HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-02; City Council; 13588; OCEAN BLUFF - LCPA 95-09|ZC 93-04|CT 93-09|HDP 93-09..’
i DEPT. PLNdk
OCEAN BLUFF - LCPA 9509/
ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/HDP 93-09
G I I
; RECOMMENDED ACTION: a s 8 The City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. flS-35“f APPROVING ZC 93-04, and
ADOPT Resolution No. 4h -I/ 3 APPROVING_ LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, and
ii HDP 93-09.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 20, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review
the Ocean Bluff project located at the southwest corner of future Blackrail Court and
Poinsettia Lane in the Zone 20 Specific Plan and LFM zone area. The Planning
Commission approved (7-O) SDP 93-07 and recommended approval (7-O) of LCPA 95
09, ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, and HDP 93-09 to rezone the property to R-l and allow the
subdivision of the 31.2 acre parcel into 92 standard single family lots, one open space
lot, and one multiple family lot. Access to the property would be provided by the
extension of Blackrail Court and Poinsettia Lane from their existing termini. The project
is subject to and in compliance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and Certified EIR, Mello
II Local Coastal Program, Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code(CMC)), and lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85
of the CMC).
To satisfy the project’s 15% lnclusionary Housing requirement, the Planning Commission
approved a site development plan allowing an 11.8% density increase for a 16 unit
onsite affordable apartment project located in the southwestern corner of the site. As
an alternative to this onsite apartment project the Planning Commission also approved
i a condition to allow the project to purchase credits in an offsite combined affordable
~ project, subject to Council Policies 57 and 58. On February 8, 1996, the Housing
Commission reviewed the affordable housing proposal and unanimously recommended
approval.
The Planning Commission received one letter opposing the project and two persons,
Mr. and Mrs. McKinney, spoke in opposition to the project because the Oceanbluff
project is not conditioned to construct Poinsettia Lane across their property between
Street “A” and Blackrail Court (see Exhibit “A”). The McKinney’s believe that the
Poinsettia Lane roadway alignment which bisects their property along with the financial
obligation for improvements has ruined their horticulture business and rendered their
property unsalable. Staff and the applicant indicated that a fee district is being formed
in Zone 20 to finance future roadway improvements, such as this segment of Poinsettia
Lane, when the City determines they are necessary. Meanwhile, since there are no
other pending or approved projects requiring this road segment, the McKinney’s can
continue their business operation notwithstanding the development of the Oceanbluff
project.
Due to Planning Commissioner’s concerns regarding onsite circulation, the Planning
Commission revised the project as follows:
.
h
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. j 3,s 8t?
Modified Condition No. 56E of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869 to
require the redesign of Street “D” from a cul-de-sac street to a full width City
standard road providing access to Blackrail Court.
Since the project does not include architectural elevations required as a part of the
Hillside Development Permit, the applicant requested that the Planning Commission
consider granting authority to the Planning Director to review architectural elevations for
consistency with the Hillside Ordinance, Specific Plan architectural standards, and EIR
90-03 visual design guidelines. Due to the extensive architectural standards and
guidelines already approved and applicable to the project, the Planning Commission:
Modified Condition No. 43 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869 to allow
Planning Director approval of architecture on Lots l-92 through an amendment
to HDP 93-09 prior to the issuance of building permits.
Additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and mitigated by the Zone 20
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) would not result from implementation of
the project; therefore, this project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone
20 EIR and the City’s MEIR. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior
Environmental Compliance on September 21, 1995, and the applicable mitigation
measures of EIR 90-03 are included as conditions of approval for this project. Mitigation
conditions include the purchase of credits in the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank at
a 2:l replacement ratio for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat, and a single pair of
California gnatcatchers resulting from the Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” roadway
alignments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
Facilities Zone
Local Facilities Management Plan
Growth Control Point
Net Density
Special Facilities
FISCAL IMPACT
20
20
3.2
3.6
C.F.D. No. 1
No fiscal impacts will result from the project since it is consistent with the Zone 20 Local
Facilities Management Plan, which ensures that all public facilities required to serve the
project will be provided in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
h
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO -38 / 5 8
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
City Council Ordinance No. A/S- 3.!?y
City Council Resolution No. 9 h - // ?
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3867, 3868, 3869, 3870, 3871
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 20, 1995
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 20, 1995
Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-001
Housing Commission Staff Report, dated February 8, 1996
Excerpt of Housing Commission Minutes, dated February 8, 1996.
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
ORDINANCE NO. NS-354
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT
A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 93-04, FROM L-C TO R-l ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE POINSETTIA
LANE & BLACKRAIL COURT, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
CASE NO: zc 93-04
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the amendment of the zoning map as shown on the map attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3868 constitutes the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
SECTION III: The Council further finds that this action is consistent with
the General Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan in that it is consistent
with residential land use and affordable housing goals and objectives.
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 a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after
its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the day of , 1996, and thereafter
. . . . 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held
on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
PEAL)
2 3’
EXlSlPKii L-c
PROPOSED R-l .
’ _ OCEANBLUFF
LCPA 95=09/zc 93-04
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
RESOLUTION NO. 96-117
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT, A CHANGE TO THE CARLSBAD
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE A PORTION OF THE MAP
FROM LIMITED CONTROL (L-C) TO ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-l), A TENTATIVE MAP, AND A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE
POINSETTIA LANE AND BlACKRAIL COURT IN THE ZONE
20 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
CASE NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/HDP 93-09
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1995 the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 95-09),
Zone Change (ZC 93-04), Tentative Map (CT 93-09) and Hillside Development Permit
(HDP 93-09) for project development on 31.2 acres of land and adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 3867, 3868, 3869, and 3871 respectively, recommending
approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 2nd day
of APRIL , 1996, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, and
HDP 93-09; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 95-09) is approved and
that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3867, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
- h
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Zone Change (ZC 93-04) is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3868, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council and Ordinance NS-354 shall be contemporaneously
adopted.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Tentative Map (CT 93-09) is approved and that the findings and
conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3869, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval
of the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 93-09) is approved and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3871, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the
City Council.
This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time
Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
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 not later that the
nineteenth 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 deposit in an amount sufficient by the
required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost
of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in 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 of 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.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- h
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
zouncil of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 2nd day of APRIL , 1996,
my the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
AlTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUtENKRANZ, City C’eerk -
(SEAL)
3
OCEANBLUFF
LCPA 9549/ZC 9%04/CT 93009/
SDP 93=07/HDP 93-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
: 23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACKRAIL COURT WlTHIN THE ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES. CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF CASE NO: LCPA 95-09
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning land use designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in
collformance;
WHEREAS, Ocean Bluff Partnership has filed a verified application for
certain property described as:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San
Bernadine base and meridian in the County of San Diego, State
of California, excepting tkefrom those portions thereof lying
north of the south boundary lint of Rancho Agua Hedionda, as
said south line was established May 5, 1913, by decree of the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San Diego
County, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly
Investment Company, a coqxwation, vs. Clarence Dayton
Hillman and Bessie Olive Hillman.
attached to Manning Commission ResoWon No. 3868 and incorporated herein, which has
been fikd with the Planning Commission and; .
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on the map dated December 20, 1995, attached to and
incorporated by reference in the Draft City Coundl Ordinance, Exhibit “X”, attached to
Resolution No. 3868 as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of
Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3 23
24
25
26
27
20
theCaiiforniaCoastaiCo mmission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of December, 1995
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Local
Coastal Plan Amendment 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 six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carisbad, as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 9549 as shown on Exhibit “X”, dated
December 20, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof based on the following findings:
Findines:
1. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program is required to bring the designations of the City’s Zoning Map (as
amended) and Mel10 II implementing zone into conformance, i.e. from L-C to R-l.
Conditiw
1. Approvd of LCPA 9549 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 9344, CT 9349,
SDP 9347, and HDP 9349. LCPA 9549 is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3&l& 3U9, %70, and 3871 dated December
20, 1995.
. . . .
FCRESONO.3867 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
24
25
26
27
20
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a reguiar meeting of the
Planning commission of the City of Carisbad, held on the 20th day of December, 1995, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Weishons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin,
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINt None
mM WUHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPIANNXN G COMMISSION
A-ITESF
Pianning Director
PC RESO NO. 3867 -3- /3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
- A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3868
A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE
FROM L-C TO R-l ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE
POINSETTIA LAN-E AND BLACKRAIL COURT.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
CASE NO: zc 93-04
WHEREAS, Ocean Bluff has filed a verified application for certain property,
to wit:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San
Bernadine base and meridian in the County of San Diego, State
of Caiifofnih excepting thet+om those portions thereof lying
north of the south boundary line of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, as
said south line was established May 5, 1913, by decree of the
Superior Court of the State of Caiifornia, in and for San Diego
County, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly
Investment Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence Dayton
Hillman and Bessie Olive Hiiiman,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and refkrred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as
shown on the maps attached to and incorporated by reference in the Drank City Council
Ordinance, Exhibit T attached hereto as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of December, 1995,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
IIt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
- -,
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, of Zone Change, ZC 93-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findines:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from Limited Controi (L-C) to One Family
Residential (R-1) is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land
Use Element (Policy C.1) in that it will result in “the arrangement of land uses which
preseme community identity and are orderly, functionally efficient, heaithhri, and
aestheticaiiy pleasing.”
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Laud Use Element, in that the property’s underlying Low-Medium Residential
density (RLM) land use designation aiiows single family residentiai deveiopment except that a variety of overall housing types may be aiiowed as long as tbe overail
density does not exceed 4 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with this policy, the
proposed project’s overaii density is 3.6 dwelling units per acre and single family and
multi-family residentiai units are proposed.
Conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 9344 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA %-O!J, CT 93-09,
SDP 93-07, and HDP 93-09. ZC 93-04 is subject to ail conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3II67,3&59,3g70, and 3g71 dated December
20, 1995.
. . . .
. . . .
PCRESON0.3868 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
t 23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of December,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chaiqmson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Exwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMBSION
ATTESF
Planning Director
PCRESONO.3868 -3-
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
PUNNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3869
A RESOLUTION OF THE P IANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO DEVELOP 92 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE MULTIPLE FAMILY LOT WlTH 16 APARTMENTS UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE
POINSElTIA LANE AND BLACKRAIL COURT WlTHIN THE ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES. CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
CASE NO: CT 93-09
WHEREAS, Ocean Bluff Partnership has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San
Bernadino base and meridian in the County of San Diego, State
of California, excepting therefrom those portions thereof lying
north of the south boundary line of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, as
sald south line was established May 5, 1913, hy decree of the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San Diego
County, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly
Investment Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence Dayton
Hiilman and Bessie Olive Hiiiman.
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for approval of a
Tentative Subdivision Map for more than 50 parcels as shown on Exhibits “A-N” dated
December 20,1995, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference
(“Tentative Map for Ocean Bluff Ct 93-09”) as provided in Section 20.12.080(2)(B) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissi on did, on the 20th day of December,
1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. /7
1
2
?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3 23
24
25
26
27
20
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
comInisaion as folhnvs:
4
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Carlsbad Tentative Tract, CF 9349, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findlnas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 9391 and Zone 20 EIR 904 appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
The Planning Commission finds that:
a. the project is a subsequent development as described in CEQA Guidelines
15168(c)(2), (e), and 15183;
b.
C.
the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zone 20 Specific Pian;
there was an EIR certified (EIR !&03) in connection with the Zone 20
Specific Plan
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as
significant in the prior EIR,
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist;
The City’s MEIR found that air quaiity and circulation impacts are significant and
advm theref’ the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considmtionn The project is consistent with the Generai Pian and as to those
effects, no 8ddltional environmental document is required.
The Pianning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for approval is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the
following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 3.6 du/acre is within the density range of O-4 du/acre
specified for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General
PI’& and aithougb the project exceeds the Growth Controi Point of 33
dweMng units/m a density increase is being procemd in accordance with
Policy 3.7.i of the Housing Element and pursuant to Chapter 2153.120 of the
PC RESO NO. 3869 -20 T
,-
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
20
Zoning Ordinance and required findings have heen made (see Pianning
Commission Resolution No. 3870 for SDP 93-07).
b. Circulation - The project will be conditioned to construct two offsite streets,
Poinsettia Lane and a portion of Biackraii Court, which is consistent with
both Objective B.l requiring an adequate circulation infrastructure
concurrent with or prior to the actuai demand for such facilities and Policy
C.16 requiring that new deveiopment construct roadways needed to serve the
proposed development prior to or concurrent with the circulation needs
created by the development.
C. Noise - The project is consistent with Policy C.5 establishing that 60 dBA
CNEL is the exterior noise ievei and 45 JBA CNEL is the interior noise ievei
to which ail residential units should he mitigated since the project will
provide noise wails necessary to mitigate noise to these exterior and interior
levels along lots abutting Poinsettia Lane. I
d. Housing - The proposed 16 unit apartment housing project located in Lot 93
of this project and within the Zone 20 Specific Pian, which will be tiordabie
to lower income households, is consistent with Policy 3.6.a of the Housing
Element in that it represents 15% of the totai units in the Ocean Bluff
project. The project is consistent with Program 3.6.a of the Housing Element
of the General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the
Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide and deed restrict 16.24 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households.
The provision of onsite affordahie units resuits in a project density of 3.6
dwelling units per acre which exceeds the Growth Management Controi Point
of 33 dwelling units per acre and requires approvai of a ll.W% density
increase. The proposed density increase is therefore consistent with Policy
3.7.h. enabling density increases and Program 3.7.i allowing discretionary
consideration of density increases through the prucessing of 8 site
development plan in accordance with and implemented by Chapter 2153.120
of the Zoning Ordinance.
e.
The pmposed density increase of 11.4 units ahove the Growth Management
Controi Point for the purpose of providing 16 affordabie apartment units
onsite to satisfy the project’s inciusionary housing requirement is consistent
with Policy 38 aiiowing excess dweiiing units to he allocated with the top
priority being housing development fw low and very low income households.
Open Space and Conservation - The project will preserve in open space the
only areas of 25%+ slopes which I8 &stent with Policy CL caiiing for
assurance that deveiopment on hillsides reiates to the slope of the land in
order to preserve the intqrity of the hillsides and Policy CJ requiring that
valleys (ravines) be designated for open space. With regard to greenways and
tails, the project will offer for dedication a W wide trail easement within a
PC RESO NO. 3869 -3- /P
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 . . . .
-
SOS wide landscaped open space easement aiong Poinsettia Lane consistent
with Policies C3 and C.5 requiring an irrevocable offer to dedicate a
permanent easement for traiiways where trails are proposed as part of the
Carisbad Trail System and greenway linkages.
Policies C.22, C.23, C.25 and C30: Native habitat impacts onsite have been
reduced and/or mitigated by the preservation of only steep slopes possessing
native habitat located onsite. Aithough the construction of offsite Poinsettia
Lane to the west from “A” Street to Alga Road and the construction of “A”
Street between the project% southwestern boundary and Poinsettia Lane will
result in impacts to a single pair of gnatcatchers and approximately 4 acres
of Diegan coastai sage habitat, the impacts due to the roadway aiignment are
unavoidable and will be mitigated through the purchase of credits in the
Carisbad Highlands mitigation bank at a 2:l ratio. Additionaiiy, an oversized
roadway culvert is required to be instailed under the Poinsettia Lane
extension within the SDG&E easement (open space) to maintain and enhance
wildlife connections to native habitat areas that would othenvise be
, fragmented.
The Poinsettia Lure and Street “A” alignments are consistent with the Zone
20 biological mitigation and open space preservation regulations, and the
coastai sage scrub habitat loss is consistent with the HMP as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -4-
The construction of Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” will not preclude
connectivity between Preserve Planning Areas (PPAs) since they are
not located within a PPA core area, and are not a part of a Linkage
Planning Area. If feasible, the construction of the roadway culvert,
under Poinsettia Lane within the SDG&E easement, may facilitate
dispersal and movement of wildlife between core areas in PPA’s 4 and
5.
The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the
CarisbadHMPinthattheareaisnotapartofaPPAcoreareaor
Linkage Pianning Area.
Mt~gationforthcioso~tbe4~d~~scrubwiilbein
the form of the acquisition of habitat credits at a 2~1 ratio within PPA
2 (Carlshad Highlands Mitigation Bank) as discussed above The loss
of habitat on the Ocean Bluff property will the&ore not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the suwivai and recovery of the gnatcatcher,
The habitat loss is located in a disturbed and partiaiiy disturbed
canyon area which will be isolated by Poinsettia Lant, the Aviara
deveiopment to the south, and continued agricuiturai uses to the east
and e thedbre, large Mocks of habitat will not be lost and
hagmeatation will not occur.
1
2
2
4
e .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
-
5. The habitat area being impacted is somewhat isoiated by sumwnding
agricuitural uses and development, and it is located within the
alignment of a maor circulation element ey providing primaty
access to the proposed Ocean Bluff subdivision as well as other
properties in the Zone 20 Specific Pian are8.
f. Public Safety - The project is consistent with Public Safety Element as ail
necessag water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances will be instailed
prior to occupancy of any unit, 8ii weather access roads will be maintained
throughout construction, and wildland fire hazards are mitigated through
required compliance with the City’s Landscape Design Manual.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be approved
unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the
project unless sewer service remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied
that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
The Project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new cons&uction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.99 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part
of the LocaI Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20.
That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in
excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility
plans will not be adversely impacted, in that the proJect is conditioned to provide ail
91 PC RESO NO. 3869 -5,
1
2
I
4
K w
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
: 23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
pubiic fdiities neceswuy to serve the proJect including the construction of Poinsettia
That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to of&et the units in the project above the control point so
that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance
will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need
for them created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in
that the project will not preclude the provision of performance standard open space
at buiidout of Zone 20 and the project is conditioned to provide for ail necessary
public facilities prior to final map approvai.
The project is consistent with the generai provisions and provisions speciilc to Area
C of the Zone 20 Specific Pian (SP 203) including the provision of an onsite muiti-
family affbrdabie housing project.
The project is consistent with ail land use policies of the Meilo II Locai Coastai
-
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision,
in that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no conflicts
with any established easements.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the 7,!%0+
square fad id sizes allow for a variety of building placement aiternatives, inciuding
the adequate placement and separation of the homes, in combination with the
proposed variety of future fioor plans and the dominant western wind patterns/solar
radiation patterns, will allow utiiization ofnatural heating and cooling opportunities.
That the Pianning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources;
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife br their habitat, in that ail fersibie mitigation measures or project
aiternatives identified in the Zone 20 F’inai EIR 9343 which are appropriate to this
project have been IncoqwaW into the pro&& and no unmitigated significant
impacts to fi4 wiidiife or their reqective habitats will occur.
PCR.ESON0.3869 a-
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
-
21. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of
existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the
drainage requirements of@ecific Plan 203, City ordinances, and Meiio II have been
considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and secured. In
addition @ City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master
Drainage Pian, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards will be satisfied to prevent any discharge violations.
22. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
23. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994 in that the project as conditioned the applicant shall record a notice concerning aircraft noise. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the
airport in that the project is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour allowing residential development to occur.
24. That the Project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council by incorporation by reference in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020.
Planning Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Tentative Tract
Map for the standard single famiiy/muiti-f~ily lot subdivision ,entitled “Ocean
Bluff” subject to the conditions herein set fti. Setaff is author&d and directed to
make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the
approved Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform
to City Council% final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially &rent from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Apprmd of CT 93-09 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04,
SDP 93-07, and HDP 93-09. CT 93-09 is subject to all conditions contained in
planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3%7,3&j& 3870, and 3g71 dated December
20, 1995.
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducibk 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the Pianning commission. The Tentative Map shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -% a3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
: 23
24
25
26
27
28
4. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
5. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
6. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended August 5, 1993) and as amended from time to time, and any
development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.98 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulflll the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated August 5,1993, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this
project will be void.
7. Prior to approval of a final map or the issuance/approval of a building permit, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that
impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City’s Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-Roes Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district.
8. This Project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
10. The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&R’s shall
include tinditions guaranteeing that the HOA shaii maintain ail natural open space
and slope maintenance easements and offsite manufactured slopes shown on the
approved tentative mapbndscape plan.
22f
PCRESON0.3869 -8-
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
: 23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
h
Conaurent with the record&ion of the final mm a maintenance easement to the
Homeowner% Association shall be recorded over the manuftired slopes of Lots 5,
15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 abutting Open Space Lot “A” and the area within the
50 foot landscaped setback of Lots 78,79,80,81,82,83,84, and 86.
Prior to the approval of the finai map and subject to approvai of LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04, SDP 93-07, HDP 93-09, the Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors
in interest that the City of Carl&ad has issued a tentative map (CT 9349) for a 93
lot residential subdivision on the real property owned by the developer. Said Notice
of Restriction shall note the property description, location .,of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
The Developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent of the lots with adequate sideyard area for Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City Standards. The CC&R’s shall prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance
with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual.
The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director
prior to the approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever
occurs first. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition,
free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and
with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and
the Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall at .a minimum include a
bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with the basic architectural theme of the Project.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but
not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, Parks, and streets.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall receive approval of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Co-a that substantially
conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must
PC RESO NO. 3869 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is substantially different, an
amendment to Tentative Tract Map CT 93-09 shall be required.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: (1) to consult
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of
the project on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and; 2) obtain any permits
required by the USWFS.
The Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project Site with the
Project as described in the Final EIR 90-03, except as modified by this resolution.
The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental
offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs
shall be approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the
Planning Department).
Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this Project, or where a map
is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units,
the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to
provide and deed restrict 16 dwelling units on Lot 93 as affordable to lower-income
households for the useful life of the dwelling units and to pay to the City an amount
of money equal to 24 times the average subsidy needed to make affordable a iower-
income household, as appropriate, one newiy constructed typical attached housing
unit in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be
submitted to the Planning Director not later than 30 days after the submittal of the
final map.
Upon showing by the developer that an onsite contribution is not appropriate for the
project, a second inciusionay housing option available to the developer shall be that
prior to final map approval, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City to purchase affordable credits from Villa Loma or participate in an offsite
combined inciusionary project within the southwest quadrant and as appropriate, in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carisbad
Municipal Code, the Zone 20 Specific Plan, and City Council Policies 57 and 58
dated September 12, 1985. Prior to City Council approval, the developer shall
submit a signed Affordable Housing Agreement to the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners
and successors in interest.
Concurrent with any proposal to satisfy the project’s inciusionaty housing
requirement in an offsite combined inciusionary project+ the developer shall process
a tentative map revision to the Ocean Bluff project in which the total number of
onsite single family residential lots shall not exceed 96 in accordance with the
density permitted by the Growth Management Growth Control Point for the parcel.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -lO-
;
:
L
c .
E
i
l
5
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
24. PriortoCityrevi~urd~~~dthcdlsitcoption,tbcrppnwrldrSpccinc
Plan amendment to SP 203 shail be requlrai to designate the proposed offsite
combined lnclusionary project as an approved location for the provision of affordable
units to satlsiy the inclusionary requirements of Zone 20 properties,
Environmental Conditions:
25.
26.
27.
28.
To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
requirements of the Meiio II Locai Coastai Program, prior to approval of the linal
map, the applicant shall provide payment of an agricuiturai mitigation fee, the
amount of which shall not be less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 per net
converted m The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council prior
to approval of the final map and shall be consistent with the provisions of
Carisbad’s LCP.
Improvement plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval showlng
locations/sizing of reclaimed water and/or urban runoff diversion facilities, in
accordance with the Carl&ad Municipal Water District rcqulrements and phasing
schedule provided in the Zone 20 LFMP.
The Homeowners Association shall obtain and distribute to owners and tenants
annual infmation from Caitrans and NCTD regarding the availability of public
transportation, ride sharing and transportation pooling services in the area. This
information shall also be provided in the sale.s/rental offices. A condition stating
this.shali also be placed in the CC&R% for the project.
Compliance with APCD Rules 51 (‘The “Nuisance” Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter),
and 54 (Dust and Fumes) of the Air Quality Chapter would effktlveiy mitigate dust
impacts generated during grading operations. A note shall be placed on the grading
permit stipulating that the following measures shall be required to achieve
compliance wlth these rules and reduce construction related alr poiiutantsz
a8 The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be required
during dry weather conditions. ,
A All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to the approved landscape
plans as soon as possible after grading.
c All construction-related traffic shall be twstrlcted to routes that are dust-
controlled, reduced speed limits &ail be maintained for all haul and
construction vehicles,
d. All construction actlvltles shall be limited during periods of high winds.
e. Ail heavyduty, diesel powered construction equipment shall be operated
according to manufacturers suggcgted operating instzwtlon (with the fuel
iqjectlon timing r&arded to -mended levels of NOs emissions, but
which would not result in excessive visible smoke emissions) in order to
37 PC RESO NO. 3869 -110
-
I cokrol polhtant emissions.
I. Construction equipment shaI1 be subject to regulariy scheduled
maintenance/tune-ups, and be turned off when not being utiiized to avoid
excessive idling emissions.
g* The application of architecturai coating and cut-back asphalt shall adhere to
APCD Rules 679 and 67.7, to effectively control other construction-related
emissions of air pollutants.
h. The Engineering Department shail monitor for compliance during ail grading
operations of the project.
29. 398 acres of Coastai Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this
project.. One pair of California Gnatcatchers (Polioptiia caiifomica) was observed
on the proper@ therefore, the impacted CSS habitat is regarded as high quality.
Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California
gnatcatchers, the project shall be required to mitigate this take of 3 38 acres of CSS
by acquiring for preservation comparable quality habitat at a 21 ratio. Prior to the
recordation of the first Rnai tract map, the applicant shaii mitigate this impact by
purchasing for preservation 796 acres of comparable quaiity CSS habitat wIthin the
high quality, coastai sage scrub area found in the Carisbad Highlands mitigation
bank upon approvai of the US Fish and Wildlife Sewice (USFWS), the California
Department of Fish and Game and the City of Carisbad.
30. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot “A”, including but
not limited to fences, wails, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and
landscaping, is speciiicaiiy prohibited, except upon written order of the Carisbad
Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approvai of the
Planning Director, and (California CoastaI Commission if in Coastai Zone), based
upon a request fmm the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a
qualified arborist/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants
because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dueiilng units. For
areas containing native vegetation the repott required to accompany the request
shdl be prepared by 8 quaiified bioiogist.
31. Aa oversized culvert is recommended to be instailed under the Potnsettia Lane
extension at the SDG&E easement to maintain and enhance wiidiife connectiona
The feasibility of constructing an oversIzed cuivert at thIo locatIon shail be evaiuated
at the time roadway improvement plans are submitted to the City Engine&ring
Department fw review. Specific mitigation measures required to be incorponted
into the design of these culverts, if newsary, shail be based on future biological
studies, subject to review and approvai by the Pianning Director.
32. The Dev5loper shall dedicate on the ihal map, an open space easement for Lot A
plus the portion of Lots 78,79,80,81,82, ii3,84, and 86 identified on Exhibit “A” as a W landscaped setback wacent to Poinsettia Lane in their entirety to prohibit
any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, wails, decks,
PC RESO NO. 3869 -120 CSB
1
c
': c
4
c b
E
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
-,
storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and landscaping, other than that approved as part of landscape plan as shown on Exhibit “K”.
Prior to approval of the Enal map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement the trail shown on the Tentative Map within Lot(s) 78,79,80,81,82,83, U, and 86. If, prior to Enal map, the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement and assumes responsibility for maintenance and liability then the Developer shall be required to
construct the trail. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept liability and maintenance
responsibility for the Citywide Trail System, prior to recordation of the final map, the Developer will not be required to construct the trail(s).
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map. or the issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed Poinsettia Lane
Transportation Corridor in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the recordation of the first fmal tract map or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar Airport in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise, Form #2 onfile in the Planning Department).
In accordance with the Ocean Bluff Acoustical Study prepared by James C. Berry,
Acoustician, prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units, the developer shall
construct a continuous 6 fad high noise barrier wail above a minimum 1 foot high
berm as shown on Exhibit “A”, Section B-B. The design of the wall shall be included
on the landscape plans for the project and shall require the review and approval of
the Planning Director.
Prior to occupancy of individual units within the subdivision, the deveioper shall
instail a solid wall or fence and landscaped windbreaks aiong the perimeter of any
future developable area that abuts property under “open fieid” cultivation in order
to reduce public nuisance effects of adjacent pesticide spraying and dust generation
fkom farm vehicles and operations.
Prior to approvai of a final map or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs
first, an infrastmcture improvement plan shail be submitted to the Pknning and
Engineer@ Departments for review and approval by the planning Director and City
Engineer. This plan shall iiiustrate the temporary road connections required to
maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural properties that could be impacted
by future roadway improvements.
Prior to-qprovai of a final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall notify to the satisfaction of the Pianning Dire&or and City
Attorney, all ownerq users and tenants of this project that this area is subject to
dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations, and that
PC RESO NO. 3869 -130 al
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
40.
41.
42.
43.
. . . .
the owners, users, and tenants occupy this area at their own risk.
Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the Project site, a paleontologist shall be
retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the
grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil
resources. A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to
the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic
inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small
nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be
necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through
fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process;
C. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the
area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading
activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and
City Engineer.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the project shall comply with the City of
Carlsbad’s standards for solid waste management.
All grading shall comply with the recommendations of the Ninyo and Moor
Geotechnical Investigation, dated February 6, 1989, performed for the project and
on file in the Planning Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the general visual design guidelines
identified on Table 3.13.1 in EIR 90-03, the hillside architectural standards in SP
203, and the hillside architectural design requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.95.060(g) shall be incorporated into the proposed architecture on lots 1-92
and submitted to the Planning Director for approval, subject to appeal to the
Planning Commission within 10 days of the Director’s decision, in accordance with
the procedure in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.95030. In accordance with
the visual analysis performed for the project, residential structures on Lots 53-60 and 32-36 shall be limited to a single story element for at least XV% of the building
coverage.
30
PC FIESO NO. 3869 -14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
44. The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
pro&cVs market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the
City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an
alternate schedule for development.
EnPineerine Conditions:
45. If the developer chooses to construct out of phase, the new phasing must be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
46. The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the
City, the Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the
City within the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
47. The developer shall pay the current local drainage area fee or shall construct
drainage systems in conformance with Master Drainage Plan and City of Carlsbad
Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
48. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City
harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
49. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions, shown in part on the tentative map and
listed as follows:
a. The storm drain easement on Lot 33 shall be 20 feet wide as required by City
Standards.
b. All the internal streets as shown on the tentative map.
C. The portions of Poinsettia Lane and Blacktail Court within the subdivision
boundaries.
d. A 60 foot wide extension of Street “D” across Lots 22 and 21.
The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall
be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost
to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
50. The developer shall disclose to all prospective buyers of any unit of this subdivision
that:
a. The 30 foot wide interim access easement between Street “D” and Blackrail
Court will be closed to vehicular traffic when Poinsettia Lane between
PC RESO NO. 3869 -15- 3/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 23
24
25
26
27
28
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
-
Blackrail Court and Street “A” is constructed.
b. The 60 foot wide offer of dedication across Lots 22 and 21 is for future street
purposes and may be opened as a street when the land area to the north is
developed.
The above disclosure may be in the form of a recorded agreement, non-mapping
notes on the final map, deed restrictions or another method satisfactory to the City
Engineer and Director of Planning
The developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities onsite along the
subdivision boundary.
Direct access rights for all lots abutting Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court shall be
waived on the final map.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall
give written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
site plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District
No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved
by the City Engineer
The temporary basin shown on Lot 1 shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The basin shall remain in use until the City Engineer determines it is no
longer needed or until Basin CF per the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan is constructed. The developer shall enter into a basin maintenance
agreement and submit a maintenance bond satisfactory to the City Engineer prior
to the approval of grading, building permit or final map whichever occurs first for
this project. The basin shall be serviced by an all-weather access/maintenance road.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards,
the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as
provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative map and the following
improvements:
Onsite Phase One:
A. Streets “G”, “II”, and that portion of “F” within the phase one boundary to
standard full width improvements as shown on the tentative map.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -16- 3a
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
B.
C.
D.
The onsite and contiguous portion of Blackrail Court shall have full half street
improvements plus 12 feet of paving, drainage facilities and all utilities
normally required to be beneath the paving.
Street “F’ from the phase one boundary to street “I>“, street “D” from street
“F’ to street “B”, street “B” from street “D” to street “A” and street “A” within
and contiguous to the subdivision boundary shall have full half street
improvements plus 12 feet-of paving, drainage facilities including the basin on
lot one and all utilities normally required beneath the paving.
The required sewer and water lines from Blackrail Court within the alignment
of street “D” to street “B”:
Onsite Phase Two:
E. Full improvements to streets “D”, ” E”, and “F.” Street “D” shall be redesigned
to provide a full width City standard road access to Blackrail Court with the
exception that the right-of-way shall be reduced to 56 ft. between Street “E”
and Blackrail Court. The design of said connection and reconfiguration of the
adjoining lot shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning
Director.
F. That portion of Poinsettia Lane within the subdivision.
Onsite Phase Three:
G. Full improvements to streets “B” and 7’.
Offsite Phase One:
H. Blackrail Court from Alga Road to the southerly project boundary shall have
full half street improvements plus 12 feet of paving including curb and gutter,
sidewalk, drainage facilities and street lights on one side within a minimum
42 foot wide publicly dedicated easement in compliance with the cul-de-sac
standard as determined by the City Engineer. Also included are all utilities
normally required to be beneath the paving. This project is not required to
underground the overhead utilities offsite.
The developer shall enter into a secured agreement with the City guaranteeing
the subdivision’s pro-rated share of the design and construction cost for the
future installation of City Standard trafI’ic signals at the intersection of
Poinsettia Lane with Blackrail Court and Street “A” based upon the project’s
share of average daily trafl’lc which benefits from the traffic signal.
I. Street “A” shall be extended to connect the southwestern portion of the project
site to Poinsettia Lane approximately 1200 feet west of the Blackrail Court
intersection. This extension offsite from the project shall have a minimum 32
PC RESO NO. 3869 -17- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
? 23
24
25
26
27
28
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
foot wide paved street within a 42 foot wide publicly dedicated easement, all
utilities normally required to be beneath the proposed paving and drainage
facilities.
J. Poinsettia Lane between Alga Road and the extension of Street “A” shall have
a 32 foot wide paved section meeting major arterial standards. The roadway
shall lie within a 60 foot wide publicly dedicated easement. All roadway and
easement alignments shall conform with the future Poinsettia Lane alignment.
Drainage facilities, as needed, shall be included along with all utilities
normally required to be beneath the paving.
K. The intersection of Alga Road and Poinsettia Lane shall be restriped and /or
modified. Needed transition sections shall be provided.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the
final map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
The developer shall pay for the full improvements for Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road
in accordance with a future funding mechanism, or pay fees paid, in conformance
with the updated Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan funding program. The
developer may apply for a reimbursement agreement.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the
date of City Council approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the developer. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the
discretion of the City Council. In approving an extension, the City Council may
impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section
20.12.110(a)(2) Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. The developer must
submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City Codes and
Standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, a grading pennit
shall be obtained and grading work shall be completed in substantial conformance
with the approve grading plans. The developer may apply for and obtain a mass
grading permit when submitting the first final map.
NOTE: If the disturbed area is five acres or more, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer
PC RBSO NO. 3869 -18- .3+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
24
25
26
27
28
4
shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the
State Water Resources Control Board.
62. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project
unless a grading or slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected
properties. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement either
the tentative map shall be amended or the plans shall be modified so grading for
private improvements will not occur outside the project site in a manner which
substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City
Engineer and Planning Director.
63. Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions
are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient
title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title
or interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
64. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
65. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as
may be required by the City Engineer.
Fire Conditions:
66.
67.
68.
69.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required
access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with
the requirements of Section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain Fire Department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate
methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation
growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented
in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines
Manual. Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must
be complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found
to be in conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building
plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirement of the state
and local Fire Codes.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
This plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -19- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets
and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when
possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following
requirements: a 400 scale photo-reduction mylar depicting proposed improvements
and at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict
street centerlines, hydrant locations, and street names.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall
be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire
Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other
reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations
cease until the condition is corrected.
All required water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances shall be operational
before combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox” key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to
installation.
Water District Conditions:
76. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
77. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permits. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
78. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshall and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G. P. M. demand for domestic and irrigational
needs from appropriate parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
PC RESO NO. 3869 -2o- 3b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
h
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie -
GPM - EDU).
79. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district sening the
development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to
be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
General Conditions:
80. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance
of all future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of
occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in
interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
Code Reminders:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements.
81. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Fees:
82. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
83. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Final Map Notes:
84. The Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision
and final mylar of this development submitted to the City:
‘Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management
Control Point for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot
exceed the Growth Control Point except as provided by Chapters 21.90 and Chapter
PC RESO NO. 3869 -21- 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
-
21.53 allowing density increases upon City Council approval. The land use
designation for this development is RLM. The Growth Control Point for this designation is 3.2 dwelling units per nonconstrained acre.
Parcels 1 - 93 and Lot “A” as shown on Exhibit “A” were used to calculate the
intensity of development under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent
redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include parcels
under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.”
85. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: “Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-
time special development tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-
39."
General:
86.
87.
88.
89.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of
building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project
to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in
accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Landscape:
90. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the
Planning Department.
Signs:
91. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 3869 -22-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
? 23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of, 1995, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin,
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and SavaIy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3869
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-23- 3?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3870
2
3
4 ~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
? 23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE P LANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. SDP 93-07 ON FUTURE
LOT 93 OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE POINSETTIA
LANE AND BLACKRAIL COURT wlTHINTHEzoNE2o
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
CASE No: SDP 93-07
I WHEREAS, Ocean Bluff Partnership has filed a verified application for
certain property described as future lot 93 of;
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San
Bernadine base and meridian la the County of San Diego, State
of California, excepting therefrom those portions thereof lying
north of the south boundary line of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, as
said south line was established May 5, 1913, by decree of the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San Diego
County, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly
Investment Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence Dayton
Hlllman and Bessie Olive Hlllman.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site
Development Plan approval as shown on Exhibit “H-I”, dated December 20,1995 on file in
the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference (“SDP 9347”) as provided by
Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commiaaion did, on the 20th day of Deeember, 1995, consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering aU testimony
and arguments, if any, of aU persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to SDP 93-07.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitationa are true and correct. “/O .
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
: 23
24
25
26
27
28
-
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
qpPROVES Site Development Plan, SDP 9347, based on the following
!Mings and subject to the following conditions:
1 Findin=
1. Ail findings contained in Planning Commisslon Resolution No. 3869 for CT 93-09
are incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the requested use is: a) properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, b) is consistent with the various elements and objectives of
the General Plan; c) wiii not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specificaliy
permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located; and d) wili not
adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that;
a The 16 unit affordable apartment proJect is properiy related to the site and
surrounding single family residential deveiopment since: (1) it is consistent
with the City’s Inciuslonaq Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Zoning
Ordinance) due to its proximity to future Poinsettla Lane+ a mqjor circulation
arterlai and within one-two miles of three mqjor industrial centers offerlng
employment opportunities. Ail public facliltles, including the construction of
Poinsettia Lane and Biackrali Court, necewuy to senl the project wlii be
provided; (2) it wlii consist of two separate multi-family structures totaiing
12,160 square feet with ample open space area surrounding each structure
which wlii be compatible in scaie with the proposed single family
development; and (3) the project is located at the southwest corner of the site
where access to the apartment units wlii be provlded from a non-loaded iocai
street which wlii provlde direct access to Poinsettia Lane, a mqjor arterial
roadway. The pro@t’s iocatlon is therefm oriented so that apartment trafl’ic
will not be required to clrcuiate through the slngie family neighborhood.
bl. The 16 unit apartment housing project located wlthln the Zone 20 Specific
Plan, which will be affordable to lower income househoids, 1s con&tent with
Policy 3.6.a of the Housing Element in that it represents 15% of the total
units in the Ocean Bluff proJect. The project, which requires a 11.8% density
increase above the growth controi point, is aiso con&tent wlth Housing
Poilcy 3.8 in that the aiiocatlon of “excess units” to houslng development for
low income households is given the highest priocity.
b2. ‘Ilw provlslon of onslte affixdable units resuits in a proJ& denslty of 3.6
dwclilng units per acre which exceeds the Growth Management Control Point
of 3f dweiiing units per acre and requires approvai of a 11.8% density
increaw The proposed density increase is therefiwe consistent with Policy
3.74 aiiowing discretionary consideration of denslty lncreasa through the
processing of a site deveiopment plan in accordance with and implemented
by Chapter 21.!i3.l20 of the Zoning Ordinance for affordabie housing projects
of any slzc
PC RESO NO. 3870 -20
1
2
2
4
c *
a
7
a
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
. . . .
-
b3. The proposed density increase of 11.4 dweiiing unlts ahove the Growth Management Control Point fw the purpose of providing 16 affordable
apartment units onslte to satisfy the project’s incluslonary housing
requirement is consistent with Policy 38 aiiowlng excess dwelling unlts to be
allocated with the top priority being housing development lot low and very
low income households.
c. The project is compatlbie with surrounding vacant and agrlcuiturai
development in that it wlii not impact agrlcuiturai uses due to separation
from these uses by road rlghti-way and buffers in the form of 29 of
separation and/or 6’ wails. The overall project, including the 16 unit
apartment project, is within the low-medium Generai Pian residential density
range which wlii be consistent with future development of surroundlng
properties also designated for low-medium residential density. Compatlbiilty
is also achieved since both the pro&xt and surrounding properties will be
developed with standard single family or clustered multi-family units.
d. The project site is currently not served by a public road and surrounding uses
are ilmited to agricuiturai and residential dwellings. The 16 unit apartment
project wlil not be detrimental to surroundlng resldentiai uses since ail public
facilities including the construction of Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court
necessaq to serve the project will he constructed which wlii provide access
and utilities to the site, and 2!P sepaMlon between uses and intervening 6’
wails will mitigate potentlai conflicts between residential and agricultural
Uses.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
two-story 16 unit apartment project in the R-l zone, since coverage of the .76 acre
site is 23.6% (weii beiow the 60% maximum coverage allowed by the Specific plan),
and front, side, and rear setbacks exceed the minimum required.
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained, since the 16 unit apartment project wlii exceed the
minimum required setbacks and 36.7% of the site consists of landscaped coverage.
AddMionaRy, a mlnlmum of 200 square feet per unit of private and common
ramatlonai open space and 34 parking spaces to satisfy the Parking Ordinance
standard for multi-family dweiilngs wlil be provided.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that ingress and egress to and fkom the
project will be provided from a non-loaded puMic street (Street A) providing direct
access to Polnsettla Lane which will operate at an acceptabie iev4 and on-she
circulation in accordance with City Standards will be provldcxL
PC RFSO NO. 3870 -30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
9 23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditiosa:
Planning Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Pianning Commission does hereby recommend APPROVAL of the Site
Deveiopment Pian for the affordable apartment project entitled “Ocean Bluff”,
subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make
or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the Site
Development Pian Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to City Council’s Ginal action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development
substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval.
Approval of SDP 93-07 is granted subject to City Council approval of LCPA 95-09,
ZC 9344, CT 93-09, and HDP 93-09 and the Housing Commission% recommendation
of approval for the requested,density increase incentive. SDP 93-07 is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3867,3868,3869, and
3871 dated December 20,199s.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Site Pian as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, fmal map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the
project’s market rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City
and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate
schedule for development.
Ibt project shaii comply with the Zone 20 Specific Plan Architecturai Standards for
building materials and coiors.
Fire conditioar:
7. All buildings having an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,ooO square feet must be
protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be
approved by the fire department and a permit obtained prior to installation.
8. Proposed multi-family residential buildings must be protected by fire alarm systems.
Plans and specifications must be approved and a permit obtained prior to installation.
9. A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway indicating the
PC RFBO NO. 3870 4 1/3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
? 23
24
25
2s
27
28
C
ztddmum of the buildings on site.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building
plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state
and local Fire Codes.
11. Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets
and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when
possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street
or driveway.
12. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping
and recreational facilities.
Water Conditions:
13. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can
be met.
14. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permits. The San
Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of
application for meter installation.
15. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshall and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G. P. M. demand for domestic and irrigational
needs from appropriate parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement
plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review,
comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie - GPM - EDU).
16. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
development determines that adequate water setice and sewer facilities are
available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will
continut-to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the
final map.
. . . .
PC RESO NO. 3870 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
'27
28
-
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of
December, MS, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Envin,
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIlt None
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMISSION
AITESTZ
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3870 4%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I 23
24
25
26
27
28
P-G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3876
A RESOLUTION OF THE ~PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL A HILLSIDE ’
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE APPLICATION OFTHE HlLLSIDE ORDINANCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FUTURE POlNSETTlA LANE
AND BLACKRAIL COURT WlTHlN THE ZONE 20
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES. CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF CASE NO: HDP 93-09
WHEREAS, Ocean Bluff Partnership has filed a verified application for
certain property to wit:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San
Bernadlno base and meridian in the County of San Dkgo,
State of Cdiforni* excepting therefkom those portions thereof
lying north of the south boundary line of Ran&o Agua
Hedionda, as Said south line was established May 5, 1913, by
decree of the Superior Court in the State of Callfornia, in and
for San Dlego County, in that ctin action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly Investment Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence
Dayton Hillman and Bessie Olive Hillman.
.
which has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A-G, M and N”, dated December 20,1995 on
file in the Plauuiug Department and iacocpomted by this nlenna (“HDP 93-09’7, as
provided by Chapter 2135 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of December, 1995,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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 Hillside Development Permit; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
f 23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
commission as foiIows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission Ch of Hillside Development Permit, HDP 93-09, co based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinns:
1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map
(Exhibits “G” and “M” dated December 20,199S) which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on the constraints map (Exhibits “G” and “M” dated December 20,1995);
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that onsite project grading,
which is terraced from west to east, follows existing topography up to a ridge line which is retained to the greatest extent possible. Grading voiumes of 5,29Q cy/acre
arc within the acceptable rangq and manufactured cut and fill slopes will not exceed
30 f& in height and will he visually screened with landscaping. Compliance with
Hillside Architectural guideilnes will he accomplished through the processing of an
amendment to this Hillside Deveiopment Permit.
4. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable
portions of the site pursuant to prcwisions of Section 21.53230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the onsite grading will avoid disturbance to hillside slopes
exceeding 25%. Grading necessaq for the extension of Poinsettia Lane, a mqjor
circulation eiement roadway, will encroach into 2!5%+ slopes, however, grading
necwsary for circulation element eys is hereby excluded fiom the provisions
of the Hillside Development Ordinance by the planning Commission pursuant to
!Sectlon 21.95490 of the CMC.
5. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbmce of hillside lands,
in that existing slopes exceeding 25% are avoided and prqwed grading will conform
to the existing land contour.
6. That the project desip substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated
in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that length and height of cut and
fill slopes are limited and’designed to avoid straight, fiat faces to the greatest extent
possible,-and adequate landscape screening of slopes is provided. Vkw preservation
aud enhancement is ensured through landscaping of manufactured slopes, and
conformance with the hillside arcbitectwal development -s will be ensured
onLot93~tdcr/~sdbrrclu~thctoplolm~~~ntlslopes,mdon
PC RESO NO. 3871 -20 47
-
1 single family Lots 1-92, conformance will be ensured through the review and
2 apprwai of architecture as an amendment to this Hillside Deveiopmeut Permit.
3 Condlthqz
1. ‘The Planning Commission does hereby recommend approvai of the Hillside
Development Permit for the residential subdivision project entitled “Ocean Bluff, subject to the conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the Hillside
Development Permit Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to City Council’s final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this
approval.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 PlanningCommissi on of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of December,
15 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
2. Approval of HDP 93-09 is granted subject to the approval of LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04,
CT 93-09, and SDP 93-07. HDP 93-09 is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3867,3868,3869, and 3870 dated December
20, 1995.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
16
17
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary
18 NOES: None
19 ABSENT: None
20
21
22
: 23
24
ABSTAN None
WIUH~NS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PUNNING COMMISSION
25 II I ATTESTZ 26 *
27
28 (1 Piafmhg ~~dm
PC RESO NO. 3871 -39
- 4 EXHBIT 5
Item No. 2 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 20, 1995
Application complete date: September lo,1993
Project Planner Anne Hysoq
Project Engineer: Jim Davis
SUBJECT: LCPA 95-09/X 93=04/CT 93=09/SDP 93=07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF 1
Request for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to rezone from L-C to R-l a vacant, 31.2 acre site and subdivide 92 single family lots
and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable apartment units on property
generally located at the northwest comer of future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities
Management Zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3867,3868, 3869, 3870, 3871 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of LCPA 95-09, ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, SDP 93-07, and HDP 93-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of various permits to subdivide and grade the 31.2 acre
hillside parcel into 92 standard single family lots, one open space lot, and one multiple
family lot with 16 affordable apartment units to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing requirement. As designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, Zone 20 Specific Plan, Mello II LCP, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the relevant
Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Ocean Bluff project is located within the boundaries of Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). The site is designated RLM by the General Plan allowing low-medium residential density (O-4 dwelling units/acre) and is zoned L-C allowing agricultural uses. The project consists of 16 affordable units and 92 single family lots resulting in a proposed project density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre which exceeds the RLM growth control point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre; therefore, the project requires approval of a site development plan for a 11.8% density increase. The proposed subdivision of the Ocean Bluff parcel into residential lots requires approval of a Local Coastal-Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the R-l single family
zone.
C h
LCPA 95-09/X 93-04,bI’ 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - G&AN BLUFF DECEMBER 2Ql995 PAGE 2
The site consists of approximately 31 acres of vacant, previously cultivated land which is
surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties. Although the parcel rises in
elevation approximately 100 feet from west to east and contains a north-south trending ridge
in the eastern third of the property, the majority of the parcel is relatively flat with slopes less than 15%. A 3 acre, steep sided ravine located at the northwestern comer consists of +25% slopes containing southern mixed chaparral. The ravine, identified as Gpen Space
Lot “A” on Exhibit “A”, will be dedicated as permanent open space and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. The site conditions described above require compliance with the
Hillside Development Ordinance development guidelines regulating grading and architecture, however, architectural elevations are not included as part of the project at this
time. The proposed grading design preserves ocean and backcountry views and consists of
balanced grading to create terraced hillside lots which generally follow the existing topography, i.e., rising in elevation from west to east to the ridge line.
The proposed single family lots are a minimum of 7,500 square feet in area and the multiple family lot containing a proposed 16 unit affordable apartment project is 34,410 square feet. The affordable project is located in the southwestern comer of the site in proximity to
Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation arterial. As shown on Exhibits “A-P”, since the project does not front on an existing public street, access to the parcel will be provided by offsite improvements which include Street “A” from the project’s southwestern boundary to future Poinsettia Lane, Poinsettia Lane between its current easterly terminus and Street “A”, and Blackrail Court from its northerly terminus to the northeast comer of the project. The
project’s proposed circulation design will also provide public street access to all adjoining
properties.
The provision of the necessary offsite improvements, i.e. Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” will
result in impacts to approximately 4 acres of coastal sage habitat and one pair of California
gnatcatchers. The proposed 4 acre coastal sage habitat take area is located within Preserve
Planning Area 4 of Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) containing approximately 84 acres of coastal sage scrub and 38 acres of chaparral habitat within its core area.
The Ocean Bluff project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and
zoning regulations:
A. General Plan
B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
C. Mello II Local Coastal Program: (1) LCP Amendment
(2) LCP Regulations
D. Inclusionary Housing (Chapters 21.85 and 21.53 of the Zoning Ordinance)
E. Hillside Development ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance)
LCPA 95-09/X 934&,,T 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - O&AN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 3
F. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance)
G. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
H. Draft Habitat Management Plan
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section di scusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
A General Plan
The Ocean Bluff project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of
the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposed single family and integrated
affordable multi-family project abutting a major circulation arterial roadway which
the project will be conditioned to construct are the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan.
low medium density dwelling units/acre.
tial development in which a
affordable apartment project.
permitted by the General Plan (Growth Control Point) to enable
the development of low income
t affordable housing
project located in proximity to future Poinsettia Lane and
adjacent land uses and in close
proximity to a major roadway.
single family development in that
the two twestoty structures result in only 23.6% coverage of the
34,410 square foot lot and
Seth&s are consistent with single
family front, side, and rear yard
setback requirements.
A Cq
LCPA 95-09/2X 93-04/~T 93WSDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - O&AN BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,1995
PAGE 4
consistent with existing
actions and the development of construct/install all public facilities
land only after adequate provision necessary to serve the subdivision has been made for public facilities and citywide and quadrant wide
and services in accordance with public facilities are adequate in
performance standards. demand; therefore the project is
consistent with the Zone 20 Local
Facilities Management Plan.
income ranges. A minhnum of
fifteen percent of all units approved
for residential specific plans shall
be affordable to lower income
households.
3pen Space Recognixe and implement the Project is consistent with the Yes
policies of the California Coastal Mello II LCP segment in that Act and the Carl&ad Local Coastal 25%+ slopes possessing chaparral
prognun. plant communities (dual criterion)
are preserved except for the
Poinsettia Lane major circulation
arterial roadway which is
exempted from the “dual
criterion” restriction by the Mello
II LCP.
Protect rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal
communities.
The proposed alignment of Poinsettia Lane and Street “A”
will disturb approximately 4 acres
of coastal sage scrub habitat and
a single pair of California
Yes
gnatcatchers, however, mitigation
at a 21 replacement ratio in the
Carl&ad Highlands mitigation
bank is a condition of approval.
3-2
- -.
LCPA 95-09/Z 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93=07/HDP 93-09 - Octi BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,1995
PAGE 5
development on hillsides. relatively flat, however, slopes
exceeding 25% will not be
disturbed and proposed grading
the natural land
trailways where trails are required for trail segment along Poinsettia
serve the proposed development
rior to or concurrent with needs.
all street improvements prior to
occupancy of any unit.
interior noise level to which all
residential units should be
within the usable yard area of lots
abutting Poinsettia Lane and
project is conditioned to require
* Project density exceeds the Growth Management Growth Control Point, however, a density increase is being processed and required findings have been made (see the following discussion under Affordable Housing and Inciusionary Housing).
B. Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203)
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires project compliance with all applicable land use
plans, policies, and ordinances, except as modified by the Specific Plan. The
following discussion describes the proposed project’s conformance with the relevant Specific Plan regulations which include Affordable Housing, Land Use (General Plan, Zoning, Development Standards, and the Mello II LCP), and Gpen Space Preservation.
Affordable Housing
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires consistency with the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance requiring that 15% of the total number of proposed units are made
affordable to low income households. When feasible and compatible with surrounding land uses, the affordable units are required to be built onsite, unless an ofkite contribution of units is approved by the City Council upon a showing by the
developer that an onsite contribution is not appropriate for the particular
-
LCPA 95-09/X 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - GC&IN BLUFF
DECEMBER 2Ql995
PAGE 6
development. To enable the higher densities necessary for affordable projects, the Specific Plan permits modification or waiver of development standards including increases in density to be accommodated through the Site Development Plan process.
The project’s 15% inclusionary requirement is 16.24 dwelling units. The proposed project includes a request for approval of a site development plan for a 16 unit
affordable apartment project located on Lot 93 in the southwest cOmer of the site
to satisfy this requirement. The overall project density permitted is 96.6 dwelling
units, however, a total of 108 dwelling units (92 single family and 16 multi-family dwellings) are requested. The project therefore requires a density increase above the density allowed using the Growth Control Point (3.2 du/acre) for the overall site to enable the provision of 16 onsite affordable housing units. In accordance with the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the average density proposed for both the affordable and single family lots is 3.6 dwelling units per acre which would exceed the growth control
point but is within the RLM General Plan range of 0 - 4 dwelling units per acre. The density increase is the only incentive requested by the applicant under the
provisions of Chapter 21.53.120 for affordable projects requesting approval of a site
development plan. The necessary findings that: 1) no adverse impacts to the
surrounding area will result from the project; 2) the project will be compatible with surrounding land uses; 3) the lot and traffic circulation are adequate to serve the project; and 4) the necessary design features are provided, can be made and are provided in the following discussion. A project proforma providing justification for
the density increase has been reviewed and verified by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director and the proposed density increases will require Housing
Commission and City Council approval.
The project is located in the southwestern comer of the site in proximity to future Poinsettia Lane, a major circulation arterial. As shown on Exhibit “H”, the affordable project consists of two relatively small multi-family structures, one containing 10 units and the other containing 6 units (2 three bedroom units), which are compatible in
scale with future single family dwellings. The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires
affordable projects to be consistent with RD-M standards and the proposed setbacks
and coverage are consistent with these standards (see Land Use discussion). In
addition, the project will provide 200 square feet per unit of private and common
recreation area. In accordance with the Parking Ordinance standard for multi-family
units, thirty-four (34) parking spaces are provided onsite, and ingress and egress to the site is provided from non-loaded Street “A” thereby reducing traffic flow through the single family subdivision.
The project site is currently not served by a public road and surrounding uses are
limited to agricultural and residential dwellings. The 16 unit apartment project will not be detrimental to surrounding residential uses since all public.facilities, including the construction of Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court, necessary to seLve the project will be constructed to the site. A 25’ separation between the nearest residential units and agricultural fields, and intervening 6’wallswill mitigate potential conflicts between residential and agricultural uses.
A
LCPA 95-09/X 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-O7/HDP 93-09 - GC&IN BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,1995
PAGE 7
The proposed density increase is in accordance with General Plan Housing Policy 3.8
regarding excess dwelling unit allocation, since it is requested to accommodate the
development of affordable housing, and the findings required to exceed the Growth Control Point can be made, in accordance with Chapter 2190.045 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed 11.4 dwelling unit increase would be available to be withdrawn from the City’s excess dwelling unit “bank” without exceeding the Citywide or southwest quadrant dwelling unit and population buildout caps. The applicant will
be conditioned to provide all necessary public facilities to serve the additional units and the project is consistent with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan
ensuring the adequacy of public facilities.
Land Use
The project is located within Area C of the Specific Plan. Properties within this area are designated for Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density development by the
General Plan. Planning Area C is currently zoned GC and according to the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the appropriate zoning for these properties is the R-l Zone. Therefore, zone changes must be processed prior to or concurrent with development
proposals. The R-l zone allows for single family detached homes and associated
structures, however, the Specific Plan also allows multi-family affordable housing structures developed in accordance with the RD-M development standards to be located in the R-l zone subject to site development plan approval. Accordingly, this project includes an application for a Zone Change from the L-C Zone to the R-l Zone. This zone change is consistent with both the RLM General Plan designation and the Zone 20 Specific Plan development provisions for Area C.
The Zone 20 Specific Plan Area C development regulations include architectural
design criteria and require consistency with the Landscape and Scenic Corridor
Guidelines. Since architecture for the single family units is not proposed by the
applicant, the project has been conditioned to require Planning Commission approval
of architectural elevations through an amendment to the Hillside Development Permit (HDP). The HDP amendment shall be required to demonstrate consistency with both the City’s Hillside Ordinance architectural guidelines and the Zone 20 Specific Plan architectural design criteria. As shown on Exhibits “J - L”, the
conceptual landscape design is consistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan, Scenic Corridor Guidelines, and the City’s Landscape Design Manual.
As shown on the following table, the project meets or exceeds the R-l (single family) zone standards as modified by the Specific Plan, and the RD-M zone (multi-family) development standards as required by the Zone 20 Specific Plan.
/c- h
LCPA 95-09/2X 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,199s
PAGE 8
Affordable Multi-Family
Onen Snace Preservation
The project is consistent with the Open Space provisions of the Zone 20 Specific Plan in that Parcel “A” steep slopes possessing chaparral habitat will be preserved in open space, slopes exceeding 40% will not be developed, mitigation measures that
establish a physical barrier between residential and agricultural uses are imposed by
condition, and a SO landscaped setback along the northern side of the portion of Poinsettia Lane that the project is conditioned to construct will be preserved as permanent open space.
Mello II Local Coastal Program
See the discussion under item C below.
Cl. Mello II Local Coastal Program Amendment
The project is located within and subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Program
segment and is designated for residential low-medium density (RLM) land use and Limited Control (GC) zoning. Although the Mello II Land Use Plan is consistent
with the subject parcel’s RLM General Plan designation, the implementing zone (G
C) specified by the Mello II LCP is not consistent with the proposed zone change to
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CI 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,199s PAGE 9
R-l. Since the California Coastal Act specifies that all rezonings related to land use regulation or administration within the coastal zone, which occur after the
certification of a local government’s local coastal program, require a LCP amendment
in order to be effective, the project includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment
to change the implementing zone from GC to R-l for the Ocean Bluff parcel.
c2. Development Regulations
The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies addressing steep slopes (W%+) possessing chaparral plant communities since the proposed grading avoids the only onsite area with slopes in excess of 15%. This area (Parcel A) does contain
chaparral plant communities and will be preserved in open space by easement. Some coastal sage scrub on steep slopes will be disturbed by the offsite Poinsettia Lane extension, however, Mello II exempts City Circulation Element roadways from this
policy. The project will be conditioned to provide adequate drainage, siltation and erosion control facilities as part of the approved grading permit, and the grading operation will be limited to the summer construction season, April 1 to October 1.
The project contains vacant non-prime agricultural land containing Class III soils and is located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Site III). The Mello II LCP
requires mitigation when non-prime coastal agricultural land is converted to urban
uses. The project will therefore be conditioned to pay an “Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee”.
D. Inclusionaq Housing (Chapters 21&i and 2133 of the Zoning Ordinance)
As specified in the above discussion under B, Zone 20 Specific Plan - Affordable
Housing, the project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that a minimum of fifteen percent of all approved residential units in any specific plan be restricted to and affordable by lower income households. In accordance with the ordinance, developers may apply for incentives, including requests for density increases, to offset the cost of affordable housing, however, they must submit
justification for the requested incentive. Chapter 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance
requires the approval of a site development plan for multi-famiIy affordable projects, and findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and/or Specific Plan and in conformance with General Plan policies and goals. (See the above consistency discussion under A. General Plan and B. Specific Plan - Affordable Housing). This project complies with the Inclusionary Housing provisions of the Municipal Code (Chapter 21.85) as demonstrated below:
,- 6.
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/cT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OLrZAN BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995
PAGE 10
CHAPTER 21.8!! - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING/CHAPTER 2153.124 AFKWMBLE
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
Location of Units Onsite on Lot 93*
11.5% Density Increase
* The applicant has requested the option to purchase credits in Villa Loma or participate in an offsite combined affordable project, and the project has been conditioned to require compliance with Council Policies 57 and 58 prior to City
Council approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement to allow the offsite option.
Concurrent with implementation of this option, the applicant will be required to
process a tentative map revision to the Ocean Bluff project.
** A project proforma demonstrating that the requested density increase is necessary
to achieve the affordable units was submitted to and reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director. Upon completion of his review, the Housing and
Redevelopment Director indicated that the proposed density increase is justified to
enable the provision of affordable units.
E. Hillside Development Ordinance
The proposed project grading is consistent with provisions of the Hillside Ordinance
requiring that undevelopable portions of the project site are identified and avoided.
A steep ravine located in the northwestern comer of the site contains the only 25%+
slopes and this area will be preserved through an open space easement. The project design minimizes disturbance to hillside lands through a terraced design which follows the natural topography to the greatest extent possible and retains view opportunities along the natural ridge line. Grading volumes (5,290 @acre) are
within the acceptable range and manufactured slopes are contoured and/or less than 30’ in height in accordance with the ordinance. Since architectural exhibits were not
submitted with the Hillside Development Permit application, the project will be conditioned to require Planning Commission approval of a Hillside Development Permit amendment prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that architecture is consistent with both the Hillside Development Architectural
Guidelines and the Specific Plan Architectural Standards. (In order to facilitate the
48
LCPA 95-09/= 93-04/CT 93-09/sDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - GC&W BLUFF DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 11
review/approval process, staff is recommending that the City Council delegate its authority as the final decision maker to the Planning Commission).
F. Growth Management Ordinance
The proposed project is a residential project located within Local Facilities
Management Zone 20 in the southwest quadrant. The project, including the affordable housing units, is 11.4 dwelling units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance of 96.6 units, however, sufficient excess dwelling units exist within the quadrant to avoid exceeding the Quadrant 3 or Citywide dwelling unit cap. Even with this density increase, all public facilities necessary to serve this project are either already in place or will be provided through conditions of approval placed on the project. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance
with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
- - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
G. Subdivision Ordinance
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision map to be fded in accordance with Title 20 for any subdivision project. Accordingly, a tentative map is being processed with standard single family lots and one multiple family lot including all necessary public streets required to serve the project. As conditioned, the project
would provide all necessary improvements and all of the findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869, dated December 20, 1995.
LCPA 95-09/Z 93-04/(X- 93-09/SDP 93WHDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,1995 PAGE 12
H. Draft Habitat Management Plan (HlW)
The ofBite Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” alignments are consistent with the approved Zone 20 Specific Plan biological mitigation and open space preservation and the coastal sage scrub habitat loss is consistent with the HMP as follows:
1. The construction of Poinsettia Lane and Street “A” will not preclude
connectivity between Preserve Planning Areas (PPAs) since they are not
located within a PPA core area, and are not a part of a Linkage Planning
Area. If feasible, the construction of a roadway culvert under Poinsettia Lane
within the SDG&E easement, which is preserved as open space, may facilitate
dispersal and movement of wildlife between core areas in PPAs 4 and 5.
2. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the Carlsbad
HMP in that the area is not a part of a PPA core area or Linkage Planning
Area.
3. Mitigation for the loss of the 4 acres of coastal sage scrub will be in the form of the acquisition of habitat credits at a 21 ratio within PPA 2 (Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank) as discussed above. The loss of habitat on the Ocean Bluff property will therefore not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher;
4. The habitat loss is located in a disturbed and partially disturbed canyon area which will be isolated by Poinsettia Lane, the Aviara development to the south, and continued agricultural uses to the east and west; therefore, large blocks of habitat will not be lost and fragmentation will not occur.
5. The habitat area being impacted is somewhat isolated by surrounding
agricultural uses and development, and it is located within the alignment of
a major circulation element roadway providing primary access to the proposed Ocean Bluff subdivision as well as other properties in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
V. ENVI RoNMENTAc
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) which covers the 640 acre Zone 20 planning area. The direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts from the future development of the Zone 20 planning areas have
been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-03) for the specific plan. Additional project level studies have been conducted including soils investigation, biological analysis, noise report, traffic study, and a hydrology report. These studies provide more
focused and detailed project level analysis and indicate that additional environmental impacts beyond what was analyzed in Final EIR 90-03 would not result from implementation of the project. This project qualifies as subsequent development to both the Zone 20 EIR and the City’s MEIR as identified in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental
A I
.
LCPA 95-09lZC 93-O&’ 93-09lSDP 93-07fHDP 93-09 - OclcAN BLUFF
DECEMBER 20,199s
PAGE 13
Quality Act; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Environmental
Compliance on September 21,199s. The recommended and applicable mitigation measures
of Final EIR 90-03 are included as conditions of approval for this project. Conditions
include specific mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat identified by the Zone
20 EIR along the Poinsettia Lane roadway through the purchase of credits at a 2:l
replacement ratio in the Carlsbad Highlands in accordance with the recommendation of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the City’s
MEIR found that the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with
the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City
Council adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the
General Plan and as to these effects, no additional environmental document is required.
A’ITACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3867
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3868
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3869
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3870
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3871
Location Map
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated September 27,1995
Enviromnental Impact Assessment Form, Part II, dated September l&l995
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment
Disclosure Statement
Reduced Exhibits
Exhibits “A - N” dated December 20, 1995.
Alar
November 22,1995
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: LCPA 9549/ZC 9344/Cf 93-09/SDP 9347/HDP 93-09 - Ocean Bluff
Project Location: South of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Paseo de1
Norte directly north of the terminus of Blackrail Court in LPM Zone 20 and the Zone 20 Specific
Plan area.
Project Description: ‘Ihe project consists of a Local Coastal Program Amendment and zone
change from L-C to the R-l single family zone in which minimum 7,500 square foot lots are
permitted, the subdivision of 92 single family lots, and one multifamily lot on a 31.2 acre parcel
located in Planning Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area. Consistent with the underlying
RLM General Plan designation, the total number of units is 108 (92 sf lots and 16 apartment
units) on 30.2 developable acres resulting in an overall project density of 3.6 dwelling units per
acre. The 16 unit apartment project fulfills the project’s inclusionary housing requirement.
The project also includes offsite improvements necessary to serve the project including Street “A”
from the southwest comer of the project south to the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane
extension, Poinsettia Lane between the existing easterly terminus to Street “A”, and Blackrail
Court from its existing northerly terminus to the northeast comer of the project. Gnsite grading
involves 320,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and results in a terraced hillside design in
accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Justification fa this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carl&ad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning
of date of pub&Won.
DATED:
CASE NO:
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
LCPA 9549/X 9344/CT 93-091
SDP 9347/HDP 93-09
APPLICANT: OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 27,1995
MJH:AH:kC loa
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Cartsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 436-l 161
h h
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-WCT 93-09/SDP 9367/HDP 93-09
DATE: Sentember 18. 1995
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
APPLICANT: OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 30, San
Diego, CA 92037
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 6,1993
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a zone change from L-C to the R-l single family zone
in which minimum 7,500 square foot lots are permitted, the subdivision of 92 single family lots, and one
multifamily lot on a 31.2 acre parcel located in Planning Area C of the Zone 20 Specific Plan area.
Consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation, the total number of units is 108 (92 single
family and 16 multifamily units) on 30.2 developable acres resulting in an overall project density of 3.6
dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the underlying RLM General Plan designation. The 16
unit apartment project will fulfill the projects inclusionary housing requirement.
Offsite improvements necessary to serve the project include Street “A” from the southwest comer of the
project south to the intersection of future Poinsettia Lane extension, Poinsettia .La.ne between the existing
easterly terminus to Street A, and BlackraiI Road from its existing northern terminus to the northeast
comer of the project. Onsite grading involves 320,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and results in
a terraced hillside design in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Rev. l/30/95 lb3
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FAcrORS WI’ENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of envimmeml fkctors checked below would be potentially atkted by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
~corporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
x Land Use and Planning x Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing x Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems
- Water
X Air Quality
- Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
- Hazards - Cultural Resources
x Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Signikance
Rev. l/30/95 bif
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initiaI evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. q
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIIX pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. El
Planner Signature
9.42~$a-
Date
9- 2* -9s
Date
Rev. l/30/95 P-
ENWRONMBNTAL IMPACTS
h
STATE CEQA GUIDBLINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to detamine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No Jmpact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than SignXcant ImpacV‘applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”
The fleveloper must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but gl.J potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one oc more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
4 Rev. l/30/95 f!d
. An EIR must be pmpared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following cm (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier
EIR pursuant to a#ic&le star&&s, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce
the impact to less than @iticant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier ER, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would othenvise be determined significant.
Rev. 1/3op5 b7
Potentially Significant
Issues (ad suepating lllfum8uQ SaIrces):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a>
W
c>
d)
d
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Sources #l & #2)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source X2)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Sources #l & #2)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #2)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Sources #l & #2)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
isdhstmcture)? (Source N-2)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #2)
POtlSlltid~
Sl@fii
Unless
Mitigation
Imxpcfati
x
x
x
Lk!sThan
Significant
impact
x
x
No
w=t
x
x -
x
-
6 Rev. 1/3O/!X b8
Issues md supporting hemat& sanas): SigIlifiGiIlt
Jw=t
lII. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
a) Fault rupture? (Sources #2 & 3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #2 dc 3)
cl Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Sources #2 & 3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources #2 dc
3)
d
f)
Landslides or mudflows? (Sources #2 & 3)
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Sources #2 & 3)
g)
h)
9
Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
Expansive soils? (Source #3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3)
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources
#1)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #4)
POtL?lltidly
Significant
Unless
MitigatiOIl
hmporated
x
LessThan
Significant
mJi=t
x
x
No
m=t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. l/30/95 lb?
Issues (and !3uppolting Infcxmrsha -x
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source #l)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (Source #l)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #l)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #l, #3)
POtMdl~
Sigdfii
Impect
POWUiliUy
Sigllifii
Unless
Mitigation
Inaxporated
Les!sThl
Significant No
impact m=t
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #l, #3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #l, #3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #l, #3)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Sources #l 4% #2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1
6% 2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Sources #l & #2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources #l 8c #2)
x -
x
x
x -
. x
x
x
x
x
x
x
8 Rev. l/30/95 70
,-
Issues (and suppoltillg Jllfamatim saaas):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
cl
d)
ii!)
POWtidl~
Sigllifii
Impact
Signifii
UIlkSS
Mitigation
hmrporated
LessTbau Significant No
Impact Impact
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources
#l&x2) x -
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
w
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #2)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #2)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, tkatcncd or rare species or their
habitats (in&ding but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animak, and birds? (Sources #2 & #5) x
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #I2 & #5)
x -
x -
x
x
x
x
x
9 Rev, 1pops 71
issues (and supporting lllformatlm 3amM:
c) Lmally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #2 &
#3
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source #2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #I2 & #5)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #l, Section 512.1)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #l)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that wolild be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#l)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
cl
d)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #l)
Possible interf&encc with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source #l)
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #l)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of notential health hazards? (Source X2)
Ir
Pomtially Significan
w=t
POtiSltially
!iignifkant
Unless Mitigation
Imxpxated
LeaTball Significant
Impact
x
x
No Impact
x
x
x
x
x
10 Rev. l/30/95 7-3
A
POklltidl~
Significant
Impact
Potealtially
sisnificant
Unless
Mitigatioll
Imcqorati
LesThall
Significant No
m=t Impact
x
Issum @xi !3uppoctillg Infamatim salrccs):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #2 & #7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #)
__
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
x -
x -
a)
W
cl
4
e)
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (Sources #l & ##2) x -
Police protection? (Sources #l & #2) x -
Schools? (Sources #l & #2) x -
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Sources #l & #!2) x -
Other governmental services? (Sources #l & #2) - - x -
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial aherations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natuml gas? (Source #l)
b) Communications systems? (Source #l)
x -
x -
11 Rev. l/30/95 73
- -
Issues (and supporting lnformafim !hn=o:
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facihties? (Sources #l & #2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources #l & #2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Sources #2 & #4)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources #1 & #2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources #l & #2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Sources #l & #2)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #2)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #2)
Affect h.istoricaI resources? (Source #2)
Have the pote&al to cause a physical change
which would al%ct unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the notential imnact area? (Source #2) L L . I
POtElltidlY siinificant m=t
POtelltidly
Sigllifii
Unless
h4iti@UiOll
Incu=porated
x
L.e5Than
Significant
m=t
x
x
x
x
x
rlgct
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
12 Rev. l/30/95 74
C
Issues (and supporti.llg lnf- z3aue3):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
POtCntiplly
Sigllifii
u=t
PomialIy
significant
Unless
Mitigatioll
Imxporated
LesThall
Significant No
m=t impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#a
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#2)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or ind&ctly?
x -
x
x -
13 Rev. l/30/95 6
C
- XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
b)
c>
Earlier analyst may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
14 Rev. l/30/95 7lp
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
-\
I. PROJECI’ BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Earlier Analyses and its applicabiity to project
The project is part of the Zone 20 Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1994. CEQA
compliance for the specific plan was achieved through the certification of the Zone 20 Program EIR
which identified, analyzed, and recommended mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to
insignificant levels. The Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed potential impacts to agriculture, air
quality, biology, circulation, land use, noise, pesticide residue, paleontology, public facilities financing,
soils/geology, and visual aesthetics that could result from the development of the Specific Plan area.
The PEIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within Zone 20. The project
incorporates the required Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measures, and through the aid of the required
additional biological, soils/geological, noise, slope, viewshed, and cultural resource analyses, a
determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and
mitigated by the PEIR will result from this project. The following discussion of environmental
evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the source documents
which verify the PEIR impact identification, analysis, and mitigation requirements.
B. Environmental Analysis
The subdivision site consists of approximately 31 acres of vacant land previously used for agricultural
use and surrounded by rural residential and agricultural properties. Elevations across the site range
from a high of approximately 380 feet (MSL) on a gently inclined, north-south trending ridge near the
middle of the property to a low of about 280 feet(MSL) in a wide, steep-sided ravine providing natural
drainage in the northwestern portion of the site. The site drains predominantly to the east and west.
On-site vegetation consists of scattered clusters of trees, shrubs, and grass. The majority of the site
has been cultivated in the past. The sides of the northwestern ravine are severely eroded, however,
there is some vegetation present in most areas and includes southern mixed chaparral, a small pocket
of chamise chaparral, and disturbed habitat with scattered southern maritime chaparral. No plant or
wildlife species listed as rare, endangered, or threatened by the state of federal governments were
observed on the property.
Offsite improvements necessary for the project include the extension of Poinsettia Lane, Street A from
the southwestern corner of the site to Poinsettia Lane, and Blackrail Road from its existing northerly
terminus to the project’s northeastern boundary. The extension of Poinsettia Lane from its existing
eastern terminus to Street A and Street A will: 1) disturb areas currently being utilized for agricultural
purposes with no sensitive or endangered plant species, 2) impact the edge of a canyon containing
southern mixed chaparral, disturbed coastal sage brush, and a single pair of California gnatcatchers;
and 3) disturb a small patch of disturbed coastal sage scrub adjacent to the existing agricultural road - along the southwestern comer of the project site.
Existing improvements to the overall site include fences, dirt roads, water lines, and overhead
powerlines.
15 Rev. 1130195 77
-
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
la. The project will not exceed the density range of O-4 dwelling units per acre allowed by the underlying
Residential Low Medium (RLM) density land use designation. The project density including
affordable units is 3.6 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the RLM designation but
exceeds the Growth Management growth control point (gcp) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The
Growth Management gcp is imposed to ensure that the number of dwelling units in each quadrant of
. the City at buildout does not exceed the dwelling unit caps specified by ordinance. As a result, the
project requires a density increase above the gcp which will require the removal of 12 units from the
quadrant% excess units. There currently exists sufficient excess units in the southwest quadrant to
accommodate the request for the density increase above the gcp.
The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires a change in zoning from L-C to R-l in the project planning area
and the Zone 20 Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the required
changes in zoning from L-C to R-l. The PEIR identified no significant impact since the underlying
RLM (Residential Low Medium density) General Plan designation permits up to four dwelling units
per acre, and zoning to single family lots on minimum 7,500 square foot lots is consistent with the
low to medium density land use designation.
lb. The project is also subject to the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) requiring approval by the
California Coastal Commission. The project is consistent with the LCP “PA” land use designation
allowing low-medium residential density development which is consistent with all Mello II land use
policies. However, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to change the zoning from LC to R-l, and LCPA 95-09 is being processed with the project for this purpose.
lc,d. As detailed by the PEIR, Zone 20 is comprised of agricultural uses which are typically incompatible
with residential uses due to physical and operational characteristics such as tilling and
pesticide/herbicide spraying. The Ocean Bluff project will not impact or be impacted directly by
agricultural uses since the project will not abut any property under cultivation. PEIR mitigation
required to reduce these impacts including notification to all future residential land owners that this
area is subject to dust, pesticide, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations will be a
condition of map approval and the provision of temporary road connections to maintain continued
access to adjacent agricultural properties will be a condition of map approval.
2a. Local population projections are based upon the residential density permitted in each land use
designation. In accordance with the discussion under la. above determining that the project is
consistent with the property’s underlying RLM land use designation, the additional population resulting
from the project will not cumulatively exceed local population projections.
2b. As specified by the Zone 20 PEIR, the development of projects including transportation routes, public
services, and land uses within the Zone 20 planning area is not growth inducing since the area has
been previously planned and designated for residential development by the City’s General Plan, Growth
Management Program, and Zone 20 LPMP. Although the Poinsettia Lane extension will provide
access to undeveloped parcels within Zone 20, it is a planned east-west circulation arterial and
development already exists to the east, west, north, and south of Zone 20 properties; therefore,
urbanization of the area is inevitable.
16 Rev. l/30/95 78
3b,e. Consistent with the PEIR for Environmental Area I, an additional geotechnical investigation has e
been prepared for the project by Ninyo and Moore. The conclusion of this report is that “based upon
our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that site development is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction
of the subject project There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on the site that
cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design; and sound construction practices”. Compliance with
the recommendations of the Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical Investigation for this project will avoid
sign&ant unstable earth conditions and or increased exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards. These recommendations will be incorporated as project conditions in accordance with Zone
20 PEIR.
4a. According to the project’s Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, in which
the potential for changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff
are analyzed, a temporary detention basin for the westerly drainage basin will attenuate post
development runoff to predevelopment levels and “the increase in the runoff . . . . . from development
is compensated for by the increased times of concentration...from the proposed grading which creates
longer flow paths and flatter grades.” The final hydrology study will examine the flows in more detail
and size the detention basin which is proposed along the western project boundary.
The Zone 20 mitigation required to avoid adverse impacts to the quantity or quality of surface water
consists of compliance with the adopted LFMP performance standards. Individual projects must show
compliance with drainage and water distribution design and performance standards in accordance with
the adopted LFMP and City standards as well as conform to the NPDES permit requirements pursuant
to Regional Water Quality Control Board No. W-42 adopted by City Council Resolution No. 90-235.
The project will be conditioned to comply with these standards.
5. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
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 s&u, and su$pended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is
a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
Tolessenorminimke the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of
mitigation measums are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These. include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of
17 Rev. l/30/95 77
C.
an EIR is not mquired because the certification of Final Master EIR 9341, 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’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air
quality imp&s is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
6a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include
all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative
modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewallcs, pedestrian linkages, and
commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The
diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates
impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate
General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the
project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General
Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final
Master EIR 9341, by’ City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
6b. The Poinsettia Lane extension and the onsite circulation are designed in accordance with the General
Plan Circulation element and City standards thereby avoiding hazards to safety from design features.
Additionally, temporary road connections to maintain continued access to adjacent agricultural
properties that could be impacted by future Poinsettia Lane improvements will be provided.
7a. The Biology Se&on (3.4) of the Zone 20 Specitlc Plan PEIR provides baseline data at a gross scale
due to the large size of the specific plan area. Given the large number of property owners and their
differing development horizons and the inevitable change in biological conditioe over the long-term
buildout of the specific plan area, it is not possible to mitigate biological impacts from the buildout
of the entire specific plan under one comprehensive open space easement that crosses property lines
or a habitat revegetation/enhancement plan sponsored solely by the property owners. The
implementation of the biological section of the EIR is based on future site specific biological survey
studies that focus on the impacts created by individual subsequent development projects. These
additional biological studies are required to consider the baseline data and biological open space
recommendations of the PEIR and provide more detailed and current resource surveys plotted at the
18 Rev.lpop5 to
-
tentative map scale for each proper@. The range of the future mitigation options may include
preservation of sensitive habitat onsite in conjunction with enhancement/revegetation plans, payment
of fees into a regional CoIlservation plan, or the purchase and protection of similar habitat offsite.
To meet these EIR requirements, a biological resources field survey was prepared for the project by
Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant, &ted March 1995. This subsequent biological study
provides more focused, current, and detailed project level analysis of site specific biological impacts
and provides more refined project level mitigation measures as required by the Zone 20 PEIR. The
property was surveyed for the burrowing owl and the bird was not observed on the site. No brown-
headed cowbirds were observed on the property or in the vicinity. The biological report indicates that
implementation of the project would not result in the disturbance of biological resources onsite,
however, construction of offsite Poinsettia Lane to the west from “A” Street to Alga Road and the
construction of “A” Street between the project’s southwestern boundary and Poinsettia Lane will result
in impacts to a single pair of gnatcatchers and approximately 4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub
habitat. The 3.7 acres of Diegan sage scrub habitat located along the proposed Poinsettia Lane
alignment consists of California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat, yerba santa, laural sumac, wart-
stemmed ceanothus, California encelia, black sage, and weedy species such as tree tobacco, and shows
signs of past and continuing disturbance. The habitat quality in the impacted area varies and has been
disturbed by human activities associated with encampments and illegal dumping. Although the habitat
area does offer cover and foraging areas for wildlife found in the area, the PEIR mitigation mapping
indicates that this area will be isolated by Poinsettia Lane to the north, the Aviara development to the
south and continued agricultural uses to the east and west. Coastal sage scrub habitat areas directly
impacted by the Poinsettia Lane alignment requiring mitigation are approximately 3 acres in sire,
however, indirect impacts to the remainin g .7 acres should also be mitigated. The total area of
disturbance for the Poinsettia Lane extension requiring mitigation is therefore 3.7 acres and the
mitigation recommended by Biological Consultant Hayworth is the preservation of 3.7 acres of coastal
sage habitat within the high quality, gnatcatcher inhabited coastal sage area found in the Carl&ad
Highlands mitigation bank area. Another 1.1 acres located at the southwestern comer of the
Oceanbluff parcel is identified as containing disturbed coastal sage scrub. Disturbance to .28 acres
of the 1.1 acre area of coastal sage scrub will result from necessary offsite grading to construct Street
“A” from the southwestern comer of the Oceanblti site to the proposed Poinsettia Lane extension.
The proposed mitigation for this .28 acre area of disturbance to coastal sage scrub is preservation of
an additional .28 acre area in the Carl&ad Highlands mitigation bank area for a total of 3.98 acres.
The Poinsettia Lane extension is within Preserve Planning Area 4, as defined by the City’s draft
Habitat Management Plan dated July, 1994, in which 84 acres of coastal sage scrub and 38 acres of
chaparral habitat are identified within the core area. Although disturbance to approximately 4 acreas
of coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitat will result from construction of Poinsettia
and Street “A”, it will not preclude connectivity between PPA’s nor preclude the preservation of 50%
of the habitat in PPA4. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of offsite mitigation
because it will preserve one acre of these habitat in PPA2 for every acre of the same habitat affected
by the proposed project. Additionally, the Zone 20 PEIR mitigation measure 3.4.3.10 which is
incorporated as a project condition requires that an oversized roadway culvert be installed under the
Poinsettia Lane extension at the SDG&B easement to maintain and enhance wildlife connections in
native habitat areas that would otherwise be fmgmented by impassable roadway crossings. The
feasibility of constructing an oversized culvert at this location shall be evaluated at the time roadway
improvement plans are submitted to the City Engineering department for review. Specific mitigation
measures required to be incorporated into the design of this culvert, if necessary, shall be based on
19 Rev. l/30/95 81
- -
a biological study performed for this purpose which will be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Depattment.
7c. The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies regarding the disturbance of 25% slopes
possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities (dual
criteria). Onsite, the only area possessing 25% slopes with this type of habitat will be preserved in
open space. The Poinsettia Lane alignment offsite will encroach into an area meeting this dual
criteria, however, the dual criteria policy does not apply to the construction of roads on the City’s
Circulation Element.
8.a-c. The project’s compliance with Building Codes, Title 20, and Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code in
accordance with the MEIR mitigation measures to reduce impacts (Electricity and Natural Gas Section
5.12.1 of the MEIR) associated with the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner will
ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures
The MEIR has identified mineral resources within the City of Carl&ad boundaries, and no mineral
resources are located within the project area.
9ad. The single family residential project is not a use typically associated with risks such as accidental
explosion or release of hazardous substances thereby creating a potential health hazard. Although
agricultural operations will continue on parcels in the vicinity of the Oceanbluff subdivision,
compliance with the Zone 20 PEE3 measures and Zone 20 Specific Plan development regulations to
buffer residential development from agricultural operations will avoid health hazards resulting from
pesticide residue. Specifically, the project is conditioned to require prior to finai map approval a
detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer for City and
County approval, a minimum 25’ buffer shall be provided between the project boundaries and open
field cultivation, temporary road connections required to maintain continued access to adjacent
agricultural properties that could be impacted by the Poinsettia Lane extension improvements will be
provided, a Notice of Restriction notifying all owners, users, and tenants of this project that the area
is subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with adjacent agricultural operations shah be
recorded prior to final map approval, and drainage will be disposed of through stormdrains in
accordance with City standards and compliance with NPDES standards is required for the project.
9e. The project’s compliance as conditioned with the City’s Landscape Design Manual - Fire Protection
policies will avoid increasin g fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, trees, and grass.
Oa,b. The Zone 20 PEIR noise mitigation included a requirement that all projects within 500 feet of the
existing Poin&tia Lane prepare a noise study in accordance with the General Plan Noise.Element.
The Noise Report prepared for the Ocean Bluff project revealed that noise levels exceeding 60 dBA
CNEL would potentially impact Lots 78 - 87 and Lots 91-91 which are adjacent to the roadway
without acceptable mitigation. Berms and 6’ noise walls have been incorporated into the project within
the 50’ landscaped setback from Poinsettia Lane approximately 40’ from the right of way line to reduce
the noise exterior levels of these lots to 60 dBA CNEL or below within the usable yard areas as
required by the Zone 20 PEIR and the City’s General Plan Noise Element.
11-12. In accordance with the City’s MEIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned
to comply with the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and
services to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.
20 Rev. l/30/95 82
- -
The project is within and subject to the Zone 20 Specific Plan requiring it to be in accordance with
the approved Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan thereby ensuring that performance standards
for public facihties will be met through build-out of the zone.
13. The Zone 20 PEIR visual aesthetic mitigation relevant to the Ocean Bluff project includes the
following prior to tentative map approval:
a. additional visual analysis within any significant viewsheds and the addition of any recommended
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval,
b. structures and roofs shall be earth tone in color and prior to issuance of building permits the
applicant is required to submit for Planning Director approval a color board depicting the
proposed earth tones;
C. manufactured slopes and roadway cuts shall be landform-graded, contoured, and heavily screened
by landscaping in conformance with Zone 20 Specific Plan; and
d. general visual design guidelines shall be taken into consideration during initial site planning and
design phases prior to approval of a tentative map or implementing permit for any development
within the Specific Plan area.
The Ocean Blti project includes a hillside development permit application (HDP 93-09) which
requires compliance with hillside architectural and grading standards. The Ocean Bluff project is in
compliance with hillside grading standards and PEIR mitigation requiring landform grading and
contouring, and landscaping to screen cut and fill slopes. The project is located within the Palomar
Airport Road and Palomar Airport viewsheds identified by the Zone 20 PElR. Additional visual
analysis performed by the applicant has identified that units along the northeastern and northern
elevations will be visible from these viewsheds, however, as specified in the Zone 20 PEIR, any visual
impact along the Palomar Airport Road viewshed will be brief and possibly less than significant due
to traveling speeds and topography. The hillside development permit will therefore be conditioned
to require compliance with the general visual design guidelines specified by the PEIR with special
emphasis on providing a combination of one and two story homes, a variety of roof heights and roof
massing, a variety of earth tone roof and wall materials and colors, and enhanced fenestration. Since
the project is a standard subdivision with no proposed architecture at this time, a condition will be
added to the hillside development permit (HDP 93-09) requiring that an amendment be processed prior
to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the proposed architecture is consistent with the
general visual design guidelines as well as the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural standards.
14. The project co&tins no sites listed as Level 3 or 4 by the Zone 20 PEIR; therefore no additional
environmental review of cultural resources is required.
15. The project will incmase the demand for community parks, however, the project will be conditioned
to require compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance and Zone 20 LFMP which requires
that parks in accordance with the growth management standard are provided to serve new
development.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Car&ad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
21 Rev. l/30/95 83
planning DepatmM, cextified September 6,1994.
2. “Final Program Envinmmen tal Impact Report for Zone 20 Specific Plan” and Planning Commission
Resolution 3525 for EIR 203 dated June 16, 1993.
3. “Geotechnieal Investigation” dated February 6,1989, performed by Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical and
Environmental Sciences Consultants
4. “preliminary Hydrology Study for Ocean Bluff, City of Carl&ad” dated September 3, 1993 prepared
by Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
5. “Biological Field Survey Update, Ckeanblti Ct 9349” dated March 1995 performed by
Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant.
6. Jack Henthom’s letter dated May 3, 1995, “Archaeological Site CB-lSDi-12026- Oceanbluff CT 93-
09”.
7. “Report on an Acoustical Study - Ocean Bluff - On the extension of Poinsettia Lane at Black Rail
Road, City of Carl&ad” dated August 6,1993, and Addendum received May 12,1995, performed by
James C. Berry, Acoustician.
22 Rev. l/30/95 84
BACKGROUND LJIi . . J’, si-ik~~
CASE NO: LCPA 96-09IZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-O7/HDP 93-09
CASE NAME: Ocean Bluff
APPLICANT: Ocean Bluff Partnership
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone
Chance, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit
to Rezone from L-C to R-l vacant, 31.2 acre site and subdivide 92 sinqle familv lots and
one multiple familv lot with 16 affordable apartment units on propertv oenerallv located
at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20
Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Manaqement Zone.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 in Section 22. Township 12 south, ranoe 4 west, San
Bernadino base and meridian in the Countv of San Dieoo. State of California. excepting
therefrom those portions thereof lvincl north of the south boundarv line of Ranch0 Aqua
Hedionda, as said south line was established Mav 5, 1913, bv decree of the Superior
Court of the State of California, in and for San Dieao Countv, in that certain action (No.
16630) entitled Kellv Investment Companv, a corporation vs. Clarence Davton Hillman
and Bessie Olive Hillman.
APN: 215-070-16 Acres 31.2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 93 Lots/l06 DU’s
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed O-4 Density Proposed 3.6
Existing Zone L-C Proposed Zone R-l
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoninq Land Use
Site L-C Vacant/Agricultural
North R-l Vacant
South L-C Horticulture
East L-C
west L-C
Vacant
Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CUSD Water District CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 106 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Auaust 5. 1993
Sewer District Carlsbad
ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- Negative Declaration, issued
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Prior Compliance, dated September 27. 1995
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: L-C
DEVELOPERS NAME: OCEAN BLUFF PARNERSHIP
ADDRESS: 4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE. SUITE 30, SAN DIEGO 92037
PHONE NO.: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 215-070-16
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 31.2 AC1108 DU’s
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 375.5 Sauare Feet
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 200.25 Sauare Feet
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 108 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = 0.75 Acres
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 1.016 ADT
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided - 3.6 Acres
Schools: CUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 108 EDU
Identify Sub Basin - C
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 23.760
The project is 11.4 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCANTS STATEMENT Of OISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN QWNEBHIP -STS W ALL APPual7oNs WHICH WIU FEauw4E DlSCAl3lONARY ACTION ON THE PART Of WE C4lV COUNCIL OR Am APPOWTED SOARO. coMMlssloN OR coMMlllEE.
:!eeso PfifItj
3 following information must be disclosed:
Amlicant
ist the names and addresses of all persons
4370 I a lo- Dr,. # 990
La Jolla, Ca., 92122
Owner
ist the names and addresses of all p&sons
having a financial interest in the application.
having any ownership interest in the property involved.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses
of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or awning any partnership interest in the
partnership.
Please see list (attachment #l)
if any person identified pursuant to (1) 01 (2) above is a non-proflt organizatbn or a trust, list the names and
addresses of any person sewing 8s offlcar 01 director of the non-proftt organization or as trustee or beneficiary Of
the trust.
87
qMOOO1 12/91
3n7c I a= Palmae l?rlvr . Carleharl Califnrnia Q3OOQ-1576 0 I?~ 191 438-1161 &a
isclosure Statement Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City stafl Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twetve months?
Yes - No - If yes, please indicate person(s)
aenoo ir-d&nod u: ‘Any Individual. firm. coputnemhlp, Joint vanturr. as8ddm, WC&I club, tr&unal org~blrlon, wporrtlon. eatatr, trust, receive ‘,
jyndicats, this and any other county. city and county, ctty munkiprlity, dirtrM 010th~ pditkal wbdlvirh, or any other group or combination acting 1u a
,nt’
$NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
,/p/$2$@//;;
Signature of Owner/date
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
AYG 0 6 E!93
i-:7;- ;-- "f ‘- :, - - 1 P> -1 T n, C.., , . _.-... --..- .=-*. : L.. -i _ '.. .> . -_ _ - a .
-
Attachment $1
OCEANBLUFF PARTNERSHIP
-
Javier Benito Eugene L. Freeland 2275 Via Lucia P.O. Box 732 La Jolla, Ca., 92037 Ranch0 Santa Fe., Ca., 92067
Paul R. Hasley J. Sterling Hutchison c/o Illiff, Thorn b Company Gray, Cary, Ames 6 Frye 2386 Faraday Avenue 1700 First Interstate Plaza Suite 100 401 "B" Street Carlsbad, Ca., 92008 San Diego, Ca., 92101-4219
Mary Beth Jernigan P.O. Box 898 Ketchum, ID., 83340
Frederick Liebhardt 7224 Carrizo Drive La Jolla, Ca., 92037
Fritz Leibhardt 7575 Carrizo Drive La Jolla, Ca., 92037
John F. Linden 8 Quai D'Orleans 75004 Paris, France
L.M. Scher P.O. Box 9565 Newport Beach, Ca., 92658
Walter Wegner 1304 Larch Avenue Moraga, Ca., 94556
Calvin F. Schrnid 888 Armada Terrace San Diego, Ca., 92106
Robert L. Wineteer 4370 La Jolla Village Dr. #990 San Diego, Ca., 92122
89
:
a
I R Ti ri
P--
,I WI ilr J 4 1 . 3 ‘D 1 8 ‘d 5)” 3
iI
: “,‘n
Ii -,EC
I l a I
0 an Zrn a-B PZ P Emi -;‘Ei
1 w ;: i,lr l $iI, 4 2 1’1 J 3
6 L o = * ; z I ’
D p&i+
z f
..I--+-.- _~.
.~ .~
~~.~_. --.. ---- -- --
---- ---
~.. .~
~..~.~.
.
_a
61
,
_’ s
1.. ._ ..-__ I.-_-L--i---..-JL -..----..c~---~-----~-------
: rze--. ---- t -----.- I_-+- _c--... f.y --... -----.--t----~+-____~--.~I:
--------___~-----it~-i-t_-----.-t-----t.-I- I I I : - al- I 1 I / , / l --- ! 1 I --_- - I I’ ._- _-.-- -.- ,_-.- - !. ._T___:~T~-~--~~~~--:.l.:::-t--..‘-. ..--?--rfrr__s__----;I=I--- L y-I / ; _ -___-__ _ _-I ~__-__~____.~ ~f_t-- +---f-1_-- /--__-~_-_- -.--i-.----..- _--- / l -- --- I : iI: -
,________ ---.+---.-- - A-.~---+-,L.-.-- ( +-..-.+ 1 /,I ,.
_--_- -_._ --... .--.--------- +- ~- T-----I '-I----:.p--- --Tt--Fi-----~IL~;- j j --I--- I /
-c_- -..----cc-f---c- ._-. --.. -.i- / : ,, 1 1 ,’
-~.-----+- ‘- ‘,, ,,‘f
_-_- Ill ” I
-,.- ---+-.--..- I’, I I I’, I’ L-. _-r_--._ ]‘I -- I ‘8 .-_.--_.-_ c - . ..- -__ &- _.___ -&....-- -
I I I .---- j-- .- _...._.___. L ..__ _ .J$.& ._-_.__ ,-.;-. ..-_.-. . ..c-- ____ / iic- t-----___~--------~--~:.__-----~--t---- . --;I-: ,;B------- -&I;- _--~:_-_~_t-----“-- / : ~
. ..---. - WY -.-___- -_._- -.__ i_ ---- _--_-- ---A- .--- ____ _ _.__ --.--x--.-. ----.I.--- ---..-z.. -__-._-_- -A___-.--. _.-----_-. -’ __ __. -..- _. _ _
L- J 3 - I -L _--
I I 1 -Id _----
Tj
i 1 !i- ruyc-- e--
7-- I I
Ij, 1 3 - I
‘I li,*t ii, I il I P s
L-+pi--j I --- 1
\ ‘1 ’ \ \ ‘i \ --- ” \ ’ 1 I
I I I I 1-J -~-------- Tj
\ \ 3 : 2 i\ e
\\
11 I I
IL- - 4-a 7-- I I
P
-- ,
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. LCPA 9W9IZC 93WCT 93-WSDP 93-Q7/HDP 93-69 - OCFAN RLUFF - Request for a Local
Coastal Proeram Amendment Zone ChanQO, Tentative Tract Map, Site Oevelopment Plan and
Hillside D8v8lopm8nt Permit to rezone fr&m L-C to R-l a vacant~ 31.2 acre sit8 and subdivide 92
singb family lots and on8 muitiple famity lot with 16 affordable apartment units on prop8rty
generally locatsd at th8 northw8st comer of futum Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone
20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone.
Anne Hys~ng, Associate Pl8nn8f, r8vi8w8d the background of the mqu8st and stated that the prOj8Ct
consists of th8 subdivision of a 31.2 acre parcel located within th8 Zone 20 Specific Plan area of the
southwest quadrant. The parcel is currently vacant and is partially cuitivated. The proposed project
consists of 92 standard R-l single family lots, one multi-family lot with 16 affordable apartment units, and
one open spa88 lot. The project requires the construction of the Poins8ttia Lane extension (from Street A to
its existing easterly terminus), Blackrail Court (from its northerly tsmrinus to the nORhea& comer of the
project), and Street ‘A’ from th8 southwest comer of the proj8ct to Poinsettia Lane.
Ms. Hysong stated that the pmj8ct’s 16% indusionary housing requirement is 16.24 dwelling units which ar8
proposed to be constructed on Lot 93. The project density allow8d by the growth management control point
is 96.6 units; hcrwever, the applicant is requesting a total of 108 dwelling units on the site. The proj8ct
therefore mquims an 11.6% d8nsity increase above the d8nSiQ pennitt8d. She stated that the density
inCEas8 is cOnai8Wtt with the General Plan housing policy I8garding th8 allOCatiOn Of exc8ss dwelling Units.
Staff has d8tm th8t 8xc8ss dw8lling units are available in the sduthw8st quadrant without exceeding
the dwelling ti Q~J# and th8 proj8ct is consistent with Zone 20 LPMP guamntwing that ail pubtlc facilitk3
required for the m in&ding the additional Units, will b8 providsd.
hh. Hysong St&d that findings fat approval Of a sit8 d8v8lOpnMt plan for th8 afford&l8 housing
apartment project can b8 mad8 b8caus8 the proj8ct m88ts or exc88ds ail of th8 RD-M zone development
standards required by th8 Zon8 20 Specific Plan: the proposed d8Wdpm8nt is cdmpatible in scale and
design with futur8 singl8 family d8v8l8pm8nt; the necessary infmsbuctur8 to s8~8 th8 pmj8ct, includi~
the construction of Poins8ttir Lane and Siackrail Court, am mquimd to b8 constwted; and access to the
apartment proj8ct is pmvtd8d from Stm8t ‘A’ whii pmvid8s direct acc888 to Poinsettia Lan8 and mduc8s
the n88d for additional t18ffk 6oW through th8 singI family s~bdhrirrkrr.
Ms. Hys~ng stated that th8 sppllcant is proposing to c8nstrM the 16 unit affordabk housing prbj88t Onsit8;
hawsver, h8 is mqu88tlng th8 optl8n to purchas8 cmdits in Villa Lomr dr participate in an offsite 88mbin8d
PLANNING COMMISSION December 20,1996 Page 6
proj8ct. The m th8mfom. includes conditions requiring that prior to approval of any ofkite option, the
project must (1) comply with City Council policies #57 and #58 to determine if th8 proj8ct qualifies for the
offsite option and 618 purchase of credits in Villa Loma; (2) comply with the Zone 20 Specific Plan in which
findings are required; and (3) the applicant will be required to process a tentative map revision concurrent
with the offsite proposal.
MS. Hysong stated that the project is consistent with ail requirements of the Zone 20 Specific Plan, the open
SpaCe preservation requirement, and the hillside development standards. In addition, the Zone 20 EIR
anaiyzed significant impacts resulting from development of the Zone 20 properties and required mitigation
measures to reduce th8s8 impacts. Since no additional significant environmental impacts were identified
for the project, the Planning Director issued a notice of prior environmental compliance. She reviewed the
mitigation measures required by the Zone 20 EIR which includes, among Other things, the purchase of 7.96
acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat in the Cansbad Highlands Mitigation Bank and payment of an
agricultural mitigation fee for the conversion of non-prime agricuitural land to urban land uses in accordance
with the Mello Ii LCP.
Ms. Hysong stated that the City Engineer has requested the addition of an additional condition that the
d8V8jOp8r enter into a secured agreement to guarantee the subdivision’s pro-rated Share for the future
installation of traffic signals at the intenections of Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court, and Street ‘A.’ The
exact wording of the condition is contained in staff memo dated December 20, 1995. She stated that ail
findings and can b8 made and staff recommends approval.
For the record, Ms. Hysong stated that a letter dated D8wmber 20.1995 in opposition to the proposed
project had been received from Guy S. Moore, Jr. A copy of the letter was distributed to all
Commissioners.
Commissioner Monroy r8quest8d staff to explain th8 process for offsite affOtdabl8 housing. Ms. Hysong
replied that the project is conditioned to return with an affordable housing agreement prior to final map
approval.
COmmissiOn8r Monroy inquired who decides whether or not the affOrdabl8 housing must b8 OnSit8 or OffSite.
Is this decision made by the AffOtdabi8 Housing Committee? Ms. Hysong replied that if the applicant
qualifies for offsite, th8 revised tentative map would wme back to the Planning Commission and the project
with the offsite proposal would go forward to the Housing Commission and City Council.
COmmissiOn8r Noble inquired if the density increase above the growth WntrOl point is related to the
affordable housing, and if the affordable housing moves offsite, would the density increase be lost. Ms.
Hysong replied ~8s.
Commisston8r Erutn t8qu8st8d staff to show where the McKinn8y and Moore properties ar8 located in
relation to th8 pm@ct. Ms. Hysong indicated the locations on the overhead map.
Commission8r Compas inquired what percent of th8 traffic will us8 Poinsettia and Street ‘A’ versus what
will us8 Blackrail Court and Str88t ‘G.’ Ms. Hysong could not make that prediction.
Commissioner COmpas inquir8d if Blackrail Court will eventually go beyond the project terminus. Ms.
Hysong r8pti8d that it will most lik8ty be continued to provide secondary acwss to the Cobblsstone project
when it is d8V8lOped. Mr. Hauser add@ that the streets in the Cobblestone project will b8 private strwt!5 so
unless they revise their tentative map approval, it will probably be a gat8d entrance and not open to general
traffic.
Commissioner Comp8s inquir8d when College is pmpos8d to tie into Alga Road. Mr. Hauser r8pli8d that
staff has no qmciflc dabs b8cause it is all development driven. The Laur8l TIW proj8cts tak8s it to their
PUNNING COMMISSION December 20,199s Page 7
boundary. The S8mbi project should take it all th8 way to Poinsettia but there is a 1,000 ft. gap between the
two properties.
COmmi&On8r COmpaS tequ8st8d more infonation on the feasibility Of the OV8&Zed WtV8tt t0 allOw
animals to pass through. Ms. Hysong replied that there is a good likelihood that the Culvert will not b8
feasible because of the steep grades. It probably won’t happen.
Commissioner Savary inquired about circulation within the project and where Street ‘0’ would exit. Mr.
Hauser replied that Street .K and Blackrail Court provides acc8ss to the project. Until Poinsettia is built
between Blackrail and Street ‘A,’ Street ‘D’ provides a temporary connection to Blackrail which would
remain in place until Poinsettia is wnstructed. At that time, the Street ‘0” connection would b8 blocked off.
Commissioner Savary inquired if that connection could be gated for emergencies. Mr. Hauser replied that
the cul-de-sac policy would not require a secondary aco8ss.
Commissioner Savary inquired if there is an exit at the Other end of Street ‘0.’ Mr. Hauser replied that this
Option is being left open until the Cobblestone project wmes in. Staff feels th8r8 is adequate acc8ss to
Str88t ‘0.”
Commissioner Compas requested staff to respond to Mr. Moore’s letter. Mr. Hauser replied that there 818
presently no dedicated roads. This may have been a public road when it was part of the County, but
Cansbad has determined it to be a prescriptive right road which the residents us8 to access their home and
fanning operations. This project has been conditioned to maintain acc8ss to the existing roads. Staff
believes that th8 wnstruction of Poinsettia will b8 a benefti to the area and will benefit the residents and
fan operations. As regards Mr. Moore’s comment on the offsite construction of Blackrail Court, the road is
proposed to be 40 ft. (curb to curb) within a 60 ft. right-of-way. The project is being conditioned to put in a
half street plus 12 ft. This would be 32 ft. of pavement with a gutter along one side. This would allow for
traffic and pedestrian access. In addition, all underground utilities within the section to be paved, would b8
required. Ms. Hysong responded to Mr. Moore’s comment regarding zoning and stated that the Zone 20
Specific Plan calls for a rezoning to R-l of all properties in Area C, including the Moore property, so they
would b8 entitled to request that change.
Commissioner Erwin stated that th8r8 is 30.2 net developable. The R-l is going on 29.4 and multiple units
are going on .8 acre. Ms. Hysong replied that is correct.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the R-l is below th8 growth wntroi point of 3.2, they could actually put in 94
units rather than th8 92 units which haV8 been proposed. Ms. Hysong replied that this sounds correct.
Chairperson Wet&tons invited the applicant to speak.
Bob Winet88r, 8310 UniV8rsity Center Lane, Suit8 100, San Diego, addressed th8 Commission and Stated
that he would IIke his mprewntative, Jack Henthorn, to discuss some of the issu8s he is concerned with.
Jack Henthorn, 5431 Avenida Encinitas, Suit8 J, Carl&ad, addr8ss8d the Commission and stated that he
mpmS8ntS th8 OceanMUff ParbI8rship and h8 wnwrs with the staff r8cOmm8ndatiOn, inckJditIg the 8Kata
sheet. HOw8V8r, th8r8 are two items h8 w0~k-i like t0 addresS. On8 it8m is the r8qUit8m8nt for the specific
plan amendment related to the offsite satisfaction of the affordable housing r8quir8m8nt. The requirement
iS that the project proc8ss a specific plan amendment t0 identify 918 Off&t8 sOlUbOn. lt iS his Und8rstanditIg
in tatking with staff that in the event a prior d8VelOpnl8rlt processes a specific plan identifying villa Loma as
a potential offsite solution, that specific plan amendment would satii th8 requirement which is contained in
the resolution before the Commission tonight. If w8 wanted to go to some other site, an additional sp8cific
plan amendment would haV8 to b8 processed through the normal prowdure. He wants to make sure his
UIld8mtaIlditIg is Wrred.
PLANNING COMMISSION Decemb8r2tJ1995 Page8
MS. Hysong r8pIbd that the way the condition is written, that is the wse. The condition states that prior to
City review and approval of the offsite option, the approval of the specific plan amendment to SP 203 shall
b8 required to d8SQnat8 the proposed offsite combined inclusionary proj8ct as an appfOV8d IOWtiOfI for the
provision of affordabie units to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of Zone 20 properties. If it had already
been designated as an approved location, staff wouM not require the applicant to wme back in with a
specific plan amendment to do th8 same thing.
Mr. Henthom replied that th8 second item he wished to address is th8 requirement that h8 amend th8
Hillside Development Permit in order to deal wfth the architectural elevations which were not processed as
a part of this package. The document being presented tonight acknowt8dges that th8r8 are hillside
development guidelines addressing architecture which are existing in the City. The visual design guidelines
are contained in the wrtified EIR for Zone 20 which addresses architectural elevation requirements. There
are specific plan architectural standards which address architectural elevation requirements, and, in
addition, Condition #I43 of Resolution No. 3869 places further restrictions on what can be designed
architecturally on this site. He requested that th8 Commission consider granting the authority to the
Planning Dimctor to evaluate th8 architectural design of the units to b8 placed on the site in aCCOrdanW
with all of those guidelines and make a determination as to whether the architecture complies with the
Hillside Development Ordinance. In the event that h8 makes that determination, he could simply pr8s8nt
this determination to th8 Planning Commission as an information item. If the Commission wishes to hold a
public hearing and go through the full process of amending the Hillside D8v8lopm8nt Permit, then it .would
be at their purview to do that. He believes that th8II3 ar8 more than sufficient regulations in piaW to
provide ad8qUat8 direction for architectural design. He woukl appreciate wnsideration.
Ms. Hysong replied that th8 staff report already d8l8gat8S to th8 Planning Commission the City Council’s
apprOVai for archit8ctur8 for the Hillside D8veioprtl8nt Permit. Normally, a Hillside D8VelOpm8tIt P8f’mit for
a major subdivision goes all th8 way to th8 City Council. If th8 Planning Commission desires, staff would
not object to it being further delegated to the Planning Director to ensure that the architecture is consistent
with the design guidelines.
Commissioner Monroy is concerned that w8 might be setting a pf8c8d8nt. AnyOn else who migM wme
forward with a specific plan wuld also request the same thing. Ms. Hysong replied that is correct. If this
project did not have th8 Hillside D8velopm8nt Permit, staff would b8 looking at the architecture at the time
building permits are issued. The iSSU8 here is th8 Hillside 08V8iOpm8nt P8mlit.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the Planning Commission has ever abdicated this responsibility before.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Dimctor, replied yes. The Commission has delegated architectural review
in Aviara and some planned unit d8V8lOpm8ntS back to th8 Planning Director. HOWeVer, h8 dO8S not recall
it being done in the case of a sp8cif1c plan.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired how Mr. Henthom would feel about keeping the Street ‘0’ wnn8ction as a
permanent wmtwtbn. Mr. Henthorn r8pti8d that he d&In1 ~88 any reason for it to remain. It may not be a
good idea to hav8 v8hid8s and pedestrians going in an out on a permanent basis because it is only 28 ft.
wide. It might create more of a risk than staff would be wmfortabb with. He would defer to the engineers.
Commissioner Monroy referred to Condition #33 on page 13 of Resolution No. 3899 which states that the
developer shall provide an irmvocabto offer of dedication for a trail. He inquimd if the Only qUeStiOn is
whether or not he builds it. Mr. Henthom replied yes.
Commissioner Compas is concerned that there Q a lot of expens8 in building those two roads through the
proj8ct. He inquired about the prices which will b8 put on the homes. Mr. Henthom replied that the prices
will probably compete with Cobbi8ston8 and Aviara.
December 24X1995
Commissioner Cornpw inquired when construction of the roads might begin. Mr. Henthom replied that it
will probably b8 som8tim8 in 1997.
Chairperson Welshons requested Mr. Hauser to respond to the possibility of retaining Sheet ‘0’ as a
permanent connection. Mr. Hauser replied that there is a 50 ft. setback off of Poinsettia Lane and the lot is
100 ft. so it would meet the intersection spacing requirement for a local street. Blackrail south of Poinsettia
will most likely be a collector street so it will be about 300 ft. Unless Cobbl8ston8 we18 to revise their map
to make it a public street, this intersection could probably work but staff wouid prefer that it b8 a standard
intersection rather than 28 ft. A standard intersection is 40 ft. curb to curb with a 60 ft. right-of-way.
Mr. Henthom commented that he could not support making Street ‘0’ a standard intersection because it will
cost them two lots and the infrastmcture cost is already quite high. However, he would try to make the
accommodation.
Commissioner Erwin commented that he is happy to see the proposed affordable housing within the project
but he is bothered by the second paragraph in Condition #22 which would allow them to purchase offsite
credits. He inquired what would constitute “not appropriate.” Mr. Henthom replied that City Council Policy
#S7 contains a series of items that would indicate onsite affordable housing is not feasible. There are many
fadOf’S t0 b8 considered and a d8V8lOp8r must present their cas8 bawd on the checklist Wntained in the
policy. The Combined Project Review Committee which consists of various upper level staff would
evaluate the request and make a determination as t0 whether or not OnSit affOtdaMe housing is feasi#8.
Commissioner ENvin commented that since onsite is being proposed, it must be feasible. Mr. Henthom
replied that when th8 proforma was run approximately one year ago, the funding mechanisms for affordable
housing projects was a little bit different than it is today. At that time, this project was upside down by about
$800,000 and it took a combination of various funding sources to reduce the gap. Thet-8 is a lot of flux in
the various mechanisms and he doesn’t want to be locked into the onsite requirement if there is no funding
available when they are ready to start wnstnrction.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if a 16 unit onsite project is feasible at this time. Mr. Henthom replied yes.
Commissioner Compas inquirad if it came down to an economic standoff, would the applicant prefer to build
the affordable housing onsite or offsite. Mr. Henthom replied that if it is economiwlly feasible, they would
prefer to build it because they could sell th8 units and help finance the rest of th8 project.
Chairperson W8lShOnS Opened th8 pubtic testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Evelyn E. McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Cartsbad, addressed the Commission and read a prepared
statement requesting the Planning Commission diWpprOV8 the proj8ct Unless the d8V8lOp8r completes the
additional 1 ,tI66 ft. of Poinsettia Lane which travels past their gr88nhOUS8S. She contends that this proj8ct
will destroy h8r l8nd, her business, and h8r financial potential unless Poinsettia Lane is completed. A copy
of Ms. McKinn8y’s letter dated December 20, 1995 was given to the Minutes Cletlc and will b8 on file in the
Planning Department.
Ronald C. McKinney, 6525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and read a preqared
statement stating the damaging wns8quenws which the Ocean Bluff project will haV8 on his property. He
stated that he has suffered financially because he cannot sign a wntmct for future production if there is any
possibility that th8 City might condemn his property and put him out of business. He stated that he has
been promised many times that the next development would punch Poinsettia Lane through. The Ocean
Bluff project is the next d8VelOpm8nt and they are not being required to complete the road. Without the
WIT@dOn Of Poinsettia, it has Nin8d his property for d8V8lOpm8nt nor iS it Salable b8WUS8 a prOSpediV8
&Wd’MWr Would Wt Want to pUrchaS8 the property knowing they would haV8 the burden Of putting Out
thousands of dollars for mad improvements.
PUNNING COMMISSION December 20,1995 PagS 10
Commissioner Etwtn inquired if th8 City has ever written him a letter proposing to take his property. Mr.
McKinney replied no.
Commissioner Erwin inquired why he believes the City might take his property. Mr. McKinney replied that
he surmis8d that from what h8 has heard at various meetings.
Commissioner Erwin inquimd why he doesn’t just continue doing business as though nothing we18 going to
happen. If h8 has written contracts, he would have some leverage to show that he wouM be losing
business. Mr. McKinney replied that he would still haV8 to go through a lawsuit and it would cost him a lot
of money.
Chairperson Welshons allowed the applicant time for rebuttal.
Jack Henthorn, 5431 Avenida Encinitas, Suite J, Cartsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the
timing of Poinsettia Lane is not a new issue. The City has established an alignment for Poinsettia and Alga
and is moving forward on a fee district which will ultimately provide for compensation to people like the
McKinney’s who choose not to negotiate a purchaS8 of their land. In the event wndemnation powers are
requested by the developer, theI- are very strict compensation requirements for damages, purchaS8 of the
land, and any court costs associated with disruption of their contracts. He thinks the Commission should
k88p in mind that Ocean Bluff has no requirement for Poinsettia Lane. Neither will it haV8 any impact on
the McKinney’s ability to us8 their property. There is no reason why they cannot continue their greenhouse
operation on that site. The Ocean Bluff grading will not impact their operation. The Only possible impact is
the potential extension of Blackmil Court. At that point, th8 only portion of their land which is impacted is a
very Small amount of slop8 in th8 northwest comer. The future Blackmil Court runs along the dirt road and
there are no gr8enhOUS8S th8r8. The only impact caused by Owen Bluff is a small amount of grading and
the us8 of the existing dirt road which will b8 the future Blackrail Court. He has been working with Mr.
Hauser to establish the fee district and it is close to going to City Council. The fee district contains
provisions to connect Poins8ttia Lane and compensate th8 McKinney’s for any business losses.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the applicant has an eaS8m8nt for building Street “X to POinS8ttia Lane.
Mr. Henthom replied that staff has letters on file which state that the property owners are cooperating on the
connection.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson W8lShOnS
declared the public testimony dosed and opened th8 item for discussion among the Commission m8mb8m.
Commission8r Nl8N8n agrws wtth the proposal for the Planning Dimctor to approve the architectural
design and hav8 it corn8 back to the Planning Commission as an information item. There are more than
enough saf8gu8rds In pi8w.
Commissioner Erwtn disagrees with Commissioner Ni8lS8n but he would like Mr. Hauser to respond to the
McKinney’s comments. Mr. Hauser replied that th8 comments quoted by th8 McKinney’s ~81-8 a matter of
public record and he would Stand by them all except for the comment that the next prOjed wouM punch
Poinsettia Lane through. when Ocean Bluff first came in, staff intended to have that happen but during
negotiations, another alternative was sel8cted which better met the nexus. He doesn’t know when the road
wnn8ction will be made but ho Wn’t imagine allowing other development to the east without wm~etion of
the road.
Commissioner Erwin inquimd if Mr. Moo18 will lose his acc8ss to th8 dirt road known as La Costa
Boulevard. Mr. Haus8r replied that Mr. Moor8 obtains his acc8ss off Blackmil Court and that the grading for
Poinsettia will include a provision to maintain acwss to existing dirt roads. Mr. Hauser added that there
PlANNiNG COMMISSION December 20,1995 P&j8 11
may b8 some pronufo on th8 Cii Council t0 prohibit th8 Westbound movement Of trucks through th8
CWanbkJff SUbdhriskn if th8 f8~id8ntS don’t Want agricultural tN&S tmveiing through their n8ighbOrhood.
Commissioner Etwln referred to paragraph two of Condition #22 regarding offsite affordable housing credits.
He would prefer that this b8 returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wayne replied that this wukl b8
done. The Planning Commission would be approving the offsiie option the way Condition #22 is written
now. If the Planning Commission wants to b8 involved in this decision, this condition Wn be changed;
however, Policy #57 states that the offsite option shall b8 the exclusive decision of the City Council.
Commissioner Monroy commented on Mr. McKinney’s statement that light and dust will be detrimental to
his greenhouse operation. He recalls previous projects which required appropriate watering to eliminate
that issue. Mr. Hauser replied that Condition #28, Resolution No. 3669, page 11, contains several sub
items about watering of surfaces during grading.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if there are any other projects in the pipeline which might force the
development of Poinsettia Lane. Mr. Hauser replied no.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if a project came in next month, how long would it take to get those
improvements to Poinsettia. Mr. Hauser replied that it is difficult to predict what development is going to be
doing. There may be a decision at some point for the City to make that connection as part of completing
that road network.
COmmiSSiOner Noble Wmm8nted on Condition #22 re offsite options for affOfdaM8 housing. The federal
government has ruled that we must have affordable housing. The City has been following that regulation
and has made options available for some attematives to be considered. He thinks that bringing it back to
the Planning Commission will only caus8 delay since th8 City Council is the only body empowered to make
that decision.
Commissioner Monroy commented that th8 General Plan is silent on offsite affordable housing. Rich
Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, reptied that Mr. Monroy apparently wants the record to reflect what he told
him months ago about what Policy 3.6(b) of the General Plan Housing Et8m8nt means. He quoted, *A
minimum of 15% of all approved units in any residential specific plan or qualified subdivision to be defined
shall b8 Set aSid and made affOrdabl8 t0 lower income househokts. Wh8r8 it Wn b8 d8mOnStmt8d t0 the
City’s satisfaction that it is 8conomiwily infeasible to build the required units, an in-lieu contribution
consisting of funds, land, or other contributions may be made to the City. The City shall assume a fiduciary
responsibility for th8S8 wnttibutions and ensure their ultimate and 8xck~siv8 us8 in providing shelter for
lower income howeholds. The in-lieu contribution shall be in an amount to b8 determined from a study
which shall evaluate the cost differential in developing and constructing marlret rat8 lower income
affordable housing.’ Commissioner Monroy is correct that th8 General Plan is silent with regard to building
the affordable houskrg. It stipulates cash wntributions rather than dealing wtth building OnSit or offsiie.
You must go to the ordinanc8 for explication of that. The City Council has d8t8Wn8d that Under certain
CirWmdanw nfblte b okay and it will satisfy the requirement Of th8 G8n8ml Plan. Unless som8one sues
us and a court stat8s that the City Council can’t make that d8t8mIination allowed by that ordinance, that is
the legiStatiV8 body’s itIterpretatiOn Of th8 G8n8ml Plan. As far as WrryiIIg Out th8 tBqUiIXIm8iItS Of the
OIdinanW, you must refer t0 Policies #57 and 465. The Only way this d8V8iOp8r or any Other developer Wn
get that Offsite ability is t0 ask for it and have it put in th8 approval. If it is not put in the ap9mVat, he
doesn’t have it. If he asks for it, and it is includ8d in the approval, h8 has it as an option.
Commtssioner Savary is wnwm8d about the safety factors of not having enough outl8ts in that
development. The map r8ads that they will have a proposed 30 ft. interim acc8ss 88S8m8nt pending
wnstruction of PoinWttia Lan8 and permanent secondary acWss. This is why she woukt like to se8 the
Street ‘D’ connection remain open.
D8wmb8r 2& 1995
Commissioner Erwin iquimd if th8 purchase of affordable credits from Villa Loma would b8 cheaper than
having to pay an indusionary fee. If so, what is the dlff8r8nW in the dollar amount. Ms. Hysong replied
that it is in th8 n8ighborhood of $11,285 per du. The cost of a credit in Villa Loma is $28,000 per unit.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he is correct that the 528,000 satisfies the purchase of one unit wh8r8 the
$11,285 is to purchase l/6 of a unit. Ms. Hysong replied that projects with fewer than Seven dwelling units
pay the $11,285 per unit so they would be paying $11,285 times six units.
Commissioner Erwin stated that it will cost twice as much to build onsite units than it would to
go into Villa Loma. Ms. Hysong replied that by building onsite, they would b8 paying for fewer units.
Commissioner Erwin inquired why this fee has not been standardized. Evan Becker, Director of Housing &
Redevelopment, replied that the City Council is preparing to take up the matter of the in-lieu fee. The credit
purchase price for Villa Loma was established on a cost recovery basis. It has its own rational8 based on
recovering th8 local subsidy that was infused into that project. in effect, the credits are being sold at cost.
The reason that is lower than the in-lieu fee is because so much outside subsiiy was obtained for that
project.
Chairperson W8lShOnS requ8st8d staff to read the new condition for the Hillside D8V8tOpment Permit. Mr.
Rudolf stated that Condition #43, Resolution No. 3669, would b8 revised to read as follows:
“Prior to the issuance of building permits, the general visual design guidelines identified on Tab48
3.13.1 in EIR 90-03, th8 archit8dUml standards in SP 203, and the hillside architectural design
requirements of Cartsbad Municipal Code Section 21.95.oeO(g) shall b8 incorporated into the
proposed architecture on lots l-92 and submitted to the Planning Director for approval, subject to
appeal to the Planning Commission within 10 days of th8 Dir8ctor’s decision, in accordance with the
proc8dure in Carlsbad Municipal Code S8ction 21.95.030. In accordance with the visual analysis
performed for the project, residential structutes on Lots 5360 and 32-36 shall be limited to a single
story element for at least 50% of th8 building wverage.
Chairperson Welshons requested staff to address Condition #22, R8SohJtiOn No. 3669, regarding affordable
housing. Mr. Wayne stated that, based on what Mr. Rudolf stated earlier, all that is necessary to d8i8t8 the
option of going offsite would b8 to delete th8 second paragraph. This would require the applicant to wme
back to the Planning Commission and request an offsiie option, in accordance with Policy #57 and #58.
Mr. Wayne commented that the Commission’s action on Condition #22 is advisory. Even if the Planning
Commission d8Mt8S that portion of the condition, th8 City Council could add it back in and it would not
wme back to this body.
Chairpersw wsbtwn# tqu8st8d staff to address the stre8t acwss. Mr. Hauser stated that this fBtat8S to
Condition #56E, R8sdutlw No. 3669. He woukl suggest striking the words ‘and bonding for its ultimate
removal’ and adding th8 foIlwring sentence:
‘Upon wnstruc&n of Poinwttia Lane b8tw88n Blackrail Court and Strwt ‘AD the interim acwss
shall b8 gat8d and utliized as 8fTl8Q8nCy acwss for the futu1’8 residents Of the subdivision: Th8
d8V8lOp8r shall WnstruCt the gateS with Phase II or shall 8t1t8r IntO a Secured agr88m8nt with th8
City to gUamMW installation of the gates at th8 time Poinsedtia Lane is Wnn8d8d as stated above.’
Chairperson Wetshorts asked Commissiowrs Nielsen and Savary if this wwling is acceptable.
Commissioner SaVary wn acwpt the gating as long as th8m is acww in ws8 of an emerg8ncy.
Commissioner Ni8lwn would prefer it without a gate because Mr. Hauwr has stated that no further
development will b8 allowed unless Poins8ttia Lane is wmpl8ted. AB8r further wnsidemtion,
COmmissiOn8r SaVary wduld like to s88 it ungat8d also.
Id5 UTES
PLANNING COMMISSION December 20,1995 Page13
Mr. Hauser commented that without the gate, it would need to be full street width. Commissioners Nielsen
and Savary agrw that it would need to be the full street width. Mr. Hauser revised Condition #S6E to read
as follows:
‘Full improvements to streets ‘0,” ‘E,’ and ‘F.” Street ‘D’ shall be redesigned to provide a full wtdth
City standard road connection to Blackrail Court, with the exception that the right-of-way will be
reduced to 56 ft. between Street ‘E’ and Blacktail Court. The design of said connection and the
reconfiguration of the adjoining lot shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning
Director.’
Chairperson Welshons inquired how wide that street will be. Mr. Hauser replied it will be 40 ft. curb-to-curb
with a 60 ft. right-of-way. Street ‘6’ to the end of the cul-de-sac is designed out at 38 ft. width with a 56 ft.
right-of-way.
Mr. Hauser is not sure what impact that would have on the adjoining street. Staff may have to accept a
street width of 40 ft. with a 56 ft. right-of-way if the 60 ft. right-of-way cannot be arranged.
Chairperson Welshons requested a response from the applicant. Mr. Henthom replied as follows:
l Street Width - His engineer believes it will be problematic if the right-of-way needs to be 60 ft. The
original condition with a gate eliminated that problem. The 56 ft. right-of-way would probably be okay
but he would prefer to have the street gated to eliminate traffic through the project.
l Hillside Development Permit - He can accept the revised language to Condition w13.
l Affordable Housing, deleting the second paragraph of Condition #22 - He feels that the Planning
Commission is putting the City Council in a tough position. If the onsite affordable housing is not
feasible, he would have no alternative but to request funding from the City. The money has to come
from somewhere. Policy #57 and #58 came about because the City Council understood there would be
situations where funding demanded that affordable housing credits be used. If this paragraph is taken
out, they will request the City Council to add it back in.
Commissioner Nielsen inquired if he could accept the open connection if the right-of-way were 58 ft. Mr.
Henthom replied yes.
Mr. Hauser referred to the staff memo dated December 20,1995 and suggested that the proposed condition
be added to Condition #SS H, Resolution No. 3899, in order to avoid renumbering.
ACTlOW: Motion by Commissioner Savary, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3870 approving SDP 93-07, and adopt Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 3897,3868,3889, and 3871 recommending approval of LCPA 95-09,
ZC 93-04, CT 93-09, and HDP 93-09 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, including the addendum submitted by staff memo dated
December 20,1995 as amended by Mr. Hauser.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to adopt the amendment to
Condition m, Resolution No. 3869, as read into the record by the Assistant City
Attorney.
VOTE: s-2 (~d/nant caftiw)
AYES: Compas, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: Erwin, Monmy
ABSTAIN: NOW
PLANNING COMMISSION December 20,1995 Page 14
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to delete paragraph two of
Condition #22, Resolution No. 3889.
2-5 (Amendmenr foils
Erwin, Monroy
Compas, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
None
Motion by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to revise Condition #58E,
Resolution No. 3889, to read as follows: ‘Full improvements to streets ‘D,’ ‘E,’ and
‘F.’ Street ‘0” shall be redesigned to provide a full width City standard road access to
Blackrail Court with the exception that the right-of-way shall be a reduced to 58 ft.
between Street ‘E” and Blackrail Court. The design of said connection and
reconfiguration of the adjoining lot shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Planning Director.’
8-l (Amendment carries)
Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
Compas
None
Motion by Commissioner Nielsen, and duly seconded, to delete Condition #3,
Resolution No. 3871, Hillside Development Permit.
8-l (Amndment carries)
Compaq Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Welshons
Erwin
None
Chairperson Welshons called for final comments.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he thinks the Commission has made a mistake by putting R-l in
Zone 20.
Commissioner Nielsen voted for leaving the condition in to allow the applicant to request offsite
affordable housing credits. However, he wants it known that he is in favor of trying to proliferate
affordable housing throughout the City.
Commissioner Savary pan support the project with the amendments which have been made.
Commissioner Mor#oy can also support the project with the amendments.
Commissioner Noble can support the project, particularly after Mr. Henthom stated that the
assessment district is being formed and is moving along rapidly. This should ba able to help Mr.
and Mrs. McKinney to ensure that Poinsettia Lane gets completed past their property.
Commissioner Compas supports the project but he hopes they will keep the affordable housing
onsite.
Chairperson Welshons supports the project and appraciatas the discussion which took place on
the affordable housing. She called for a vote on the main motion.
- -
December20,1995
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: COn’p8s, Edwin, Monroy, Nielsen, Noble, Savary, Weishons NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
PagelS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
27
28
-- EXHIBIT 7
HOUSING COMMI!BION RESOLUTION NO. 96-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 16 APARTMENT UNITS
AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
WITHIN THE OCEAN BLUFF PROJECT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FUTURE
POINSETTIA LANE AND BLACKRAIL COURT IN
THE ZONE 20 SPECIFIC PLAN.
APPLICANT: OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP
CASE NO.: AHP 96-01 (CT #93-09 And SDP #93-07)
WHEREAS, an Affordable Housing Project (AHP) Application (No.
96-01) has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Commission for review
and consideration;
WHEREAS, said Housing Commission did, on the 8th date of
February, 1996, hold a public meeting to consider said application; and
WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering all
testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.
2.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the information provided within the application and
testimony presented during the public meeting of the Housing
Commission on February 8, 1996, the Commission recommends
APPROVAL of Affordable Housing Project (AHP) No. 96-01
containing 16 apartment units to be affordable to low income (50%-
80% of county median) households subject to the findings and
conditions outlined herein.
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
-
HC Resolution No. 96-001
Page 2
3. That the Commission’s recommendation for approval of said affordable
housing project does not include support for any financial assistance for
the project.
FINDINGS:
1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of
Carlsbad’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Density Bonus Ordinance
and the affordable housing requirements of the approved Zone 20 Specific
Plan.
2. The project will provide a total of 16 apartment units (1, 2 and 3 bedroom)
affordable for rent to households at 50% to 80% of the county median which
meets a “high priority” affordable housing need as outlined within the City of
Carlsbad’s approved 19952000 Consolidated Plan. The project, therefore, has
the ability to effectively serve the City’s housing needs and priorities as
expressed in the Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan.
CONJXTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-01, as shown on Site
Development Plan 93-07, incorporated by reference and on file in the Housing
and Redevelopment Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in the conditions of project approval by the City
Council.
Recommendation of approval is granted for AHP No. 96-01 subject to the
condition that the applicant submit an acceptable schedule for construction of
the required ratio of income restricted units for inclusion in the final
Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved prior to Final Map. The
schedule shall indicate acceptable construction phasing for the affordable units
in relation to the construction of the market rate units.
The applicant shall maintain rents at the allowable affordable rate (based on
household size) for low income households with incomes equal to 50% to 80 %
of the county median upon lease up of units and continuing for the full period
of affordability.
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
HC Resolution No. 96-001
Page 3
4. The affordable housing units must be restricted for “the useful life of the
project” which means a minimum of 55 years.
5. Upon final approval of said affordable housing project and prior to final map
approval, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with
the City of Carlsbad. The agreement Shall be binding to all future owners and
successors in interest. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include all
terms and conditions of said project approval and outline the incentives
(financial or other), if any, to be provided by the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 8th day of
February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Calverley, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Sato, Scarpelli & Wellman.
None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Housing
ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director
.a EXHIBIT 8
TES Cm 01 C- HOUSING&RED- DErARntm
A REPORT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION
Item No. 1
I Staff: Evau E. Becker
Housing & Redevelopment Director I
DATE: FEBRUARY 8,1996
SUBJECT: OCEAN BLUFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LCPA 95-09lZC 9344lCT 93-
09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - Request for recommendation of approval of a 16-u&
affordable apartment project satisfying the affordable housing obligation of the
project known as Ocean Bluff.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Housing Commission ADOPT. Resolution No. 96-001, recommending APPROVAL
of 16 affordable apartment units (SDP 93-07) within the Ocean Bluff project in order to satisfy
an affordable housing obligation under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1995, the applicant, Ocean Bluff Partnership, received a recommendation for
approval from the Planning Commission for a Tentative Tract Map, Local Coastal Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to
subdivide a 31.2 acre parcel into 92 standard single-family lots, one open space lot and one
multiple-family lot with 16 affordable apartment units. The affordable project, as shown in the Site Development Plan included in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 3), is
proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of the Ocean Bluff project.
The developer’s 15% inclusionary requirement is 16.24 dwelling units, which according to tde
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, must include two (2), three-bedroom units. The fractional unit
may be satisfied by payment of the appropriate fractional amount of the In-lieu Fee established
by the Inclusionary Ordinance.
The proposed affordable apartments include ten (10) one-bedroom, four (4) two-bedroom, and
,as required, two (2) three-bedroom units. Rents would be affordable to households earning
between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income. As proposed, the project will meet the
developer’s obligation under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
OCEAN BLUFF
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04KT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09
Ht. APPLXCANT/ TEAM INFORMATION
The development team for the proposed project is as follows:
Applicant: Ocean Bluff Partnership
(Also see disclosure statement included in Exhibit 3)
Developer: Ocean Bluff Partnership
Landscape Architect: ADL Planning Associates
Engineering: Hunsaker and Associates
Project Consultant/
Manager: Jack Henthom and Associates
Iv. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is generally located at the northwest comer of the future Poinsettia Lane and
Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone. The
affordable project is located in the southwestern comer of the site in proximity to Poinsettia
Lane, a major circulation arterial. The project will create access to Poinsettia Lane as an off-site
improvement. The site is surrounded by rural residential and agricultural uses.
The affordable apartments will consist of ten (10) one-bedroom units of approximately 660
square feet; four (4) two-bedroom units of approximately 885 square feet; and two (2) three-
bedroom units of approximately 1050 square feet. The units are located in two, two-story multi-
family structures.
The affordable project includes a recreation area of 3200 square feet of multi-purpose play area.
The project is in close proximity to major employment opportunities in the Palomar
industrial/office corridor. The Aviara Oaks Elementary School is approximately one mile from
the site and the planned Aviara Park is within approximately l/2 mile. Commercial services are
located approximately one mile from the site at Alga Road and El Camino Real.
l/3
OCEAN BLUFF
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04KT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09
PAGE 3
V. PROJECT AFFORDAJZUTY
The applicant has presented a financial proforma which indicates the following rent and
affordability levels:
1 10
2 4
3 2
TOTAL 16
$456 I 50% Ala*
$527 I 50% AMI
$591 I 50% AMI
* Area Median Income, San Diego County
As the above table indicates, the proforma rent levels are significantly below the inclusionary
low-income requirement which is based on 80% of median income.
VI. FINANCIAL
The applicant has prepared a summarized development cost proforma which uses the above
affordable rent structure and other assumptions regarding construction, financing and operating
costs in order to estimate the financing “gap”, i.e. that amount of subsidy necessary to make the
project feasible with affordable rents. While they are preliminary, the applicant’s estimates and
assumptions appear reasonable. At a total project cost of approximately $86,0OO/unit, the
proforma estimates a subsidy requirement of approximately $55,OOO/unit. These results are
reasonably consistent with the City’s experience with actual projects and its study of protypical
affordable projects.
The financial information presented at this time only indicates that the applicant has a reasonable
understanding of what will be required to develop the project. The applicant has identified no
specific financing sources or commitments and no developer of the affordable housing project
has been identified; therefore, it is not possible to make any assessment of project feasibility.
OCEAN BLUFF
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04KT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09
PAGE 4
No financial assistance is being requested at this time, but this does not rule out a request at a
later date. The applicant has requested, and the Planning Commission is recommending, an
overall density increase of 11.8 % in order to accommodate the 16 affordable units. This
incentive for affordable housing is consistent with the City’s General Plan. The applicant’s
proforma of the proposed affordable project adequately demonstrates the need for this incentive
for economic reasons.
VII. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
Prior to final map approval, the developer will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement according to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This agreement will
establish the exact timing of project development and other specifics about the project which are
legally recorded against the property.
VIII. HOUSING ELEMENT CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the Housing Element,
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Zone 20 Specific Plan affordable housing requirements.
The rental apartments, affordable at 50% of Area Median Income, would rank “High Priority”
according to the City’s Consolidated Plan which is required by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Construction of these units with rental restrictions would count toward the
City’s Housing Element production goals.
Ix. SUMMARY
It is the role of the Housing Commission to make recommendations to the City Council based
on several considerations with respect to proposed affordable housing projects-- these are:
0 The proposal’s effectiveness in serving the City’s housing needs and priorities as
expressed in the Housing Element and HUD Consolidated Plan.
0 The proposal’s consistency with the City’s a_trordable housing policies and ordinances,
as expressed in the Housing Element, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Density Bonus
Ordinance, etc.
0 The proposal’s deveZopment undoperating feaibility, emphasizing the development team,
financing sources and the role of the City (if any) in providing financial assistance or
incentives.
OCEAN BLUFF
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04KT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09
As proposed, the project would address established City affordable housing needs in a manner
that is consistent with applicable City policies and ordinances. Subject to the condition contained
in the recommended approvals from the Planning Commission that requires the developer to
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City prior to final map approval, staff
recommends that the Housing Commission recommend this project to City Council.
This recommendation concerns only the applicant’s proposal to provide an affordable housing
project on site. The Planning Commission recommendation also includes conditions that permit
the option of satisfying the affordable housing obligation off-site. Pursuing an off-site option
would require the developer to process a request for approval through staff, the Housing
Commission and City Council as the final decision maker.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing Commission Resolution No. 96-001
2. Housing Commission Review Application
3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 20, 1995 w/attachments
JiBlar
l/25/%
March 3,1995
J. -X HENTHORN & ASSOC - .TES EXHIBIT 2
5431 Avenida Encinas l Suite G
Housing & Redevelopment Director
City of Carl&ad
2965 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CarM7ad, Califxniu 92008
Fax (619) 438-0981
(619) 43&4#0
RECEIVED
Re: Ckean Bluff CT-93-09/SDP 93-07 Request for Density Bonus under SDP requirements of 21.53.120
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The above referenced application for City of Carl&ad Housing Commission Review is submitted to satisfy
Gcean Bluffs obligation to comply with the City of Carl&ad General Plan Housing Element and
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) for affordable housing within the project.
The Ocean Bluff project, CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/ZC 93-04/HDP 93-09, consists of 92 single family homes
and 16 affordable units, located approximately 2,000 feet east of the intersection of Alga Rd. and
Poinsettia Lane on a 30.2 acre parcel..
Ocean Bluff is requesting a 12.5% density bonus (12 units). A total of 16 units will be designated as
lower-income affordable “Rental” to be located in the southwest comer of the project.
The proposed affordable housing units provide a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units ranging in size
from 660 Sq.Ft. to 1050 Sq. Ft. Preliminary plans show a distribution of 10 IBR, 4 2 Br, and 2 3BR
units. The affordable units are intended to be available to all household types.
The Gcean Bluff project meets the housing needs and priorities of the City Gf Carlsbad General Plan
Housing Element, CHAS, Growth Management Zone 20, Specific Plan -SP 203 objectives and is
consistent with the City of Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the following reasons:
Compliance with City of Carlsbad Housing Element Goals:
Goal #2 Quantity and Diversity of Housing Stock. Gcean Bluff provides a total of 108 dwelling
units of which 92 are single family detached and 16 are apartments for lower income families.
Goal #3 Provide new affordable housing opportunities in the City to meet the needs of future
lower income households: Gcean Blti complies with policy 3.2 by providing the required
number of 3 bedroom units. The project will assist the City in reaching it’s target of lower
income units by providing 16 affordable units.
Compliance with City of Carlsbad CHAS
Section 11: Five Year Strategy: Ocean Bluff is consistent with Programs 1 and 2 of the five year
strategy plan by:
Providing new affordable housing opportunities through a private/public sector
partnership efforts.
The appropriate number of 3 bedroom affordable housing units are being
provided.
The project will comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements.
Compliance with Growth Management Zone Specific Plan (SP-203) Ord #NS-257
Ckean Bluff provides on site lower-income affordable units in conjunction with the 92 market
rate units.
The Ocean Bluff project is coordinated with surrounding properties by providing major
Circulation Element Roadways (Alga Rd. and Poinsettia Lane) as well as circulation and
pedestrian access to Public Facilities.
Gcean Bluff affordable housing product is consistent with the anticipated clustered multi- I A
h
family attached and stacked flat unit types indentifIed in the Specific Plan.
Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 21.85 010 CMC
Ocean Bluff provides 15% of the total units for affordable (lower income) residential units.
The project also complies with the Inchrsionary requirements as contained in Zone 20
Specific Plan & General Plan Housing Element.
In summary, we believe the Gcean Bluff project complies with or exceeds applicable City of Carl&ad
General Plan Housing Policies, Growth Management Zone 20 Development policies and the purpose &
Intent of the City of Carlsbad Inchrsionary Housing Ordinance. The project will contribute towards the
City’s long and short term goals as described in the CHAS.
cc. Bobwineteer
Anne Hysong
CTTY OF CARLSBAD ,M AtiP& q&i -(
HOUSh, COMMISSIOS REVlE\V APpLICc. [ION
ntif’y De\,elopmenl Team tie., de\ eloper, builder, archilect, etc.): veloper-Ocean Bluff Partnership
. . . . . . _ ._. . .
” 215-070-16
unit garden apartment project.
Recreation area of 3200 square feet. consisting of multi purpose play are .
. :
.l?rw 119 . Housing Qmvnirsion Revic* Applicl(ion
Page I
I. TERtIS OF AFFORDABIL! - FOR AFFORDABLE LXTS (ATTACH -DITIOSAL INFOR~IATION IF
NECESSARY) .
argctcd Income Levels (as % of area median): 50- 80 % of county median income
arget Population (ie., families, seniors, CR): Pami 1 i es
[onlhly Rem .(b~ bdr. size) or Sales Price of Units: _
-Br=$456
-Br=$527 -Br=$591.
‘em-r of Affordabilit! tie., 30 y-s, Me of project, etc.): To be determined by Housing Agreement.
‘rejected Schedule for Construction of Affordable Housing units:
fthin 5 years of recordation 'of final map.
r the affordable .units are being constructed 10 satisfy the Cit! of Carlsbad’s Inclusionay Housing requirement, h&
41 the! be phased with respect to construcfion of the market rate units ? Please Explain Project Phasing:
Affordable units will be contained in two buildings. Building =il contai
#en (10) units and will satisfy the fir.sL-66 market rate units. Building
$2 will be constructed prior or concurrent with the 67th market rate
unit or within five (5) years of recordation of the final map.
.‘_ : : _. ‘.. . . .’
.:‘. .
i’. FI?khk BTOR&lATIOS OS AkOJWRLE HOL’SCc;C PP&ECT . -.
?lease attach a copy of development and operating financial proformas showing sources and uses of funds IO .- accomplish the affordable units proposed in this application. In the proformaS, plcase identif) Four subsid! sources
rnd appropriate justifications for use of these sources.
Describe the local financial assistance or incentives, if an!, including specific terms d&ired for ihe aflordab]e housing
project which you are, or will be, requesting from the Cit) of Carlsbad:
Applicant, through, the site development plan prOceSSr is requesting
a density bonus of 12 units.
Identify an) other project conditions which may be relevant to project feasibility:
Project has a large commitment for offsite improvements (Alga Rd, .Poinsettia Lane, etc.) which requires the maximum number of market
rate units.
-.
I
Housing Commission dcviw AppIAion Page 2 ‘2’8’93 12 0
. REQUIRED AT-TACfi~lEhTS Tn APPLlCATlON
he follou$g items must be allached 10 this application:
Site Developmenl PIa for Affordable Housing Unils;
Narrative dcicribing how the project meets the Housing Seeds and Priorilies as expressed within ihe City of
Carlsbad’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy;
Narrative on Ihe project’s consistency with the City of Carlsbad’s Affordable Housing policies a. expressed in Ihe
Housing Element, klusionq Housing Ordinance, General Plan and other related documents;
I Development and OperalinE Financial Proformas indicating sowces and uses of funds for the projecl, including
juslification and idemificarion of subsidy sources;
I Complere description of fmancid axislance or incemives including specific terms that are, or u,ill be requesred from
rhe Cily of Carl&d for the project, if applicable; and,
Compkled Disclosure Slaremenr of Ownership interests within Ihe project. 2
?I. APPLICA’I’IOS SlGX4TLRES
‘roperty O\\ner ,Kame, Address and Telephone No.. -Ocean Bluff Partnership 4180 La Jolla Viilage Dr. Ste. 300 (619)452-1511 La Jolla, CA 92037
‘, the undersigned, do hereby cetlify that I am the legal owner of the subject propert! and thal the above information
s true and correct to the best of ml knowledge.
. . .: : . . . .’ - . . ..a ._ * . . .- : -‘_
signature ’ . . _. .. . . . Date - : ’ .
I, the undersigned applicant, do hereby certify that I am the representative of the legal owner of the subject propert!
snd that the ab p”p information is t rl e and correct to the best of rn! knowledge. i ’ Applicant ! i 5ignature: jlqibH*
w THE BOX BELOIY IS FOR CITY WE O?;LY
Date 305/e
Dale Applicarion Received:
Application Received By: :
Staff Recommendation:
Date of Housing Commission Review:
Action. on Applicalion by Housing Commission:
Other Comments: .
. .
.
.
Hou$ng Coqirrion R~+v Applichon-
Page 3
-
OCEANBLUFF
DENSITY INCREASE
PRO FORMA
3/l/95
REVENUE ANALYSIS
1 BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
95% OCCUPANCY
OPERATING COSTS @ 30%
NET OPERATING INCOME
DEBT SERVICE INCOME (1.2)
INCOME SUPPORTED DEBT
IAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
IMPROVED SITE COST $758,000
LAND CARRY 18MO $85,000
LAND DEVELOPMENT COST
UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
UNIT SIZE
SQUARE FEET (project)
STRUCTURE COST $35.00
ON SITE INDIRECTS .lO% STRUCT.
OVERHEAD .04
MARKETING .02
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
LOAN FEES .02
CONST FINANCING
SUBTOTAL FINANCING
PROJECT COST
GAP
DEV CONTRIB LAND
REQUIRED GAP FUNDING
RENT UNITS REVENUE
$458 10 $4,560
$527 4 $2,108
$591 2 $1,182
$7,850
$7,458
($2,237)
$5,220
$4,350
1 BR 2BR
7250 3400
$253,750 $119,000
$495,468
$843,000
3BR
2200
$77,000
$540,205 $540,205
$9,909
$27,010
$36,920 $36,920
$1,383,205
$887,737
$525,000
$362,737
$1,383,205
$887,737
12850
$449,750
$44,975
$30,320
$15,160
Jack Henthorn Associates
h EXHIBIT 9
NEW BUSINESS:
1. LCPA 9509/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/SDP 93-07/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF - Request for
recommendation of approval of a id-unit affordable apartment project to satisfy the affordable
housing obligation of the project known as Ocean Bluff.
Evan Becker, Housing 8 Redevelopment Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that
on December 20, 1995, the applicant, Ocean Bluff Partnership, received a recommendation for approval
from the Planning Commission for a Tentative Tract Map, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit to subdivide a 31.2 acre parcel into 92 standard
single family lots, one open space lot, and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable housing units. The
proposed affordable apartments include ten (10) one-bedroom, four (4) two-bedroom, and two (2) three-
bedroom units. Rents would be affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of the Area
Median Income. Rents will range from $456 to $591 for a three-bedroom unit. As proposed, the project will
meet the developer’s obligation under the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Mr. Becker discussed the affordable rent structure and other assumptions regarding construction, financing,
and operating costs. The cost of the affordable housing will be approximately $86,0001unit and the
developer’s proforma estimates a subsidy gap of approximately $55,00O/unit. He stated that no financial
assistance is being requested at this time, but a request could come at a later date. Prior to final map
approval, the developer will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement according to the
City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. This agreement will establish the exact timing of project
/a3
.-
HOUSING COMMISSION February 8,1996 Page 2
development and other specifics about the project which are legally recorded against the property. Staff
recommends approval.
After a question and answer period with staff, Chairman Calverley invited the applicant to speak.
Jack Henthome, representing the Ocean Bluff Partnership, addressed the Commission and described
various affordable housing issues and funding for the project. Several funding options are being
considered, including tax credits and mortgage revenue bonds. Mr. Henthome stated that it could be a
combination of different types of funding. Management of the affordable housing would probably be done
by an outside entity similar to the MAAC Project.
One Commissioner was concerned about the segregation of the affordable housing units. She would prefer
to see the affordable housing integrated throughout the project.
Chairman Calverley opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Calverley
declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scarpelli, and duly seconded, to adopt Housing Commission
Resolution No. 96-001, recommending approval of 16 affordable apartment units (SDP
93-07) within the Ocean Bluff project in order to satisfy an affordable housing
obligation under the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance.
VOTE: 8-O
AYES: Calverley, Escobedo, Noble, Rose, Sato, Scarpelli, Schlehuber, Wellman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
1 SDGi - San Diego Gas & Electric
P 0. BOX 1831 * SAN DIEGO. CA QZ112d150 - 619 I696-2ooo
March 28. 1996 FILE NO
Mayor Bud Lewis.
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlshad. CA 92008
Re: OCEAN BLUFF TENTATIVE MAP CT93-09
Dear ,\ la!-or Lekvis:
This letter is to inform you that San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) is
interested in the above referenced development by virtue of existing 100’ Transmission
easement within or ad.jacent to the subject development.
Due to rhe restrictive nature of the easement. any grading or other improvements within
the easement or that affect access to and along the easement will require written consent
from SDG&E. Since there is potential for unacceptable impacts to our easement.
SDG&E requests that you red flag the project and not issue a grading permit until we
revien. the prqject It-ith the developer to resolve any conflicts. Once negati1.e impacts to
our easement/access have been eliminated. SDG&E will issue a “Letter of Permission for
Grading”.
SDG&E therefore requests that the followin, ~7 condition be added to the conditions of
npprolxl for CT 93-09 for the Ocean Bluff project scheduled for public hearing on April
2. 1996:
Prior ro approval of final map or issuance of grading permits. whichever occurs tirst. the
applicant shall provide evidence of consultation and written consent. if required. from
SDG&E for grading or other improvements within SDG&E transmission casements
impacted by the prqject.
i
~oc~nhll’l .doc)
.-‘,I, ,‘i“ <:; ;
u * P. ..- 4: f , <,. . . * .%,A. ~ :..I, \d e
._ APR-02-96 TUE 1?:49 r?I!'Y OF CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4?%!994 ?p, ( i \' -*- ,-.. .. P, 02
8 2 z;f b s
cn d c-l
- APR-02-96 TUE 17: 49 -
Y OF CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO, 4. 394 P, 03
(0 C
i-t w 8 Y Y VI,
E 5 n
(D
0 - 0
0
(P
w
"r
Y
1 Y Y. Yb
April 15, 1996
Ocean Bluff Partnership 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 30 San Diego, CA 92037
Re: Ocean Bluff
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of April 2, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 96-117, approving LCPA 95-9, ZC 93-4, CT 93-9, and HDP 93-9.
As a courtesy, enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-117 for your records.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CMC City Clerk
ALR:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 a9
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(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: l am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled mat&r. 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 Times-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:
March 22, 1996
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 22nd day
of March, 1996
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing _--_----------------------
----------m-e-------------
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIF-
CT 93-9/ZC 93=4/LCPA 95-9/HDP 93-9 - OCEAN BLUFF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you because your interests may be affected, 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, April 2, 1996, to consider an application for a Tentative Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Hillside Development Permit to rezone from L-C to R-l a vacant 31.2 acre site, and subdivide 92 single family lots and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable apartment units, on property generally located at the northwest corner of future Poinsettia Lane and Blackrail Court, in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone, and more particularly described as:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 South,, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, excepting therefrom those portions thereof lying north of the south boundary line of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, as said south line was established May 5, 1913 by decree of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San Diego County, in that certain action (No. 16830) entitled Kelly Investment Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence Dayton Hillman and Bessie Olive Hillman.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Ann Hysong in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4477.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and/or Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. The time within which you may judicially challenge this tentative subdivision
map, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short.
APPLICANT: Ocean Bluff Partnership PUBLISH: March 22, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
.~ ~. ., _ _. . . ..\_’ ,. ‘...‘-:
OCEANBLUFF
LCPA 95009/ZC 93004/CT 93-09/
SDP 93007/HDP 93-09
..I ) . ..>_ ‘-;
(For.m A)
TO: C1T.Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
LCPA 95-09/ZC 93-04/CT 93-09/HDP 93-09 - OCEAN BLUFF
for a public hearing before the Clty Council.
L Please notice the item for the council meeting of
Thank you.
February s, 1996
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTlCE 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, December 20, 1995, to consider a request for a
Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development
Plan and Hillside Development Permit to rezone from L-C to R-l a vacant, 31.2 acre site
and subdivide 92 single family lots and one multiple family lot with 16 affordable
apartment units on property generally located at the northwest comer of future Poinsettia
Lane and Blackrail Court in the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and Local Facilities
Management Zone and more particularly described as:
Lot 3 in Section 22, Township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bemadino base
and meridian in the County of San Diego, State of California, excepting
therefrom those portions thereof lying north of the south boundary line of
Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, as said south line was established May 5, 1913,
by decree of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for San
Diego County, in that certain action (No; 16830) entitled Kelly Investment
Company, a corporation, vs. Clarence Dayton Hillman and Bessie Olive
Hillman.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after December 14, 1995. If
you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (619)
438-l 161, ext. 4477.
If you challenge the Car&bad Tract Map, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program
Amendment, Hillside Development Permit and/or Site Development 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
Carfsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 93-&&&4/L&95-09/HD~3-09~&
CASE NAME: OCEAN BLUFF
PUBUSH: DECEMBER 9,1995
CITY OF CARL&AD
PLANNING COMMISSION
AH:kr
707.5 Las P3lma.c nrive - Carl~chaci Califnrnis 97fIfIQ-1 Fi7f5 - (61 C?l 4.18-l 1 fil m
.
- -
SANDAG
STE 800
400 ‘B’ ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
FACILITIES FOR CITY CLERK
OCEAN BLUFF - LCPA 95-09/ZC
93-04/CT 93-09/HDP 93-09
CALIF DEFI- OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING
STE “B”
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANNE HYSONG
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BD
STE B
977 1 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
. - -
OCEAN BLUFF PARTNERSHIP JE LIGUORJ
4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR 11739 TOERGE DRIVE
SUITE 300 LA MIRADA CA 90638
LA JOLLA CA 92037
PACWEST Q A-I
550 W C STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
RE MCKINNEY
4355 HUERFANO AVE
SAN DIEGQ CA 92117
RONALDROESCH
2800 NEILSON WAY SUITE 708
SANTA MONICA CA 90405
VICTORIA FERNANDEZ
PO BOX 395
CARDIFF CA 92007
POINSETTIA HILLS PARTNERS
111 N ATLANTIC BLVD
SUITE 102
MONTEREY PARK CA 91754
KAISER LIFE INSURANCE
1615 CALLE DE CINCO
LA JOLLA CA 92037
MA HIDALGO ARIE DEJONG
65 11 EL CAMINO REAL 622 EAST MISSION ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
WALLACE AITCHISON MHPP INC
5 155 E BOBOLINK LANE 9841 LA JOLLA FARMS RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 LA JOLLA CA 92037
DONALD SWORTWOOD
GEORGE BOLTON 8462 EL PASEO GRANDE
65 19 EL CAMINO REAL LA JOLLA CA 92037
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
STE 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MN CARDOSA PALOMAR OAKS BUSINESS
6491 EL CAMINO REAL 10960 WILSHIRE BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUITE 1225
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
’ LCP INTERESTED PARTY LIST DON AGATEP
UPDATED 2/96 PO BOX 590
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOB ALIAN
STANDARD-PACIFIC
1731 COLGATE CR
LA JOLlA CA 92037
ALBERT ANDERSON JR
2006 SPERRY AVE
PATTERSON CA 95353
BIRTCHER PACIFIC
ROBERT CAMPBELL
27611 LA PAZ ROAD
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
ANTHONY BONS
1124 BLUE SAGE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKlAND CA 94612
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MAIN LIBRARY
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NO COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 SOUTH VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633
ANDERSON HORACE & MARY
2010 SHERIDAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FLOYD ASHBY
416 IA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
1722 SOUTH HILL ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
BREMERMANN BIX
1547 LORING ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
CA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
A-l-l-N: KURT BARNES
2829 JUAN ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER
5950 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BRANCH LIBRARY, SUITE 200
6949 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
HAROLD CLARKE
824 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AK OLIVER LTD
C/O CHRIS KOLB
1911 SAXONY
ENCINITAS CA 92024
HORACE & MARY ANDERSON
400 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
DONALD & BEVERLY BE-ITS
2051 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6519 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARGARET BROWNLEY
4120 SKYLINE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD SUN
DONNA MEDEIRON EDITOR
2841 EAST LOKER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BM CHRISTENSEN
PO BOX 188
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
MICHAEL CORDOZA
1698 CREST DR
ENCINITAS CA 92028
- -
CAL COASTAL COMMISSION
CHUCK DAMM, SUITE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-5722
PRESIDENT BILL DEAN
BAT LAGOON FOUNDATION
675 NORMANDY
ENCINITAS CA 92024
WILLIAM & RUTH DEALY
1282 CREST DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
DEPT HOUSING & CO DVPT
AlTN: PERlA ESTON
7940 WILLOW GLEN RD
LOS ANGELES CA 90046
KAREN DOCKINS
410 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLENE TIMM
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
LESLIE & FILOMENA ESPOSITO
2934 EAST FIRST ST
LONG BEACH CA 90803
BILL HORN - SUPERVISOR
COUNTY ADMIN CENTER
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD CO DPT PLN & LAND USE
DICK EMPEY, SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SYLVIA ESTES
510 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ROBERT FARRIS
1929 ALTA VISTA DR
VISTA CA 92083
FLOWER PATCH
6491 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOWER PEDDLER
6523 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CYRIL & MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720
A GEISBRET
3101 SAN GABRIEL
GLENDALE CA 92108
MARY GRIGGS
CA STATE LANDS COMM
1807 13TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
HUGO HANSON
210 ROUNDTREE WY
SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
MANUAL HIDALGO
6511 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEN HILLEBRECHT
2170 SKYLINE DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92027
BRUCE HOCHMAN
2054 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
HOEHN
C/O CHEVRON USA INC
PO BOX 7611
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
RONALD & JUDITH HOLDEN
2022 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CO WTR DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6810
HUNT PROPERTIES INC
2400 THANKSGIVING TOWER
1601 ELM ST
DALLAS TX 75201
LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LA COSTA HOTEL & SPA
COSTA DEL MAR RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANASTASIA IAITAS
MARIA & ETAL SOUGIAS
PO BOX 2047
ENCINITAS CA 92024
PERRY & BARBARA LAMB
RFD 3 BOX 3066
MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
JOHN LAMB
947 NORTH LA CIENEGA BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
LANIKAI
6550 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STATE DEPT FISH & GAME ERIC LODGE
LODGE & HELLER
1901 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM LUJAN
6505 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AlTN: EARL LAUPPE, SUITE 50
330 GOLDEN SHORE ST
LONG BEACH CA 90802
HERMAN & LOIS MAY
2041 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
EARL & MARSHA MAY
2021 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MB SHORES CORP
PO BOX 2571
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MCMURPHY CORP
640 GRAND
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANDREW MCREYNOLDS
2316 CALLE CHIQUITA
IA JOLlA CA 92037
JANE MERRILL
lAFC0
1600 PACIFIC COAST HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MICHAEL & BARBARA MURPHY
640 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRllTON & DREW NICOL
4444 OAKWOOD AVE
LA CANADA CA 91011
OLIVENHAIN MWD
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MIGUEL PADILLA
754 DEL RIEGO
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEE ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
RANCH0 CARLSBAD MHP
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STELLA HOLIAND
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
REDIKOP J & VAUGHAN S
2056 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BD
STE B
9771 ClAlREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
LARRY SALATA
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGUITO WATER DIST
505 SOUTH VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
1ST INT PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIE0 CA 92101
SD CO ARCHAEOLOG SOC INC
C/O CAROL WALKER
829 EAST BOBIER DR
VISTA CA 92084-3865
WILLIAM SAVAGE
PO BOX 773
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
DALE & DONNA SCHREIBER
1457 CREST DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MICHAEL & BARBARA SHORES
PO BOX 2571
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DAVID SITTNER
2808 LUCIERNAGA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANCIS & PATRICIA STRAUSS
2055 SHERIDAN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SUN-FRESH FLORAL
6515 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS, SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
TABATA BROS DAVID THOMPSON THOMPSON ROSE CO
PO BOX 943 7400 BATIQUITOS DR 7040 ROSE DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEPT OF AGR WEIGHTS & MSRS WALDON & DELORES WELTY FRED & LITA WESTON
JENNIFER TIERNEY, BLDG 3 2076 SHERIDAN RD 514 LA COSTA AVE
5555 OVERLAND AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1292
DANA WHITSON
5051 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LCP MANUAL APPENDIX -A 2/96
‘92 LABELS
ABAG
REVAN A F TRANTER EXEC DIR
ASSOC OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
PO BOX 2050
OAKLAND CA 94604
, AMBAG
NICOLAS PAPADAKIS EXEC DIR
ASSOC OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
PO BOX 190
MONTEREY CA 93940
SBCCAPC
G R LORDEN EXEC DIR
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY-CITIES AREA PLANNING
COUNCIL
922 IAGUNA ST
SANTA BARBARA CA 93101
SCAG
MARK PISANO EXEC DIR
SO CA ASSOC OF GOVERNMENTS
STE 1000
600 S COMMONWEALTH
LOS ANGELES CA 90005
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 350 MC ALLISTER ST
1400 TENTH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ANTHONY SUMMERS DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES REAL
STEVE SHAFFER AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ESTATE DIVISION
RM 100 GEORGE DUTRA
1220 N ST 650 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SACRAMENTO CA 95825
-
FUSINESS 81 TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
KATHLEEN CALDERON
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
JAMES A EDMONDS JR COMMISSIONER
1719 24TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 1 CALTRANS
JOE THORNE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
PO BOX 3700
EUREKA CA 95501
DEPT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOP
WILLIAM MURPHY SUPERVISOR
LOCAL ASSISTANCE 81 REVIEW
RM 601
921 TENTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AlTN: ROBERT MEYER
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 4 CALTRANS
STAN RANDOLPH TRANSPORTATION PIANNING
PO BOX 7310
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
DISTRICT 5 CALTRANS DISTRICT 7 CALTRANS
JERRY LAUMER DEPUTY DISTRICT PLANNING DIR WALLIS J ROTHBARD TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PO BOX 8114 120 S SPRING ST
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93403-8114 LOS ANGELES CA 90012
RESOURCES AGENCY
AlTN: DR GORDON SNOW
RM 1311
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
ANNE GERAGHTY MGR
GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION
PO BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
PETER GRENELL EXEC OFFICER
STE 1100
/ 1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS
M G MEFFERD OIL & GAS COORDINATOR
RM 1310
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REGION DF&G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
REGION 3 DF&G
TED WOOSTER
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
PO BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE CA 94559
DEPARTMhT OF CONSERVATION
DENNIS J O’BRYANT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS COORDINATOR
RM 1326-2
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
JAMES F DAVIS STATE GEOLOGIST
RM 1341
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
DON LOLLOCK CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
RM 1206-20
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
REGION 1 DF&G
KAREN KOVAKS
619 SECOND ST
EUREKA CA 95501
REGION 5 DF&G
EARL LAUPPE
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
STE 160
245 W BROADWAY
LONG BEACH CA 90802
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR
RM 1516-2
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
NORTHERN REGION DEPT OF PARKS & REC
DALE BUSCHKE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
STE 110
3033 CLEVELAND AVE
SANTA ROSA CA 95401
SOUTHERN REG DEPT OF PARKS & REC
JOHN WALSTROM TECHNICAL SERVICES
STE 200
1333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
STE 300
1020 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
SOUTHERN DlST/VVAYNE GENTRY
PO BOX 607
RED BLUFF CA 96080
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION
A-ITN: CHIEF PLANNING DIVISION
1050 20TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CENTRAL COAST REG DEPT OF PARKS & REC
JASON GREELEE RESOURCE ECOLOGIST
2211 GARDEN RD
MONTEREY CA 93940
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
30 VAN NESS AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
1807 13TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
CENTRAL DIST/ROBERT MC DONNELL CHIEF
PLANNING & TECHNICAL SERVICES
PO BOX 160088
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESCwdCES
SAN JOAQUIN DIST/LOUIS A BECK
RM A-7
3374 E SHIELDS AVE
FRESNO CA 93726
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
SAN FRANCISCO BAY RWQCB
ROGER JAMES EXEC OFFICER
RM 6040
1111 JACKSON ST
OAKlAND CA 94607
LOS ANGELES RWQCB
ROBERT GHIRELLI EXEC OFFICER
RM 4027
107 S BROADWAY
LOS ANGELES CA 90012-4596
SAN DIEGO RWQCB
STE 6
9771 CIAIREMONT MESA AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
DEPARTMtltiT OF WATER RESOURCES
SOUTHERN DIST/ROBERT U CHUN
PO BOX 6598
LOS ANGELES CA 90055
NORTH COAST RWQCB
BENJAMIN D KOR EXEC OFFICER
1440 GUERNEVILLE RD
SANTA ROSA CA 95401
CENTRAL COAST RWQCB
KENNETH JONES EXEC OFFICER
1102A LAUREL LN
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
SANTA ANA RWQCB
JAMES R BENNETT EXEC OFFICER
STE 200
6809 INDIANA AVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
ROBERT L ERWIN DIR
AREA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
US FOREST SERVICE- USDA #lo37
630 SANSOME ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
14 -
ROBERT DELZELL RESOURCE CuNSERVATlONlST FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
US SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE A-ITN: IRWIN HOFFMANN
2828 CHILES RD STE F
DAVIS CA 95616 194 W MAIN ST
WOODLAND CA 95695
JAMES BURGESS PACIFIC REG MGR
AI-I-N: L MC GILVRAY
OFFICE OF OCEAN & COASTAL RESOURCES MGT
1825 CONNECTICUT AVE
WASHINGTON DC 20235
MIKE BOYD REG ENVIRONMENTALIST
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
1700 WESTLAKE AVE
SEATTLE WA 98109
E C FULLERTON REG DIR
NATL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE SW REG
300 SOUTH FERRY ST
TERMINAL ISLAND CA 90731
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE NW
WASHINGTON D C 20006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
BRIGADIER GEN PATRICK KELLY DIV ENGINEER
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION RM 1216
630 SANSOME ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
RICHARD L FRASER
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
630 SANSOME ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
LT COL ANDREW M PERKINS DISTRICT ENGINEER
DISTRICT ENGINEER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
211 MAIN ST PO BOX 2711
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 LOS ANGELES CA 90053
- -
COMMANDING OFFICER WESTtAN DIV
AlTN: ROBERT FORSYTH DIR
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
INSTALLATION PLANNING DIVISION
PO BOX 727
SAN BRUNO CA 94066
COL LANG
ASST CHIEF OF STAFF FOR FACILITIES
MARINE CORP RECRUIT DEPOT
SAN DIEGO CA 92140
COMMANDANT ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
All-N: DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
PHILLIP lAMMl CHIEF
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION
US AIR FORCE REG CIVIL ENGINEER WESTERN DIV
RM 1316
630 SANSOME ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
JOSEPH P JUEl-l-EN CHIEF JOHN B MARTIN REG DIR
US DEPT OF ENERGY ENVIRON & SAFETY BRANCH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REG V
SAN FRANCISCO OPERATIONS OFFICE STE 210
1333 BROADWAY 1450 MARIA LN
OAKLAND CA 94612 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368
CLIFFORD EMMERLING DIR DAVID B JONES
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION US ENVIRON PROTECTION AGENCY REG IX
STE 350 WATER DIVISION
901 MARKET ST 215 FREMONT ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
MOLLY BRANDT DIR
OPERATIONAL PLANNING GSA
525 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
GEORGE E MILLER REG DIR
DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
RM 431
50 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
. h -4
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD REG ADMIN
US DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGION IX
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
EDWARD L HASTEY STATE DIR
US BUREAU OF IAND MANAGEMENT
All-N: BOB BARNEY
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DAVID HOUSTON REGIONAL DIR
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
AlTN: JOHN H TURNER
2800 COlTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
HOWARD CHAPMAN REG DIR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WESTERN REG
AlTN: HAROLD R (BOB) JONES
PO BOX 36063
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
BRIAN O’NEILL SUPERINTENDENT
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
BUILDING 201 FORT MASON
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123
PATRICIA PORT COASTAL ZONE COORDINATOR
US DEPT OF THE INTERIOR
PO BOX 36098
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
WILLIAM GRANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
PACIFIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFFICE
RM 200
1340 W 6TH ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
EDWARD M HALLENBECK REGIONAL DIR
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOWER COLORADO REG
A-ITN: STEVE MAGNUSSEN
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
DOUGLAS WARNOCK SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWER N
1111 2ND ST
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
JOHN L SANSING SUPERINTENDENT
POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE
POINT REYES CA 94596
-
WILLIAM EHORN SUPERlNTENLrcNT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
GARY CUMMINGS SUPERINTENDENT
CABRILLO NATIONAL MONUMENT
PO BOX 6175
SAN DIEGO CA 92106
JAMES MC KEVIlT FIELD SUPERVISOR
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
2800 COSTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
JOHN WOLFE CZM COORDINATOR
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
24000 AVILA RD
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92656
SECRETARIAL REPRESENTATIVE
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 1005
211 MAIN ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
DANIEL KUtHN SUPERINTENDENT
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
23018 VENTURA BLVD
WOODLAND HILLS CA 91268
RICHARD GRABOWSKI CHIEF
US BUREAU OF MINES WESTERN FIELD
OPERATIONS CENTER
AlTN: JOHN NORGERG
EAST 360 THIRD AVE
SPOKANE WA 99207
RALPH WALLESTROM REGIONAL DIR
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
LLOYD 500 BUILDING STE 1692
500 NE MULTNOMAH ST
PORTLAND OR 97232
MAURICE W BABBY AREA DIR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
AlTN: RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
WILLIS KISSELBURG JR DIR
OFFICE OF PLANNING & PROGRAM DEVEL
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
RM 1100
211 MAIN ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
h
JAiES A MILLS
’ FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
WORLDWAY POST CENTER
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
ADMIRAL JOHN COSTELLO COMMANDER (dlp)
TWELFTH COAST GUARD DIST
COAST GUARD ISLAND
ALAMEDA CA 94501-5100
-
REAR ADM r3RUCE A BERAN COMMANDER (dpl)
ELEVENTH COAST GUARD DIST
UNION BANK BUILDING
400 OCEANGATE BLVD
LONG BEACH CA 90822