from the original master plan proposal of 34.8 developable
residential acres. 400 units is 241 units less than could be allowed within an RMH
designated property of 55.8 acres.
Community Facilities District No. 1
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 was formed by City Council in 1986 in order to
fund improvements of specific public facilities throughout the City of Carlsbad. All property
which is not located within Local Facilities Management Zones 1,2,3,4, & 6 must be made
part of (CFD) No. 1 with the first discretionary approval with the exception of master plans
and specific plans.
Zone 23 must be annexed into CFD No.1 because a tentative map has been proposed. The
project has been conditioned within the tentative map resolution conditions of approval to
annex into CFD No.1.
Traft’iJcirculation
The project is proposed to obtain access from El Camino Real, a six lane Prime Arterial
roadway, on the east and Leucadia Boulevard, a four lane Major Arterial roadway, on the
south. Access onto the site is proposed to be via Calle Barcelona, a four lane Secondary
Arterial roadway and Levante Street, a two lane Collector street.
EIR 93-02/MP !%ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI’92-WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Three circulation alternatives were analyzed with this Reduced Project Alternative. The
components of the on site circulation analysis include proposed Street “A”, proposed Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions west of El Camino Real.
Alternative 1 is the proposed Reduced Project Alternative. It includes all three of the
circulation components with Calle Barcelona connecting to Leucadia Boulevard. Alternative
2 is the same as Alternative 1 minus the westerly extension of Levante Street from El
Camino Real. Alternative 3 has the westerly Levante Street and Calle Barcelona extensions
without the southerly connection of Calle Barcelona to Leucadia Boulevard.
The traffic analysis consists of all approved and planned projects in the area including
Encinitas Ranch, Home Depot, Arroyo La Costa and La Costa Southeast. This analysis
determined that both Alternatives “1” and “2”, with the recommended improvements, can
comply with the Growth Management Ordinance requirements. Neither alternative was
technically superior to the other.
However, staff recommends Alternative “1” as proposed because retaining both crossings
maintains the advantage of separating residential traffic from commercial traffic; provides
a secondary access to the residential portion of the master plan from the City of Carlsbad
should Calle Barcelona be blocked; provides better access to the residential portion of the
master plan from Fire Station Number 2 for fire protection and from the Safety Center for
police services; and generally maintains greater opportunity for efficient circulation design.
Additionally, the EIR concludes that all biological impacts associated with the Reduced
Project Alternative can be mitigated to below a level of significance.
E. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN S-IANDARDS
The Master Plan contains a full range of design and development standards and guidelines.
A focus of the guidelines is on architecture with the goal of creating development which is
rich in detailing and is reflective of the surrounding natural setting.
Standards have been established with the intention of limiting the intensity of development
and preserving a quality relationship between structures, parking, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation areas and natural open space.
Adoption of the Master Plan will establish the zoning and development standards for each
of the planning areas. Following is a description of the planning area standards:
Planning Areas 1,4 and 5 - Open Space:
Development within these open space planning areas is limited to roadways, trails, flood
control structures, limited signage and habitat enhancement. No commercial, residential or
private recreation facilities are permitted. The exception is the allowance of the “Red Barn” to continue as a legal non-conforming use within Planning Area 5.
EIR 93-02,MP 92-01/L&A 93-06/ LIMP ZONE 87=23/CIW6&DP 92=15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MA!TI-ER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
Because the development of inhabitable buildings is not allowed within these planning areas,
there are very limited setback and/or height standards.
Planning Area 2 - Retail Cent=
Uses:
Retail buildings are limited to a maximum of 300,000 combined square feet and uses are typical of a C2, General Commercial zone.
BuildinP Heipht:
Building height is limited to 35 feet with an exception for non-habitable architectural
features allowed up to 45 feet which is consistent with Chapter 21.28 General Commercial
Zone.
Lot Coveraee:
Lot coverage is regulated by the maximum allowed combined square footage of buildings,
which is 38% of the 18.3 acre site. Coverage is further regulated by the parking to building
area ratio (one space per 200 gross square feet of building), landscape requirements and
setbacks. Setback standards proposed within the Master Plan are more extensive than what
is found within Chapter 21.28 of the Municipal Code (C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL).
Specifically, Chapter 21.28 only addresses building height and rear lot lines. The Master
Plan includes height and setback regulations as well as architectural guidelines.
Process:
All development proposals will require review and approval of a Site Development Plan.
Uses within a proposed development may also require a Conditional Use Permit and
subsequent subdivision of the commercial planning area will require a tentative map and
may require a Planned Unit Development. Each of these development processes requires
the review of the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Planning Area 3 - Residential:
Planning Area 3 contains the greatest extent of development standards in the master plan
because of the variety of development scenarios possible.
Uses:
Planning Area 3 may be developed with detached and attached single family residential units
and associated uses such as recreation buildings and recreational vehicle storage. The
maximum number of units allowed is 400. The Master Plan requires that 15% of those units
be made available to lower income households. Therefore, if 400 units are approved by
-
EIR 93=02,/MP !&ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT92-&/HDP 92=15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 15
future discretionary action, 60 onsite units will be designated as affordable. However, all
of the units approved for the site may be market rate if a housing agreement can be
approved which provides for the appropriate ratio of affordable units offsite. In that case,
if 400 market rate units were approved onsite, 70.59 units will be the required offsite.
Develooment Standards:
Development standards for the residential Planning Area 3 are based on three sections of
the Zoning Ordinance, 21.10 One-Family Residential Zone (R-l); 21.24 Residential Density-
Multiple Zone (RD-M); and 21.45 the Planned Development Ordinance, except as modified
by the Green Valley Master Plan. Both R-l and RD-M are residential zones which limit
uses and identify development standards for the uses within the zone. The Planned
Development Ordinance establishes a process and development standards, in addition to the
zone standards, which may be applied to any residential development.
Because of the variety of single family product type that could be approved within the
master plan, the development standards were broken into three categories. The first 1)
category covers individual lots, greater than 7,500 square feet, with a detached or attached
product (duplex divided by a lot line); the second 2) addresses detached or attached product
(duplex divided by a lot line) on individual lots less than 7,500 square feet but greater than
3,500 square feet; and the third 3) covers attached product on a common lot greater than
10,000 square feet.
The following TABLES IV, V, VI, VII and VIII are summaries of the basic standards
proposed in the master plan for “typical” single family development and attached single
family development. Some standards are highlighted ~~~~, some are underlined -, and
others are plain. Those standards that are highlighted are in some way are more lenient
than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone (Rl or RD-M) or the Planned
Development Ordinance (PD). Those standards that are underlined are an addition to or
more restrictive than the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned
Development Ordinance. Those standards that are neither highlighted nor underlined, are
equivalent to the corresponding requirement of the basis zone or Planned Development
Ordinance.
Standard subdivision 7,500 sq.fi. lots or sreater / Basis = R-l
II Minimum Lot Size I 7300 square feet
II Minimum Lot Dimension: I
II Width I 60 feet
II Depth I 65 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
Standard subdivision 7,500 sqft. lots or greater / Basis = R-l
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona*
rear property line
side property line
35 feet minimum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
center plot I 10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
-
EIR 93=02/MP 9%01/LL'kA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT924u/HDP 92=15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 16
zero lot
street - public
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
._ .) .,.. )‘c _.,.. _. ; . . . . ..__._.._. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..i. x .<, * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c .A., . . . . . ..E&..... A. >..A. A.. . ..A.>.,%<+.< .,....,....A ~....5.~~.,~.~.~~.~.,.~.,.~.. x s.r
20 feet minimum
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘...’ ..... ‘.‘.Y.,.< . .*w . . . ..n.. L.K.~.. .‘Z .,.~.~~~~~~~.~~~~~.!:~..~.~~~~.~.~.~~.~.~.~~~~.~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~...~...~~.!.!.~~.~~.! . . . . <>x . . . . I.>.. ..’ . . . ,.
Building Separation:’
1 story / 1 story
1 story / 2 story
2stoly/2stoly
10 feet
15 feet
feet 20
Building Height
I
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
l This setback is applicable to all st~ctures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Standard Subdivision 7,500 soft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size I 7500 square feet
Minimum Lot Dimension:
I 60 feet
I 65 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
1 Building separation is based on 1 story and 2 story elements defined as follows:
1 story element - r Maximum Grst flooxlate hep of 12feet and/or a maximum building height of 15 feet 5 feet from e first oor buildmg t&e.
2 story element - First floor plate he’ 15 feet 5 feet from*: E floor building f&e. ater than 12 feee and/or a building height greater than
: .j..j.,:. .: .., .;.. :.i:i:li.:::i.i.:ii ;:: j ‘. : ‘j: :; : ! : : .. :.:.; ,... :.>: ; : :.! .::. ::: .:.,..:i ;,...: ,,: . . ..j :...: .. :.... ::..: ,,. ,( :( ;.... .TmE;E .y:,‘::.:- .::j:j::j::ilji,.~~jj:jj~~~~~~~~~~:~.~~~~~~:, .F
Standard Subdivision 7,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Calle Barcelona*
rear property line
side property line
center plot
zero lot
street - private:
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story
1 story / 2 story
2 story I 2 story
Building Height
35 feet minimum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
I 20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
I
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
10 feet
15 feet
20 feet
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
- h
EIR 93-02/MP 92-01/LaA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI’92-OWHDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13, 1995
PAGE 17
* This setback hr applicable to afl structures and ah fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Maximum Lot Coverage
EIR 93-02,/MP 92-01/L,CP~ 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/m2-WKDP 92-1WSUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MA!STER PLAN
DECEMBER 13.1995
Reduced Lot Subdivision 3,500 sq.ft. lots or greater / Basis = PD
Setbacks:
Calle Barcelona*
rear property line
35 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
side property line:
center plot
zero lot
10% lot width / 5 feet minimum / 10 feet maximum
20% lot width / 10 feet minimum / 20 feet maximum
street - public/private:
structure
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
structure: ground floor
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
15 feet minimum / 20 feet minimum average
5 feet minimum
second floor I 15 feet minimum
garage: front loading 5 feet minimum
side loading 10 feet minimum
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story 10 feet minimum
1 story I 2 story 15 feet minimum
2 story I 2 story I 20 feet minimum
Building Height
I
30 feet @ 3:12 roof pitch or greater
24 feet @ less than 3:12 roof pitch
l This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Minimum Lot Size
EIR 93-02/MP 92-ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI’92-WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 19
Attached Unit No Subdivision / Basis = RD-M
subdivision / project boundaries:
structure: front of dwelling
side of dwelling
rear of dwelling
street - public/private:
dwelling
garage: front loading
side loading
driveway:
dwelling: first floor
second floor
garage: front loading
side loading
Building Separation:
1 story / 1 story
lstory/2story
2 story / 2 story
10 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
10 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
.~ ‘.~ ‘,y’ _ c~ . . . . .~y’ ~,.~ gg$@g##@..g .A.. ..5. 3. <.A:.<*.. A%.+.< .c<.. . .
10 feet minimum
10 feet
15 feet
feet 20
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Attached Unit With Subdivision / Basis = PD
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Lot Coverage
setbacks:
Calle Barcelona*
subdivision / project boundaries:
structure: front of dwelling
10.000 sauare feet
m
35 feet minimum
10 feet minimum
-
EIR 93-02/MP %ollLckA 93-06/ LPMP ZONE 87-23/CI92&/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Attached Unit With Subdivision I Basis = PD
side of dwelling I 10 feet minimum
rear of dwelling I 15 feet minimum
street - public/private:
dwelling
garage:
driveway:
front loading
side loading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SW ..,. c.$%.% F/ rr,*zer::. C, WY
20 feet minimum
10 feet minimum / 15 feet minimum average
dwelling: first floor
garage:
second floor
front loading
15 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
side loading I 10 feet minimum
Building Separation:
I 10 feet
I 20 feet
Building Height 30 feet @ 3:12 roof Ditch or mater
* This setback is applicable to all structures and all fences or walls greater than 42 inches in height.
Two (2) enclosed spaces is required for each residential unit and one (1) guest space is
required for each four residential units developed as a Planned Unit Development per
21.45.090(c)(d). Parking may be permitted on-street if street width allows. Parking for a
senior housing development shall be consistent with 21.44.020, Parking.
Recreational Onen Snace Area:
All projects which require approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to provide
common recreational open space areas at a ratio of 200 square feet per unit. A minimum
of 25% of that requirement is to be improved as active recreational open space area. At
the discretion of the approving body, a credit up to 10% of the required recreational open
space area may be granted for the provision of an onsite interior exercise facility that is
determined to be proportionately equal in recreational value as the open space.
EIR 93-02&W 92-01/LCPA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CI92-OWHDP 92-lS/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
Recreational Vehicle Storage:
All projects which require the approval of a Planned Unit Development are required to
provide recreational vehicle storage within the Master Plan at a ratio of 20 square feet for
every unit consistent with 21.45.090(k).
Streets/drivewavs:
The Master Plan identifies a hierarchy for private streets and driveways. Private residential
streets may have a minimum width of 30 feet with no parking, a width of 32 feet with
parking on one side and a width of 36 feet with parking on both sides.
Internal private common driveways may have a minimum width of 24 feet but may not serve
more than 4 units. The common driveway has been used on other projects within the City
as part of a “cluster” design for groups of 4 detached single family homes on either
individually owned lots or on common lots with exclusive use yard areas. The advantage of
a common private driveway is the reduction in the total number of driveway cuts onto a
circulation street which in turn benefits the overall streetscape. Private common driveways
less than 30 feet in width are subject to the discretionary approval of either the Planning
Commission or City Council, whichever has decision making authority over the project
application. No parking is permitted on private driveways.
F. TENTATIVE MAP
An 11 parcel subdivision map has been submitted in conjunction with the Master Plan.
Subdivision of the planning areas into independent legal lots allows for separate ownership
and development of each parcel. Lots 4 and 5 are Planning Area 2 (Retail Center) and lots
6, 7,8, and 9 are Planning Area 3 (Residential). Lots 1, 2,3, 10, and 11 are designated as
open space.
All lots proposed are of adequate size and shape to allow for the future development of a
retail center and residential community.
The tentative map resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning Commission’s
prior action on this tentative map. This has been done to eliminate the potential confusion
of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
G. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The project site has varying terrain which includes 40% slopes and a general topography
which has an elevational difference greater than 15 feet. Information has been provided as
required by the Hillside Development Regulations identifying hillside conditions and areas
of proposed development and undevelopable areas identified.
The intent of the Hillside Development Regulations is to visually preserve and enhance the
natural contours of Carlsbad’s hillsides. The project proposes preservation of the upland
EIR 93-02JVlP %-ol/LckA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/CT924u/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,199s
blue which contain slopes greater than 40%, 25% to 40% slopes and nearly all of the
slopes greater than 15%. Development is confined primarily to the disturbed agricultural
areas of less than 15%. Total grading quantities are approximately a balanced cut and fill
of 729,000 cubic yards over 124 acres of disturbance, including mitigation areas, which is
approximately 5,900 cubic yards per graded acre. Up to 10,000 cubic yards per acre within
non-residential developments and 7,999 cubic yards within residential developments is
termed acceptable by the Hillside Regulations. The proposed project grading falls within
those limits.
Any nonresidential project proposing slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall be justified
to the satisfaction of the decision making body. The Retail Center portion of the proposed
Master Plan includes cut and fill grading creating a 21 slope within lot 5 of the subdivision
of 48 feet. The proposed slope is located along the western edge of Planning Area 2 at the
base of the upland bluffs. However, development of the retail center at the base of the
blufth will screen the majority of the slope from public view. Therefore, the view of the
blu& by the public will not be greatly affected. There is also the need for a crib wall along
the Calle Barcelona extension as it curves south to meet Leucadia Boulevard in Encinitas.
The crib wall is the result of the need to align the Calle Barcelona extension with the
designated point in Encinitas.
The grading involves slopes generally under 15% and without natural vegetation (i.e. the
need for the crib wall is @ resulting from the grading of steep slopes or natural areas).
Therefore, the proposed grading meets the intent of the Hillside Ordinance and the
restrictions of the LCP.
The Hillside Development Permit (HDP) resolution includes a condition which voids the
Planning Commission’s prior action on this HDP. This has been done because there have
been some modifications to the HDP which reduce grading impacts and to eliminate the
potential confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
H. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A Special Flood Hazard Area (W-IA) is an area having special flood or flood related
erosion hazard potential. Encroachment into an SFHA requires analysis and issuance of a
Special Use Permit (SUP).
The project is located in the Encinitas Creek Basin of the Batiquitos watershed and
encroaches into a documented SFHA as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
An integral part of the discretionary review process was the analysis of the potential impacts
to Encinitas Creek floodplain caused by the proposed development. Development of the
proposed project will cause significant but mitigable increases in the water surface elevation
of Encinitas Creek during a 100 year storm because of the proposed fill required to achieve
the crossings at Calle Barcelona and Levante Street as well as .6 acres of fill required to
achieve 1.7 buildable acres within Planning Area 5.
EIR 93-02/MP 9%ol/LL'kA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/Cl-92-WHDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
PAGE 23
Staff is recommending that the Special Use Permit be approved for only those areas
necessary to accomplish the crossings at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona. Fill of the
floodplain at the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue for the purpose of
acquiring more developable land area will be inconsistent with the primary action priorities
of the OSCRMP, as discussed earlier in this report. Therefore, the project has been
conditioned to remove the proposed fill associated with the Planning Area 5 from the
project exhibits.
The Special Use Permit (SUP) resolution includes a condition which voids the Planning
Commission’s prior action on this SUP. This has been done to eliminate the potential
confusion of having two conflicting approved resolutions for the same site.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Potential environmental impacts have been reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 93-02) which was circulated for public review and comment. Significant new information was added to the Draft EIR prior to certification which included a Reduced
Project Alternative, a revised traflk analysis which assessed both the project and the recently
approved Encinitas Ranch project in the City of Encinitas, a revised Land Use section, a
revised Executive Summary, and revisions to CEQA Mandated Sections. The Draft EIR
was therefore recirculated for review and comment. Action on the Final EIR will be
certification that all of the documents have completely and adequately analyzed all potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Master Plan.
Sections of discussion in the EIR are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3:
9.
10.
11. 12.
Land Use
Visual Quality/Landform Alteration
Agriculture
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality
Traffic
Noise
Air Quality Public Facilities and Services
The conclusion reached on the 12 areas of potential environmental impact fell into two
categories. Either the significant impact can be avoided or mitigated or the impact was considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant.
Significant EnvironmentaI Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated
Mitigation measures are proposed or have been incorporated into the project for the following environmental impact areas to mitigate significant environmental impacts:
EIR 93-02,MP %-ol/LCkA 93-06/ LFMP ZONE 87-23/cI%WIIDP 92-15/SUP 92-05
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 13,1995
(1) Land Use; (2) Visual Quality/Landform Alteration; (3) Biological Resources; (4)
Cultural Resources; (5) Paleontological Resources; (6) Geology/Soils; (7) hydrology/Water
Quality; (8) Circulation; (9) Noise; (10) Air Quality. The mitigation measures are contained
in the EIR as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to the
EIR Resolution.
Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant
The following environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR but found to have impacts
which are less than significant: (1) Agriculture; and (2) Public Facilities and Service.
A’ITACHMENTS
i.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3855
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3857
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3858
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3859
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3860
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3861
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Green Valley Master Plan (previously distributed)
Green Valley Master Plan Final Program EIR (previously distributed)
Exhibits “E-I”, dated December 13, 1995.
CW:kc
lrnlrn
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 93-02/MP 92-011LCPA 93-061LFMP ZONE 87-23/(X’ 92-08/HDP
92-15/SUP 92-05
CASE NAME: Green Valley Master Plan
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners LTD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: ADDrOd of a Master Plan south of La Costa Avenue and
west of El Camino Real for the future develonment of 300.000 saure feet of communitv commercial and 400 residential units
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Section 2 TOWIIS~~D 13 South. Range 4 West: and a
portion of Section 35. TOWIIS~~D 12 south. Range 4 West. San Bernardino Meridian. Citv of
Carlsbad. Countv of San DierJo. State of California
APN:216-122-24.36.37: 255-011-8.9.10.11.12: 255-021-5.6.7.8
Proposed No. of Lots/Units Jl-
Acres 281.2
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation c/O/RMH/OS
Density Allowed 11.5 Density Proposed 7.2
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Site PC
North PC
zoning Land Use
Vacant; C/O/RMH/OS
Vacant; OS
south Encinitas
East PC/Cl-Q
West Encinitas Ranch S.P.
Developing (Encinitas)
Residential & Commercial
Developing (Encinitas)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Encinitas Union Elementrv & San Dieeuito High School
Water District Olivenhain MuniciDan Sewer District Leucadia County Water
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 563.3
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 6. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .
Negative Declaration, issued _
1 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
4 EXHIBIT 6
Minites of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: December 13,1995
Place of Meeting: SAFETY CENTER
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairperson Welshons.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble,
and Savary
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner
Christer Westman, Associate Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Robert Johnson, Traffic Engineer
Mike Shirey, Associate Engineer
Raymond Patchett, City Manager
Jim Elliott, Financial Management Director
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
Jim Dyvig, 2067 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he represented
Richard Yoder, 7738 Madrilena, Carlsbad. He read a letter from Richard Yoder to the Mayor and
Councilpersons dated December 12, 1995 regarding the Green Valley Initiative which states that some
erroneous assertions were made at last weeks City Council meeting. The Initiative requires 25 acres of
active open space and allows a range of uses for that open space, but does not mandate any specific
use(s). There were assertions made that the Initiative spoils or modifies the City’s park plans, that it forces
a change in the City’s library plans, and that it imposes significant costs on the City. These assertions are
contrary to fact. Mr. Yoder claims that the erroneous assertions have seriously misrepresented a citizen
effort to avoid deterioration of residential property values and quality of life. He included an actual copy of
the Initiative with his letter and requested redress of damages in the form of an official public
acknowledgement.
Frederick Barge, Ecencio Terrace, Carl&ad, addressed the Commission and stated that he represented
Ben Smith, 3017 Azahar Court, La Costa. He read a letter from Mr. Smith to all Carlsbad public officials
dated December 12, 1995 regarding the Green Valley Initiative. The letter states that the initiative process ’
in California is a first amendment right granted by the Constitution. The Green Valley Initiative was signed
by 13O/o of the registered voters of Carlsbad and came as a result of a desire by the people to keep Green
Valley free of excessive traffic, increased crime, and low-grade tilt-up commercial development. The City
is now requesting that the will of the people be subverted in favor of a project which may constitute a
“taking” of value from those who live in the area. It also states that misrepresentations of fact by city
officials and administrators concerning the Initiative may be viewed as part of that concert of action to deny those rights.
/so MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 2
Both letters were turned in to the Minutes Clerk and will be on file in the Planning Department.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. EIR 93-02MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP ZONE 67-23/CT 92-06/HDP 92-15/SUP 92-05 -
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN - A request for a recommendation of certification of an
Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval for a Master Plan, Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan, and approval of a Tentative Tract Map,
Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit to allow for the future development of 300,000
square feet of community commercial retail and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or
attached residential units on property generally located on 261 acres at the southwest corner of
La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
Chairperson Welshons announced to the audience that if the Planning Commission approves this project,
some items will automatically be forwarded to the City Council. Others will be final, subject to appeal. All
appeals must be filed within ten calendar days.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the Green
Valley Master Plan was first reviewed by the Planning Commission in January 1994. The City Council
referred the EIR back to staff for expanded environmental analysis and the Master Plan for reconsideration.
Mr. Westman stated that the EIR has since been supplemented and recirculated for public review and the
Master Plan has been modified to reflect a reduced project from the original proposal. The applicant has
proposed the reduced project in response to community and City Council issues.
Mr. Westman reviewed the reduced project and stated that the most significant difference between the
original project and the revised project are the reductions in allowable commercial square footage and the
increased land area for residential. Planning Area 2 originally recommended a 600,000 s.f. community
retail center, which has been reduced to 300,000 s.f. Planning Area 3 originally recommended 400 units of
multi-family residential on 17.9 acres, which has been changed to a maximum of 400 single family
dwellings on 55.6 acres. This translates to an average density of 7.2 du/ac.
Mr. Westman discussed the supplemental EIR and summarized the assessment of impacts.
Mike Shirey, Associate Engineer, gave an overview of the traffic analysis and stated that three traffic
studies have been done since 1992. The last study.dated August 25, 1995 analyzes the revised Green
Valley project and consisted of all approved and planned projects in the area, including Encinitas Ranch,
Home Depot. Arroyo La Costa, and La Costa Southeast.
Mr. Shirey stated that the proposed project will be accessed from El Camino Real on the east, and
Leucadia Boulevard on the south. Three on-site circulation alternatives were analyzed, including
proposed Street “A,” proposed Levante Street, and the extension of Calle Barcelona west of El Camino
Real. He reviewed the three alternatives and stated that Alternative 1 was staff’s recommendation.
Alternative 1 extends Levante Street west of El Camino Real and connects Calle Barcelona to Leucadia
Boulevard. It also retains two crossings which will separate residential traffic from commercial traffic. The
EIR concludes that all biological impacts associated with this alternative can be mitigated to below a level
of significance.
Christer Westman, Associate Planner, completed his review of the EIR and identified the alternates to the
proposed project. He stated that staff’s recommendation was a combination of the environmentally
preferred alternative and the General Plan land use alternative with the retention of the Levante Street
crossing. He stated that the EIR was released for public review in September with notice to 153 interested
parties plus to property owners within a 600 ft. radius. Ten letters of comment were received. Mr.
MINUTES , 3 /
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 3
Westman then discussed the impact assessments for Local Facilities Management Plan, Zone 23. He
stated that all public facilities will comply with the adopted performance standards through buildout. He
then discussed the Local Coastal Program Amendment, tract map, and Hillside Development Permit.
Mr. Westman stated that four letters had been received regarding the Green Valley project, as follows:
(1) Letter dated November 26, 1995 from Debby Wright, 7966 Los Pinos Circle, Carlsbad stating that she
can accept the revised project because it has been reduced by 50%; (2) Letter dated November 22,1995
from Hans Carl Jensen, City of Encinitas, stating that they would be satisfied with the Tentative Map if the
westerly alignment of Calle Barcelona connects to Leucadia Boulevard; (3) Letter dated November 22,
1995 from the Endangered habitats League, 6424A Santa Monica Blvd., #592, Los Angeles, requesting
that the applicant be required to permanently dedicate all open space to the City and that any stream
crossing be designed as a bridge; and (4) Letter dated December 13, 1995 from Rabbi Yeruchem Eilford,
Chabad at La Costa, supporting the project but retaining the Red Barn for a small neighborhood meeting
facility.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if there are any guarantees that Calle Barcelona will be open and
connected to Leucadia Boulevard when the Green Valley project is started. Mr. Shirey replied that the
cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas are working together to provide this connection. The Specific Plan is only
conditioned to provide a southerly stub; thereafter the City of Encinitas would be responsible. He stated
that it may not be connected in time for Green Valley.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the EIR included studies on Levante, Calle Barcelona, and proposed A
Street. There has been some concern that Calle Barcelona may need a traffii signal but Levante would
not. He would like to know what will happen if Levante is not connected to A Street. Mr. Shirey replied
that the real issue is the southerly connection of Calle Barcelona and Garden View. Carlsbad has no
control over Encinitas. If that crossing goes away, the project may be held up.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Initiative has qualified for the ballot. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City
Attorney stated yes. The election will be held in March 1996.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the process in California allows the Planning Commission to proceed or if
it must wait for the ballot to be counted. Mr. Rudolf replied that there is no California law which covers this.
The developer has brought it forward for the Commission’s action. The Commission is required to take
some type of action. There is no precedence for continuing a project until an election takes place.
Commissioner Monroy inquired when grading would begin. Mr. Westman deferred reply to the applicant.
Chairperson Welshons commented that the project needs Planning Commission approval, City Council
approval, and Coastal Commission approval and that this will take some time.
Commissioner Erwin noted that some of the residential does not meet our minimum requirements. Mr.
Westman replied that the Master Plan anticipates a wide range of building types from stand alone to
condos. A variety of building types is needed for flexibility. This can be discussed.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the average daily traffic (ADT) would be less with multi-family. Mr.
Westman replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if staff believes that the City Council’s concerns have been addressed. Mr.
Shirey replied that projects in Encinitas have been incorporated into the last two traffic reports. The City
Council has concerns that two huge developments side by side need to work together. That is happening
so it has been addressed.
MINUTES , 3a
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 4
Commissioner Erwin inquired if this project affects Leucadia Boulevard. Mr. Shirey replied that Leucadia
Boulevard is in the City of Encinitas. The development agreement states that the Encinitas Ranch
developer cannot complete their project until Leucadia Boulevard has been widened to l-5.
Commissioner Compas referred to Condition #43, page 13, of Resolution No. 3659 which states that
building occupancy cannot be granted until La Costa Avenue has been widened to l-5. He inquired when the project will be completed. Mr. Shirey replied that La CostaIl-5 interchange improvements are
scheduled to go to bid in April 1996. Construction would begin in June 1996 with a completion date of
July 1997. The widening of La Costa from El Camino Real to l-5 should go to bid in July 1997,
construction should start in September 1997 and be complete in June 1996.
Commissioner Compas inquired how much the Green Valley project will increase the traffic on Levante.
Mr. Shirey replied that there are currently 5,200 ADT at Levante and El Camino Real. Green Valley would
add 600 ADT.
Commissioner Compas inquired if there was actually a substantial increase in those figures, what would
staff do about it. Mr. Shirey replied that consultants monitor the traffic constantly. If there were a
measurable increase, mitigation would take place.
Commissioner Compas stated that the supplemental EIR states that La Costa Avenue intersection at El
Camino Real will fail at buildout in 2010. Mr. Shirey replied that at the time the General Plan was revised,
Green Valley was not considered.
Commissioner Noble inquired what the Chabad at La Costa is requesting. Mr. Westman replied that they
are in favor of having 6,000 s.f. of retail at the Red Barn site. At present, the Barn is only approximately
1,000 s.f.
Commissioner Noble inquired what would be considered a significant environmental impact which can’t be
avoided. Mr. Westman replied that for some impacts there is no available measure to reduce them.
Commissioner Noble inquired if an unavoidable impact might be similar to the smog which we get from Los
Angeles which cannot be controlled. Mr. Westman replied yes.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Carlsbad has a financial agreement with Encinitas on the La Costa
intersection and the widening. Mr. Shirey replied there is language for a pro rata share by developers.
Carlsbad would construct the link unless an Encinitas project develops along the southern part of La Costa
Avenue.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the Master Plan would allow big box construction. Mr. Westman replied
that any project would be allowed in the Master Plan if it complies with the zoning ordinance. The short
answer is yes. The Master Plan provides design guidelines. It does not specify a particular user. There is
no way for the City to say anything specific about Wal-Mart not being allowed. The Master Plan regulates
development but does not specify any particular development.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if a private trail should be constructed if Carlsbad will not accept liability.
Mr. Westman replied that the condition in the tract map is intended to address the maintenance and
liability issues associated with trails. If the developer is willing to take on those responsibilities for a private
trail, they are welcome to do so.
Commissioner Monroy stated that his question is not what the developer wants, but what the City wants.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if this is a standard condition which appears in all other resolutions. Mr.
Westman replied yes.
) 3 3 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 5
Chairperson Welshons inquired if any other versions of this condition (re trails) has come forward. Gary
Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the Commission has not seen a modified version of that
condition but there have been other conditions regarding different types of trails. An example would be
Poinsettia Shores where the actual location of the public trails were specified in the Local Coastal Program.
Commissioner Monroy stated that it seems to him that pedestrian access to the north is inadequate and a
trail system would be a benefit. Mr. Westman replied that the Master Plan has trails located within the
buffer areas. The condition in the resolution addresses those trails. The balance of the project contains
streets.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, commented that the City Council has adopted a Citywide trail plan.
However, the developer cannot be prohibited from putting in a private trail system.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to show on the overhead where the trail would be located. Mr.
Westman complied.
Commissioner Compas stated that the project calls for two bridges into Green Valley at Levante and Calle
Barcelona and that they are to be built in such a way that there is free movement of wildlife beneath them.
He requested staff to explain more about what the bridges would look like. Mr. Westman replied that the
bridges would be placed over the creek and would consist of a pre-cast arch allowing at least 36 ft. for
wildlife to move north and south along the creek. The general rule is that the width for wildlife should be
about the half the width available to cars. The design for the bridges still need to be approved by the Fish
& Game Department.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the legal ramifications if we continue this until the first meeting after
the election. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, replied there are no legal ramifications. It would be the
median, they would not be responsible for a traffic signal. If Von’s wants a signal, they could petition the
City to put it in since they were obligated to put it in years ago.
Chairperson Welshons inquired how that would affect our policy on the placement of intersections. Mr.
Shirey replied that it does not meet the intersection spacing but it was conditioned years ago for a traffic
signal. If it wasn’t for the Green Valley project, the medians would not be constructed on El Camino Real.
Chairperson Welshons stated that if a full median is constructed, persons exiting Van’s to go south would
have to exit on La Costa Avenue or make a U-turn. Mr. Shirey replied that is correct.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if there are plans for medians on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Shirey replied yes.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if things have changed since we conditioned Van’s for a signal; it seems to
him that we wouldn’t want a traffic signal at this location now. Mr. Shirey replied that our current
intersection spacing requires 2,600 ft. and this is only 1,300 ft.
Commissioner Savary inquired if a traffic signal would have an adverse impact. Mr. Shirey replied that it
would.
Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin to continue the Green Valley Master Plan to the first Wednesday
or first available meeting after the March 26, 1996 election. The motion died for lack of a second.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Allen Farris, 2700 Moreland Street, Dallas, Texas, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the
Project Manager for Carlsbad Partners. He concurs with the staff recommendation except for Planning
-.
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 6
Area 5. He would like to see limited use of Planning Area 5 with the ability to come back at a later date to
request a modification of the use.
Gary Wood, P&D Consultants, 401 West A Street, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that P&D Consultants are the planners and engineers for the Green Valley project. Since the project was
originally approved in 1992, it was sent back to staff for modifications. The result is a reduced project
which has been presented tonight. Mr. Wood stated that the applicant had mailed out 10,000 newsletters
describing the reduced project and requesting comments. Four community forums were held discussing
the project and questionnaires were passed out soliciting comments. In the original project, the Planning
Commission was concerned about clustering residential development on 19.2 acres. Another concern was
the use of retaining walls and their safety. All retaining walls have been removed except for one small area
adjacent to the Encinitas boundary. A development agreement was signed in the summer of 1994.
Carlsbad Partners has donated three acres of land for Leucadia Boulevard. They also adjusted the project
boundaries south of Leucadia Boulevard in Encinitas. The applicant supports the staff recommendation
with the exception of the Red Barn site. They would also like a revision to Engineering Condition #36(f) to
repair the 24” storm drain, if possible, in lieu of replacing it.
Commissioner Compas inquired about the phasing time between the commercial and residential. Mr.
Wood replied that residential and commercial could occur independently.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the the commercial area would be “big box” construction. Mr. Wood
replied that all commercial is in the nature of a big box. The Master Plan states it will be community
commercial.
Commissioner Compas stated that the project calls for a barrier between the residential and the
commercial areas. He requested an explanation. Mr. Wood replied that there would be a landscaped area just north of Calle Barcelona. It would consist of 35’ trees and fencing.
Commissioner Monroy inquired when grading would begin. Mr. Wood replied that if this project is
approved tonight, it could begin next year. He feels the earliest date would be late summer. There are no
improvement plans needed for a grading permit. He would like to get the grading permit in the next few
months because grading can only occur between April 15 and November 15.
Commissioner Monroy is concerned about the south end of Calle Barcelona. If it is not connected when
the commercial is opened, it will create a traffic problem. He inquired if there is any guarantee that the
connection will be in place when the commercial is open for business. Mr. Wood replied that when the
retail center is built, the loop road would be approved. The development agreement obligates Carlsbad
and Encinitas to cooperate. The right-of-way already exists so it should be easy to implement.
Commissioner Monroy is concerned about the busy wrner at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue
(Planning Area 5). Nobody is obligated to clean up the area so he would favor having commercial there
with certain conditions. He is concerned about the traffic and feels that a sit down restaurant with a small
footprint, possible two story, would be ideal. There are great views to the north and west from that
location. Mr. Wood replied that staff is also concerned about traffic. This has also been suggested as a
possible site for a Jewish temple.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the applicant would accept a condition to build a private trail. Mr. Wood
replied that the trail in the Master Plan meets the Carlsbad trails requirement. It is also required by the
Local Coastal Program. There is already a condition for a trail.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the City decides not to accept liability for the trail, would the applicant be
willing to assume liability for maintenance of the trail. Mr. Farris replied that it is not their policy to provide
and maintain private facilities for public use. He added that he would also not present plans for a fast food
MINUTES ) 33”
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 7
restaurant at the PA 5 corner. He is looking for a low impact use at that corner. Something with a right
turn in and a right turn out. He could accept a condition to restrict him from using it for a fast food
restaurant.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if he would also accept a condition for a private trail system. Mr. Farris
replied yes.
Commissioner Erwin requested Mr. Wood to repeat his concerns on Condition 36(f). Mr. Wood stated that
if the 24 inch storm drain can be repaired, they would prefer to do that.
Commissioner Erwin inquired why the decision was made to reduce the commercial by 50%. Mr. Wood
replied that it came as a result of the community forums. Many citizens were opposed to it.
Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the setbacks which are below minimum. He inquired if the
applicant would be willing to accept a condition that all setbacks meet Carlsbad’s standards. Mr. Wood
replied that a lot of work has gone into designing the Master Plan so that it fits the property. They have
tried to use creative designs and in many instances have used side loaded garages.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired what would be the best-guess as to when the Master Plan will complete its
processing. Mr. Wood replied that he expects it to go to the Coastal Commission in the summer of 1996.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if staff feels this is realistic. Mr. Westman replied yes.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the Red Barn corner has ever been noticed for trash by the code
enforcement officer. Mr. Farris replied yes. There has been a problem there with illegal dumping.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if he waits for the City to notify them or if they try to keep ahead of the
problem. Mr. Farris replied that they try to correct the problem if they see it first.
Commissioner Savary inquired if they were to receive a commercial zoning on PA 5, would they retain the
Red Barn. Mr. Farris replied that he would prefer to build a structure that is more in tune with the
neighborhood. He would be interested in knowing from staff what would happen if the Red Barn structure
were to fall into major disrepair. How would he go about getting the necessary approvals for repair if it is
classified as a non-conforming use.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he plans to go to the Coastal Commission before or after the Initiative
election. Mr. Farris replied that his main objective is to complete the City’s planning process. He will make
application to the Coastal Commission as soon as possible, however he doesn’t think that will happen
before April.
Commissioner Nielsen requested staff to respond to Mr. Farris’ question of what could be done with the
non-conforming use. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that there are a couple of
alternatives. If the site is open space, the Red Barn becomes a non-conforming use. If the structure
needs repair, the applicant would have to go through the planning process and the Planning Commission
could allow repair of the structure but it must meet certain requirements. One requirement is that the
applicant must establish a date certain for its abatement. Another alternative would be that the Planning
Commission could determine, in advance, a date certain for abatement of the use.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if they could change the existing business to a restaurant. Mr. Wayne
replied that the use cannot be intensified.
MINUTES / 3 b
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13.1995 PAGE 8
Commissioner Savary inquired if the corner remains commercial, would the applicant retain the old
eucalyptus tree. Mr. Wood replied that it would be unlikely because it is in the middle of the site and it is
not in good condition.
Commissioner Monroy commented that if the site were developed as a commercial site, more and different
trees could be planted. Mr. Wood concurred.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m.
Mr. Wayne commented that he had more information to report on non-conforming uses. He stated that
the ordinance is not very specific. Replacement is allowed as long as a replacement use is allowed in the
previous zoning and there is no intensification of that use. The Red Barn corner is currently very low
intensity. It could not be accelerated to a higher intensity. If the roof needed repair, it would have to come
back to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there are many ramifications to replacement of a
non-conforming use. For one thing, the structure would have to be constructed so that it could be easily
removed at the time of abatement.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
John Jones, 3044 State Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the citizens should
get a judge to issue a cease and desist order until the electorate has an opportunity to voice their desires.
It will be impossible to mitigate all of the impacts this project is creating. He would like to see the City
condemn the land at a price of $700,000 and maintain it as open space in perpetuity. Any action taken
tonight will be moot after the election. He has fought this project from the beginning and he will continue to
fight it.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about his source of information regarding the lien value being $700,000. Mr.
Jones replied that staff provided this figure to the City Council in the very beginning.
Sharon R. South, 101 So. Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that
she represents the Encinitas Union School District. She stated that the District supports the proposed
project based upon the developer’s agreement to mitigate impacts. She appreciates that Condition ##2 was
added to the project since it will require the applicant to mitigate school facilities to the satisfaction of the
District.
Robert Payne, P. 0. Box 3073, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and read a prepared statement
regarding his concern about hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed project. He stated that
the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR fail to anticipate the difficulty of managing toxins and heavy
metals present in the rainfall runoff from the parking lots, streets, and open areas of the Green Valley
residential and commercial areas. He stated that the containment tanks being recommended by staff have
not been proven and will release a plume of metals and toxins into the delicate habitat of the Batiquitos
Lagoon. A copy of his prepared statement was provided to the Minutes Clerk for file.
Commissioner Compas inquired if, in fact, these problems would occur regardless of the proposed project.
Mr. Payne replied that any development in the Green Valley area will affect the delicate riparian lagoon eco
system.
Jeff Johnson, 6327 Chorlito Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that is speaking on
behalf of himself and Michael Lee, 1445 Gray Oaks Court, Oceanside. He supports the proposed project
MINUTES I 3 7
. -
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 9
and likes the Red Barn use because of its low impact on traffic. He would like to see this wrner preserved
for low impact use as the applicant has recommended.
Commissioner Erwin inquired why someone living in Oceanside would care about something in La Costa.
Mr. Johnson replied that he had an idea several years ago for a restaurant. He thinks this wrner would be
a great location because of the view.
Ann Dyvig, 2607 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is speaking on
behalf of herself and Mr. William Dougherty. After comparing the original EIR with the revised EIR, she
sees several areas of inconsistency. Mr. Dougherty pointed these out to the City Council several months
ago but nothing has been done about it. She finds it inconceivable that a traffic study done in 1995
projects the same amount of traffic as the study which was done in 1993. The study indicates that
standards allow 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane traveling along El Camino Real at that intersection. That
is one car every two seconds.
lnez Yoder, 7738 Madrilena, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the things we cannot
see are the most dangerous. Wildlife depends on their water source. We need to attribute all pollutants to
their source so they don’t destroy the life line for wildlife. Good monitoring is essential. Lighting is also
dangerous for wildlife. She would like to know what contingencies will be in place in the event of a pipeline
break during construction.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives right
down the road on La Costa Avenue. This particular piece of property is beautiful and belongs in open
space. She would be willing to contribute a goodly sum of money to help defray the cost of purchasing this
land for open space. She is concerned that this project does not meet the stringent development standards
that Carlsbad has always been noted for. She hopes the Commission will hold the applicant up to the
same standards as other developers; she doesn’t want this applicant to receive any special favors. Ms.
Welty is most concerned because the project does not meet local coastal program standards for riparian
areas which are being destroyed. Mitigation for the loss of such sensitive environmental resources should
be 4:l. A roadway should not be permitted to enter a wetland. Lighting is also detrimental to the wildlife.
Furthermore, roads are not supposed to be growth inducing. She hopes the Commission will look very
carefully at the plans for the trail. A trail was required on the Sammis property but nobody knows where it
is. She would be in favor of retaining the Red Barn the way it is now.
Leema Klippstein, P. 0. Box 77027-102, Pasadena, California, addressed the Commission and stated that
she represents the Spirit of the Sage Council-California, a coalition to presence endangered species.
When birds significantly die off, it is an indicator that our environment is dying off and is no longer healthy.
The Green Valley area was set aside from previous projects as a place for birds and wildlife. Now there is
no place for the habitat. There should be a minimum mitigation of 3:l for replacement of habitat and she
would be in favor of 5:l. This project destroys the habit and does not replace it. No consideration was
given to the cumulative impacts.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if the Sage Council has any experience in transplanting habitat. Ms.
Klippstein replied that they do not do restoration. Their charge is just to make sure that people are obeying
the laws set down to protect the habitat.
Joe Valenti, 3491 Lawrence Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that we have a
responsibility to future generations. Who will be around to answer to our kids. He is concerned about the
high five’s he observed at the Planning Commission last week. The developers and consultants were all
high-fiving one another after the meeting but the citizens dragged out. Money won again and the will of
the people lost. He used to live in Oceanside next to an apartment building which was stuffed down the
neighborhood’s throat. Today it is crime ridden and covered with graffiti. He is concerned that nobody
wants to take responsibility when a project goes bad.
/ 3 8 MINUTES
December 13,1995 PAGE 10
Pat Blanca, 3209 Fosca, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant has stated that
their plan is fulfilling the thing that the citizens want. It does not fulfil1 her concerns. A big box could be anything they want to design. The applicant wants to leave their options open. El Camino Real will be a four lane highway with the applicant paying 5% of the cost and the taxpayers paying 95%. She is opposed
to this project and hopes the Commission will vote on behalf of the citizens of Carlsbad.
Barbara Tice-Simons, 7106 Lantana Terrace, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she
lives in Carlsbad but works in Oceanside. Her associates in Oceanside have commented that our City
officials are getting as bad as Oceanside. She moved out of Vista because they were ruining the
environment. She doesn’t understand why we want to ruin our environment and kill our sources of
revenue. We need agriculture and we need tourism. She urged the Commissioners to pray about their
decision and vote with decisiveness and clarity of purpose.
Marilyn Jaffa, 2348 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that before she
moved to Carlsbad she lived in Pacific Beach. Three years ago she moved to Carlsbad because of its
beauty. There is not one mention in the staff report about the lagoon. She wonders why we don’t
maximize the areas around the lagoon. She is very sad to think that we are losing this uniquely beautiful
area.
Chairperson Welshons allowed the applicant time for rebuttal.
Gary Wood, P&B Consultants, 401 A Street, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that the
desiltation and depollution plan which is included in the Master Plan conditions of approval is based on the
best management practices of the national pollution discharge standards. These are the same standards
which have been applied to protect the lagoon in the Aviara development. The project does deal with the
100 year flood plain in accordance with Carl&ad’s standards and maintains the flood flows in a
satisfactory fashion. The City’s engineers could provide more detail on that if it is needed. The project is in
conformance with the City’s general plan and the reduced project is substantially below the original project
which was also substantially below what the general plan and growth management program would allow.
The project is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and specific design criteria of the local coastal
program, all of which were incorporated into the planning of the project. He emphasized that there are no
prime agricultural soils on the property. This is different than other projects in Carlsbad which contain
prime agricultural soils. The dilemma of agricultural leases on this property has been that the soil is quite
poor and requires a lot of nutrients to be added to get anything to grow. A recent tenant farmer lamented
that he had to add so much fertilizer that the only thing the soil did was hold the plant upright. It is simply
not a prime agricultural site as many people seem to assume.
Commissioner Monroy is concerned about water runoff. He inquired if the streets will be public or private.
Mr. Wood replied that the streets on site are all public. There may be a private street in the residential area
but that has not yet been determined.
Commissioner Monroy would like to know who will sweep the streets since that affects the quality of the
runoff. Mr. Wood replied that public streets would be the public responsibility and private streets would be
the homeowner association’s responsibility. However, the natural runoff from the bluff would not be
polluted and is piped directly through the development area to the creek. The rain which falls on the
development area, including the public and private streets, all goes into a separate drainage system which
goes into depollutant/desiltation basins which are designed in accordance with national pollution discharge
standards before there is any discharge into the creek.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he would be willing to adjust the project’s standards to meet Carlsbad’s
minimum standards. Mr. Wood deferred response to Mr. Farris. Allen Farris replied that the revised
project allows them to wme back with a specific plan. He doesn’t think the Commission should pick and
choose what standards they want imposed. The requirements have already been established by staff.
iUlNUTES /3 9
h
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 11
Staff has already placed additional standards on the project over and above what the chart requires. He
could not agree to Commissioner Erwin’s request.
Chairperson Welshons called for a staff response. Christer Westman, Associate Planner, and Mike Shirey,
Associate Engineer, responded to the public comments and stated:
* Hydrology and wafer. Staff has placed certain conditions on the project requiring permanent basins to
handle the runoff. The basins are intended to handle a two year storm. This is a Master Plan. When
the site development plan wmes in, additional mitigation measures can be imposed.
* Traffic circulation, conflicting information. The Encinitas Ranch was included in the recent traffic study.
This is a different project now. Retail was reduced by half. Multi-family was changed to single family.
ADT assumptions have changed.
* Lighting, habitat barriers, etc. The Master Plan identifies land use only. After it is approved, the specific
issues will be addressed in the discretionary review process.
* Ambiguity; specific benefits of having two crossings. Two crossings are proposed in the Master Plan.
The 3:l mitigation identified is the standard. This still needs the approval of the California Fish & Game.
* Funding of the La Costa/l-5 intersection. It would be financed by the Carlsbad developers. The
widening of La Costa Avenue to four lanes would be funded directly from the CIP. Money from
developers flows into the CIP.
- Water quality monitoring program. If pollution is identified upstream, the City would contact those
individuals and work out the mitigation.
- Flood plain. Staff acknowledges that the water surface elevation can rise as much as 9 ft. in the creek
but the conditions of approval set forth mitigation measures to address the crossings so they would not
be affected. The size of the opening would be addressed in final design. The water would not be there
long enough to destroy vegetation.
Mike Coleman, Coleman Planning Group, 138 Escondido Avenue, Suite 209, Vista, an EIR consultant to
the City, responded to the letter dated December 13, 1995 from Johnson & McCarty. The letter questions
the cumulative impact analysis. He referred to the Supplemental EIR, pages 6-l through 6-5. In the
cumulative projects section, 13 projects in the region were used to arrive at cumulative impacts. The City’s
legal staff and the applicant were satisfied that a good faith attempt was made to quantify the cumulative
impacts from other projects. Regarding cumulative water impacts, staff has received a letter from
Olivenhain Water District stating that they can serve the proposed project without significant impacts.
Regarding air pollution emissions, this has been addressed in the air quality section. Regarding the Green
Valley Initiative, CEQA does not require addressment of initiatives as part of a project.
Mr. Westman added that traffic resulting from the Carlsbad Ranch project does not affect this project
because it has been disbursed by the time it reaches El Camino Real/La Costa intersection. Mr. Shirey
added that if any, there would be very minimal impacts. He noted that SANDAG modeling includes the
Carlsbad Ranch as background traffic so it was taken into account.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if staff can accept the applicant’s proposal for a change to Condition
#36(f). Mr. Shirey replied that staff had discussed that proposal with the applicant and they wncur with
the language proposed.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the reason the Green Valley Initiative was not considered is that CEQA
didn’t require it. Mr. Westman replied that a broad range of alternatives were considered; however, there
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 12
is a limit as to how many alternatives can be analyzed. Because the applicant submitted a reduced project,
staff felt it was satisfactory and there was no need for another alternative.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Welshons
declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Monroy inquired about the City’s obligation to sweep the streets to meet water quality
standards. His concern is that when the City gets into a financial problem, they begin to reduce the
services. He inquired if there is a standard for street cleaning. Mr. Shirey replied that the City has a street
sweeping program in effect and must meet NPDES requirements.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if those standards could be incorporated into the project. Rich Rudolf,
Assistant City Attorney, replied that this doesn’t belong in a Master Plan document. He suggested that
staff meet with Commissioner Monroy on familiarize him with the standards which the City must meet.
Commissioner Erwin still thinks that voting on this issue is premature. A legal initiative will go to the voters
of Carlsbad in three months. Discussion of this project by the Planning Commission at this time gives the
appearance that the City is trying to jam something down our throats. He asked the Commissioners to put
themselves in the place of the citizens. He believes that a decision tonight is doing a disservice to
everyone.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue the Green
Valley Master Plan to the first Wednesday or first available meeting after the March 26,
1996 election.
VOTE: l-6
AYES: Erwin
NOES: Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to (A) adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3855, including the errata sheet, recommending certification
of the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02, adoption of the CEQA Findings of Fact
(Exhibit “A”), and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Report (Exhibit “B”); and (B)
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856, 3857, and 3858 recommending
approval of Master Plan MP 92-01, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 93-06,
and Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 87-23; and (C) adopt Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3859,3860, and 3861 approving Tentative Tract Map CT
92-08, Hillside Development Permit HDP 92-15, and Special Use Permit: Floodplain
SUP 92-05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein,
including the agreement proposed by the developer.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Monroy, and duly seconded, to eliminate the
intersection at Levante and A Street, in its entirety..
VOTE: 2-5 (Amendment fails)
AYES: Monroy, Welshons
NOES: Compas, Erwin, Nielsen, Noble, Savary
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Monroy wants to make sure that Calle Barcelona connection goes through before this
development is occupied.
MINUTES /+/
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 13
Commissioner Savary commented that she believes this is beyond Carlsbad’s control. Commissioner
Monroy replied that there is a traffic agreement between the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad.
Mike Shirey, Associate Engineer, commented that there are two crossings of Encinitas Creek; however,
the southerly connection is not needed right away.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Monroy, and duly seconded, that the south end of
Calle Barcelona be open to Leucadia prior to any occupation of the retail space in this
project.
VOTE: 3-4 (Amendment fails)
AYES: Erwin, Monroy, Welshons
NOES: Compas, Nielsen, Noble, Savary
ABSTAIN: None
The subject was discussed of having a traffic signal at the Von’s entrance. Chairperson Welshons would
prefer not to have a signal because staff has stated that there is insufficient space between that intersection
and the La Costa Blvd. signal. However, she would like to have a break, with ingress and egress to Von’s
at the El Camino Real western entrance. Commissioner Monroy would like to have a signal and a break,
and have the Von’s performance bond pay for the signal.
Mr. Shirey stated that it is staffs opinion that no traffic signal at the western entrance could be a safety
hazard. However, they would not preclude Von’s from fulfilling their obligation. David Hauser, Assistant
City Engineer, stated that having a break and no signal at that location might open the City up to liability
issues.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, inquired if a traffic break or signal was considered in the EIR. Mr.
Coleman, Coleman Planning Group, replied no. This is a program EIR. It would not require the
consideration of a turn pocket.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, explained the history on Von’s. At the time Von’s was built (1983)
that portion of El Camino Real was under the jurisdiction of San Diego County. The County had different
standards than Carlsbad has. The signal was put off to the future because the County didn’t want it at that
time. Von’s was required to purchase a performance bond for a future signal. Mr. Wojcik stated that today
he tried to call the bonding company and the telephone numbers are no longer any good. The City could
find that Von’s is in violation of their bond because they didn’t perform and the bonds have lapsed. Staff
would be willing to contact Von’s and try to work out a solution.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the signal dilemma is a technical issue and is only
related to the Tentative Map. The Commission could pull the Tentative Map aside and act on the rest of
the motion. Staff could wme back at the next meeting with some resolution on the Tentative Map.
ACTION: Motion was made by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission pull the Tentative Map and CT and bring it back for a vote at the next
meeting.
VOTE: 7-O (Amendment carries)
AYES: Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTES jp( iik
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 14
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, that those setbacks
within the Master Plan which do not meet Carlsbad’s minimum standards shall be
increased to meet Carlsbad’s minimum standards..
VOTE: 3-4 (Amendment fails)
AYES: Erwin, Nielsen, Welshons
NOES: Compaq Monroy, Noble, Savary
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Monroy, and duly seconded, that if the City does not
accept liability for the trail before the final plan is approved, the developer shall build the
equivalent trail and retain it as a private trail. If the City assumes liability for the trail at a
future date, the trail could revert to the City.
VOTE: 4-3 (Amendment passes)
AYES: Compaq Erwin, Monroy, Welshons
NOES: Nielsen, Noble, Savary
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Monroy, and duly seconded, to add a new condition
that no application for grading may be approved until April 16, 1996.
VOTE: 3-4 (Amendment fails)
AYES: Erwin, Monroy, Welshons
NOES: Compaq Nielsen, Noble, Savary
ABSTAIN: None
Commission Monroy made a motion to restrict the size of building on the southwest wrner of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue to no larger than 6,000 s.f. and two stories, with low traffic impacts, specifically
eliminating fast food outlets. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Compas would like to see the southwest wrner property remain in its present state. He
appreciates that staff and the applicant expended a lot of effort in reducing the size of the project.
Commissioner Noble stated that monitoring pollution does work and he feels it can work at this site as well.
One night last year a pollution problem occurred in the Terramar development; at dawn there were
numerous trucks in place working on the cleanup. Most of the residents didn’t even realize there had been
a problem. He thanked staff for their excellent presentation and stated that he would support the project.
Commissioner Monroy can support the project. He feels that 400 units should be the absolute maximum.
Commissioner Savary appreciates the display of good faith by the applicant and their efforts to do
everything possible to meet the City’s demands. She also thinks staff has done an excellent job. She will
support it.
Commissioner Nielsen feels that everyone has played a part to ensure the best possible project at this site.
The rest will be up to the voters. He will support it.
Commissioner Erwin has already stated how he feels. He thinks it is premature to vote on this project
before the election. He also has a problem that the developer is not willing to meet our minimum
standards.
Chairperson Welshons is very impressed with the public participation on this project. This is an entirely
different project than the first one which was presented in January 1994. She is not opposed to the project
and she lives in this neighborhood. She will see it each and every day. She doesn’t represent any special
MINUTES )4 3
PLANNING COMMISSION December 13,1995 PAGE 15
interest group. Her main wncern is seeing that there is a balance. She feels that everyone has done a
good job trying to address the issues. That is why Commissioners must make their decision after everyone
has had an opportunity to speak their piece.
Chairperson Welshons stated that the amendments which had passed were to bring back the CT at the
December 20, 1995 meeting and to require a private trail system until such time as the City will accept
liability for a public trail. She asked if there were any additional errata sheets. Mr. Westman replied there
were none other than that which the Commission has. She called for a vote on the main motion.
VOTE: 6-l
AYES: Compas, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS:
Mr. Wayne stated that staff will be responding to the issues brought in the last public comment. The letter
will be copied to Commissioners.
Chairperson Welshons stated that an earlier social event had been planned but was postponed due to
Commissioner Noble’s illness. It will be rescheduled for January, after the holidays.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of December 13, 1995 was adjourned at lo:12 p.m.
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES 14 4,
Carlsbad Parhm ltd.
•e*~~~oe~~~e~o~m~~**~~eo
2111 Pahw Rirpoft Rod
Suite 100
Carlsbad. Ill 92009 C R 0 S S I N G S
December 5, 1995
Kim Welshons, Chairperson Carlsbad Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
Re: Green Valley Master Plan - Planning Area 5
Dear Commissioners:
The Green Valley Master Plan, Reduced Project Alternative, which has been forwarded to the Planning Commission has been revised, at the direction of the planning staff, to designate Planning Area 5 as open space. This makes the Master Plan consistent with the staff recommendations for this area.
In our letter to the Planning Commission dated November 20, 1995, Carlsbad Partners requested a very restricted land use designation and discussed the reasons we felt this was warranted based on a reasonable application of Carlsbad policies. The attached pages are those that describe the restricted uses, development program and design guidelines for Planning Area 5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the applicant's request, these pages would be added to the Master Plan and other references to Planning Area 5 within the document changed accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
da&& A?=
Allen D. Farris Carlsbad Partners Ltd.
Planning Area Develooment Standards and Guidelines
!5 PLANNING AREA 5 - COMMERCIAL
Description
Plannincl Area 5 is a small oarcel (aooroximatelv 3.0 aross acres) in the northeast corner of
Green Vallev. The olannina area is bounded on the north bv La Costa Avenue, on the east
bv El Camino Real, and on the west and south bv Planninq Area 1. The olannincl area is the
location of an existina structure, commonlv referred to as the “Red Barn” which has been
used in the east for several different office and retail uses.
Site DeveloDment Standards and Desian Criteria
The aooroval of a Site Develooment Plan is reauired orior to anv develooment in this olanninq
area. All develooment within Plannina Area 5 shall be in conformance with the C-l
Neiahborhood Commercial Zone (Cartsbad Municioai Code, ChaDter 21.26). and the El Camino
Real Corridor Develooment Standards, exceot as otherwise noted in this chapter.
Use Allocation
A maximum of 6,000 sauare feet of aross floor area shall be allowed.
Permitted Uses
Art store and aallery
Bank/savinas and loan (with or without drive-thru’sl
Florist
Offices (business and orofessional uses1
Restaurant (includina sit-down, with or without on-site liquor sales1
Heiaht
The maximum allowable heisht in this olanninq area is 25 feet for a buildinq structure
includinq roof form and anv other architectural elements.
Setbacks
The minimum setback alona La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real for structures shall be thirtv
feet (30’) from right-of-wav as in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards. The minimum setback for Darkina shall also be twentv feet (20’1 from riaht-of-
wav.
Green Vale y Master plan P&D Consuttants, Inc.
Page VI-43 I#(@
- -
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Parkinq
Parkinq shall be in conformance with the Carlsbad Darkina standards (Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chaoter 2 1.44). Additional oarkina standards includino Darkinq lot IandscaDe standards
are contained in the Soecial Desian Criteria section which follows.
Architecture
General
1 A The oroiect desiqn conceots shall reflect the kev elements of the existinq “Old
California/Hisoanic” develoDment alone the El Camino corridor consistent with the
requirements of the El Camino Real Develooment Standards (Februarv 1984).
2, All elements shall aobear intearated into the overall oroiect desian concert. Desiqns
that aooear arbitrarv or are inconsistent in form or comoosition shall not be allowed.
Buildina Massina and Form
12. Buildinq massinq shall oossess a balance in form and comoosition.
2 2 Buildino facades shall have a firm relationshio to a human scale.
3- The arranaement and desiqn of windows and doors, as a whole, shall be carefully
comoosed to comoliment a buildina mass.
Buildinq Entries
.L A relationshio between site and buildinn shall be firmlv established. Site and landscaoe
features that create a link to the buildinq entrv shall be emohasized.
2 2 Primarv buildina entries shall be from the Darkina area oriented awav from the
intersection.
Heiaht of Buildinas and Structures
1 A The maximum total buildinq heiqht, includina roof-mounted eauibment and screens,
shall not exceed twentv-five feet (25’) in heiqht.
2- Unoccuoiable structures such a tower-tvoe architectural features and flaa ooles shall
not exceed twentv-five feet (25’).
Green Valley Master Han P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-44 jc) 7
c- h
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Buildino Materials and Finishes
1 A Exterior materials selected for a buildina shall exhibit a hierarchv of order and be
consistentlv aoDlied throuahout a oroiect.
2 2 Corruqated, metal-sided, ore-fabricated, and hiah clloss contemporarv buildinqs are not
allowed.
3 3 Color palettes shall be oredominantlv liaht in shade, warm in character, and sensitive
in the use of color accents.
4 2 The use of tinted and/or moderatelv reflective olazino (such as areen, blue, qrav, or
bronze) is encouraaed. Untinted mirrored qlass and hiahlv reflective aold tinted qlass
shall not be allowed.
5 -L Monolithic alazino shall not be used as a dominant desiqn theme. “Glass boxes” shall
not be permitted.
6 L Exterior wood mav be used, but must be finished with paint or solid based stain.
Buildina Roof Desian
1 A The buildinq mav use parapet-screened, built-up flat roof forms. Sloped or curved roof
forms mav also be used if thev are expressed as part of the overall architectural
desion. Mansard roof forms shall not be Dermitted.
2 -L Due to the orade differences between this olannina area and surroundina areas, roofs
will be visible from some exitina develooment. for this reason, all roofs, unless part
of a specific desian element (e.a. a standina seam roof oortion), shall be finished in a
uniform color reaardless of whether it is visible from around level. All roof elements;
includina roof-mounted equipment and components, the inside faces of equipment
screens, and back side of parapet walls: shall be painted to match roof color. Roof
forms that are part of the architectural theme of the buildina mav be colored in
conformance with the aDDroved material and color palette.
3 A Built-uo or membranae roofino shall be effectivelv screened on all sides bv the buildinq
parapet. Parapet heiaht must eaual or exceed the heioht of the hiahest ooint of the
flat roofina.
Roof Drainaae
1 2 Roof downsDouts shall, in all cases, be routed internallv.
Green Valley Master flan P&D Consultants, Inc.
P8ge VI-45 ld 8
-
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
2, A cover piece shall be required for roof overflow drains. This cover piece mav be
either flush hinae-mounted or forward fixed-mounted. Cover pieces mav be painted
to match the backqround buildina color or, in a contrastinq color and developed as a
desian element.
3 A Storm water from roof downspouts shall not be drained into landscaoe areas.
Mechanical Equioment Screeninq
L Exterior comoonents. whether roof- or around-mounted, shall be screened on all sides
bv the buildina itself, such as an extended roof or oarapet wall, that shall be
aestheticallv compatible with the architectural desian of the buildina or screen walls
desiqned intearallv with the buildina.
2 A Equipment screenina shall be at least the heiaht of the exterior components to be
screened and shall effectivelv screen all such eauipment as miaht be viewed from the
around elevation.
3- Corruaated metal shall not be allowed as a screenina material.
Screen Walls, Fences, and Retainina Walls
.L Screen walls less than 42 inches and fences shall adhere to parkinq setback
reauirements alona DUbk riahts-of-wav. Screen walls areater than 42 inches shall
adhere to the buildina setback requirements.
2- Screen walls and fences shall not exceed eiaht feet (8’) in heiaht.
3- Fencinq and screenins treatments must be desianed as an intearal oart of the overall
architecture and landscaDe desian.
4- All fencinq shall be constructed of durable materials and shall be maintained in aood
repair. Painted wrouaht iron, metal Dicket, masonrv block (split face, stucco-coated,
plaster-coated, or texture finished) or tilt-uo concrete panels are examoles of
acceptable fencina materials.
Loadina Areas
1, All loadina areas shall be located to be unobtrusive from view from La Costa Avenue
and El Camino Real.
2 A Loadina areas must be desianed to not interfere with Dublic streets.
Green Valley Master Man P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-46 /d 9
,- -
Planning Area Development Standards and Guidelines
Outdoor Storaae
L No outdoor storaae shall be oermitted.
Refuse Collection and Storaae
1, Outdoor refuse enclosures shall be constructed of oermanent materials aestheticallv
comoatible in scale, finish, and color with the overall oroiect. Enclosures shall be of
sufficient heioht to comoletelv screen the bins within and shall be provided with a
gate, in order to screen all refuse containers from adiacent oublic or orivate rishts-of-
wav.
2 A Refuse collection areas shall be desianed to contain all refuse aenerated on site
between collections.
Utilities and Communication Devices
Exterior on-site utilities, includina, but not limited to, irriaation and drainaae svstems;
gas lines, water and sewer lines, and electrical and telecommunications shall be
installed and maintained underaround. ExceDtions to this orovision are electrical
transformers and other similar eauioment that is not tvoicallv olaced underaround.
Electrical eauioment shall be mounted on the interior of a buildina wherever oractical.
When interior mountino is not oractical. such eauioment shall be screened with walls,
berms, and/or landscaoino.
On-site transformers shall not be Dlaced within the buildina setback, nor where readilv
visible uoon site entrance. All transformer areas shall be screened bv landscaoina.
All backflow oreventers, includina fire sorinkler backflow oreventers and above-arade
utilitv connections shall be screened bv landscaoins and oainted, when allowed bv
code, so as to blend in with the adiacent backaround.
Fire sDrinkler valves and alarms shall be Dlaced to visuallv minimize their visual
presence.
Vehicular Circulation
L The vehicular circulation svstem for the olannina area is a throuah drivewav svstem
connectina two entrv ooints. The two entrv ooints are limited to a riaht-in/riaht-out
movement.
2- The two access ooints will be located alona the El Camino Real frontaoe.
Green Valley Master Ran P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-47 15’
Planning Area Develo#ment Standards and Guidelines
Pedestrian/Bicvcle Circulation
1 2 Efficient, safe nedestrian access shall be brovided from the narkina areas to the
buildinafs).
2 2 Where oossible. the sidewalk alone La Costa Avenue will be a widened sidewalk detail
consistent with the eiaht-foot (8’1 wide oedestrian/bicvcle trail desianated for this area.
The nedestrian/bicvcle crossina of the entrv boint to the, commercial center will be
adequatelv marked and detailed to allow bicvcles to avoid anv curbs or drainaqe
structures.
3- Bicvcle racks shall be orovided in a convenient, vet unobtrusive location.
Parkinq
L Parkina shall be reaulated in accordance with the current barkino standards of the City
of Carlsbad and the standards described within this ouideline.
2, All uses shall meet or exceed the Citv of Carlsbad oarkina count standards.
3 A On-site vehicular circulation shall be clearlv marked, direct, and efficient.
4- Desionated snaces shall be orovided in convenient locations for handicanued narkina.
5, Designated bicvcle oarkina areas shall be reauired. Bicvcle barkino areas shall have
racks and be unobtrusive.
6- Should drive-thru facilities be develooed, circulation desian shall Dreclude car stacking
into interior circulation drivewavs.
Utilities
Desiltation and Debollutant Plan
1, The Green Vallev master olan for siltation and bollution control is contained in Chauter
v.
2, The siltation and nollution control for Planninq Area 5 will use an urban oollutant travel
filter svstem. The urban oollutant travel filter will use standards of the Citv of
Carlsbad or an alternate techniaue or desian if aboroved bv the Citv Enoineer.
Green Valley Master Plan P&D Consultants, Inc.
Page VI-48 1341
ROBERT PAYNE
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
92009 619 - 753 - 0007
13 DECEMBER, 1995
GREEN VALLEY E I R
SECTION: 4.8 1 -> 6 HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY
The mitigation measures proposed in the submitted EIR fail to anticipate the
difficulty of managing the toxins and heavy metals present in the rainfall run off
from the parking lots, streets and open areas of the Green Valley residential and
commercial areas.
1. The mitigation plan anticipates no more than l/2 inch of rain in the first
downpour of the rainy season. If the rain exceeds l/2 inch, the system designed
to stop toxins/heavy metals entering the Encinitas Creek will overflow.
The toxins and heavy metals entering the Encinitas Creek may kill the
Batiquitos Lagoon.
Mitigation of the run off from the Green Valley projects must utilize multiple
and redundant containment tanks in a series, in the event the first tanks are
overwhelmed by sudden rainfall exceeding expectations. The systems proposed in
the EIR are inadequate.
2. The systems intended to contain project runoff are not proven devices. To
date, there is no record on the designs. City of Carlsbad Planning Department
staff cite the success of the devices now employed at Price Club at Palomar Road.
However, the Price Club devices process less run off and discharge the run off to a
creek, then to the Pacific Ocean. This system and situation does not even
approximate the size of the Green Valley Crossings projects and the delicate creek-
riparian-lagoon eco system downstream of the Green Valley Crossings project.
downstream of the Green Valley Crossings project.
3. The containment tanks require forethought, financial dedication, and
stipulations extending into the coming century. At no time may the toxins/heavy
metals be allowed to escape into the Encinitas Creek. This would release a plume
of metals and toxins into the delicate habitat of the lagoon.
4. Not mentioned in the E I R is the fact that industrial, household, and
landscaping chemicals will accumulate in the containment tanks. The industrial
chemicals to be used in the retail areas are of proven lethality. All chemicals will
eventually flow to the containment tanks. The household chemicals will include
thousands of compounds of varying toxicity. The landscaping chemicals --
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides --will also flow to the containment vessels.
With the first rain of the year -- or fire fighting anywhere in the Green Valley
area -- runoff will carry these chemicals into the Batiquitos Lagoon.
5. Often, developers claim the paving of agricultural lands will create a gain in
water quality. They claim this because there will be no more use of agricultural
chemicals. This is incorrect. They ignore the fact that the application of
pesticides and herbicides to crop lands is a strictly monitored process.
A farmer must go through a permit process. A suburban homeowner can
put any chemical they want on their lawn.
In the case of Green Valley, the poisons and chemicals put on the lawns of .
the four hundred homes will go # ’ 4. Qbw
DEC 13 ‘95 18:49 PFIGE.002
JOHNSON & MCCARTHY
KEVIN K. JOHNSON’ A PARTNERSHIP INClUDlNC A PROFESStONAL CORPORAtlON
DANIEL 6. .McCAsTHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOHN E. EDWARDS 550 WEST “C’ STREET, SUITE 1150 HElDI E. BROWN SAN OIECO, CALlFORtiiA 921 Ot -3540 JEANNE L. M,UKlNNON .
* * P?oFlssour* LAW cmrIc*( December 13, 1995
Planning Cozamission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmos
SC0J-r D. SCHAUACKER oc COUNSU
TELEPHONE (619) 696-6211
TELECOPIER (619) 696-7516
Carlsbad, CA 92009-157 6
Re: Program Environmental Impact Report for the Grekn Valley Master Plan-and Maker Tentative Map Mp92-01/CT92-08/HoP92-15/SUP92-05 EIR93-02
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Johnson & McCarthy has been asked by Carlsbad Citizens/Green Valley to comment upon the alternative project analysis and the cumulative impact analysis in the ~lSupplemental Information to the Program Environmental Impact Report."
The cumulative impact analysis found in section 6.3 is incomplete and legally defective.
Initially we observe that the analysis fails to consider the Carlsbad Ranch Project which is proceeding at this time within the City of Carl&ad. A copy of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Carl&ad Ranch is sukmitted herein under separate cover. The documentation related to that project from the city files is hereby incorporated by reference into the record on the Green Valley Project. We understand that the Planning Commission is intimately familiar with the documentation and details regarding the results of environmental studies for the Carlsbad Ranch project.
In view of the Carlsbad Ranch documentation as well as the suppl~tal information to the Green Valley EIR, it is clear that there are related and cumulative impacts that must be considered between the two projects and amongst the other projects that are listed in the respective EIR materials.
CEQA Guidelines, 515130, subd. (b) provides that an adequate dikussion of cumulative impacts must include:
the following elementsr (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's corkrol, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or cumulative impacts, or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document that is designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions,
DEC 13 '95 18:58 .-
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad Page 2 December 13, 1995
PFlGE. OB3
provided that such docUment6 are referenced and made available for public inspection at a specified location; (2) a sumary of such individual projects' expected environmental effects, with specific reference to additional information stattng where such information is available; and (3) a reasonable analysis of
all of the relevant projects' cumulative impacts, with an examination of reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding such effects + (CEQA Guidelines, 515130, SUM.
(b) 4
Among other problems, we note that the Green Valley cumulative bpacts analysis found in $6.3 does not add together and summarize the specific numerical impacts from the various projects identified. In most cases impacts from individual projects are non-numertcally noted, with insufficient detail to allow meaningful analysis.
We note, by way of comparison, that the. Carlsbad Ranch environmental document at Table 5-20, has "Estimated Water Demand for Carlsbad Ranch" data. It specifically identifies the expected water needs of all the component parts of the project. (Exhibit
*AU. )
The specific, numerical water needs of all of the projects listed under the Green Valley cumulative impact section should be included and added together in the Green Valley document.
Similarly, with respect to all of the other environmental im acts of each of the listed projects, there should be qu L GALAWLAUI~ WL ,,,J+,L Lr-L url &hum I Lmb~lntinn
of the impacts cumulatively.
DEC 13 ‘95 18:51 - PFlGE. BQ4
Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Page 3 December 13, 1995.
is perhaps related to the out-and-out failure of the EIR consultants and the City to consider an obvious, environmentally superior project detailed in the Green Valley initiative. That initiative is on the March, 1996 ballot and was filed with the City in November, 1994, well before the supplemental ETR was prepared.
Under CEQA, the environmental documents are required to address a reasonable range of project alternatives. The complete absence of an analysis regarding the Green Valley initiative, a copy of which is submitted under separate cover, is a failure in letter and in spirit to comply with CEQA,
As authors of the initiative, we can state that the project therein was designed to minimize impacts at the particular project site as well as cumulative impacts in the subregion. The EIR fails to state why the initiative alternative was not considered.
The heart of the CEQA process is public participation and hopefully, informed decision making. To ignore the initiative measure from the standpoint of the alternative project analysis and the cumulative impact analysis is inexcusable. .
We urge you to comply with CEQA requirements and with good planning principles. It is unfair to the public and, in particular, the proponents of the Green Valley Initiative that the ~;~~t~;lly ignores a well tpought-out and publicly supported As you are aware, Itn order to qualify for the ballot, the initia'tive had to be supported by at least 10% of the registered voters of the City. The subject initiative qualified with more than 13% in support thereof.
We also find that your alternatives analysis fails to explain in meaningful detail the reasons and.facts supporting the EIR conclusions. Specific impacts should be quantified throughout the EIR, as done in the Carlsbad Ranch document.
Thank you for your consideration on these matters.
Very truly yours,
KKJ/dlf cc: Carl&ad Citizens/Green Valley
DEC 13 ‘95 la:51 -
.DRAFT .
PRGE.005
CARLSBAD RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
d UTY OF -SBAD
--
a AUGUST 1995
COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIA’TES fe!
t EZ E ~Q3 189 1. IJI I If 3
m
8 d o,ss 0 0 5238 0 3
I I I
__ _- - -- I- 1-t I 1
I I I I I I 1 I
-----.---.-.. -...-.- -.,._ -.- --_. _ -..-. l_. --,-...a m .
- DEC 13 ‘95 18:s~
TABLE S-6 PROJEWD AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ‘YEAR 2ooo (Pounds Per Day) .
Pomttant
CO
ROG
.r”-
PRGE.007
TnIlir facton bku -es, Aupuc 19M and May, 1M.
The project’s long-term operation impact on air quality is considered signifkmt. Mitigation Measure 1 has been proposed to reduce this impact to a Ievei less than significant
TABLE s-7 PROJECTED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
AT BUILDOUT, YEAR 2010 (Pounds Per Day)
co 6.075 21 6a96
. ROG 294 2 2%
NO% , 675 122 LO60 -
skitive Receptors .
The development within the specilic plan amendment area will in&de a vocational school campus with dormitories, two hotels, and recreation facilities such as LEGOUND Carlsbad and golf courses, which arc used by large numbers of people. These uses are compatible with other development anticipated under the proposed
specific plan amendment, including open space, retail, and research and
civ#udms flcPlbnMr --P-J eagcsi 524 Gy of Cadsbad Aupm 1995
c .
DEC 13 ‘95 18:53
TABLE 5-19 ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOW
PQGE . 00d”
. !
Existing City requirexnents wiIl adequately reduce impacts. No additional mitigation measures arc required.
DEC-13-95 WED 13:345 CHFIBQD FIT LQ COSTA 619 943 8892
Chabad at L Costa 1980 ta Costa Ave.
ta Costa. CA 92009
. ;1’a
(619) 943-8891
FAX (619) 943-8892
U/13/95
Kim Welshons, Chairperson Carisbad Planning Commission City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576
Re: Green Valley Crossings - Planning Area 5
Dear Ms. Welshons,
We are unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight, however, please enter
our position into the public record. We support the project as recommended by staff with
the exception of staffs position to remove use of the Red Barn site, Planning Area 5.
This recommendation of staff to completely remove any use of the Red Barn site is clifikult to understand. This location has been successfully used for many years. The
limited uses proposed in the master plan, at a maximum of only GO00 square feet,
represent desirable and finctional activities. We are particularly interested in the site for a
small neighborhood meeting facility consistent with the standards proposed by the property owner. Please retain options for use of the Red Barn site as proposed by the property owner. We believe use of this comer can offer a real benefit to the community.
Sincerely,
Director of Chabad at La Costa
. \ c /,
Serving all of your Jewish needs in the North County / Cdastal region.
Rabbi Yeruchem EilEort /&I
,-
December 12, 1995
Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons:
In Carl&ad Council chambers last week some seriously untrue assertions were made. I am here to correct
those errors.
The Green Valley Initiative will appear on the ballot next March. I read from the official text of the
Initiative.
. the Green Valley Planning Area “shall provide a minimmn of 25 acres of active space.
. . . this category shall s be construed to be limited to public use. .
. A range. . of specific uses is allowed. . These uses include active recreational facilities, passive
recreational facilities, community center facilities, the possible . site for a community library, a small
amphitheater, commercial agricultural. . use. . .a public cultural arts/festival center. . .” The specific
selection will be made by the normal planning process consistent with the General Plan.
These are the exact words of the Initiative.
In summary, the Initiative reuuires 25 acres of active open space
It specifically allows a range of uses for that open space, but does not mandate any of them. The use will
be selected by the normal Planning process in accordance with the General Plan.
Any assertion that the Initiative spoils or modifies the City’s park plans is contrary to fact.
Any assertion that the Initiative forces a change in the City’s library plans is contrary to fact.
Any assertion that the Initiative imposes significant costs on the City is contrary to fact.
It specifically allows low-cost passive recreational use or (even) revenue-earning agricultural use.
I can only conclude that the Councilmembers had not personally read the Initiative. Perhaps they relied
on biased summaries from other persons.
For the Council’s convenience I am providing photocopies of the open space sections of the Initiative.
The erroneous assertions made at last week’s Council meeting have seriously misrepresented a citizen
effort to avoid deterioration of residential property values and quality of life. The errors have done
damage and injury to a legal endeavor to which many public-spirited citizens have devoted thousands of
hours of effort
I am hopeful that the Council, after personally reviewing the actual text of the Initiative, will wish to
redress this injury by an official public acknowledgment. This would be the fair thing to do, and would
refute any appearance of unfair political practice.
I will provide the City Clerk with a w of my remarks and the open space section of the Initiative. I for-
mally request that they be placed upon the records of this meeting.
Sincerely,
J. Richard Yoder
Xeroxed from the Green Valley B <“wed Use and Traffic Control Initiative” be on the Mar ‘96 ballot. (These are
the only, and all, references to park tir library ,) For complete Initiative, C~JI AZ-01 59
xi $
0 8
B
.il
3 8 ‘3 e
Q
ii .m
3
B
8
zl .-
z! 0
&
‘3
5
!3#
h
Ben Smith
3017 Azahar Court
Ranch0 La Costa, CA 92009
619-436-9960
December 12. 1995
TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
One of society’s oldest political rights is that of petition. The first amendment
of our constitution says that “Congress shall make no law. . . . abridging the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances”. In California the initiative right to correct political actions not desired by
the people is part of our state Constitution.
In Carlsbad, when the city administration and the Hunt brothers of Texas who
own Green Valley failed to produce a plan for Green Valley acceptable to citizens,
more than 5000 registered voters used their right of petition to master-plan Green
Valley to keep it free of excessive traffic, of increased crime, and of low-grade tilt-up
commercial development.
The Initiative was signed by 13% of the total registered voters of Carlsbad and
an estimated majority of voters in the area. Subsequently the Supreme Court ruled
that the initiative process could be used for planning and zoning.
In opposition to the will of the people you are now asked by a Texas-based de-
veloper, acting in concert with the city administration, to favor a plan that would
scuttle the Green Valley Initiative and the petition of 5000 citizens.
Actions taken by the city in concert with others to deny our right of petition
and redress may violate political rights more fundamental than simple zoning and
planning, and may constitute a ‘taking’ of value from those who live in the area af-
fected. Further, misrepresentations of fact by city officials and administrators con-
cerning the Initiative may be viewed as part of that concert of action to deny those
rights.
Sincerely,
November 28, 1995
Mr. Kim Welshons Chairman of the Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
1’
.; -;, . $”
.I,i
Dear Mr. Welshons,
The purpose of this letter is to express my opinion on the Green Valley Crossings project.
I've lived in my home in the Ranch0 Ponderosa development for 19 years. Though it does not please me to see every field being paved, I know it is inevitable. Therefore, I find it best to
work towards a compromise that will satisfy most residents as well as the developer rather than try to completely stop a project.
I attended the very first meeting regarding this project at a home in La Costa probably 2 years ago. At that time, I was one of many who opposed this huge project.
However now that the project has been reduced by 508, I am no longer against it. In fact, I don't know why anyone would be. We shouldn't chase off a developer who is willing to work with the community. I urge you to approve this reduced project.
7966 Los Pinos Circle Carlsbad, CA 92009
.-
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to the Pro&&n 4 CaaJtal sage Scrub and Other T7wcatcnaf Ecosystems
Dan Silver l Coordinator
8424A Santa Monica Blvd. 692 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4210 TEL/FAX 213-654-1456
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission ATTN: Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director 1200 Carl&ad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA
Nov. 22, 1995
. re,
liL;l$qc
:- , Q Jd ,. ,_ :::j, ,;-$ . . .- ‘., .;:
.r
RE: Green Valley MP 92-O l/CT 92-OS/EIR 93-02KCPA 93-06/HDP 92-IS/SUP 92-05LFMP Zone 87-23 Hearing date, Nov. 29, 1995 -
Honorable Commissioners:
The Endangered Habitats League is an organization of Southern California conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. We are active participants in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, a effort we strongly support. We wish to submit for the record the following comments on the proposed project in Green Valley.
This site is a critical one for the eventual success of Carlsbad’s habitat planning program. A proper dedication of natural open space and adequate wildlife corridor width along the stream are essential components. The Environmentally Preferred alternative, with a single stream crossing, best approaches these requirements, and should be the basis for further improvement in terms of additional natural open space. Related concerns are that the applicant be required to permanently dedicate all open space to the City at this time, and that any stream crossing be designed as a
bridge.
An additional issue is the polluted runoff from both this project and neighboring projects in Encinitas. Rest management practices for non-point sources should be defined and made conditions of approval, and a water quality monitoring program should be put in place.
Thank you for considering our views and for advancing the habitat conservation programs.
With best regards,
Dan Silver, Coordinator
: IS z :-.; NOV 1995 :;:,!
: PLANNINGDEPARTM~T ;; City Df carlsbad
November 22, 1995
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576
Re.: MP 92-Ol/CT 92-08/EIR 93-02/HDP 92-l S/SUP 92-05/LFMP Zone 87-23
Green Valley
Dear Sir:
The City of Encinitas is vitally interested in the proposed Green Valley -
Development. The specific concern of the City of Encinitas is the proper
connections of the transportation system between the developments taking place
at this time in both Encinitas and Carlsbad. It is important that the connection be
made from Leucadia Boulevard northerly into the Green Valley area of the City
of Carlsbad west of the Encinitas Creek.
The City of Encinitas has received adequate information from P&D
Consultants, Inc. to clarify the question of the provision of a traffic connection
from Leucadia Boulevard northerly into the proposed Green Valley
Development. We are satisfied that the agreement between the two cities is
being met if the Green Valley Master Tentative Map, showing the Calle
Barcelona alignment going westerly and turning southerly to connect to
Leucadia Boulevard, westerly of Encinitas Creek is indeed the tentative map
being presented and discussed.
I hope this will clarify our position. If you have any questions, please call
at 633-2776.
Sincerely
Subdivision Engineer
1 GJ
TEL 619-633-2600 / FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024-3633 TDD 619-633-2700 -I r,qcyc/edpaper
l GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
. PROVISION FOR OPEN SPACE
l DRAINAGE - PROTECTION FOR ENCINITAS
CREEK AND BATIQUITOS LAGOON
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
OPEN SPACE
ACRES
GENERAL PLAN 97.4
GROWTH MANAGEMENT 27.57
MASTER PLAN 69.83
TOTAL 194.80
. . d) Td 0
c
c)
tr! CI e (1
-
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0
a 8 : E s 8 5: F r
/
il I’
!’ I! !,
!*
I !’ I
/
I
I I /
i
!,
-
-
Q 8 8 0 8 0 8 : 0
G oj cu‘ ; ;
Qo
cn
CD ‘\
[II a W *
;.g 2
I QJ _--
# 4-
LI 0
c 0 ”
‘0 Q) E: cd
Ya
a bl) El du l d
iz 0 0
40 .;*’ !rg a# E .$I# ‘, : 3 0 ilbrlll $a!# E .
. .
f
Ben Smith
3017 Azahar Court
Ranch0 La Costa, CA 92009
6 19-436-9960
-
AN OPEN LETTER TO:
January 23, 1996
MAYOR LEWIS, THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY.OF
CARLSBAD.
Long before the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century
free people used the right of petition. We repeatedly appealed
to the Crown preceding our Declaration of Independence. The
right of petition is embedded in the first amendment of our
Constitution and in the initiative process Fn California. It
should not be lightly dismissed or denied to the people,
whether directly or by subterfuge, delay and, as Shakepeare put
it, by "the insolence of office".
More than 5000 Carlsbad voters put the Green Valley
Initiative on the coming March 26, 1996 ballot ---- not simply
a handful of 'activists' as is claimed. It is a good plan and
is the will of the majority of voters in the southeast
quadrant, and deserves unimpaired attention at the ballot box.‘
Tonight you will consider a plan that can impair and
nullify our Initiative before it is presented to the people.
While this may be clever politics, it strikes at the heart of
the right of petition and smacks of collusion.
Your approval can easily be viewed as part of a common
scheme, plan, and concert of action between Carlsbad Partners
and the City to trample the expressed will of over 5000
Carlsbad voters who signed the Green Valley Initiative. The use
of lies and innuendoes which seek to discredit the Initiative,
and which follow, lend support this view: Namely that
+ 'Small groups of activists have caused an
expensive election to plan Green Valley on a piecemeal basis'
when in fact more than 5000 voters endorsed the Initiative
professionally prepared by qualified city planners.
+ 'The City may b e subject to litigation for
‘inverse condemnation" when in fact the only value of the
property in question untfl some plan goes into effect is as
agricultural land and open space.
+ 'The Initiative process should not be used for
city planning' when in fact the California Supreme Court
recently held that city planning is a proper use of the
initiative process..
-i -
Given these allegations, petitioners have the right to
ask and be given straight anwers to the following questions
+ What agreements, if any, express or implied, were
reached by Carlsbad Partners and City officials and
administrators that would lead Carlsbad Partners to believe
that its property would have a specific value from which it
would suffer a loss?
+ What agreements, if any, express or implied,
between Carlsbad Partners and city officials were made prior to
the plan initially presented by the Partners two years ago as
to its probable adoption before it was protested, and what
agreements have been made, if any, concerning the strategy of
delay and timing of this new plan to defeat of the Green Valley
Initiative?
+ What considerations, if any, have passed between
the Partners and city officials, directly or by innuendoes, in
agreeing to act together to defeat the Green Valley Initiative
before it is voted upon?
‘Y + What documentation is there to support the
allegations that the Initiative Process should not be used to
C' plan development in a community?
Carlsbad Partners present,ed a flawed plan two years ago
that was supported by city planners but which had to be
withdrawn because of an faulty EIR and public outcry.
City planners then set up a series of meetings with
leaders of the Green Valley movement which were unilaterally
cancelled by the planners after only two meetings.
Then, Carlsbad Partners and the city sat without a plan
until after the Green Valley Initiative was qualified for the
ballot. Only then did the developer and city bring in thei-
present plan which, if one is adopted simply !:by t7.e !1't 7.1. : :I :/
be as easily altered by the T,Lty r;c ~z:.:;-~T;~- ! .I... l!S?v~~?~~pmo~~l: arl,:i
put in the plan the deveL::;:+:- ' i :'a=,!. ~)rc>pa:se!-i.
r t i :3 1: ; eat- +‘I--~.-T .rr.~:!irr+:~t.fs presented by those who support - ?)A c 1 --' y it.5 ,-! i3 3 I- i. ii+ r-s pl an that they want the City to have
-3 ,!5! ) :i. II t; H control of planning and want to prohibit citizens from
using their right of petition expressed in the Initiative
:Process.
So the choice tonight is whether or, not to abridge the
peoples right of petition expressed in the Initiative.
Sincerely,
Ben Smith *
SENT BY: --; l-23-96 : 13:59 ; 6 *-';31355+
.t.
23 January, 1996
Mayor and City Council members,
We wish to express our concern over development in the Green Valley ~lceb As residents of La Costa we’re concerned that a large development in that area will lead to gridlock
trafEc on El Camino Real and excess noise and danger for residents near Levante street.
The Green Valley area has seen extensive development in the past, and the effects of the
Ecke Ranch monstrosity has yet to be determined. Please don’t let this section of Green Valley end up like the strip mall hell in Encintitas.
Over the past two and half years, we’ve seen quite a few battles of developers verses residents. So far, the city councils involved have sided with developers every time, Take into consideration the people who voted you in office, They have to live with your decisions,
Sincerely,
Jeff and Joyce Larson
January 23. 1996
Carlsbad City Council Rr Mayor
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
RE: Green Valley
We hope the City Council will not approve the Green ValleyKarlsbad Partners project as
it stands.
Cities today rely too much on retail sales tax promises. We in Carlsbad do not need
another retail center which will be vacant most of the time. Vacancy is due to
overbuilding and having the same shops or same type shops all within a 5-10 mile radius.
Therefore the City does not make the revenue the developer promised, there are vacant
buildings, and the citizens have to look at more shopping centers and reduced home
values.
It truly is a fact that in the EIR reports they did not take a cumulative effect in reviewing
the Green Valley project. In addition. when a new housing project is reviewed, it seems to
be ignored that families do not have just one car today. Most families have at least two
vehicles and sometimes three and four vehicles. This is not taken into account in the EIR
reports.
Why the EIR did not take into account the housing projects in Encinitas Ecke, ones on
Ranch0 Sante Fe Road. and the prqiect that will go in next to the Ranch0 Ponderosa
homes and also not take into account the commercial/retail development that wiii also be
rebuilt at the corner of La Costa and El Camino Real and the Ecke project is beyond
common sense. Therefore the EIR is not worth the paper it is written on.
.4 community such as you advertise and prqiect to the rest of the country will not be a
good place to live or vacation to in the tilttIre if vou continue to allow developers to run
your business. They are after their own fast buck. they really don’t care what idle
promises they give to our City otlicials.
1-0~ should not allow this prqiect to proceed as it stands due to over building of retails
areas and the amount of available housing on the market today. This will continue to
drive down the real estate prices so in the long run you receive less property tax revenues
and residences eventually becomes undesirable due to increased traffic. pollution. and
vacant retail buildings.
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Preserve, Protect, and Enhance
Post 0ff1ce Box 3103
Carlsbad, California 92009
ALL RZCEIVED
8 January 1996
Mayor Claude “Bud” Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) has been briefed by the applicant for the Green Valley
Crossings project and we have reviewed the City staff’s report on the revised project. Based on
this review we note that the revised project includes reduced commercial development and lower
densities of residential development, revisions that will reduce the project’s overall impact. The
BLF does wish to point out that the development of Green Valley will impact the riparian corridor
along El Cumino Red. This area sewes as a sediment trap for the lagoon. Therefore development
along the corridor intist be designed and niaintairied to minimize sediment run-off.
In addition the BLF with the assistance of City staff is working to establish a trail along the north
shore of Batiquitos Lagoon running from El Camino Real to the ocean. The City-wide trail plan
calls for the lagoon trail to be connected to the Green Valley trail. We request that the City take
note of this connection and condition the Green Valley Project accordingly.
In effect we ask that the BLF have the right to review and comment on specific features of the
Green Valley Crossings plans prior to construction. Our interest is only on the features that
pertain to the riparian corridor, hillsides, and public trail access. We would expect to make
recoinmcndatiorts tit a lare;. daic dealing viith conirol of pol!aion/sediment into the lagoon,
detention basins, trail signs, obsenwion points, revegetation, and coordination with the public
information program around the lagoon. It would be preniature to make such reccomendations
now but we wish to be on record so that the door will be open in the future.
Cordially,
Seth Schulberg-
President
cc: City Council
We are strongly opposed to this development. We hope you will think about the interests
of the residents to who live and shop here and have invested their hard earned monies and
retirements in this communitv. Stop Green Valley as it is planned.
Regards.
Kurt and Laurie Johnson
6423 La Paioma Street
Carlsbad. CA 92009
PLEASE NOfE PROGRESS CIiF CASE; &Ml
1090 (loisa)
Harbor View Medical Center
120 Elm Street San Diego, California 92101
L-_ -.
--
-4 .
January 23, 1996
TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Bonnie
PHONE CALL RE GREEN VALLEY
Katherine Tenny, 2004 Pintoresco Court, Carlsbad, called to voice her opinion that
she does not feel the Council should vote on the Green Valley issue until after the
initiative which will be voted on by the citizens in March. Feels Council should wait
until after the results of the election.
If you wish to discuss this, her work phone number is 967-2842.
cc: City Manager
PROOF OF PUB. - ATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Ttmes-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
January 12, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 12 day
of January, 1996 b%& ----_-------- ------ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This spact fij for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
4
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
---------B------------B---
l --m----m-
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC, .HEARjNG
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN ,’ - w m PA 934LFMP 87-73
NoTlCErs,~G~~thattheCityCaurildtheCityofCarlsbadwillholdapubli hearingattheCityCollKilChambersl1#W)Carfsbad~~~Ikiw,Carlsbad,Califomiaai QiN p., CJO Tuesday January 23,1996, to amider a reqwst for mtitkath of ar Enviravnental~~Reportandan~pplicatianfaaMaPterPlaBLocalCoastalRogmm
Amadment,and~FailitiesManagenientPkntoallowforthefuturedevelapnentol
3MpoosqUarefeet0f~~unityCrmmerdalletail~alMwimumol4wsingle~~ detachedand/orattachedresidentiallmitson281asesdpropertygeneranylocatedat$I; ~~~thwst comer of La Costa Avenue and El ‘Chrdno Real, 11\ Local Facilities Mimagemen Zme23,andmoreparticularlydesaibedas:
A~~or~2,T~l3~~~~e4~~a~~~~~~ TownshipWoWangeIWSaaBenuadinoti~kth!~d~ ccmtydSanDiego,SQteofcalifomia.
Pyiuhaveaoyquestions~timtter, base contact Ch&ter Westman ih the
If you the Master plan,
:-.
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
MP-920l/EIR 93=2/LCPA 93=6/LFMP 87-23
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, January 23, 1996, to consider a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report and an application for a Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Local Facilities Management Plan to allow for the future development of 300,000 square feet of community commercial retail and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or attached residential units on 281 acres of property generally located at the southwest corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, in Local Facilities Management Zone 23, and more particularly described as:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a portion of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
If you challenge the Master Plan, Environmental Impact Report, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and/or Local Facilities Management Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Partners, Ltd. PUBLISH: January 12, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
EIR 93002/MP 92-Ol/ LCPA 93006/LFMP 87-23
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Car&bad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 1995, to consider a request for
certification of an Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval for a
to allow for the future development of 300,000 square feet of community commercial
retail and a maximum of 400 single family detached and/or attached residential units on
property generally located on 261 acres at the southwest comer of La Costa Avenue and
El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 23.
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a portion
of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
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 November 23, 1995. If
you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at
(619) 438-l 161, ext. 4448.
If you challenge the Master Plan, F , Environmental Impact Report,
Local Coastal Program Amendment,
and/or Local Facilities Management Plan 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: MP 92-Ol/w/ElR 93-02/LCPA 93-06-
LFMP ZONE 87-23
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 16,1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMlSSiON I
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-60 * (619) 438-l 161
h
(Form A)
.
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
EIR 93-02/MP 92-Ol/LCPA 93-06/LFMP 87-23 - Green Valley Master Plan
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the ftem for the council meeting of January 23, 1996
.
Thank you.
January 5, 1996
Oate
/ 1 *w-w*~,
1’
/ ,/ rn-,,,-¶a
- ,/------ -.,
/ \ \
**a-t*.41 \
c&--J4
*w-,*,-w *,,-t*‘-Ol
,,*- :::-’
‘ii- ** \
-f
“--., _._ ___ \ \
I
t=-l.9ricmw-w
I Surrounding Ownership -
600’ Radius
i *’ /----+--I / / A!%
i I!,,.,.,.
I i I ¶u-al45 I
k
I I uC)o,-U
I I I “,“‘- il I I I I I I I I I I 5u-555-55 I I
I I \ \
k-
I :
-! I
I :
I :
I I I : I : -I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I
GREEN VALLEY
GREEN VALLEY Pmpcr(J
\ , I I I
I
I I : I I I I
i 1-b” I
.- z!!
i
1
I
I
I
:
; I I
1
:
I
r,er*r46 I
:
I /---- -4
l&j
I
/ : I 56. /lm- u
li.~.,.,.
8
I
: I m- : “------,I
I
GREEN VALLEY
Surrounding Ownership -
GREEN VALLEY
PWWIY
M. SUSAN WHAN
1787 SWALLOWTAIL ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
.
GOODMAN FAMILY TRUST
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICHOLE & DANIEL JOSEPHSON
148 HILLCREST DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
KAREN DAVIS
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EUGENE & HELEN BEDELLION
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #108
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KYLE BLIFFERT
860 NW FEDERAL STREET
BEND OR 97701
PHILLIPS FAMILY TRUST
7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #103
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY MARTINELL
7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DEBRA ZIROLLA
JOHN & DENISE MAZUROSKI
P 0 BOX 13052
LA JOLLA CA 92039
,JESSICA KRAEMER
7758 CAMINITO MONARCA # 111
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORMAN AND MARIE
KERSTEN
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIDNEY AND LOIS TAMKIN
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOl
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EARNESTINE KROBLEN
P 0 BOX 249
CLAREMONT CA 91711
PAMELA A. DENNIS
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA # 103
CARLSBAD CA 92009
. MICHAEL & DEBORAH WILIMEK
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #108
CARLSBAD CA 92009
h
MARJORIE DITTO JOHN FEATHERSTONE
14088 E. KAMM AVENUE 1255 MYRTLE AVENUE
KINGSBURG CA 93631 SAN DIEGO CA 92103
TOMMY D. SHIELDS TRUST WILLIAM & JERI WERNER
1555 BELLA VISTA 8504 ESTRELITA WAY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 LAS VEGAS NV 89128
LARCHMONT INSURANCE
P. 0. BOX 94303
PASADENA CA 91109
LA COSTA SHOPPING CENTER INC.,
C/O LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & ALEXANDER & FLORENCE CHE
SCRIPPS P.O. BOX 3417
600 WEST BROADWAY ALHAMBRA CA .91803
SAN DIEGO CA 92037
LEUCADIA WATER DISTRICT JOSEPH & MILLIE MESSINA 1960 LA COSTA AVENUE 159 MT. VERNON DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CLAYTON CA 94517
&4RRI GROGGINS TRUST
ROBERT F. & ARL
T INGoLD
ROSINE FITZPATRICK
TRUST 7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO
C/O TA& COMPLIANCE __ CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAN FkANCISCO CA 94131----- /’
DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN MANDEL FAMILY TRUST
ASSOCIATION 7747 CAMINITO MONARCA #103
P.O. BOX 6010 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
VELEZ FAMILY E.C. WALDHELM
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #105 7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #109
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GENE & DELORES EMMONS
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #109
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERARD J. & MARYLOU M. GOW
7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOl
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOAN & JOHN KRAMER JANIS KOOSED BEDELL FAMILY TRUST
17679 CAJALCO ROAD 7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #105 7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #107
PERRIS CA 92570 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ILA M. LANDESMAN
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #llO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHAUNNA K. SALZETTI
7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS JOSEPH DRABEK
LINDA CATHERINE DRABEK
7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #107
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVIS PUZO
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOREN D. SANDERS
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #103
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK A. TRAPOLINO
7727 CAMINITO MONARCA # 107
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHEN L. AND JANICE 1. PENN MARY MOORHOUSE
1625 SCOTT PLACE 7727 CAMINITO MONARCA #108
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RON1 RUDLOPH TRUST CHARLES W. AND IVALOU
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 11 BELLAMY TRS
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7727 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIPPLE FAMILY TRUST
2848 ESTURION STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE C. ADAMS
JUDY L. ADAMS
P.O. BOX 15
LAKESIDE MT 59922
CHRISTINE LOGAN
7757 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAURA L. ROGERS
7727 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTHONY & LORRAINE CARTER
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
h
AARON & HELENE BURSTEIN WALDEMAR BREHM
TRUST CARYL L. BREHM
P.O. BOX 1242 2424 LA COSTA AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92018 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIGUEL A. & ARELIA G. NUNEZ GINA R. LANDAU
5 130 CAMINITO EXQUISITO 7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
SAN DIEGO CA 92130 CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHELDON & PATTY R. GLICKMAN ROBERT W. HOLLISTER
7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO 7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #107
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARTHUR E. AND HELEN D. BERNARD D. FINK
SCHAUERMANN JOANNE E. FINK
7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOl 12924 VIA LATINA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 DEL MAR CA 92014
HELMUT E. G. SCHMIDT JAMES & BETTY MACISSAC
7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #102 7757 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEVERLY K. FULLER
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA # 10 1
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JANE G. SUTTON
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEVERLY A. ALLEN TRUST
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #103
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DORIS B. DEMONTE
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID E. & DEBRA L. SILVA
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #105
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARL0 STIL TRUST SUSAN J. MALONE
8579 PRESTWICK 7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 10 TONY C. FINN
LA JOLLA CA 92037 CARLSBAD CA 92009 7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEAN M. SCHUMACHER THOMAS AND JULIE DESMOND
7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #104 7768 CAMINITO MONARCA #ill JAMES E. KOWALSKI
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 3907 LA CRESENTA #109
LA CRESENTA CA 91214
MCCANN FAMILY TRUST
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO JANE SUTTON
CARLSBAD CA 92009 7767 CAMINITO MONARCO #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009
’ NORTH MESA LLC
C/O JOHN WHITE
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS #lOO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHIRLEY R. LAVIAGUERRE
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #105
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUESCA TRUST
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERESA WESTON, MANFRED
GREGER
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 11
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTHONY P. AND MARTHA T.
URBINO
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOl
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHLEEN H. VAUGHAN
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 920090
JORDAN N. STOCKHAM III
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #103
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICIA H. DERBY
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID A. AND TAMMY L.
‘RICHKAS
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #106
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT R. AND PATRJCIA A.
HARMON
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #107
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LURINDA CHIN
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #108
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBIN AND VIRGINIA REESE
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 10
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY FLORENCE
7777 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 11
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THE MAZDAZNAN ELECTOR
CORPORATION
1701 ARYANA DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLTAS COMPANY,
C/O CHRIS CALKINS
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS #lOO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGUITO WATER
DISTRICT
59 EAST D STREET
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FIELDSTONE LA COSTA
ASSOCIATES
C/O THE FIELDSTONE CO
14 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
FRANKLIN, ET AL C/O
STEPHEN M. KIRKPATRICK
P.O. BOX 8600
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
DOROTHY GRANT
7757 CAMINITO MONARCA # 102
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE JOSEPH & BARBARA WARSOFF
C/O AMERICAN GERNAL 7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 10 INVESTMENT CORP CARLSBAD CA 92009 2929 ALLEN PARKWAY
HOUSTON TX 77019
PATRICK C. WITT
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #109
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JUDITH & NIEL KUGEL
7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 10
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELSE B. MOYER CHARD A. AND CY-IA M. LINDA HOLMES
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 10 7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #102
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
,I’
DAVID & RAND1 NAUERT TODD & AMT FLETZ
JOHN OLIVER & SANDRA V. 7747 CAMINITO MONARCA #102 10855 W. DODGE ROAD #lOO
ASHTON CARLSBAD CA 92009 OMAHA NE 68154
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #l 11
CARLSAD CA 92009
HOWARD K. FIGMAN EMC MORTAGE CORP
PAUL J. AND ELEANORE KUSIAK
7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOO 7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #107 222 LAS COLINAS BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 #6OO
CARLSBAD CA 92009 IRVING TX 75039
PATRICK J. SEBRECHTS BERNICE M. CHIIUCO
PAUL H. AND JEANNE M. SEBRECHTS 7758 CAM [INITO MONARCA #108 -1-r “_L 7758 CAMINITO MONARCA #lOl CAKISJSAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARL&AD CA 92009\
SANDRA GAMBOA
7747 CAMINITO MONARCA #104
CARLSBAD CA 92009 GEORGE NEIDER TRUST
7737 CAMINITO MONARCA #109
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ST>FHEN HELPING’
BEVERLY ALLEN TRUST
7767 CAMINITO MONARCA #103 504 *‘+K:. ____ CARLSBAD CA 92009
I$EDONDO BEACH CA 7
.
CONSTANCE WHEELOCK KATRIN ABRAHAMIAN
*#loo # 103
I7727 CAMINITO MONARCA 7727 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVlS FAMILY C. MATTHEW SWINDEN
#105 SALLY L. ORTH, #106
7757 CAMINITO MONARCA 7757 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
/ JACQUES A. GUILLOTON KAREN MAY
#108 #lo9
7757 CAMINITO MONARCA 7757 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANK HERNANDEZ CHRlSTlNA SIDROW
#105 #106
7747 CAMINITO MONARCA 7747 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHEN WORKMAN DANIEL FRAZIER
#108 #llO
7747 CAMINITO MONARCA 7787 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCTOBER 22ND TRUST
# 104
7727 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT & TERRY FEDDIG
#107
7757 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDWARD & PAULINE ZAWlSZA
43845 GALAXY DRIVE
LA QUINTA CA 92253
JAI ME GARCIA
#107
7747 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINDA LUCAS
#llO
7747 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HORST KRUPP DAVlD & PATRICIA GERKE
#ill 3495 SIT10 BORDE
7747 CAMI NIT0 MONARCA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92009
.
MARK FORSTER
7728 CALLE MADERO
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
GORDON BlZIEFF KAREN AND RICH BARNES
4729 GATESHEAD ROAD 7623 RUSTIC0 DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROBERT PAYNE
7732 PLACID0 COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
CORINNE KLEIN-HILDEBRANDT
ALAN HILDEBRANDT
7409 BRAVA ST
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
SUITE 592 DOLORES WELTY
8424A SANTA MONICA BLVD 2076 SHERIDAN ROAD
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90069 ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92024
CCG JULIE FISHER
7623 RUSTIC0 DRIVE 126 VILLAGE RUN WEST
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92024
ARCHILENE WYMAN MARILYN RUDOFF
7635 RUSTIC0 DR 7732 PALACIO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
BEN SMITH
3017 AZAHAR COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
GREGORY CARROLL
2122 PLACID0 COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
PATRICIA KNOX
2002 PINTORESCO COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KEVIN JOHNSON
SUITE 1150
550 WEST C STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3540
KAREN MESSER
# 18 RUTH LEWIS
2399 JEFFERSON ST 2001 AVE OF THE TREES
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008
MORRIS RABIN MATTHAND
7717 MORADA STREET 2032 CUMBRE STREET
CARISBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ALLAN WANAMAKER
#8
2399 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008
ROBERT PAYNE
PO BOX 3073
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
WILLIAM DAUGHERTY
2600 LA GOLONDRINA ST
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
GEORGE SULLIVAN
2395 TERRAZA PANGA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ANTHONY CARTER
# loo
7797 CAMINITO MONARCA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MARIE KERSTEN
x loo
7787 CAMINITO MONARCA
CALIFORNIA 92009
LARRY CISNEROS
7034 IVY STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
FRIENDS OF BATIQUITOS
LAGOON
PO BOX 232736
ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92023
INEZ YODER
7738 MADRILENA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNJA 92009
ANDREW BOYER
7778 FALDA PLACE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
.
BUENA VISI’A AUDUBON KKWl-Y
PO BOX 480
OCEANSIDE CA 92049-0480
DON BROWNE
2351 LEVANTE STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KARLA AND RENATA MULRY
7010 NUTMEG WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
JOE HOENIGMAN
2207 RECODO COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
JOE STRAUSS
#A
2524 NAVARRA DR
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ANNA CAPLES
3117 VISTA RICA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
FRED BARGE
2011 ESCENICO TERRACE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
IRWIN WEINTRAUB
7112 ALMADEN LANE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
HPA
#120
2386 FARADAY DR
CARISBAD CALIFORNIA 92008
SETH SCHULBERG
2006 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008
-
LESLIE REILLY
2203 RECODO CT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
CARLTAS
# loo
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA
JUDITH BERRY
2142 PLACID0 COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA
EITAN AHARONI
1824 OAK AVENUE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA
92008
92009
92008
STEVE AND BARBARA PERRY
2011 CUMBRE COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KURT AND LAURIE JOHNSON
6423 LA PALOMA STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KEITH SEARS
2001 ESCENICO TERRACE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
O’DAY
#204
7220 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT
101 S RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92024
ED AND MARRION ALLARD
3301 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MONARCH HOA
2121 PLACID0 CT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ERNESTINE KROBLEN
PO BOX 249
CLAREMONT CALIFORNIA 91711
MONARCH VILLAS HOA
SUITE 2A
7720 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
JOHN JONES
3044 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008
GREEN VALLEY CONSERVANCY
#282
7720 B EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
LUCY MALONE
2227 BOCA STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KATHY AND MARK WINKLER
x513
2510 NAVARRA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
I’0 BOX 727
ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92007
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
ROOM 121
1400 1OTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
’ CALIFORNIA DEPT FISH & GAME U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ATIN: TIM DILLJNGHAM ATT:ELLYN BERRYMAN SUITE 400
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE 2730 LOKER AVENUE WEST 9868 SCRANTON ROAD
SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92121
CALIFORNIAL COASTAL COMM BATIQUITOS LAGOON FDN CITY OF ENCINITAS
SUITE 200 PO BOX 3130 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH CARLSBAD CA 92018-3130 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725 ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 9&
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SANDAG/JACK KOERPER DAVID LAWHEAD
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION SUITE 800 SUITE 270
5201 RUFFIN ROAD 401 B STREET 8885 RIO SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO CALIFORNJA 92123 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92108
ERIC J HALL
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST CMWD LEUCADIA CO.WATER DISTRICT
710 ENCINITAS BLVD 5950 EL CAMINO REAL 1960 IA COSTA AVE.
ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92024 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
FRANK FONTANESI ROBERT & MARY FARRIS LEE CHERESKJN
1966 OLJVENHAJN ROAD 3469 CIRCULO ADORN0 2376-G CARINGA WAY
ENCINITAS, CA 92024-5699 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MORRIS MAROIS
7752 MADRILENA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
LEE HOHIMANN, CCE DARRELL SHEAFFER
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MANAGING DIRJ3XJR
SUITE loo LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA
5411 AVENDA ENCMAS COSI-A DEL MAR ROAD
CARISBAD cAIIFoRNIA 92oos cARIsBAD, cALFoRNIALlmRNIA 92009
DAN DOWNING DOROTHEA RENIER DISHSUM TIMOTHY J. BREWER
7254 MIMOSA DRIVE 3322 CADENCIA STREET 6663 CORTE MARIA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
PAT ZIFFERBLATT
2606 GALICIA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
CAROL DUGGER LUCY MALONE
7333-D ALICANTE ROAD 2227 BOCA STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ANN WILDE
7049 SNAPDRAGON
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROBERT & MARY LOU PROHASKA
7977 CAMINO GATO
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ALFRED B. DAMRON, FR.
7635 PRIMAVERA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
JUDY BAYLISS
#2 B ALBERT & ANDREA BOERSMA MAX GRJTZMAKER
2517 NAVARRA DRIVE 7720 CORTINA COURT 6535 FLAMENCO STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
,
MARY JANE & JIM ASWEGAN
3108 SERRANO DRIVE ,
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
KIMBERLY COOGAN
7245 MIMOSA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
C.E. DEARBAUGH
6558 CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MICHAEL BORMAN
2833 CEBU PLACE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROCKENMACHER RESIDENCE
904 POPPY LANE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 9uw)9
BEN & RUBY SCHULMAN
7529 GIBRALTAR STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROBERT ARMSTRAONG
6573 I PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 9uw)9
ROBB HERRING
7067 ZUBARON LANE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROD & MARY SHACKELFORD
7103 MIMOSA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
VERONICALIFORNIA SISLERY
#26
2630 PIRINEOS WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
LORRAINE J. LERNER
7408 AVENIDA DE PALAIS
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
LINDA MORENO
2352 ALTISMA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MRS. TAEMON MOORE
6425 LA GARZA COURT
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MARYANNE RICCI
2563 NAVARRA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
DALE & HANNI RYMAS
6972 BATJQUJTOS DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
DIANE HOLLISTER
2403 LA PLUMA LANE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
J. OSWALD
6939 SANDCASTLE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
2732 LA GRAN VIA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
2607 LA GOLONDRINA STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFONIA 92009
RESIDENT
3102 LEVANTE STREET
CARLSBAD CALJFORNJA 92009
RESIDENT
6816 MAPLE LEAF DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
7748 MADRILENA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
6821 ALDERWOOD DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNJA 92009
RESIDENT
3139 CAMINO DEL ARC0
CARISBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
2419 SACADA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
3137 VISTA MAR
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
2941 A UNICORN10 STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
7619 GALLEON WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
836 SUMMERSONG COURT
ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA 92024
RESIDENT
2638 GALJCJA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT
#7
7500 VIEJA CASTJLLA WAY
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
RESIDENT HARRY & ALYSON PEARCE
1916 SWALLOW LANE (2732 LA GRAN VIA
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ANNE & JAMES DYVIG SUESAN LARSEN JEAN & LEO KELLY
2607 LA GOLONDRINA STREET 1712 CANNAS COURT 3102 LEVANTE STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
HENE HAMILTON
6817 MAPLE LEAF DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
IRENE DELACOVIAS JULIE RITTER
7748 MADRILENA WAY 6821 ALDERWOOD DRIVE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
GENE CHARTJER ROBERT GEORGE RAYILYN BROWN
3139 CAMINO DEL ARC0 2419 SACADA CIRCLE 3137 VISTA MAR
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
DEN PHILLIPS
2941 A UNICORNIA STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MARY KELLY GUERIN NORMAN HARRINGTON
826 SUMMERSON COURT 2638 GALICIA WAY
ENCINJTAS CALIFORNIA 92024 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ROD GREEN L. MC JNTIRE MARCOLM MATHESON
7619 GALLEON WAY 1916 SWALLOW LANE 3365 CORTE TIBURON
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
CLAIRE & THERESA MULLIGAN MORMAN ERICKSON MINDA VAN LOWE
2935 LUCIERNAGA STREET 3157 VISTA MAR 902 A CAMINITO MADRIGAL
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009 CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
EARLE GALLANDIT
7112 SAN LUIS
CARISBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
ALICIA VERSCHOOR
7924 CALLE SAN FELIPE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92009
MICHAEL & CHERYL KASKA
3117 HATACA ROAD
CARLSBAD CALIFORNJA 92009
DR & MRS YUJIRO YAMAMOTO ISABEL DeSASKA
1201 VIA LA JOLL4 6721 EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENT-E CA 92672 CARLSBAD CA 92009
-_
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
EIR 93-02 - GREEN VALLEY
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL
801 PINE AVENUE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR DIST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 101 SO RANCHO SANTA FE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER VALLECITOS WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD DIST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 1960 LA COSTA AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
5201 RUFFIN l2D STE "B"
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF CAFUSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHRISTER WESTMAN
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NO HILL ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S WLCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BEACH CA 90802